Take-Two recently confirmed that a sequel to 2007 game of the year contender BioShock is hot in development at 2K Marin - a new studio set up especially for the follow-up. But after the near perfect shooter experience that was our first submerse into Rapture, isn't it time for a change of scenery for BioShock?
Rapture is definitely one of the greatest ever triumphs in gaming environments. The moody dystopian corridors, submerged ball rooms and horribly unsettling 1930s art deco are refreshingly unique for a first-person shooter (and there isn't a space marine in sight), and we absolutely loved exploring the damp corridors and mentalist-filled dentist offices.
But the thing is, we don't really know if we want to go back. Rapture's story has pretty much been cleaned up through both the events of the first BioShock and the rich back story laid out in recordings and memos scattered around the city.
If the sequel were to return to the underwater dystopia, surely all it'd succeed in doing is cheapening the events of the original game, like Blair Witch 2 starring Angelina Jolie as the all-singing, all-dancing Witch.
It might sound a bit of an OTT subject to throw 700 words in an article at, but BioShock was one of those entertainment events that struck such a chord with us we want the sequel to be absolutely perfect (and hopefully not pull a Deus Ex: Invisible War on us).
Of course there are still plenty of areas of the fallen city we didn't get around to seeing (like all those big skyscrapers glimpsed in the game's opening sequence), and we'd never doubt that the game's masterminds to come up with endless more amounts of spooky architecture.
But no mater how hard they scribble and design, it'll never be the same as the first time we stepped out of the submergence pod into the dripping city station. We want to see something new.
The finale doesn't exactly set up an exciting return to the Ryan-less Rapture anyway, so common sense and popular rumour suggests that prequel territory is where 2K Marin will go, which in our opinion is just as shaky.
For a start the same concerns we have for a direct follow-up are there; Rapture's sparkle would've dampened and the magician's magic tricks would be posted up on the wall for all to see.
It'd also be a bit boring if the start-up Utopia was full of happy faces and friendly plastic surgeons, instead of lots of ugly mutants to shotgun into the back wall. Depending on how 2K angles the story, an ample amount of enemies would either cheapen the events of the first game or make BioShock 2 feel exactly like the first game anyway.
For BioShock 2 to top the original we need something even more surprising, even bolder, and even more radically different than the underwater confines of the original were from the generic FPS battlegrounds of every other game.
What'd make us incredibly happy bunnies is a totally new time and setting that carried across the themes of the original Bioshock - and with almost two more years of development to go, we know 2K's got the cooking time to pull it off.
Look at what Ubisoft has done with its excellent-looking follow up to Far Cry. It's taken the themes and core gameplay ideals of the Jungle-set original and moved it to a totally diverse and visually intriguing new environment.
Even Bioshock itself is a spiritual sequel to cult classic shooter System Shock - a game which carried just as much feeling of isolation and post-judgement day as its 2007 cousin.
We'd be incredibly pessimistic not to trust the BioShock boys to make the follow-up just as absorbing and artistically thrilling as the first game - and we're sure they'll prove us wrong. But 2K, if you're listening - take the Big Daddy out of the ocean, we want to go swing our wrenches somewhere else.
"Look at what Ubisoft has done with its excellent-looking follow up to Far Cry. It's taken the themes and core gameplay ideals of the Jungle-set original and moved it to a totally diverse and visually intriguing new environment."
Actually, what Ubisoft did is recycling a somewhat reputable brand by slapping it on a completely different game, with a different plot and setting, a different engine, a different development team, different... everything. If FC2 turns out to be good, then who cares, but let's get the facts straight.
Still, the point about BS2 being a "spiritual" sequel instead of a straight follow up is valid and well-supported.
I agree with a lot of the article - however it's hard to imagine Bioshock 2 not taking place in Rapture really. The idea of a place with its own ruler,rules and rebels was brilliant. And while a prequel may not be as good, I feel Rapture still has enough intrigue to be a setting for another game.
Changing location would be loco crazy. they've got a great location and can easily get another game out of it. All that effort into Rapture and just for one game? i don't think so.
As long as they sort out the few issues that Bioshock had then id pretty much be happy with another Bioshock with different locations and a few changes here and there. Obviously multiplayer needs to be added.
Whatever the outcome its going to be tough for them to screw this up.
It can work, just not on the scale that it already has. I think it might need a reimagining. There's nothign to say that the early Rapture background might not work nicely against a film noir type adventure.
