BioShock is often lauded as one of the pinnacles of FPS/RPGs as well as one of the finest video-game narratives. Although the game is essentially a spiritual successor to the System Shock series, the consensus from journalists and consumers alike is that it's a classic.

However, with all that being said, it's interesting how both its narrative and gameplay has not aged as well after a decade, and how fans probably have misremembered its flaws.

Don't misunderstand this as some hipster review; BS is a good game. Rapture is one of the most well-polished atmospheres ever made, the level design is very good in spite of its linearity, and its core gameplay is tolerable at best.

The problem is none of these qualities elevates the game into greatness nor to ignore its many flaws. Even worse, these problems that plague the first game are only dwelled upon in later games when they originated here.


Before we talk about the game, I do want to mention the PC version. This port is rather terrible; however, it can be fixed. Mostly.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=266981933

What I don't think can be fixed is any nausea you may feel if you turn up the mouse-sensitivity. I don't know whether it's the art-style, the FOV (I doubt it as I play the game with 90) or some mouse acceleration but I cannot play at anything higher than four (out of ten.)

Unfortunately, while some of these issuesed are addressed, the Remastered does not fix everything: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Brian_Colfxire/recommended/409710


BioShock suffers from two major faults: It lacks the dual-wielding system where you have Plasmids in one-hand and your gun in the other. The other mistake is the unnecessary fluff that takes away from the survival horror experience.

The former can be excused for being the first in the series; however, the latter is something that cannot be easily overlooked, namely the crafting system and camera "research" system. Both of these inclusions are utterly worthless except when you get less ammo and tougher enemies.

However, if you use the camera ASAP you can play two-thirds of the game without it. A better idea would be to throw away the camera and opted for better resource management and fixed enemy damage values. The game would be a better FPS for it, and it would be more honest.


Although this question is more often one of semantics, I think it'll illustrate a point: In what way is BS an RPG other than streamlining the RPG-mechanics from its predecessor?

SS2 focused on specializing builds around weapon types, PSI-onic abilities and/or attributes in other skills. You had the ability to shape your character from the introduction, and throughout the game you could change it to suit your playstyle.

BS strips all the complexities away with its plasmids and gene-modifications. You will get all the weapons every single playthrough, and the gene-mods are in specialized categories that discourage any freeform experimentation. You're a Jack of all trades; master of all, specialist of none.

The system itself is not bad but it is a clear sign of streamlining. With that being said, is BS's system truly an RPG or is it something more along the lines of the Far Cry's perks system?

Content is still gated by placing plasmids and mods in specific locations, but the same result is the same stilted growth of your capabilities. It's one of many instances where I have to wonder how influential BS has been on modern games (for better and for worse).


BS's role in influencing games is undeniable, but what is more interesting is what has been forgotten as to why these aspects are so enrapturing.

For starters, the usage of audio-logs. Recorded messages are now the butt-of-the-joke, but their inclusion here was to keep the horror elements without littering NPCs or to bore the player from the lack of interactions. More importantly, they told the player of what cannot be gleamed from the environments as they provide a contrast to what the player finds. They provided something for your imagination to use.

Another aspect that holds up is its environmental storytelling. For example, if you were to compare this game to Fallout 3/NV the biggest difference is how BioShock conveys more with less clutter. The developers were able to focus more so on the visual input, and let the finer details (visual or the audio) fill in the rest. And without the simple distractions like a constant UI notification for junk, the player focuses more on the surroundings.

Now are these aspects perfect? God no. BS (and SS) is the originator of the trope of hiding key-codes and/or recording information at the worst times like a Lovecraft protagonist. And compared to F3/NV, BS has tighter and more sensible level-design that lends itself to having the time to add more details.

However, it's the purpose and execution behind these storytelling methods that I think is forgotten about why they work so well, and when you dwell further on what the game set out to do you find more of its flaws more obvious now than back then.


In spite of wanting to keep spoilers to a minimum, I do want to criticize the narrative because that is what everyone remembers BS most fondly of.

