Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Heavy Rain, BioShock 2 Delayed

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the pulling-a-duke dept.

Games 61

Quantic Dream has announced that their much-anticipated thriller Heavy Rain is being pushed back to 2010. Co-CEO Guillaume de Fondaumiere said that the game is on-time and on-budget, but also that they don't want it to come out at the same time as many other high-profile games. "Most publishers today realize that it's not ideal to release a new IP or a new genre just before Christmas. It's a very crowded place to be, and certain games need more space to live their life. Everybody at working on the project, both at Quantic and Sony, believe this is the right time." Meanwhile, Take-Two announced that BioShock 2 would be delayed as well, backing off from their October 30th EU release date and saying it will come out during the "first half of calendar 2010."

cancel ×

61 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"First half of 2010" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687777)

Isn't really going to be less crowded. Maybe if they wait till late 2010...

Will get over it. (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687809)

Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

Re:Will get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28688019)

On the move to console focus vs PC focus...

I don't have any consoles, but I also no longer play games on the PC. It is just getting too expensive to do this. You need to upgrade to $300+ video cards, upgrade your processor, which also means getting a new mobo, oh, and ram. And a new power supply, etc... Where as a new Xbox/PS is what.. $300 every generation?

It's just getting silly. Of course, I love the new graphics games have, but with the cost of upgrading every two years or so for $2000 just to see that eye candy, plus the cost of the $59.99 games, and games that don't offer anything really new in terms of game play.. it's just not worth it anymore.

Of course, gamers will argue that the games are evolving (sure physics, graphics, etc) and that you can build a decent gaming system for under $1k, you have a keyboard/mouse to control/chat, but I just don't see the value in it anymore. And I find that sad, because I had lots of fun.

Maybe it's also that I grew up a little and have interests in other things too, but I can't see PC gaming GAINING market share vs the consoles with the constant need to upgrade your hardware at exorbitant prices.

Too bad. :(

Re:Will get over it. (1)

Ascagnel (826800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689527)

What are you talking about? About a month ago I bought a new CPU (Q8400), RAM (8GB of it, to be exact), Mobo, HDD (500GB), and GPU (GeForce 8800GT). Granted, not the best system money can buy, but it can play games like TF2, BioShock, and even Far Cry 2 at high/very high details at 1680x1050. Total price: ~$650-$700. As for games evolving, I don't care so much for the graphics or physics unless they actually have an impact on the gameplay. Little titles like Audiosurf do a far better job of using new hardware to make a new gameplay experience.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690545)

Little titles like Audiosurf do a far better job of using new hardware to make a new gameplay experience.

Or Mirror's Edge, using the PhysX engine on nVidia cards to provide a much more vibrant and beautiful world to run around in (due to the tattered, bullet-ridden curtains/flags flapping in the wind, or the way that glass windows shatter when shot/jumped through).

Re:Will get over it. (1)

Ascagnel (826800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28693495)

Little titles like Audiosurf do a far better job of using new hardware to make a new gameplay experience.

Or Mirror's Edge, using the PhysX engine on nVidia cards to provide a much more vibrant and beautiful world to run around in (due to the tattered, bullet-ridden curtains/flags flapping in the wind, or the way that glass windows shatter when shot/jumped through).

That is more what I didn't want to point out-- more hardware just for the sake of graphics that don't impact gameplay. A breaking window is a breaking window. It needs to provide a cathartic satisfaction when it shatters, not do so in the most realistic manner.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28698739)

Where as a new Xbox/PS is what.. $300 every generation?

Wii A$400
Xbox 360 A$550 for the basic model, A$650 for the elite model.
PS3 A$999 for the basic model.

New HDTV minimum A$800 for a small one.
Total costs:
Xbox: A$1350.
PS3: A$1799.

One can easily get a new gaming rig with 24" monitor, Geforce 275, High end C2D or Phenom 720 for around A$1800. Gaming rigs only get expensive when you insist on the highest of the high end components, my rig (Phenom 955 3.2 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, Geforce 285 GTX, 2 TB HDD, CM Stacker 831 Case) cost me under A$2100 delivered.

