System Shock 2 vs. Bioshock

For those who have played both games, choose which one you like more.


For me...


System Shock 2's advantages -


- Character development choices feel more important as it doesn't let you have nearly everything on the first playthrough.

- Greater challenge. The resurrection chambers aren't flawed like Bioshock's which don't punish the player for dying.

- I like the inventory screen and being forced to limit the number of weapons and other items.

- SS2 succeeds more as a horror game. It's more desolate and the danger is much greater.

-I like how stealth is often needed. In Bioshock, fighting is usually always the best choice.

- I would have preferred if Bioshock at least had some system in it with the depth of SS2's researching.



Bioshock's advantages -


- The action is a lot more intense and holds up to the best in the genre. The plasmids are much cooler than SS2's psi powers.

- Better graphics and art direction.

- More intriguing setting and premise.

- No weapon breakage. I don't think the idea was bad in SS2 but it was way too frequent.

- Being able to hack turrets and cameras.

- Superior A.I.. The Little Sister/Big Daddy ecosystem is unique.


Both are fantastic games but System Shock 2's advantages slightly outweigh Bioshock's for me.

My weapon in SS2 ALWAYS freakin broke the second those damn exploding robots got in my face. Drove me nuts especially with all the respawning.

I haven't played SS2 in a long time so I'll just say I love 'em both equally. I'm just happy there are no damn exploding robots in Bioshock.

I have hopes and dreams that someone will release a mod for the pc version of Bioshock which aligns it more in tune with that of ss2.

My list of features in no particular order:

- Weapons take damage and need repair.
- Weapon upgrades more customizable.
- I agree Neo with the inventory system in ss2.
- Ammo and Supplies less plentiful.
- Greater variety of enemies ( I think it would have been great if they left the zoo in the game. Splicer animals would have been an interesting foe.)

After dying four times in a Big Daddy encounter (I wasn't prepared for a real challenge seeing as every other fight had been so easy) I figured out that death has no meaning in Bioshock. I think it's an amazing game and all, but System Shock 2 is just better from a straight gameplay perspective.

James

I'm one of the few people who doesn't give a shit about the Vita-chambers in Bioshock, I guess. Considering every FPS on the PC since... well, ever has had the ability to save anywhere, death has never been a big deal in them. People bitched about Bioshock and Prey trivializing death in FPS, but quicksave has been doing that for well over a decade now. Bioshock and Prey just give the nonsense some context.

That said, it's a bit too soon for me to choose. Bioshock still has that new game feel and System Shock 2 has a ton of nostalgia, so I'll have to let some time pass before choosing.

BioShock, for the setting and story alone.

System Shock 2 takes the win for two reasons already stated.

The fact that customization of your character meant something, since you couldn't just get everything in one run like you can in Bioshock. That gave System Shock to a hell of alot more reply.

And as mentioned the Vitachambers in Bioshock are busted.

I think my problem is I played System Shock 2 a long time after it's release.

But yeah, I have to go with Bioshock on this one.

I'm going to have to go with BioShock. System Shock 2 does a lot of the peripheral things better, but the core of the gameplay - combat and exploration - is far superior in BioShock. If the Vita-Chambers came with an actual penalty (I think a fee of $50 plus an eve vial would be enough to make not dying a significant priority but not induce people to quickload constantly) then the game would beat even Deus Ex for best Spector-style FPS.

Speaking of which, Deus Ex should be on this poll - it simply does everything better than both System Shock 2 and BioShock. Combat and stealth are both viable options, the experience and augmentation systems mean that you have to make careful choices on what to improve, and the roleplaying is better than either SS2 or BioShock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

- SS2 succeeds more as a horror game. It's more desolate and the danger is much greater.

---

Disagree with this point. I think Bioshock's sense of horror is more impactful because it more effectively conveys the human angle and a sense of tragedy. It's effective on a psychological level that is really chilling to the bone rather than just superficially scary.

I'm veering to SS2, maybe, but it's way too soon for me to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

People bitched about Bioshock and Prey trivializing death in FPS, but quicksave has been doing that for well over a decade now.

---

I really wish that wasn't the case. I know, I know, "don't use them if you hate them" and all that, but I'd rather most games use checkpoint saves then quicksaves. I'm just too damn weak to avoid saving at every turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bVork

Speaking of which, Deus Ex should be on this poll.

---

I was considering doing an FPS/Adventure poll including Deus Ex instead but then I would have had to consider including the Metroid Prime games, and I haven't played Prime 3. Then there's Dark Messiah which not a lot of TNL'ers seem to have played unfortunately. I agree that Deus Ex is a better overall game than the 'Shocks. If someone combines Deus Ex's level design and complexity with Bioshock's action and artistry, it will be the best game ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Disagree with this point. I think Bioshock's sense of horror is more impactful because it more effectively conveys the human angle and a sense of tragedy. It's effective on a psychological level that is really chilling to the bone rather than just superficially scary.