Steady on. Let's not develop a rose-tinted glasses syndrome surrounding this game. It was a great game overall but nothing like 'near perfect'. I give it 90%. No more, no less.
Steady on. Let's not develop a rose-tinted glasses syndrome surrounding this game. It was a great game overall but nothing like 'near perfect'. I give it 90%. No more, no less.
Perhaps instead of changing the location, change the gameplay. I found Bioshock to be a better horror adventure than a shooter - one which summonded the spirits of The Shining, no less - so more of an emphasis on the exploration/creepy set-piece side could give Rapture a new lease of life.
I'd be amazed if they pulled off the same balance of action and creepiness and managed to throw in such a cool twist at the end of the game just for good measure.
I'd like, however, to be proven wrong, because Bioshock was "the balls".
Steady on. Let's not develop a rose-tinted glasses syndrome surrounding this game. It was a great game overall but nothing like 'near perfect'. I give it 90%. No more, no less.
90% is 'near perfect'.
No, 95%+ is near perfect. 90% is just bloody good.
Set it on the moon 20 odd years later in a biosphere with a massive city inside. You could have minimal gravity sections on the moons surface or am I talking b******s? A big Daddy in a spacesuit?
I can't believe they're still pimping this game as the spiritual successor to System Shock 2. It has no stats, and a bunch of plasmids that barely change as they apparently increase in level. The story is well conveyed and the voice acting and graphics are both very good, but I honestly can't see people playing this in a decade's time. I suppose the next one will be dubbed 'The spiritual prequel to System Shock 3'. XD
The story of Rapture has been told. There is no need for a sequel. put down your pens, the game is a piece of art as it is. too many chefs spoil the broth, and we do not want to ruin bioshock.
Perhaps instead of changing the location, change the gameplay. I found Bioshock to be a better horror adventure than a shooter - one which summonded the spirits of The Shining, no less - so more of an emphasis on the exploration/creepy set-piece side could give Rapture a new lease of life.
Agreed. The article was completely wrong in saying Bioshock was near perfect shooter experience, as the shooting part was what kept the game away from near perfection. Making the game more akin in to a survival horror game would be more fitting, and would force more experimentation by the player then the first.
Agreed. The article was completely wrong in saying Bioshock was near perfect shooter experience, as the shooting part was what kept the game away from near perfection.
I agree with you there some what, I do believe the game itself was near perfect (great story and twist, great setting and music) but the enemies were too similar and most of all even on the hard difficulty I managed to get through most of the game with just my Plasmids and my trusty wrench!!! Using only Electric buck shotgun on the Big Daddy's, and on the final boss. Usually Im all for using guns, but the guns in BS seemed too floaty, lacked punch and were geared towards a console market (I mean what's with the 'crosshair'?!)
On the issue of BS2, I partially agree witht the article that taking the ideas and philosophy from Rapture and transferrin it elsewhere would be a gd idea (like FC2, look forward to tht).
But also I wouldn't mind going back to Rapture either. I mean by the end of the game I felt like i hadnt seen it all and that feeling you get from the city and its period-art deco is still good enough for another game.
Either way whatever Take-Two does with BS2 cant be worse than whatever EA would have planned for it
I have a feeling they'll probably go for a sequel - and I imagine they'll do a bloomin' good job at it too!
But, I wouldn't mind seeing a similar theme to the first Bioshock, but this time set in space? I know what everybody's thinking, that it's been done to death. But just do what the original one did, where the people who went to live in Rapture thought of it as a brave new world. Somewhere to broaden and explore the human mind and what it can do.
You can do the same in space - if anything it'll be a better setting. Set it in the year... I dunno, 2165 or something. Humans like the ones in Rapture decide to live in their own little bubble on a space station, millions and million of miles away from the Earth. Then it all goes wrong, like the first Bioshock
Maybe even the descendant of Ryan/Atlus could set it up. I'm not sure what sort of theme they could use for the space setting though - as let's face it, most space ships can look boring. The 30's style of the original game is what sets it apart.
All I want to know is why do you assume that the big daddy will be, or should be, present in a sequel. The big daddy's were awesome but to use them again could very well ruin them. It seems a pointless risk.
This whole article sounds like a whinge rant to me. I like the idea of a prequel Bioshock game and actually seeing Rapture before it all turned to crap. Sure we had the recordings telling us what happened before Fontaine decided he didnt like the way things were run and trashed the place but actually being in Rapture itself before the events leading up to the first game is an interesting idea if its done properly.
