Nope

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

i am not. in fact, i barely see it tbh 

"No, because they (I should say we) are right. "

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

" @natetodamax said:

"No, because they (I should say we) are right. "

You are a prime example of what I am talking about. "

sequels can dilute a franchise , but if they can maintain the quality of the original then it should be welcomed.

MY OPINION MUST BE HEARD!  NAY!!  YAY?!

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

certain games deserve a sequal and some don't
 
bioshock did not need one but it should still be very good
 
Left 4 Dead 2 was completely unnecessary, its been a few months and i still yet to complain

" @K0rN said:

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

I'm tired of dumbasses coming in and defending games that appear to be shitty sequels before even playing it. "

No. I get sick and tired of hearing about the completely cash grab, fucking unwanted and fiction breaking sequel to the game that was meant to be spiritual successor to System Shock 2 but was nowhere near as good in any way except for graphics.
 
Bioshock, how do I hate thee?  Let me count the ways YOU FUCKING TURD.

Clearly you don't understand the point that is being made, the story is finished, there is no logical way that they can add to the story after the first game. The only way they can expand the story is to have an "oops, we forgot about these people", which isn't good storytelling. It doesn't have to do with the gameplay. 
 
People bitching about the existence of the game are in reality complaining that the story is over and can in no way continue from the first game. Unless they pull some deus ex machina crap, but as I mentioned earlier, that's stupid.

I don't think BioShock needed a sequel. It will probably be a pretty good game even if it wasn't needed.

"Clearly you don't understand the point that is being made, the story is finished, there is no logical way that they can add to the story after the first game. The only way they can expand the story is to have an "oops, we forgot about these people", which isn't good storytelling. It doesn't have to do with the gameplay.  People bitching about the existence of the game are in reality complaining that the story is over and can in no way continue from the first game. Unless they pull some deus ex machina crap, but as I mentioned earlier, that's stupid. "

Apparently BioShock 2 uses the same engine, and as a result it appears to be kind of dated. That concerns me a bit.

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

I'm tired of dumbasses coming in and defending games that appear to be shitty sequels before even playing it. "

So what your saying is "It's OK to bash a game without actually playing it"? Wow. "

Nope, then again i don't care about the game itself so.....yea.....Get over it

" @K0rN said:

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

I'm tired of dumbasses coming in and defending games that appear to be shitty sequels before even playing it. "

So what your saying is "It's OK to bash a game without actually playing it"? Wow. "

Of course it is retard. It's as easy to do as wholey defending them without playing them. "

" No, because [we] are right. "

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

I'm tired of dumbasses coming in and defending games that appear to be shitty sequels before even playing it. "

So what your saying is "It's OK to bash a game without actually playing it"? Wow. "

Of course it is retard. It's as easy to do as wholey defending them without playing them. "

It's a bit different, it's like saying it's OK to judge someone before ever even knowing them. You wouldn't like that? Would you? "

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Rowr said:

" @K0rN said:

" @Br3adfan said:

" @K0rN said:

@natetodamax said:

No, because they (I should say we) are right.

You are a prime example of what I am talking about.

Your point?  "

My point is that I am tired of dumbasses coming in and shitting all over the anticipation of what appears to be a great sequel before ever even playing it. "

I'm tired of dumbasses coming in and defending games that appear to be shitty sequels before even playing it. "

So what your saying is "It's OK to bash a game without actually playing it"? Wow. "

Of course it is retard. It's as easy to do as wholey defending them without playing them. "

It's a bit different, it's like saying it's OK to judge someone before ever even knowing them. You wouldn't like that? Would you? "

" Bioshock 2 doesn't need a sequel?  "

" @Snipzor said:

"Clearly you don't understand the point that is being made, the story is finished, there is no logical way that they can add to the story after the first game. The only way they can expand the story is to have an "oops, we forgot about these people", which isn't good storytelling. It doesn't have to do with the gameplay.  People bitching about the existence of the game are in reality complaining that the story is over and can in no way continue from the first game. Unless they pull some deus ex machina crap, but as I mentioned earlier, that's stupid. "

Have you even seen/read what the details are for the plot of BS2? Looks interesting to me. "

I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt.
 