Further more, console games cost A$20 extra at retail in Australia, this is Assasins creed black addtion, Xbox360 A$149 [ebgames.com.au] , PS3 A$149 [ebgames.com.au] , PC A$129 [ebgames.com.au] . I need only buy 10 games for the PS3 and it has cost more then the PC, this is assuming I don't buy any accessories for the console (A$70 for a controller) or am paying a monthly fee for Xbox Live. Console gaming is now just as expensive as PC gaming.

Further more, PC's can be re-rolled after their life as a gaming PC has passed on, I gave my old gaming rig (now 5 yrs old) to my house mate (I'm a nice person) so he could play Civ 4, I'm using the gaming rig I just replaced as a media centre. A gaming PC does more then just play games.

but I can't see PC gaming GAINING market share vs the consoles

It doesn't need to, PC Gaming is already a larger market then any individual console, PC games have a much longer sales lifetime (Civilisation 4 has been selling for 4 years and is still going). Not every PC gamer plays Crysis, not every PC game has the requirements of Crysis. I can run like Team Fortress 2 on my laptop (C2D 2.1 GHz, 2 GB Ram, Intel IGM X4500) fine at it's native resolution of 1400x900 and I paid A$1300 for that laptop, a desktop of the same spec would have cost less then a PS3.

I'm not against consoles, I have a Wii and it's great fun but consoles cannot take the place of gaming PC's as much as Sony and Microsoft try. This is why Nintendo ate their lunch while being the least powerful, no High Def, no internal HDD and last to market. Nintendo made a console for console gamers rather then try to be a PC gaming console. Certain games like FPS's and Stratergy games cannot be played with console controls without the computer seriously assisting the player.

Re:Will get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28688035)

Everyone's a fucking critic

Re:Will get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28688163)

Are you licensed to hold that opinion, sir?

Re:Will get over it. (4, Informative)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688089)

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending.

Thats not true. The game has three endings that are determined by if you rescue the little sisters or harvest them.

Overall, I think it was a good game but we all have different tastes.

Re:Will get over it. (2, Insightful)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688157)

I thought it was ok but fairly over hyped and I really don't understand all the 'controversy' over the little sisters thing.

As for three different endings, could you be bothered to finish it three times? I couldn't, the game started to drag towards the end the first time round.

But like you say, people have different tastes.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689073)

The flip side of that was that the game was so damn short it really wasn't that hard to finish it three times.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688961)

The game has three endings that are determined by if you rescue the little sisters or harvest them.

Technically, it only has two endings, considering that two of the endings have the same cutscene and voiceover, but that the tone of voice sounds disappointed in one (harvest some but not all of the little sisters) and angry in the other (harvest all of them)

Re:Will get over it. (3, Interesting)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689045)

Those are just different videos, though. No impact on actual gameplay. I was deeply disappointed when I discovered this, as I had hoped for a major difference in the later stages of the game. For example:

1. You rescue all the little sisters. The German doctor helps you defeat the bad guy. You are the good guy. Your altruistic actions demonstrate that Ayn Rand^W^W Andrew Ryan's hypothesis was wrong - altruism is not, in fact, the root of all evil, because it saves the city and the lives of the remaining survivors.

2. You harvest all the little sisters. The bad guy helps you defeat the German doctor. You are a puppet of the bad guy. Your self-serving actions demonstrate that Objectivism is a flawed political philosophy, because greed will always lead to tyranny.

3. You harvest some and rescue others. You escape the city, but only by condemning the remaining survivors to certain death. You are the morally ambiguous guy. You embody Objectivism; you have rejected altruism and acted to maximise your own benefit.

That's how you do three endings! That's the sort of conclusion that the game's beginning implied, because Bioshock does start off very well. And yet, nothing. Just a shitty sub comic-book battle with a cyborg gangster, followed by a selection of three different videos depending on decisions that are otherwise irrelevant.

Re:Will get over it. (3, Informative)

Ascagnel (826800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689569)

In one interview, 2K Boston (the developers) said they didn't like their ending and it was more a matter of not enough time than about really putting and ending on it.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28716667)

For me it was about the journey. Playing tens of hours for the purpose of watching a video i could find on youtube seems like a horrible waste of time.

Re:Will get over it. (4, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688125)

If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

Well, you might as well hold your breath anyway. It's not like you'll die or anything. The worst that will happen is that you'll respawn six seconds away from your current position.