---

I think that makes its story more chilling but SS2 has that "holy shit, I'm out of ammo and going to die" factor that Bioshock doesn't. That's the horror angle I'm thinking of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tain

I really wish that wasn't the case. I know, I know, "don't use them if you hate them" and all that, but I'd rather most games use checkpoint saves then quicksaves. I'm just too damn weak to avoid saving at every turn.

---

SiN Episode 1 had a great solution to the quicksave/load problem: the game got harder every time you quicksaved and loaded, and got easier when you restarted from a checkpoint. This allowed you to quicksave when needed but discouraged saving and loading every few seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

I think that makes its story more chilling but SS2 has that "holy shit, I'm out of ammo and going to die" factor that Bioshock doesn't. That's the horror angle I'm thinking of.

---

In truth, I think Thief 2 did that better than either SS2 or BioShock. Since at no point do you feel like you could fight your way out the situation and HAD to rely on stealth. I the two scariest moments I've had playing a videogame both happened in Thief games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

I think that makes its story more chilling but SS2 has that "holy shit, I'm out of ammo and going to die" factor that Bioshock doesn't. That's the horror angle I'm thinking of.

---

I'd call that more the survival side of the coin than the horror.

Bioshock is just more fun to fuck around with. I wish there was an editor mode where you could set up a room + splicers with explosives and shit and then just play around with fun ways to kill guys.

Telekinesis, cyclone trap, security drone, prox mines and trap bolts are the super mfing win.

My preference is System Shock 2. When I first played it, I was blown away. In addition, it was the first game to ever scare the shit out of me.

Bioshock is nice, too. It has some of the best delivery in atmosphere and story. But when it comes to gameplay it feels a bit too similar. It isn't something I can particularly define, but that's just how I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

I was considering doing an FPS/Adventure poll including Deus Ex instead but then I would have had to consider including the Metroid Prime games, and I haven't played Prime 3. Then there's Dark Messiah which not a lot of TNL'ers seem to have played unfortunately. I agree that Deus Ex is a better overall game than the 'Shocks. If someone combines Deus Ex's level design and complexity with Bioshock's action and artistry, it will be the best game ever.

---

Don't forget to throw in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for that. It has a strong Deus Ex vibe going for me, though it trades a sense of focus for a more expansive experience. While it doesn't have true upgrades, the focus on getting the right artifacts, armor, and weaponry raises it from typical FPS to adventure fare.

It kills me to have to choose, but I think System Shock 2 slightly edges out Bioshock. As you mentioned, the horror setting is more effective, player advancement choices are actually meaningful (instead of being able to simply get *everything*) and it's much more difficult.

Even taking all of that into account, it's still a very close call. Bioshock's world design annihilates System Shock and I really like how the plasmids are given much greater emphasis than the psi skill.

I just enjoy the polish of Bioshock way, way more.

Betweem Bioshock and System Shock 2 , System Shock 2 clearly takes the take IMO and here's why.

Bioshock is a solid game , the pacing and action is just insane also the innovativeness of the battle system is, simply put, awesome.
The visuals are totally stunning. In the opening scene I could not do much else but stand in awe troughout the whole scene, and the ambiance holy sh** is it good.
But with Bioshock I jave a couple of major gripes.

First of all the game was clearly primirilly made for X360 and not PC and it shows. It was completely adapted and for, what I can only guess is, console convenience. They removed the inventory, which I loved, automatised everything , like picking up items, removed some more complex navigating for a controller to do, like customizing weaponry for an example to what appears to be maintaining the fast paced version on the console.

Also it wouldv'e been nice if they would've had something of a Character customisation. Just like in SS2

Also the hacking minigame just plain sucks. Is was a good concept in SS2, because it was an advantage of a character archetype, and made the character have certain uses but in bioshock, hacking is easy pointless and boring as you might as you can just hack everything you see with ease without using any tools whatsoever.

And also as mentioned before the respawning system is terrible.

Also , even on hard, the game is rather easy difficultywise, I am now 7~8 hours into the game and I have rarely died.

Final word : It would've been nice if they would've done what they did with the game without sacrificing so much of the gameply that people treasured from the original.

Deus Ex should not be in this poll because SS2 and Bioshock are VERY similar. Deus Ex, while closer to these than Quake is, is much different.

I think I give the edge to SS2 because there is a death penalty (albeit not huge) and hacking is harder (and takes less time), meaning that it must be upgraded for someone to ever be successful. In Bioshock, you don't have to be.

As a combat game, Bioshock is better (it's far less clunky), but as an RPG, it wouldn't be. Granted, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be, but it should have since those come around so rarely. Bioshock's production values are also more in line with the competition's than SS2's were.