Developers that can come up with something as crazily original as Rapture will be capable of imagining anything. I for one, agree wholeheartily with the article. Don´t try to make [i]Rapture better, but try to top the Bioshock experience. If you want to go from bloody good to near perfect, a new setting will do wonders , especially with a bunch of developers that can pull it off...
DO NOT MAKE A BIOSHOCK 2! did leonardo da vinci paint more trees in the background of the the mona lisa? no. because it was art as it was.
"Painting more trees in the background" would be TakeTwo changing Bioshock. Which they aren't doing. I'm pretty sure Leo Da vinci painted more than one painting, which in your analogy is what they're trying to do.
Firstly, Bioshock is not 'next gen'. How can it be when it utilizes DirectX9, which is graphics technology which has been around since at least 2004. Bio was the best looking DX9 game by far at the time granted (until Unreal Tournament 3, Gears of War etc came out). Crysis runs in DirectX10 (although isn't all that good a game). That's 'next gen' by definition of utilizing the next generation of graphics tech.
It's also hardly worthy to be a spiritual successor to System Shock 1 or 2. Why, just because it rips off many many of SS2's key elements such as the annonymous guide or the 'where am I and why's everyone dead' setting?
It's similar, and Ken Levine has every right to call it the spiritual successor to his System Shock games if he wants, so you can't argue with that really. But on the other hand, it's a straight forward shooter. SS2 isn't, it's a lot more of an RPG and also happens to be far superior. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who's actually played the older game who dissagrees.
However, after all that ranting, I agree - Bio is an ace game. I don't think it needs a sequel unless it's very different... but how they'd make a 'Bioshock' 2 without going underwater I don't know - unless they called it something else, which they haven't.
My opinion that they'll keep the setting... it'll end up being too similar to the original to be anything other than more of the same, but it'll sell well, so the publishers don't care!
It'd be interesting if they went back to the original concept for BioShock: a decaying soviet bio-resarch facility, complete with its own (heavily mutated) ecosystem.
The sequel will almost certainly be viewed as inferior no matter where they set it. The only reason Bioshock got such a positive reception was because it was stylistically so refreshing in comparison to the concept-barren, cliché-ridden worlds that usually fill FPS games (Gears of War, Halo).
Taken out of context Bioshock really isn’t that great. The story, despite what people say, isn’t revolutionary (to anyone who has ever seen a movie or read a book anyway) and the gameplay isn’t spectacular either. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good game, but after the big plot twist it went completely downhill, and the end was terrible.
Bioshock just happened to be the right thing at the right time. Second time around it won’t have any of the novelty or refreshingly different style that made it so appealing. That is, unless they completely overhaul everything and pitch something that has no resemblance to Bioshock. But I can’t see that happening while they have a nice new cash cow to milk.
It'd be interesting if they went back to the original concept for BioShock: a decaying soviet bio-resarch facility, complete with its own (heavily mutated) ecosystem.
It'd be interesting if they went back to the original concept for BioShock: a decaying soviet bio-resarch facility, complete with its own (heavily mutated) ecosystem.
Too much like STALKER and Half-Life.
That's absolutely nothing like STALKER, since STALKER is almost entirely set outside.
My suggestion for a Bioshock prequel was to have the city fully populated, before the Plasmid abuse turned it all to hell. I'd have it more first-person adventure than FPS, but obviously with the shooter/plasmid elements available.
The story would start off with the player finding something suspicious, maybe a murder or something. Obviously the first of it's kind in a place like this. You then have to run around and find out what happened. Along the way you start to find evidence of people abusing the Plasmids and going a bit nuts because of it. The further through the story you go, the more the people around you begin to get less normal and lose the plot.
It works in terms of creepiness because you know what's going to happen in the future already. Imagine, for instance, seeing a few kids that resemble Little Sisters, but while they're still human. You interact with them as regular story characters, knowing that you're gonna end up killing them in the future.
The climax of the story would have the downfall of the entire city, with your character either going mad like the rest of them or getting killed off in a flooded area.
We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! and it, and it's all like CRAAWWWLL a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?and then an eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna-mite...
To me it would be simple: At the end of Bioshock all the mutants go to a Navy ship. Place the sequel in that ship and/or a small island were its militar base is.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
It has no stats, and a bunch of plasmids that barely change as they apparently increase in level. The story is well conveyed and the voice acting and graphics are both very good, but I honestly can't see people playing this in a decade's time. I suppose the next one will be dubbed 'The spiritual prequel to System Shock 3'. XD
, especially with a bunch of developers that can pull it off...