Re:Will get over it. (3, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688145)

Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

I have to agree with that. Choices in a game can be meaningful if they impact the game, somehow. But ending movies? Do they really think I'm going to play through the entire game again just to see a different 30 seconds of badly rendered movie?

Meaningful choices could include keeping one weapon and dropping another, but as you say, you can carry everything with you all the time. Replay value could also have been increased by experimenting with different powers, but again, you can already do that on your first playthrough so why bother?

Ultimately Bioshock was not a bad game, but it was not a successor to System Shock in any way. Instead it was a highly polished, very pretty Doom-clone. And since I've had enough of those by now, I won't be shelling out for part 2.

Re:Will get over it. (2, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688863)

I dunno, any game that ends in 30 seconds of badly rendered movie sounds like a spiritual successor SS2 to me.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

222 (551054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690099)

I thought the movies were fairly well rendered.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28716849)

You could have saved yourself tens of hours and $50 by doing a YouTube search for the end game videos. If that's what you value in a game i suspect many games will disappoint.

i played for the journey. i found it a joy to play. Just moving around in the space, the fighting, using the powers, hacking stuff, setting traps, the voice acting.... Other meaningful choices would have helped re-playability. But while i was playing it, i looked forward to getting home from work so i could get back to Rapture.

On a side note: Check out the difference between opinions and facts when you get a chance.

Re:Will get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28688249)

I completely agree with you. I was thrilled when I heard of Bioshock, but I quickly dumped it again. Sure, the graphics are nice and the atmosphere in the beginning was good, but in the end the game was way too easy, lacked any serious RPG elements, coices where more or less meaningless and the story was not that great afterall. I guess it would still have been a nice game, but it definitely didn't live up to the hype for me.

Re:Will get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690677)

I think the problem with Bioshock was that you cannot make mistakes.

In System Shock2, you could get yourself into difficult positions (wrong weapons, low ammo, should of risked hacking that security level, weapons need repair, wasted nanites and upgrades gives wrong equipment and unbalanced skills, going too deep into an area too quickly or too slowly.. etc) It would not make the game impossible, but your bad choices would make it much harder and you would have to claw your way back to a good position.

In Bioshock I felt I could do nothing wrong. You can make completely random choices and still do fine. It took some of the tension out of it as it felt like nothing you did mattered.

Re:Will get over it. (2, Insightful)

John Titor (880577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688329)

I agree, but the same can be said for most modern games. You can't fail, there is no real death or setback. Most games have a low difficulty factor and even if you do die there is no real penalty. As a result the modern games play out like animated movies. In an effort to reduce a players frustration the big game houses have produced games that offer no challenge and therefore no feeling of accomplishment / reward for completing the game. Ever complete Ghosts n Goblins ? that made you feel good, not everyone can do it without cheats. Three lives sparingly added to and not recovered at the end of each level. If you die - give the player a choice to give up an inventory item (as if you were mugged) or go back to the beginning of a level- make it a penalty of some kind. I stopped playing single player games for this very reason, out smarting a human player is a better challenge, though people in games become predictable after a while too. At least when you fail in a MP game it is a good honest failure.... you lose .

Re:Will get over it. (3, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688337)

Bioshock was a competent game. It's biggest problem was that it had been massively over-sold. On the gameplay front, it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to System Shock 2, which, as you and others have noted, it wasn't. On the story front, it was supposed to set new standards for depth and intelligence in game story-telling. In truth, it wasn't anything like as clever as it thought it was, failing to rise above the level of pseudo-sophistication I'd expect from an overconfident political sciences undergraduate. The element of moral choice was so black and white as to be ludicrous; you could either be an angel or a demon, with nothing in between. If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to Fallout 3, not to Bioshock.

The gameplay was effectively a run and gun shooter with a few irritating-but-easy puzzle minigames and a bit of spellcasting thrown in. I don't actually blame console-ification for this; you can actually have some excellent, deep gameplay on the consoles. I think it was related more to lazy design and a serious underestimation of the capabilities of the target audience.

Of course, it was still a reasonable game, considered on its own terms. The combat was moderately fun, though it suffered from some balance issues that generally encouraged players to be very conservative in their combat tactics, ignoring the more creative ways of using the environment and the plasmids. Visually it was pretty nice, with the art deco theme being generally well realised.

