I was searching amazon when I saw they just put this up.

http://www.amazon.com/Desert-to-Sea-Bundle-Download/dp/B0091T6FQO

Just wanted to give everyone the heads up in case they were on the fence about it.

Thing is, the weakest thing about those "games" is their "game"play, from what I hear and from my Bioshock 1 impressions, which means the gameplay surely did not age well, so why would anyone buy Bioshock games in 2012?

Also I hate to sound like a hater but Spec Ops is a movie that isn't worth more than five bucks.

Thanks for the head's up, duder! I've been waiting for a sale so I could finally crack into it.

@aaverager: NP buddy. They are all great games and no one should be without em.

Just bought it, all three games activate on Steam. Somehow after all these time and multiple sales I never had either Bioshock or the sequel on Steam. Hell I've never even played Bioshock 2. Great buy.

question about this: if I live in Germany and activate these games on steam the censorship stuff will apply, right? also if I DO NOT register them on steam, could I play an uncensored version?

would be really interested in all 3

Wow, and to think, that's technically $120 worth of games. O.o

@Atta: Honestly I have no idea, I have heard of people having other region games on their steam accounts. The games in this sale are for the US versions, so my guess would be it would lie on the restrictions set forth by your Steam Client.

@AhmadMetallic said:

Thing is, the weakest thing about those "games" is their "game"play, from what I hear and from my Bioshock 1 impressions, which means the gameplay surely did not age well, so why would anyone buy Bioshock games in 2012?

Wait, what? The gameplay in Bioshock games is great.

@benpicko: He/She is just looking for a flame war, ignore him/her.

@cannonballBAM said:

@benpicko: He/She is just looking for a flame war, ignore him/her.

Oh right.

I just finally played through Bioshock 2 on Xbox, and I thought the gameplay held up ok. I would be interested to hear what is wrong with the old Bioshock games to be honest. I don't know that the new ones will offer much more in terms of actual gameplay aside from different story telling. The only thing I can really fault would be the placement of vita chambers, but that's more of a personal issue with dieing frequently.

Also, I think I'll buy the bundle just to get Spec Ops. Thanks for the link!

Nice deal, shame Amazon UK/Europe does not do this sort of thing as I would get games from them on the kinds of deals they offer on the US site.

Big Bioshock fan so I would recommend the pack just for those two alone.

@kgb0515 said:

I just finally played through Bioshock 2 on Xbox, and I thought the gameplay held up ok. I would be interested to hear what is wrong with the old Bioshock games to be honest. I don't know that the new ones will offer much more in terms of actual gameplay aside from different story telling. The only thing I can really fault would be the placement of vita chambers, but that's more of a personal issue with dieing frequently.

I love the BS games, but they have a few major problems. First and foremost, ammo is way too plentiful for a survival horror game... I was leaving behind ammo in both games by the 2nd level, and that really bugged me the whole way through.

@benpicko: AhmadMetallic being AhmadMetallic.

@Levio said:

@kgb0515 said:

I just finally played through Bioshock 2 on Xbox, and I thought the gameplay held up ok. I would be interested to hear what is wrong with the old Bioshock games to be honest. I don't know that the new ones will offer much more in terms of actual gameplay aside from different story telling. The only thing I can really fault would be the placement of vita chambers, but that's more of a personal issue with dieing frequently.

I love the BS games, but they have a few major problems. First and foremost, ammo is way too plentiful for a survival horror game... I was leaving behind ammo in both games by the 2nd level, and that really bugged me the whole way through.

I didn't really think the games were meant to be survival horror-ish, more sci fi/fantasy thrillers. I was screaming "boom!" every time I took down a big daddy, that and getting them trapped behind walls when they would rush.

ahhh! it looks so good.

@cannonballBAM said:

it looks so good.

