Slashdot had a post linking to Eurogamer documenting Problems with Bioshock. Bioshock is a game published by 2k Games. In my not so humble opinion, this is probably the best game I have played all year. Released on the XBOX360 and the PC, Bioshock is a first person shooter with some RPG elements. It is visually stunning, with immersive environments, realistic enemy AI and pretty much does a very good job of immersing the player in the game world. Now I know that this is said of many games but really, Bioshock makes you feel like you are really there. But the above things arn't even the best part of the game.
The best part is the story. I found the story very engaging, and I wanted to know what was going to happen next. Another big part about the story I like was the working of the game's nonphysical weapons, magical/psychic weapons called plasmids into the story. They aren't just weapons that you find on the ground, they are intrinsic to the genetic manipulation/addiction part of the plot. Add to that, the fact that the whole game takes place in a network of underwater buildings. And the story of the game is a look about what can happen in a truly free society, sort of the libertarian worst-case scenario. It is a society that develops a class division based on looks and good genetics, and money, of course. Plus, there are no drug laws in this society, so the lower echelon is made up of crazy drug addicts. And since there is no gun control, they are crazy drug addicts with guns. I know I always wanted to live in a society like that but this is sort of a what-not-to-do for any good libertarian. Add to that, the society's culture is based in a 1940's-ish atmosphere, complete with old music and tommy guns.
There are a few problems with the game, but they are relatively minor in my view. One, the game has no "lives". Every time you are killed, you respawn at a "vita-chamber" sort of a rolling save point. I can see that many people do not like the idea of infinite respawning. People can feel that this does not provide enough challenge or incentive to stay alive. That would be the cas if not for the other minor flaw in the game: its REALLY, REALLY hard. Oh sure lots of you are going to say "What a wuss, it isn't that bad," you guys are on crack. The story about finishing the game using just the pistol? Chambers make the game too easy? Trust me, if there were no chambers, nobody would have finished this game. Taking down enemies like "Big-Daddy" takes a LOT of work. I've also noticed that they seem to be a little stingy on ammo and health. So really, very minor issues. I personally like the hacking mini games and the vending machines. It's a nice break from just running and shooting.
The article defends critical points that geek gamers have had with the game. I still stand by, regardless of those issues, my statement to make this "game-of-the-year". But I guess there are some geeks who had "problems" with the game. If you look through the article, some of those points are just ludicrous. It seems that the article's author and I pretty much agree about the game. My point is, however, that he shouldn't even have to answer those points. Why? Because the only reason that anyone would have any problem with this game at all is because geeks are NEVER satisfied. Never. The sarcasm about the constant critic in my article How to be a geek in 10 easy steps is true. Bioshock is a great game, and it most likely WILL be game of the year on many places where it counts. Yet there are geeks that will rip it to shreds. I'm totally perplexed why geeks do this. It seems the gaming industry is one of the only industries where game of the year has people that cry "the ending sucks" or "the respawn system is horrible". I mean when is the last time a movie won best picture even though most viewers say "the ending sucks!" The last time a musician won a Grammy even though the track arrangement was horrible? It generally does not happen. That is because of the simple fact that geeks are not happy unless they are criticizing someone, somewhere.
I really don't know why geeks do this. Maybe its that over-inflated sense of self worth. Perhaps they are pretty much perfectionists. But you would think that if geeks never liked anything, then nothing in the geek world would ever be popular. But things are popular. This game will be high on any games-of-the-year lists regardless of the fact that it seems many geeks don't like it. It leads me to the conclusion that geeks like anything, but they like complaining even more. I think the Comic Book Guy in the Simpsons summed it up with one statement. Coming out of a film that is supposed to represent Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, he says "Worst film ever. I will only be seeing it five more times. Today." As parodic as that is, I have YET to come up with a line that has more insight on geeks and criticism.
I am an anomaly when it comes to criticism. I really don't like criticizing anything. I guess that makes me a strange geek, but I just don't see the point. You like something great. You don't? Don't play it, don't watch it, don't listen to it. But for the love of god, man up and stop complaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment