Is This More Fun/Interesting Than The Prequel?

[4K_240hz_MLED]

I only made it like halfway past the first game, which is amazing since I only play it like once a month because of how boring it is. I know Infinite is completely different from the first 2 games, but I don't plan on playing that until I complete the first two.

[rarestMeow]

hello,

no - Bioshock 2 is exactly like the first game only with no charm or edge. literally the same game, easy cash-grab - to the point that controls, HUD and options are the same

[smallen7]

It is NOT the same. You play a Big Daddy in BS2 and the plot is nowhere near the same.

[4K_240hz_MLED]

Originally posted by smallen7:

It is NOT the same. You play a Big Daddy in BS2 and the plot is nowhere near the same.

Sure but graphics, setting, and gameplay wise isn't it the same?

[smallen7]

It's set in Rapture. That's the extent of the similarities. You also have more weapons at your disposal. It's still an FPS. You play the part of a Big Daddy that has to rescue your Little Sister.

[rarestMeow]

Originally posted by smallen7:

It is NOT the same. You play a Big Daddy in BS2

that moves the same as a bloke from the first game: jump is the same, run is the same, walk is the same
that uses the same weapons as in the first game: same feeling, same gunplay, same stiffness and clunkiness
the uses the same plazmids: literally the same tonics, same mechanics, same resource management
- for as far as I am concerned I am playing the same guy from the first game but now with a fish bowl on a head for funkiness

Originally posted by Fruit & Cake:

Sure but graphics, setting, and gameplay wise isn't it the same?

same stuff yeah. you can just watch the first ten minutes of any walkthrough and see for yourself that this game is exactly like the first game
I dunno, it is like Half-Life 2 Episodes to Half-Life 2. sure, new scenes, plot and dialogues - but the core gameplay is the same. if you don't like Half-Life 2 than you will equally as much dislike episodes. or Saints Row 4 to Saints Row 3. or original PSX' Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 1. easy cash-grab that is borderline asset-flip

[4K_240hz_MLED]

Originally posted by smallen7:

It's set in Rapture. That's the extent of the similarities. You also have more weapons at your disposal. It's still an FPS. You play the part of a Big Daddy that has to rescue your Little Sister.

So it's like l4d2 to l4d1 as BioShock 2 is to BioShock then lol

[rarestMeow]

there are three types of sequels :
1) sequels that elevate original game's concept and ideas, enhance them, introduce something new, tell a different story or set a different continuity - Silent Hill 2, Half-Life 2, Bioshock Inifnity. if one really want he may just strip the name and call it "yada-yada-yada unoriginal title" - because they don't depend on original idea. one may play Half-Life 2 without prior knowledge of Half-Life 1, understood the story and be alright with it. if player really wants that, then he may play original game to learn more

2) those that make original game obsolete because sequel has the same but better - Left 4 Dead 2, Rogue Legacy 2, Hand of Fate 2. there is no point to play original game with those sequels around because they have the same content

3) sequels that exist because of original games - Bioshock 2 is one of those. they either continuing the story of original game because it is finished on unresolved cliffhanger or exists as an easy cash-grab with little new or different. Bioshock 2 is so full into Bioshock 1 that doesn't even establish the world, themes, lore and settings. it starts with "you are Big Daddy, go rescue you Little Sister and btw you re in underwater sea", how, what, why - doesn't matter. that game was created with an idea that players who liked original game will buy it - and to cross-promote the sales of Bioshock 1. for Left 4 Dead 2 it doesn't matter because all content of Left 4 Dead 1 was ported into that game. neither it matters for Silent Hill 2 because its story fully self-sufficient and thankfully has nothing with that lame cult and children-sacrificing from original game. Bioshock 2 is the lame game that borrows 80% of its content from original game and even doesn't do it right

[Teregulus]

Originally posted by Fruit & Cake:

Originally posted by smallen7:

It's set in Rapture. That's the extent of the similarities. You also have more weapons at your disposal. It's still an FPS. You play the part of a Big Daddy that has to rescue your Little Sister.

So it's like l4d2 to l4d1 as BioShock 2 is to BioShock then lol

Just play it and find out. It's different enough to stand on its own pretty well. If you were bored by 1, you might like 2s improvements to gameplay, since contrary to what rarestMeow says, it definitely plays differently, even if it looks similar on face value. Think more Doom 2016 to Doom Eternal in terms of differences in gameplay. Looks the same, under the hood is pretty damn different.

A lot of this comes from being able to use weapons and plasmids simultaneously. Hacking is much easier and quicker, it doesn't take you out of the game. There's no strangely implemented crafting system, levels are bigger. Aiming, shooting, and sounds are much better. Only thing that isn't an improvement is the story, because the story is too different from the first one to compare.

[4K_240hz_MLED]

Originally posted by Teregulus:

Originally posted by Fruit & Cake:

So it's like l4d2 to l4d1 as BioShock 2 is to BioShock then lol

Just play it and find out. It's different enough to stand on its own pretty well. If you were bored by 1, you might like 2s improvements to gameplay, since contrary to what rarestMeow says, it definitely plays differently, even if it looks similar on face value. Think more Doom 2016 to Doom Eternal in terms of differences in gameplay. Looks the same, under the hood is pretty damn different.