Sometimes I have no idea what Jeff is talking about when he is harsh on a game's graphics, and the Spec Ops: The Line Quick Look was one of those times. I don't think its graphics were pushing the boundaries, but they looked pretty acceptable as far as I could see. Jeff seemed pretty displeased with those same graphics. The multiplayer graphics were terrible, but I had no issue with the single player graphics whatsoever.

Maybe the issues just weren't apparent in the Quick Look.

@BisonHero said:

@cannonballBAM said:

it looks so good.

Sometimes I have no idea what Jeff is talking about when he is harsh on a game's graphics, and the Spec Ops: The Line Quick Look was one of those times. I don't think its graphics were pushing the boundaries, but they looked pretty acceptable as far as I could see. Jeff seemed pretty displeased with those same graphics. The multiplayer graphics were terrible, but I had no issue with the single player graphics whatsoever.

Maybe the issues just weren't apparent in the Quick Look.

I think Jeff is one of those people who completely overlooks effects a lot of the time. For example, the texture quality of Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 are pretty comparable on console, but B3's smoke, dust, and lighting blow MW3's effects out of the water. I think this is why the Uncharted series took a while to impress me; for several hours I was looking only at the visuals as a whole. But then I suddenly realized that there wasn't a lot of the extraneous effects distracting me from the quality of the textures, UV mapping, shadow detail, and so on. I failed to realize that the game looked good enough on its own that it wasn't trying to use excessive antialiasing or volumetric lighting tricks to fool me.

(I believe) Jeff looks at SOTL and ignores the lens flare, light bloom, and general "grit" in the air, and goes purely on the detail and textures. Because I can look at that screenshot and say, "That looks really good." But I can also just look at the UV map transition from neck to uniform and say, "That looks just OK." And I'm being totally honest both times.

@BisonHero: @mlarrabee: I agree on the UV mapping but I think with facial textures/maps we look to games like LA Noire and Heavenly Sword (two most popular examples) and focus on those realistic animations. I think it will be a long time before games really capture both the aesthetic and realistic quality we crave but I assure you that it will be worth the wait.

One new thing I really enjoy for ports/builds of games that are also on PC, are high resolution texture packs. Among the shaders, draw distance, lighting and occlusion effects. It is nice to have some high quality UV mapping/character models/environments that aren't available on modern consoles.

@AhmadMetallic said:

Thing is, the weakest thing about those "games" is their "game"play, from what I hear and from my Bioshock 1 impressions, which means the gameplay surely did not age well, so why would anyone buy Bioshock games in 2012?

Also I hate to sound like a hater but Spec Ops is a movie that isn't worth more than five bucks.

If you've never played Bioshock it's certainly worth the money. It is not, I assure you, an interactive movie. Perfect? No; I can point out several personal issues with it (e.g. the camera mechanic, being asked to go search for three things every time a door collapses in front of you, etc). Deserving of praise, though, it definitely is.

Spec Ops? Consider it a side bonus - Bioshock 1 and 2 are definitely worth that price of admission.

An hour into The Line. I'll definitely play through it to experience the campaign, but man, the gunplay is lousy. The guns don't feel like they have any weight to them, and it feels like I'm shooting water rifles or something. Spraying bullets everywhere with little accuracy, and they don't even sound good. It really reminds me of the shooting in Uncharted, which is NOT a good thing.

I guess I can't complain too much given the price paid for this game and Bioshock 1 & 2, but I'm amazed that the developers of a shooter could get the actual shooting so wrong.

@cannonballBAM said:

@BisonHero: @mlarrabee: I agree on the UV mapping but I think with facial textures/maps we look to games like LA Noire and Heavenly Sword (two most popular examples) and focus on those realistic animations. I think it will be a long time before games really capture both the aesthetic and realistic quality we crave but I assure you that it will be worth the wait.

