Right, first of yes I did play the first one, but I found it meh because I thought that really if you want story you read a book or whatever, and without letting the story grip me as much as I maybe should have I found the game not to live up to its astounded reviews. 
 
Now: Bioshock 2 has made great improvements to combat with new guns, ability to dual wield and all that, and really all I wanted bioshock to add because like I said story means very little for me, so when I found Bioshock getting all of these low scores and I read view the reviews there was one key point why it isnt better than its predecessor and that's because of its story. 
 
And so now I come onto my main point, How long can you go before comparing a game to its predecessor?   
I mean look at legend of Zelda which is a great example of this, now most people say that the best game in the series is Ocarina of time. But I mean really? If you just go and look and twilight princess, I mean which is better? Now of course you could say " But legend of Zelda ocarina was good for its time"  but I mean cant you say that about just about anything? Oh it was better before, but really that's just because were remembering good parts of memories and were leaving out the rest, Go go back and play a couple of old games that have newish releases, like Mario, metroid and all of them, then play the newer ones of them. You'll get a shock.
If your going to review a game, you should always go in with an open mind, or if not that then an even one, See the problem Bioshock 2 had is that as soon as people started laying straight away it was " Will the story be as good?" " No way could they get such a good story again?" Blady blady blah. And so instantly people started going. " Oh no I expected that!" "Oh no that isn't shocking enough" By the way I've gotten most of this from my brother who I was watching playing and a bunch of friends I saw playing it. Anyway and so people didn't go in with an open mind.  
 
Bioshock brings up an important thing for me. Which do we want? Story or action? And it seems that no game so far has been able to hit the direct spot, because if there's too much story the game play gets bogged down and your pretty much just watching a move, and if there's to much action, then the story seems loosely connected by something that someone in the office though up rather quickly while getting his coat onto leave, and then you have games that have, while your playing something will happen, but while spectacular in some cases, they make the game feel much more on rails as well as making it look like the game has been layered, so the action has been done they've got all the world stuff and what not done, and then they go back in and go " right there" and add in something, and to me anyway it can sometimes seem unbelievably obvious. 
 
 Anyway back to the actual main point, Am I the only one who thinks that Bioshock 2 is being compared far too much to its predecessor?  
 
 
 
P.S I put way too many different random points in here >.<

Right, first of yes I did play the first one, but I found it meh because I thought that really if you want story you read a book or whatever, and without letting the story grip me as much as I maybe should have I found the game not to live up to its astounded reviews. 
 
Now: Bioshock 2 has made great improvements to combat with new guns, ability to dual wield and all that, and really all I wanted bioshock to add because like I said story means very little for me, so when I found Bioshock getting all of these low scores and I read view the reviews there was one key point why it isnt better than its predecessor and that's because of its story. 
 
And so now I come onto my main point, How long can you go before comparing a game to its predecessor?   
I mean look at legend of Zelda which is a great example of this, now most people say that the best game in the series is Ocarina of time. But I mean really? If you just go and look and twilight princess, I mean which is better? Now of course you could say " But legend of Zelda ocarina was good for its time"  but I mean cant you say that about just about anything? Oh it was better before, but really that's just because were remembering good parts of memories and were leaving out the rest, Go go back and play a couple of old games that have newish releases, like Mario, metroid and all of them, then play the newer ones of them. You'll get a shock.
If your going to review a game, you should always go in with an open mind, or if not that then an even one, See the problem Bioshock 2 had is that as soon as people started laying straight away it was " Will the story be as good?" " No way could they get such a good story again?" Blady blady blah. And so instantly people started going. " Oh no I expected that!" "Oh no that isn't shocking enough" By the way I've gotten most of this from my brother who I was watching playing and a bunch of friends I saw playing it. Anyway and so people didn't go in with an open mind.  
 
Bioshock brings up an important thing for me. Which do we want? Story or action? And it seems that no game so far has been able to hit the direct spot, because if there's too much story the game play gets bogged down and your pretty much just watching a move, and if there's to much action, then the story seems loosely connected by something that someone in the office though up rather quickly while getting his coat onto leave, and then you have games that have, while your playing something will happen, but while spectacular in some cases, they make the game feel much more on rails as well as making it look like the game has been layered, so the action has been done they've got all the world stuff and what not done, and then they go back in and go " right there" and add in something, and to me anyway it can sometimes seem unbelievably obvious. 
 
 Anyway back to the actual main point, Am I the only one who thinks that Bioshock 2 is being compared far too much to its predecessor?  
 
 
 
P.S I put way too many different random points in here >.<

You did put too many different random points in there, didn't you? Lol, I mean, Ocarina of Time was better than Twilight Princess, and still is in 2010. I think it's completely fair to compare a direct squeal to it's predecessor, especially if they're only a few years apart, and on the same system.

I actually think Ocarina of Time was better than Wind Waker although it was made beforehand (I can't compare it to Twilight Princess seeing as I didn't get the game), because it was a seamless blend of good puzzle solving and action-a near perfect Zelda game. And I would not want to get Bioshock 2 because it apparently has a lack of story like you said. I have plenty of games like that (Modern Warfare 2, Borderlands).

It's really really similar to the first, hence the comparisons. Plus alot of people just felt the sequel was unnecesary.
Also you dont like story in games, really?

No. I see nothing wrong with comparing Bioshock 2 with its predecessor. As it's attempting to hit many of the same notes, it might even be irresponsible for reviewers not to--I imagine no small part of consumer interest in the game is due to the pedigree of the brand, so how well it represents that brand is a very important thing to consider, and in this case upholding that brand means "does it have as good a story/atmosphere/setting/whatever as Bioshock?"
 
And it's not getting low scores.
 
And that "story or action" thing is a false dilemma.

Its the sequel to the first game..that alone already warrants comparison. That, and the fact that the changes from Bioshock 1 aren't so huge that it feels different. There's no reason to not compare it to the 1st game.