2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.
 
I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this?

I don't need a sequel. If you do then power to ya.

"I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt. 2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.  I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this? "

" I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt. 2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.  I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this? "

I honestly don't have a problem with the sequel, I felt like they made a really cool world but when you get down to it we didn't exactly explore a lot of Rapture. From what we have seen Bioshock 2 is going to do just that, let us explore other areas of Rapture we never went too. Honestly this is exactly the kind of sequel I like from Franchises, games that take a cool setting and explore it more with new characters and a new plot instead of a continuation of something old.

" @Atlas said:

" I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt. 2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.  I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this? "

Bioshock wasnt really successful for its ability as a shooter, in fact that was probably the weakest aspect of the whole game (see also The darkness). So it's a little worrying when they put the focus on it as a shooter (because thats what the kids want), and when you dont have the people working on it who were responsible for making it a success despite the shooting not being great. Add to that the fact that expanding on the story is not at all a natural thing to do from the first. It just starts to appear like it's getting milked for the story and setting.    I cant see it possibley living up to the first because its almost an entirely different entity with the same name and some borrowed setting, if its at least decent 2k Marin have done a good job. My guess is the multiplayer will be better than is assumed, and the single player will be pretty ordinary and uninspired. "

" Bioshock doesn't need a sequel? I mean they don't know if it is good or bad so until you actually play it then STFU. Some of us like me are actually looking foward to BS2 and plan on getting it day 1 and we don't need you people going around acting like you can judge everything without even knowing so like I said WAIT until it's released before you judge it!  That my friends is a rant. "

" @K0rN said:

" Bioshock doesn't need a sequel? I mean they don't know if it is good or bad so until you actually play it then STFU. Some of us like me are actually looking foward to BS2 and plan on getting it day 1 and we don't need you people going around acting like you can judge everything without even knowing so like I said WAIT until it's released before you judge it!  That my friends is a rant. "

4 lines is a pretty poor rant.... put some effort into it "

" @CptChiken said:

" @K0rN said:

" Bioshock doesn't need a sequel? I mean they don't know if it is good or bad so until you actually play it then STFU. Some of us like me are actually looking foward to BS2 and plan on getting it day 1 and we don't need you people going around acting like you can judge everything  without even knowing so like I said WAIT until it's released before you judge it!  That my friends is a rant. "

4 lines is a pretty poor rant.... put some effort into it "

What else was there to say? That's all was needed. "

" @K0rN said:

" @CptChiken said:

" @K0rN said:

" Bioshock doesn't need a sequel? I mean they don't know if it is good or bad so until you actually play it then STFU. Some of us like me are actually looking foward to BS2 and plan on getting it day 1 and we don't need you people going around acting like you can judge everything  without even knowing so like I said WAIT until it's released before you judge it!  That my friends is a rant. "

4 lines is a pretty poor rant.... put some effort into it "

What else was there to say? That's all was needed. "

That wasn't a rant. It was you making a statement about how people saying Bioshock 2 is unnecessary is emotionally damaging you, or something like that. "

" @Rowr said:

" @Atlas said:

" I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt. 2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.  I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this? "

Bioshock wasnt really successful for its ability as a shooter, in fact that was probably the weakest aspect of the whole game (see also The darkness). So it's a little worrying when they put the focus on it as a shooter (because thats what the kids want), and when you dont have the people working on it who were responsible for making it a success despite the shooting not being great. Add to that the fact that expanding on the story is not at all a natural thing to do from the first. It just starts to appear like it's getting milked for the story and setting.    I cant see it possibley living up to the first because its almost an entirely different entity with the same name and some borrowed setting, if its at least decent 2k Marin have done a good job. My guess is the multiplayer will be better than is assumed, and the single player will be pretty ordinary and uninspired. "