So yes, not actively bad, but if they want to get me excited about a sequel, they need to make clear that they're going to be much more ambitious this time around.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688351)

And yes, I do realise the irony in making post claiming a game wasn't as smart as it thought, while writing "it's" for "its" in the first line.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689053)

If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to Fallout 3, not to Bioshock.

I agree with everything you said except this part ^.

Fallout 3 wasn't much better in terms on moral choices. If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to The Witcher.

Re:Will get over it. (2, Informative)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689975)

Fallout 3 is a mixed bag, perhaps. It has a few choices that are a bit too start "nuke Megaton or save it", but it also has some which are far more complex.

I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

Yes, now.

Right now.

Here be spoilers.

Ok, for those who are still reading, here's the basic synopsis of The Pitt.

The Lone Wanderer picks up a distress call, from the North of the Capital Wastelands. He makes his way there, and comes to the assistance of Werhner, an escaped slave under attack by raiders. Werhner outlines his situation to the Lone Wanderer; he has escaped from slavery in Pittsburg, and wishes for the Lone Wanderer's help in returning there and liberating the slaves.

The Lone Wanderer travels with Werhner to Pittsburg. Unlike most major US cities, "The Pitt" did not receive any direct nuclear strikes during the war, so its buildings are largely intact (though crumbling somewhat after 200 years of neglect). Unfortunately, it wasn't spared the fallout, and the city is highly contaminated, with radiation poisoning, disease and mutation being rife, even by the general standards of the Fallout 3 world. The city is currenly in the grip of a plague that mutates sufferers into mindless, psychotic freaks. It is rumoured that Lord Ashur, the ruler of the Pitt, has developed a cure, but it has not been forthcoming. As part of his plan to free the slaves, Werhner wants you to steal the cure.

At first, the Lone Wanderer has relatively few choices. He follows Werhner's plan to infiltrate the city as a slave. Life in The Pitt is brutal and usually short. The slaves are brutally oppressed by the slavers, many of whom are essentially common thugs. Because the high levels of radiation and mutation in the Pitt make natural reproduction almost impossible, the slave population is maintained through kidnapping of new slaves, as well as trade with the slavers of the Capital Wastelands.

Eventually, the Lone Wanderer manages to win his freedom, through victory in a series of gladiatorial arena battles. As one of the few slaves to win his freedom in this manner, he is granted an audience with Lord Ashur. Werhner's plan is for the Lone Wanderer to use this as an opportunity to steel the cure (killing Lord Ashur if possible), and he has timed a slave uprising to coincide with it. With the city's leadership thrown into chaos by the Lone Wanderer, the slaves would be able to overthrow the regime and escape.

Ok... so far, it all seems simple enough. Oppressed slaves, a charismatic leader trying to win their freedom, and brutal oppressors. Not much of a moral choice here.

Then the Lone Wanderer meets Ashur. Ashur isn't some comic book villain. He's trying to build a functioning society. He doesn't want to use slavery, but so complete has been the collapse of civilisation that the only way to get the rebuilding process started is through force. Once conditions improve, the regime will be relaxed and slavery abolished. Of course, the Lone Wanderer doesn't have to believe Ashur; plenty of characters in Fallout 3 will lie to your face - but he does give the impression of being sincere.

On the subject of a cure, Ashur has more concrete proof. The basis for a cure exists; his own infant daughter, who has been born with natural immunity to the effects of radiation poisoning and the plague. Ashur's scientist wife is working to discern the factors that grant her this immunity, so that it can be replicated. The cure's not going to be able to help the current slaves, but it might be the salvation of the next generation.

Ashur also explains that Werhner is his own former Lieutenant, who turned against him because he wanted more power. Ashur knows that the Lone Wanderer has been sent by Werhner and offers him a choice; turn against Werhner and help surpress the slave revolt.

This was, without a doubt, the most uncomfortable choice I'd ever faced in a game.