I've never played any Doom game before in my life lol. I do intend on buying those games but for now not really into any shooters atm except for CSGO.

[KiRA]

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

there are three types of sequels :
1) sequels that elevate original game's concept and ideas, enhance them, introduce something new, tell a different story or set a different continuity - Silent Hill 2, Half-Life 2, Bioshock Inifnity. if one really want he may just strip the name and call it "yada-yada-yada unoriginal title" - because they don't depend on original idea. one may play Half-Life 2 without prior knowledge of Half-Life 1, understood the story and be alright with it. if player really wants that, then he may play original game to learn more

2) those that make original game obsolete because sequel has the same but better - Left 4 Dead 2, Rogue Legacy 2, Hand of Fate 2. there is no point to play original game with those sequels around because they have the same content

3) sequels that exist because of original games - Bioshock 2 is one of those. they either continuing the story of original game because it is finished on unresolved cliffhanger or exists as an easy cash-grab with little new or different. Bioshock 2 is so full into Bioshock 1 that doesn't even establish the world, themes, lore and settings. it starts with "you are Big Daddy, go rescue you Little Sister and btw you re in underwater sea", how, what, why - doesn't matter. that game was created with an idea that players who liked original game will buy it - and to cross-promote the sales of Bioshock 1. for Left 4 Dead 2 it doesn't matter because all content of Left 4 Dead 1 was ported into that game. neither it matters for Silent Hill 2 because its story fully self-sufficient and thankfully has nothing with that lame cult and children-sacrificing from original game. Bioshock 2 is the lame game that borrows 80% of its content from original game and even doesn't do it right

LOL so much nonsense. Clearly you havent played Left 4 Dead to understand the differences. Everything that was to supposed to come to L4D (free updates) was basically just stamped into an new game called L4D2, you dont really make sequels under a year. Majority of people who say just buy L4D2 you get L4D1 maps havent even played the first game. Heavily modified maps while some parts simply cut cant be qualifed as the same maps. If L4D1 had also an workshop i wouldnt even play L4D2 honestly.

Half Life 2 doesent make Half Life obsolete either. Its replay value is actually weaker than the original. Half life 2 several unskippable scripted sequences simply suck compared to one unskippable train ride in Half Life. Thats why playtroughs of Half Life are much better than Half Life 2. You can only play so much story driven games untill they lose their appeal and the gameplay itself will determine its long lasting value.

Bioshock 2 is better than Infinite by miles. An actual game. Infinite is just a dumbed down interactive movie. Despite Bioshock 1 having the best characters and world. Its combat is still bad even back then for its time. I find it also funny that you would say Bioshock 2 is a cashgrab while it offers at least Multiplayer while Infinite couldnt even do that. What infinite did however was releasing rushed DLCs like Burial at the Sea which contradicts the established lore of Bioshock 1 and Bioshock 2.

[rarestMeow]

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

Everything that was to supposed to come to L4D (free updates) was basically just stamped into an new game called L4D2,

and who argues that and who cares? we, what, live in year 2009 during all that stupid #boycottL4D2 shtick? obviously Valve wanted an extra profit, we all know that, like since when it became an enlightenment?
my point is - Left 4 Dead 1 is obsolete - because all its content was ported into Left 4 Dead 2. different map geometry? call it QoL updates. I am sure there are original maps from Left 4 Dead 1 in workshop or gamebanana, download them and play in Left 4 Dead 2 if one like them so much. there is no point to play first game when the second has all its content

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

you dont really make sequels under a year.

Doom 1 in 1993 - Doom 2 in 1994. and can't remember people b1tching back then or now about what a cheap move it was

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

Half Life 2 doesent make Half Life obsolete either. Its replay value is actually weaker than the original. Half life 2 several unskippable scripted sequences simply suck compared to one unskippable train ride in Half Life. Thats why playtroughs of Half Life are much better than Half Life 2.

I never said Half Life 1 is obsolete and never argued about how good Half Life 2 is

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

I find it also funny that you would say Bioshock 2 is a cashgrab while it offers at least Multiplayer while Infinite couldnt even do that.

and to hell with multiplayer - noone plays it and noone cares outside of some lonely griefers, Big Daddy simps, and lone weirdos doing achievements

it is a cash grab: same textures, same models, meshes, level geometries, feeling, settings, animations, enemies, gunplay, movement, upgrade system, vending system, - they didn't even bother to change hud icons or edit main menu. but excuse me, developers done such a great work of replacing machine gun with gatling, fixing annoying switching between weapons and magic, simplified hacking and added Big Sister for lulz. oh, sorry then my bad, 9/10 GOTY most original game

my point is - if there were no Bioshock 1 around and we only had Bioshock 2 then it would be awesome. but so far Bioshock 2 copied Bioshock 1's homework and changed few letter to not get caught by a teacher. like it? go ahead, noone cares. absolutely nobody

OP asked it that the same game as the first one. yes, it is. Infinite is way different. Bioshock 2 is exactly the same and few changes in how player sprays his magic bees don't change that fact