Deus Ex beats them both IMO. How it managed to have so many ways to do things throughout a very long game is pretty remarkable and I still think that was taken for granted. It hasn't been topped, and it won't be for the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

First of all the game was clearly primirilly made for X360 and not PC and it shows.

---

Once again this is not entirely valid, as they had a separate team working on the PC version, it is not just a port.

Deus Ex still dazzles me today, will Bioshock dazzle in 2014?

Watched a friend play both. I was gonna go after BioShock....and then I saw the Zero Punctuation review thinger..

...and then I didn't need to play it anymore -_-



'guess Bio wins because it is shiny?

I can't believe some of you guys are putting so much emphasis on the lack of death penalty in BioShock. Just reload whenever you "die," and don't abuse the save-anywhere feature by giving yourself checkpoints. Just because those features are there to help more casual gamers doesn't mean you have to abuse it, too. It's almost as bad as EGM bitching about infinite continues in Strider 2.

Quote:

---

don't abuse the save-anywhere feature by giving yourself checkpoints.

---

Developers should manage the difficulty of the game. I shouldn't have to. The game would be at least a little bit better if I didn't have to worry about limiting myself, and I always saw that sort of thing as a bit of a bullshit excuse ("hay zelda TP is hard if you don't pick up life containers hurf"). I have a slight problem with save-anywhere across the genre, though.

The zero punctuation review was right on the money, imo. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. ftw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tain

Developers should manage the difficulty of the game. I shouldn't have to. The game would be at least a little bit better if I didn't have to worry about limiting myself, and I always saw that sort of thing as a bit of a bullshit excuse ("hay zelda TP is hard if you don't pick up life containers hurf"). I have a slight problem with save-anywhere across the genre, though.

---

Exactly. You can make any game hard by putting a bunch of artificial restrictions on yourself. That doesn't change the fact that it's the designers job to properly balance the difficulty themselves.

Hell they could have just put some time of punishment for using the vita-chambers in hard mode only and there ya go, problem solved.

You guys who picked System Shock 2 are fronting. And rampantly I might add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkadius666

First of all the game was clearly primirilly made for X360 and not PC and it shows. It was completely adapted and for, what I can only guess is, console convenience. They removed the inventory, which I loved, automatised everything , like picking up items, removed some more complex navigating for a controller to do, like customizing weaponry for an example to what appears to be maintaining the fast paced version on the console.

---

Why is it that whenever a PC game lacks an inventory people immediately point to consoles as the reason why, as though "a list of stuff" or "things arranged in a grid" is far beyond what console gamers can handle?

There is absolutely, positively no reason a console game can't have an inventory, or customizable weapons, or the ability to pick up individual items. None whatsoever. In fact, there are many console games that do have these, um, "features" (they're so simplistic I hesitate to even use this word for them). Fuck, even Resident Evil 4 had a grid-based inventory, and games don't get much more "console" than that one.

The stuff they changed from System Shock 2 is not hugely complex stuff that only a PC's interface could handle. It wasn't Europa Universalis III. The game is streamlined because Irrational wanted to streamline the game, and they arguably went too far. It's not as if this can't happen without a console's interference, just look at Master of Orion 3, Ultima IX or King's Quest VIII for other examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

The stuff they changed from System Shock 2 is not hugely complex stuff that only a PC's interface could handle. It wasn't Europa Universalis III. The game is streamlined because Irrational wanted to streamline the game, and they arguably went too far.

---

Exactly.

For an example of a game diluted for consoles, see Deus Ex 2. Bioshock was pretty much the best case of dual console/PC development I've ever seen. Nothing at all was sacrificed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ Incompetent

Watched a friend play both.

---

Yeah, because that counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epmode

Exactly.

For an example of a game diluted for consoles, see Deus Ex 2. Bioshock was pretty much the best case of dual console/PC development I've ever seen. Nothing at all was sacrificed.

---

but could they have done the same thing with only one team?

A little off topic, but for those who didn't know or played it, BioShock has an eerily similar resemblance to Deus EX back in '03-04. It had the same type of genetic modifications in BioShock, except it was nano-technology. Also, you could totally hack turrets, cameras, etc in the game.

You should check it out if you haven't already.

lol, wtf. Who in this thread wouldn't know that? I haven't even played Deus Ex banpls and I'm well aware of the shared commodities between the games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

Yeah, because that counts.

---

Which is probably why he didn't vote.

Opaque's last name is Noobmeister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Compass

lol, wtf. Who in this thread wouldn't know that? I haven't even played Deus Ex banpls and I'm well aware of the shared commodities between the games.

---

Alright there snooters.. don't get your panties in a bunch.

I'll have you know my panties are always in a bunch.