On the one hand, you can side with Werhner. In doing so, you help the revolt succeed, overthrow the rulers, deliver some righteous vengeance to the thugs working as slave drivers and act as a beacon for freedom. You also have to abduct an infant (probably killing her parents in the process) and deliver over to someone who by no means has her best interests at heart. You have to put a lot of trust in somebody whose motives are far from pure and who has already lied to you. And, perhaps more importantly, you have to put an end to one of the very, very few instances of somebody in the Fallout universe actually trying to recreate civilisation, rather than merely surviving. Oh, and a lot of those slaves you liberate are just going to wander off into the wastelands and die anyway.

Or you can side with Ashur. You can invest in the next generation at the expense of the current one. You can help to maintain the hope that an actual, functioning society can be recreated. Also, you don't have to do the whole "abduct a baby" thing. There's just that small matter of how you're propping up the leadership of a brutal slave-state and condemning most of the existing slaves to a painful, early death to radiation poisoning, plague or random brutality. The ones, that is, who you don't kill while surpressing the revolt, for no crime other than wanting to be free.

So yeah, take your pick.

In the end, I sided with Ashur. It sounds faintly ridiculous, but I really did feel incredibly guilty over this. Tracking down Werhner, telling him I'd turned against him and running him out of town was one of the most unpleasant things I've had to do in a game. The only problem was that I'd just about decided that the alternative was worse.

As I said at the start, not every choice in Fallout 3 is this sophisticated. There are quite a few "evil" solutions that are clearly just in the game to allow players to role-play a completely over-the-top manifestation of evil. This one, however, really struck me as a genuinely difficult choice between two highly imperfect options and I'd love to see more games which follow suit.

Re:Will get over it. (2, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690211)

I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

Okay, you might be right. I haven't played "The Pitt" because I've been waiting for the chance to buy it without dealing with Microsoft Points. And I didn't read the rest of you message because of the spoiler warning!

More spoilers (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692495)

The interesting thing is that the big moral dilemma makes no practical difference to the game.

If you side with Werhner then you get to appoint yourself Lord of the Pitt in Ashur's place. Werhner doesn't mind, he even volunteers to keep the slaves in line so you don't need to worry about the day-to-day running of the place. You get the same perk either way, and the same benefits.

The only difference is in what the two say. Ashur tells you how in a generation there'll be no more slaves, but for now the slaves are necessary. With Werhner, the slaves may be technicallt free workers, but they still live and work in the same conditions, and are kept in line as brutally as ever, Kind of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I suppose it all comes down to who you trust. Personally, I'm inclined to think both Ashur and Werhner are sincere, but I'm inclined to side with Ashur, who not only seems the more competent of the two but also lacks the bitter, vindictive streak that shows up in Werhner and Medea

Still, all things considered, the choice is about as one-dimensional, and as meaningless as that concerning the little sisters in Bioshock. I do think the Pitt's moral dilemma was far better executed than the one in Bioshock. I just couldn't really tell you why.

Not disagreeing with anything you wrote - just musing, really.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

ruemere (1148095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700805)

Sigh. Another game which tries to turn a false/wrong choice into a meaningful story twist.
Disclaimer: I have not played The Pitt, so I am basing this solely on your account of the game story.

1. World of FALLOUT is pretty big. And empty. There is no reason to stay in Pittsburgh. And for a guy who was able to build a slave state, moving to another location should not be much an issue.

2. Given scarcity of supplies, the easiest way to quell a revolt is to deny the slaves access to things like water, food and so on. The slavers have had sufficient power to control the situation - it's hard to imagine they could not simply hole up for a few days/weeks while the slaves yield.

3. Building future upon the corpses of current generation is evil. However, one does not have to side with anyone.

Regards,
Ruemere

Re:Will get over it. (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701881)

On 1., while the world of Fallout is indeed pretty big (in theory, we know that the entire North American contintent at the very least is wasteland, probably the rest of the world as well - though you could argue this is left ambiguous), it is also pretty much entirely ruined. Pittsburg is, it is made clear, the biggest city left which is actually intact, in the physical sense. It has housing, factories, power, utilities, the lot, just waiting to be switched back on. Other settlements are usually clumps of people trying to survive in makeshift shacks and ruins, using up what's left of the remains of pre-war civilisation. If you want to rebuild an actual, functioning large pre-war style civilisation, as opposed to a network of subsistence level hovels (which is basically the kindest description you could give to the Capital Wasteland), given the lack of construction facilities, Pittsburg makes a lot of sense, provided you can do something about the contamination.

