By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I actually put Bioshock in to my "most disappointing" category. I know this isn't true for everyone, and I can explain the disconnect.

I personally do not play games for story. I've said that about a bajillion times on this site, and it remains true. I gave this one a shot in hopes it would change my mind, but instead it simply further cemented my sense of tedium at games as a story telling medium.

So with the (in my opinion) poor story out of consideration, I'm left with a game that has very similar mechanics to many other FPS, and essentially identical mechanics to System Shock 2. Seriously it's so close it isn't even funny. From the perspective of someone interested in Bioshock's story, I can understsand why the game was so great. For someone who has no interest in such things, it was basically a graphical upgrade and a pallatte swap away from being System Shock 2. By contrast, a game like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass was right up my alley: I am completely unconcered by the fact that I've played as Link in about twenty games and saved that stupid princess Zelda every freaking time. Story is irrelevant, and I actually appreciate the fact that the story hasn't changed because I don't want to focus on the story in the first place. However, there were significant control innovations in that game, and I am very intrigued by those.

In short, games can innovate in a lot of ways: graphics, story, controls, and gameplay are the main four. Bioshock was innovative in its graphical presentation and its story, and neither of those interests me very much. A game like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass innovates with its control scheme, which I do like quite a bit. And then a game like Portal innovates in its Gameplay, which is definitely my favorite type of gaming innovation (and thus Portal was my GotY).



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">