No matter how many times I replay this game I can't tell you what the game is really about. BS tries its damnedest to provide an objective, apolitical story about a free-market city freed from conventions of morals and politics. The only problem is that it never commits to the idea of, "Unrestrained societies are possibly bad!", and instead gets jumbled up in its "family" nonsense and blatantly good/evil choice which comes across as being pretentious. (Sound familiar?)

It could be argued that Andrew Ryan was right all along—the city fell to parasites like Fontaine—and he was the more upstanding character as he valued merits alone. However, in contrast, the characters like Dr. Steinman and Cohen show that merit is not satisfying enough. Usually I'd be fine with this vagueness of a message, but with the forced good/bad-ending to the game it hampers any middle-ground to be found.

It also doesn't help that gameplay can clash with the narrative. For example, why can you leave money on security devices to "hack" machines? (How does that work?) Why does Andrew Ryan let his enemies buy bullets to fight him? Is he that committed to his free-market values?

Or, for less pedantic questions, why is the WYK effect on Jack inconsistent? He doesn't appear to remember being "activated" (if he didn't forget it after the plane-crash), and he doesn't respond to the command the same way (ex. when you are told to get the radio and when you are forced to lower your weapon). If it was a simple mental suggestion, then why (when he obviously knows) does he not react with speaking like how he talks at the beginning? (Why is he mute anyway?)

The obvious answer to these questions is that the developers were too busy making a good game, and that's perfectly fine. BioShock is a great game for what it tried to do, but it's by no means a masterpiece of storytelling or gameplay.


I'm under no dellusion that the remaster will address all these narrative issues. I expect the gunplay to be better and for a better performance like Infinite.

What I wanted to share is when you return to Rapture to relive the glory days under the sea it won't be same as what you remembered. Games have come a long way from BioShock in both gameplay and narrative, and the only way we get better is to learn where the mistakes were made behind us.