On 2., the slavers are not particularly securely entrenched. One of the big points in the story, which I forgot to cover in my original post, is that for the most part, the big "luxurious" former-hotel where the top bods reside is every bit as dilapidated as the rest of the city. The only section that's been repaired to a higher standard than the rest of the city is the science lab. The city's rulers are outnumbered and the slaves have makeshift but effective weapons. There are plenty of historical parallels for this. Most, if not all states dependant upon mass slavery (where the slave/serf population outnumbers the free population) have survived not on the basis of being able to put down a full-scale slave revolt at any given time, but on denying the slave population the ability to organise said revolt (through denying lines of communication, the use of divide-and-conquer tactics and so on). Once such a society reaches the stage of a wide-scale revolt, its survival can be touch and go.

On 3., yes, that's one possible moral choice. Personally, I disagreed (after some reflection). But the game gives you the option of making the opposing choice, and taking steps that will improve the condition of the current inhabitants right now. I think it's pretty impressive that a game can make me think like that. Of course, you can always choose not to take the quest in Fallout 3. The game gives you the option of just walking away a number of times, before you reach Pittsburg itself. If you do this, however, logic would suggest that one of the two possible outcomes outlined in my post above will eventually still come about; either the revolt will take place and happen, or else it will be quelled, or never take place at all (leaving the regime in power). You just lose the ability to have any influence over the outcome.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

ruemere (1148095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28703033)

First of all, I'd like to emphasize that I am not familiar with Fallout 3, merely with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Secondly, my approach may be considered unfair since it is based more on flexibility available in RPGs, not their computer surrogates.

Having said this, the problem I have with F3 is that it is forcing you to make choice between extremes. It's not something I am fond of - there are plenty of different *good* cRPGs where important choices are given in less heavyhanded way. Or, like in F1 and F2, you may try to make your own choices (like gunning down guys you don't like).

It's just sooo limiting...

Given this, number one can be easily countered with vaults (what's stopping the citizens of Pittsburgh from building their own vaults?). And again, migration is an option especially given "idealism" of the Pitts leader. Why not save both generations?

Number two is about supplies. Since it was made abundantly clear, that contamination levels are high, the food/water supplies should be easily controlled (via remote charges). In this way, you can hold hostage all vital resources.
I find it hard to believe that slavers did not take any such precautions (unless they have had hidden suicidal tendencies).
Historical parallels aside, you have a brilliant scientist leader... why would this guy to fail to prepare for inevitable mutiny? Don't you think that such a supposedly brilliant individual would fail to recognize such problems?

Regarding three... as I said, the dilemma is a false one, since there are several other possible choices immediately available. It's not brilliance of a game, it's just a designer's choice forcing you into awkward situation.
In RPGs it is known as railroading. And, usually, it's a sign of bad storytelling skills.

Regards,
Ruemere

Re:Will get over it. (2, Insightful)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690379)

SPOILERS ahead - if anyone cares.

Re the good vs bad choice ...

They had a crack at introducing moral ambiguity into that when you meet the first little sister - Atlas warns you that there are lives at stake and that the little sister isn't a real child, so you ought to kill her (a monster) so you can survive yourself and save his family. It's not presented as black-and-white which is the best choice in that first decision. Beyond that they didn't make you think about it so much and there was very little penalty to saving them in the rest of the game. They could have worked harder at that aspect.

Re:Will get over it. (3, Informative)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688663)

I disagree and agree. Every FPS basically does what your complaints are. Some (like Call of Duty or Halo for example) might limit how much you can carry, but they're all artificial limits. You can only carry two pistols, or one pistol and a rifle, how are those equivalent spacewise? What I loved about Bioshock was the environment and letting myself become immersed in it. I expected a FPS, and got a FPS, but thoroughly enjoyed the art deco style, the fear they build in when you come around corners and here someone singing, seeing shadows around the bend, the environment they clearly spent time putting together.

And if you want to die more, you can turn off the Vita-Chambers (I think that's their name) so that you don't respawn. That's just a toggle setting.

Re:Will get over it. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28698543)

I disagree and agree. Every FPS basically does what your complaints are.