Yeah. The way I think about it is when you look back at PS2 games in relation to games today. All of them are graphically bad (at least they would be considered that if released today) but some still hold today. These are the ones where the use of techniques such as controlling where a person eyes look and the general asthetic of the game make them hold up pretty well. It is also what makes some games on the Wii have the "wow" factor that is lost in a lot of other games which are even released at a much better resolution; because these are the titles where (usually Nintendo) truly understands how to make their game look visually appealing regardless of the limitations they are under (and it is also why games like New Super Mario U don't look as impressive when moved into HD as people would have expected due to the original design being built around looking good without the strong resolution).

If you haven't got Spec Ops The Line and are interested in storytelling of games (and of shooters), what are you doing?! GET IT NAO!

You are still a good person.

And watch this video before you do it.

I didn't even know Bioshock 1 & 2 can be activated on Steam. Here I had the boxed copies for years and I didn't even bother to activate them.

EDIT: Damn it. The CD keys won't work. I checked the steam support page and it says it accepts both games.

@pw2566ch: I believe if you contact support they can fix that, I have had it done before for previous games.

@MB said:

An hour into The Line. I'll definitely play through it to experience the campaign, but man, the gunplay is lousy. The guns don't feel like they have any weight to them, and it feels like I'm shooting water rifles or something. Spraying bullets everywhere with little accuracy, and they don't even sound good. It really reminds me of the shooting in Uncharted, which is NOT a good thing.

I guess I can't complain too much given the price paid for this game and Bioshock 1 & 2, but I'm amazed that the developers of a shooter could get the actual shooting so wrong.

The one thing I enjoy about the game is it is very streamlined and your more focused on the experience rather than leveling up items or purchasing upgrades. I found the best experience was when you would call out to spotters being pinned down in some great situations. The sand traps are probably some of the most creative and catching an enemy standing on glass 100 feet up only to shoot it out while watching them fall while Nolan North screams an obscenity, it can get entrancing. No game is going to perfect but I would say an average shooter is better than a bad one. The whole Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now story concept is worth the journey.

@AhmadMetallic said:

Thing is, the weakest thing about those "games" is their "game"play, from what I hear and from my Bioshock 1 impressions, which means the gameplay surely did not age well, so why would anyone buy Bioshock games in 2012?

Also I hate to sound like a hater but Spec Ops is a movie that isn't worth more than five bucks.

The first Bioshock still holds up tremendously well. It's not the best shooter out there, but it certainly gets the job done, and it hasn't really aged that much. It still feels relatively modern.

Bioshock 2 was a terrible game when it released, and is still a terrible game (Before anyone asks, a boring, unnecessary story, and the most uninspired and dull level design I've seen in quite a while, with only a few redeeming moments like the theme park ride, and the little sister bit) so no one should buy that. Even with that, the problems aren't from a gameplay perspective, and the actual shooting and plasmids controlled super well, much better than the first.

Yeah, they're story games, but in Bioshock 1's case, excellent story games. If they were still $60 a pop, it'd be a tough sell, but at $5 each it's an impressive bargain.

Also: You do sound like a "hater". And I don't even like to use that word. In fact, I feel kind of dirty now.

@BisonHero said:

@cannonballBAM said:

it looks so good.

Sometimes I have no idea what Jeff is talking about when he is harsh on a game's graphics, and the Spec Ops: The Line Quick Look was one of those times. I don't think its graphics were pushing the boundaries, but they looked pretty acceptable as far as I could see. Jeff seemed pretty displeased with those same graphics. The multiplayer graphics were terrible, but I had no issue with the single player graphics whatsoever.

Maybe the issues just weren't apparent in the Quick Look.

Maybe its the color blindness, but one of the best things about The Line's visuals is how they treat color. Its especially vibrant and diverse in its palette considering its a shooter. The transitions of the cool blues, purples, and golds in the hotel interiors to the harsh reds of a sandstorm or warm oranges of the sunny desert are actually pretty great looking. Admittedly these are my impressions from the demo, so maybe it all goes terrible part way through, but I thought the game looked fine. My girlfriend can't stand most shooters and even she wanted to see more of it.