What was wrong with the shooting aspects of the game? I had a hella lot of fun experimenting with weapons and plasmids in BS1. "

" @K0rN said:

" @Rowr said:

" @Atlas said:

" I'm extremely torn on this issue. At first I was siding with the naysayers - it's easy to question the addition of multiplayer, some of the storyline strangeness, the pandering aspect of playing as a Big Daddy. Something just generally seemed a bit off, a little forced maybe. But in truth, I'm starting to think we should give the game the benefit of the doubt. 2K Marin has no track record to speak of, which means giving them an established franchise as a first assignment is surely a massive headache. This game does have a lot going against it, but let's not forget just how special of a game BioShock was. It was mindblowing, on so many levels. So we need to accept that this game is highly unlikely to reach those lofty expectations. It could be really good, but it will do so on its own merits. It looks and sounds like BioShock - which has to be a good thing, right? - and so long as 2K Marin learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about what made BioShock so awesome, they should do fine.  I'm leaning to the glass half-full side here, and I am finding it a little obnoxious how quick some people are to just poop all over BioShock 2. I'm sure it'll be a good game - it may well even be a very good game - but it's not the original. We shouldn't judge it because of that, especially before we've all played it. 2K Marin as an entity has never shipped a game, so we should maintain neutrality and let the game speak for itself. Nobody gave much thought to Arkham Asylum because it was a game in an established franchise from an unknown developer. That turned out pretty well; why shouldn't this? "

Bioshock wasnt really successful for its ability as a shooter, in fact that was probably the weakest aspect of the whole game (see also The darkness). So it's a little worrying when they put the focus on it as a shooter (because thats what the kids want), and when you dont have the people working on it who were responsible for making it a success despite the shooting not being great. Add to that the fact that expanding on the story is not at all a natural thing to do from the first. It just starts to appear like it's getting milked for the story and setting.    I cant see it possibley living up to the first because its almost an entirely different entity with the same name and some borrowed setting, if its at least decent 2k Marin have done a good job. My guess is the multiplayer will be better than is assumed, and the single player will be pretty ordinary and uninspired. "

What was wrong with the shooting aspects of the game? I had a hella lot of fun experimenting with weapons and plasmids in BS1. "

Plasmids were good, but lets be honest the shooting wasnt the strongest aspect. I barely look at this game as a shooter. "

Looking forward to it. No, maybe it didn't need a sequel. That doesn't mean I don't want one, though, because it totally offered it as an option. 
 
That said, this sequel isn't so much the one I want, but the multiplayer seems to be (that is, I wanted BioShock 2 to be "The War On Ryan Industries.")

Bioshock doesn't need a sequel.

Yes, if the game comes out and it sucks, bash away. Until then, shut the fuck up.

I'm sure the game will be fine, but it's almost impossible to get excited about it.  
 
The problem is, when you think about the main reasons people were excited for Bioshock, none of them really apply to Bioshock 2 anymore.  We've all already spent time exploring the underwater Art Deco world they created, we've found out about Adam, the Little Sisters and the Big Daddies, we know what went wrong.  Where are the new hooks to replace them?  At face value they've tacked on multiplayer and you get to play as a Big Daddy - the two most cynical and gimmicky things they could possibly have chosen to do with a Bioshock sequel.  It's just so jarring from how refreshing the original Bioshock seemed at the time, I think that's why the reaction has been stronger than it might be for any other milk-the-franchise sequel.
 
What they should have taken from it were the things we all praised in the first place:
 

• A unique game setting (BS2: failed miserably)
  
• An element of mystery - In Bioshock's case, "WTF went wrong here?" (BS2: we already know)
  
• Political / philosophical undertones (BS2: they've already made their point about the world Ryan created)

" Why do we need to focus in on one aspect of a game as if that's the only good thing about it and to hell with everything else?  "

Instead of a sequel they needed to fix the last 1/3 of that game