Correction, every console FPS. If we look at FPS's designed for the PC market such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (or Deus Ex/System Shock back in the day) Where there is an open inventory system where one had to choose what to carry. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s weight based system was excellent, not only did it limit how much you carried had an effect on your character. Carrying close to the weight limit slowed you down while only carrying half of the weight limit allowed you to run further. Granted that there was not that much gameplay variety in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (no stealth/non violent options) it did give the player an awesome amount of choice in how they could fight. Same with tactical shooters like Rainbow 6 (1, 2 and 3, before Ubisoft went after the console market) Operation Flashpoint and ARMA, where you choose your loadout before the mission.

I played Bioshock on the PC and was massively disappointed. Maybe it was better on consoles but coming from the PC I've always been disappointed with console shooters like Halo and Ghost Recon.

Re:Won't get over it. (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691019)

It was a good looking game, and not having played system shock I didn't miss anything. The story line was quite cool, the maps were interesting and expansive. Yes it was short, but I appreciated that it didn't have a lot of the bugs and quirks I'm used to seeing in games. So I think your lack of ignorance is getting in the way of you forming an objective opinion about this game without comparing to others like it. Does every game have to build on and improve other games, or can it just be good on its own?

"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd? (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687811)

All this anticipation must be hard on a company. What with so many people wanting to buy the product, it's a tough business trying to keep them at bay until the time is right. No sense in releasing on time. It's much better to release later so that people have already spent their Christmas money. After all, if those customers are playing other games and have less money, it means that they are more likely to buy this much anticipated game.

Nothing like giving your competitors a chance to gain a foothold. Nosiree. On time and on budget! Delaying release to maximize customer demand. The logic is foolproof!

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd? (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687945)

Look, it's not all about maximising profit. When you've got a game that's going to be so much better than the competition that it would simply blow them out of the market and take all the available money, you have to ask yourself: is this really what I want to do? Is that the sort of person I want to be?

These publishers might have to buy slightly smaller yachts, but at least some other guys will get to order little yachts as well. There's no point in having the biggest yacht at the club if there's nobody else there to lord it over.

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd? (2, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687957)

Movie industry has been doing this for decades. This is not a new technique at all and is smart business.

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd? (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688779)

Unless (until) someone leaks a copy of the finished game that's just hanging around for a few more months just waiting.

Yes, even the much anticipated ones. (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688769)

It's a well-established and much storied fact that any game, no matter how good, can get totally fucked by the Christmas rush. Pick up a back issue of MCV or Edge and you'll find plenty of rueful developers and publishers discussing how their hundred-million-dollar project simply did not sell because the top three slots were occupied by that year's EA Sports titles and a new GTA. Essentially, the game has to sell within a three month window, and if that window is occupied by six must-haves already, then everything is screwed. Even the must haves are screwed because only a small minority of gamers head out and buy a half-dozen titles in a single quarter. It becomes a lottery. No long tail exists for games retail, so once that chaotic launch window has passed, those games are off the shelves and it's all over.

Re:Yes, even the much anticipated ones. (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691617)

The long tail for games is doing just fine, thanks. Digital distribution has cracked open the vaults, and tons of awesome games are available cheaply for your nostalgic pleasure.

Check out GOG.com [gog.com] , for example. Many great games at lot prices with no DRM foolishness. (Yup. I'm an affiliate.) It's a great time to game on the long tail.

Re:Yes, even the much anticipated ones. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691725)

Digital distribution accounts for the cube root of bugger all as far as these sorts of big-budget projects are concerned, though. For them, retail accounts for most of their humongous revenue, and that revenue will all arrive in a lump over about a fortnight because of retail's aversion to carrying a back catalogue. This isn't to understate how online distribution has led to a sales rebirth for pretty much every game that anyone cares to put up for sale, and how it can keep a title in the public mind long after it's been released, but it is of no consolation to somebody hoping to make money back on a $150m project. They're still going to need that release-day blitz.

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690597)

I agree with the poster above me. But also, you may be partly missing the point... I work at a game development studio, and let me tell you, they always want to hit that Christmas sweet spot if they can. The only real reason they would delay the launch by 4 or 6 months, is if the game is not done yet.