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

What infinite did however was releasing rushed DLCs like Burial at the Sea which contradicts the established lore of Bioshock 1 and Bioshock 2.

neither Irrational Games or Ken Levine worked on Bioshock 2 - its content and lore already exist outside of Bioshock canon. and Bioshock 2 has the same rushed DLC called Minerva's Den about ghosts in machines and its story goes bananas too, so what gives? both Bioshock 2 and Infinity's DLC f-up original's game story badly, and who cares? Bioshock 1 perfectly exists as encapsulated game and you don't need any sequels to it. and Ken Levine knew it. that is why we have Bioshock Infinite and not Bioshock 3 - because its story is a separate thing-in-itself and doesn't rely on Bioshock 1's material. Burial at the Sea is controversial and everyone knows that. Ken Levine tried to cut the loose ends - but honestly it would be much better to leave the story open-ended since it adds to the mystery. whatever, damage is done

Bioshock 1 was a clever deconstruction of FPS genre with smart ludonarrative commentary
Bioshock 2 ditched all that and was a good way for 2K to earn easy buck or two, just because they had a license around and spare assets
Inifinity at least tried to do something different instead of retelling the same story with the same gameplay the second time

[KiRA]

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

call it QoL updates. I am sure there are original maps from Left 4 Dead 1 in workshop or gamebanana, download them and play in Left 4 Dead 2 if one like them so much. there is no point to play first game when the second has all its content

QoL updates lol have you even played L4D1? The movement itself is smoother than in the second game and the versus mode is somewhat more balanced. They just did the game dirty. L4D2 needed the added L4D1 maps to be somewhat relevant. When we would compare both original campaigns the first games are way better. The survivors are also more memorable. The only thing that makes L4D2 relevant is the workshop.

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

Doom 1 in 1993 - Doom 2 in 1994. and can't remember people b1tching back then or now about what a cheap move it was

Why change something that actually works.
I really consider Doom 2 to be an extension rather than a stand alone game and guess what it works unlike Doom3 (Too different than Doom1 and Doom2 since it focuses of story driven horror rather than fun & run fast paced gun gameplay)

People who keep b1tching about the game being too similar from the first game. Are the same idiots that b1tch when a game is too different from the first game. Could name countless of games who bricked because they took risks by trying something new and be different. Because idiots kept critizising its the same game.
Red Alert 3
Diablo 3
Doom 3
Quake 4
F.E.A.R 2
Alone in the Dark
Wolfenstein 09
Dynasty Warriors 9


And games that went with the safe route
Borderlands 2
Payday 2
Call of Duty World at War (Basically Cod4)
Counter Strike
Serious Sam 2
Grand Theft Auto series mainly 3 VC SA

I rather have good game expansions than new titles from new devs that dont understand anything what even made the original good to begin with.
And Bioshock 2 expands greatly unlike Infinity. Only a handful people play the Multiplayer thats right but thats still more people that would ever touch another playtrough of Infinity.
Still to this day one of the most overrated games ive ever touched. Its straight up a downgrade from Bioshock 1 & 2 when we talk about game mechanics in general. Bioshock 1 strong opening, great level design but janky combat, even for 2007 standards the combat doesent hold up.

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

it is a cash grab: same textures, same models, meshes, level geometries, feeling, settings, animations, enemies, gunplay, movement, upgrade system, vending system, - they didn't even bother to change hud icons or edit main menu. but excuse me, developers done such a great work of replacing machine gun with gatling, fixing annoying switching between weapons and magic, simplified hacking and added Big Sister for lulz. oh, sorry then my bad, 9/10 GOTY most original game
my point is - if there were no Bioshock 1 around and we only had Bioshock 2 then it would be awesome. but so far Bioshock 2 copied Bioshock 1's homework and changed few letter to not get caught by a teacher. like it? go ahead, noone cares. absolutely nobody

The gameplay itself is better in the second game. Sure the level design in the first game is better and it even has better characters. The series itself is heavily overrated to begin with. What did the first Bioshock do that other shooters before it hadnt already done? Story? Able to interact with the enviroment? Plasmids that in other games the gun arsenal themselves could do different things?

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

Bioshock 1 was a clever deconstruction of FPS genre with smart ludonarrative commentary
Bioshock 2 ditched all that and was a good way for 2K to earn easy buck or two, just because they had a license around and spare assets
Inifinity at least tried to do something different instead of retelling the same story with the same gameplay the second time

A powerful story can be only told once before it loses its charm.
Out of the three games i would still pick Bioshock 2 simply for its multiplayer.

[rarestMeow]

Originally posted by KiRA (BLZ):

I really consider Doom 2 to be an extension rather than a stand alone game

then consider Left 4 Dead 2 an extension too, in that regard

enjoy whatever the game you like: it doesn't matter and noone cares. OP had a question and the thread provided him countless opinions to pick

[Seventh Monkey]

none of the games are the same but all of them are better than games that come out today.

[BreckyFast]

So many bad and terrible 'hot' takes in one thread! It's hard to choose just one.
At least it's obvious no one in this thread has ever worked on developing a video game, even a small one.