BioShock is often lauded as one of the pinnacles of FPS/RPGs as well as one of the finest video-game narratives. Although the game is essentially a spiritual successor to the System Shock series, the consensus from journalists and consumers alike is that it's a classic. However, with all that being said, it's interesting how both its narrative and gameplay has not aged as well after a decade, and how fans probably have misremembered its flaws. Don't misunderstand this as some hipster review; BS is a good game. Rapture is one of the most well-polished atmospheres ever made, the level design is very good in spite of its linearity, and its core gameplay is tolerable at best. The problem is none of these qualities elevates the game into greatness nor to ignore its many flaws. Even worse, these problems that plague the first game are only dwelled upon in later games when they originated here. [h1]Audio, FOV and Other PC Port Issues[/h1] Before we talk about the game, I do want to mention the PC version. This port is rather terrible; however, it can be fixed. Mostly. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=266981933 What I don't think can be fixed is any nausea you may feel if you turn up the mouse-sensitivity. I don't know whether it's the art-style, the FOV (I doubt it as I play the game with 90) or some mouse acceleration but I cannot play at anything higher than four (out of ten.) Unfortunately, while some of these issuesed are addressed, the Remastered does not fix everything: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Brian_Colfxire/recommended/409710 [h1]"Smile for the Camera!"[/h1] BioShock suffers from two major faults: It lacks the dual-wielding system where you have Plasmids in one-hand and your gun in the other. The other mistake is the unnecessary fluff that takes away from the survival horror experience. The former can be excused for being the first in the series; however, the latter is something that cannot be easily overlooked, namely the crafting system and camera "research" system. Both of these inclusions are utterly worthless except when you get less ammo and tougher enemies. However, if you use the camera ASAP you can play two-thirds of the game without it. A better idea would be to throw away the camera and opted for better resource management and fixed enemy damage values. The game would be a better FPS for it, and it would be more honest. [h1]Jack of All Trades[/h1] Although this question is more often one of semantics, I think it'll illustrate a point: In what way is BS an RPG other than streamlining the RPG-mechanics from its predecessor? SS2 focused on specializing builds around weapon types, PSI-onic abilities and/or attributes in other skills. You had the ability to shape your character from the introduction, and throughout the game you could change it to suit your playstyle. BS strips all the complexities away with its plasmids and gene-modifications. You will get all the weapons every single playthrough, and the gene-mods are in specialized categories that discourage any freeform experimentation. You're a Jack of all trades; master of all, specialist of none. The system itself is not bad but it is a clear sign of streamlining. With that being said, is BS's system truly an RPG or is it something more along the lines of the Far Cry's perks system? Content is still gated by placing plasmids and mods in specific locations, but the same result is the same stilted growth of your capabilities. It's one of many instances where I have to wonder how influential BS has been on modern games (for better and for worse). [h1]The More Things Stay the Same... The More Is Forgotten[/h1] BS's role in influencing games is undeniable, but what is more interesting is what has been forgotten as to why these aspects are so enrapturing. For starters, the usage of audio-logs. Recorded messages are now the butt-of-the-joke, but their inclusion here was to keep the horror elements without littering NPCs or to bore the player from the lack of interactions. More importantly, they told the player of what cannot be gleamed from the environments as they provide a contrast to what the player finds. They provided something for your imagination to use. Another aspect that holds up is its environmental storytelling. For example, if you were to compare this game to Fallout 3/NV the biggest difference is how BioShock conveys more with less clutter. The developers were able to focus more so on the visual input, and let the finer details (visual or the audio) fill in the rest. And without the simple distractions like a constant UI notification for junk, the player focuses more on the surroundings. Now are these aspects perfect? God no. BS (and SS) is the originator of the trope of hiding key-codes and/or recording information at the worst times like a Lovecraft protagonist. And compared to F3/NV, BS has tighter and more sensible level-design that lends itself to having the time to add more details. However, it's the purpose and execution behind these storytelling methods that I think is forgotten about why they work so well, and when you dwell further on what the game set out to do you find more of its flaws more obvious now than back then. [h1]Would You Kindly Listen? (Spoilers)[/h1] In spite of wanting to keep spoilers to a minimum, I do want to criticize the narrative because that is what everyone remembers BS most fondly of. No matter how many times I replay this game I can't tell you what the game is really about. BS tries its damnedest to provide an objective, apolitical story about a free-market city freed from conventions of morals and politics. The only problem is that it never commits to the idea of, "Unrestrained societies are possibly bad!", and instead gets jumbled up in its "family" nonsense and blatantly good/evil choice which comes across as being pretentious. (Sound familiar?) It could be argued that Andrew Ryan was right all along—the city fell to parasites like Fontaine—and he was the more upstanding character as he valued merits alone. However, in contrast, the characters like Dr. Steinman and Cohen show that merit is not satisfying enough. Usually I'd be fine with this vagueness of a message, but with the forced good/bad-ending to the game it hampers any middle-ground to be found. It also doesn't help that gameplay can clash with the narrative. For example, why can you leave money on security devices to "hack" machines? (How does that work?) Why does Andrew Ryan let his enemies buy bullets to fight him? Is he that committed to his free-market values? Or, for less pedantic questions, why is the WYK effect on Jack inconsistent? He doesn't appear to remember being "activated" (if he didn't forget it after the plane-crash), and he doesn't respond to the command the same way (ex. when you are told to get the radio and when you are forced to lower your weapon). If it was a simple mental suggestion, then why (when he obviously knows) does he not react with speaking like how he talks at the beginning? (Why is he mute anyway?) The obvious answer to these questions is that the developers were too busy making a good game, and that's perfectly fine. BioShock is a great game for what it tried to do, but it's by no means a masterpiece of storytelling or gameplay. [h1]Is a Man Not Entitled To His Opinion?[/h1] I'm under no dellusion that the remaster will address all these narrative issues. I expect the gunplay to be better and for a better performance like Infinite. What I wanted to share is when you return to Rapture to relive the glory days under the sea it won't be same as what you remembered. Games have come a long way from BioShock in both gameplay and narrative, and the only way we get better is to learn where the mistakes were made behind us.