They can dress it up with whatever marketing BS they want, but the real reason these games have slipped has got to be, that they need that extra time to finish the game and fix the bugs and polish it up. I've had this happen to one of the games I worked on.

Good news (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687951)

Maybe Quantic Dream will find some time to put some actual gameplay into Heavy Rain now. From what they've shown so far it's Dragon's Lair without the skill or excitement.

Honestly, folks, if I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. And it probably won't have excruciatingly bad actors that you have to prod every few seconds to make them say their next line. Well, unless Keanu Reeves is in it.

Re:Good news (-1, Flamebait)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688595)

??? Nobody has seen gameplay, because none has been shown.

You have already decided you are not going to like it, because it's a PS3 exclusive, and the gaming media have told you to hate anything PS3.

Some people clearly don't have a mind of their own...

Re:Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700797)

They've shown a gameplay walkthrough of the first(?) section.

Good! This is a GOOD THING! (4, Informative)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687993)

A rushed game will be bad forever.

Take the time to get it right, and it will /suck less/.

Please, before all the bitching and moaning, remember - what would you prefer? A good game, or a rushed game?

Re:Good! This is a GOOD THING! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28688075)

Or would you prefer a Duke Nukem Forever?

Re:Good! This is a GOOD THING! (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688341)

A good game, or a rushed game?

I'm not sure. Sequels are often "polished originals" (Doom 2, DKC 2, Sonic 2, ... 2) but I almost always prefer the originals.

Re:Good! This is a GOOD THING! (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688615)

Please, before all the bitching and moaning, remember - what would you prefer? A good game, or a rushed game?

Hmmm, you work at Blizzard, right?

Please, please release D3 in the first half of this century. I try to keep a healthy life but I don't know how many decades I've still got in me.

Re:Good! This is a GOOD THING! (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690769)

I'd prefer not to get screwed like I did with Left 4 Dead. That game is insanely fun but every time I tried to play my fun was ruined by a horrible matchmaking system and gobs of bugs. Lame. I'd have rather waited a year and gotten a game that was playable. :(

Re:Good! This is a GOOD THING! (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691653)

As long as the hero yells "Gotcha, Suckas!" at the end, I will be happy.

I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (2, Insightful)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688465)

I thought it was a decent game; good graphics, excellent atmosphere and really well choreographed scenes & story telling. I've not played System Shock 2, but you can't deny it was good fun. Playing it the 2nd time round is worth doing too; noticing stuff that's explained later on is good fun too - a bit like watching The Matrix the 2nd time round; suddenly everything's much clearer.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (3, Interesting)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28688775)

Because it was just a first person shooter! It was advertized as so much more... In SS2 you have freedom of movement (Bioshock is on rails), you get to make some real choices about how to approach the game (and it matters greatly for gameplay), and it has some fantastic storytelling (of which Bioshock is a pale ripoff).

I've not played System Shock 2

Well, that's your problem right there. Shame it is so hard to find, it is well worth playing, even today.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (1)

autoevolution (1519077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690189)

I haven't played SS2 and only played a bit of BioShock until I got bored of it but if this was anything like Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2 then I would be disappointed as well.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (1, Informative)

$1uck (710826) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690233)

Bioshock is most certainly not on rails. Unless you mean there is really just one course through the game (which isn't true either). When you say something like "on rails" those words have a specific meaning don't ruin the meaning by applying the term when you mean something else.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28692035)

Some of us remember when you could get lost in a game. System Shock 1 was enormous.

Bioshock was a series of arenas connected by tunnels, and felt like it. You pretty much started walking in one direction and then you were at the end of the game.

That is what people mean by 'on rails' in this context.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock (1)

$1uck (710826) | more than 5 years ago | (#28702675)

but it isn't on rails, a rails shooter is something specific. Don't be lazy say wtf you mean. I absolutely loved the atmosphere in Bio-shock, if that means the world isn't huge, then fine. I don't want a world ten times bigger than it needs to be, where 90% of it is empty just making it harder to find objectives especially if it means locations/artwork is just copied or mass produced at a lower quality. Bio-Shock wasn't meant to be Fallout 3 or Oblivion.

Hopefully... (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28689063)

They have delayed BioShock 2 so they can actually put some interactive parts in this time. The first game was so much on rails it wasn't even funny.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?