Zero Punctuation: BioShock

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

It's simply a disservice to gamers to discourage them from playing Bioshock because it's too similar to a game that most of them have probably never heard of, or never even played in their entire lives.

It's not just that. I've never played SS2, and I could not care less that it is like that one game in anyway. What I don't like is that Bioshock is just a pretty standard game. It does nothing adventurous, it's just a very prettily wrapped up lump of mediocrity.

I'm still trying to find the part where in he discourages people from buying one of the best games of the year... In fact he says upfront and simply that it is one of the best games of the year. And he says that it being easier than SS2 is a good thing, simply that it may in fact be too easy. Seeing as how easy is relative to everyone and can only be a matter of pure opinion, it tends to be the kind of thing you take or leave, period.

As to the "dumbed down for consoles" "PC elitist" argument, I'm rather confused what exactly you are arguing. If you're arguing that Bioshock IS as complex as Stalker, Dues Ex, System Shock, et all, you're wrong, period, it's provable, and it seems to be generally admitted. It doesn't really matter how many hours a day console gamers spend playing, the AAA games made for them are less complex on average. Whether that is a good thing is certainly up for debate. It doesn't matter how hardcore of a gamer you are, the game is what it is and thats how the developers seem to be making them. Want that to change... tough, nobody in corporate gives a shit.

Back on difficulty, personally I think we would all rather have scaling difficulty but at the end of the day certain design choices make scaling fundamentally impossible. A game either is easy, or is hard. Either the gamers who enjoy a good challenge are left in the cold with an awesome storyline that forces them to wade through miles of lukewarm piss gameplay to experience it, or the gamers who enjoy easy entertainment are left with an awesome story that they can't ever experience in it's entirety without breaking their tv in frustration. Bioshock choose story first so that anyone can experience the entire thing, not all games have, or will make that choice.

scytherage:
It's this kind of 'elitist PC fanboy taint' that reduced my ability to even take the review seriously.

Serious? The review is menat to entertain, not just inform. You will very rarely find a funny, entertaining review that is unbiased. Why? Because opinions are funny things.

scytherage:
Reviews shouldn't focus so much on a game's weaknesses; it should also look into a game's strong points.

He explains why he did that at the beginning of the review. In the Psychonaughts review he put more time into the strengths of the game, and it turns out people preferred him when he commented on the weaknesses. That's pretty much the case with 75% of all journalism. People like seeing the worse parts of things.

SaraPh:
As to the "dumbed down for consoles" "PC elitist" argument, I'm rather confused what exactly you are arguing. If you're arguing that Bioshock IS as complex as Stalker, Dues Ex, System Shock, et all, you're wrong, period, it's provable, and it seems to be generally admitted.

Personally, that is not what I was arguing. I was arguing against people using "console" and "casual" as interchangeable words, then using that interchangeability to claim that Bioshock was aimed at casual players, and concluding that Bioshock is the way it is to please the console kiddies.

Back on difficulty, personally I think we would all rather have scaling difficulty but at the end of the day certain design choices make scaling fundamentally impossible. A game either is easy, or is hard. Either the gamers who enjoy a good challenge are left in the cold with an awesome storyline that forces them to wade through miles of lukewarm piss gameplay to experience it, or the gamers who enjoy easy entertainment are left with an awesome story that they can't ever experience in it's entirety without breaking their tv in frustration. Bioshock choose story first so that anyone can experience the entire thing, not all games have, or will make that choice.

Exactly. A design choice, that was not necessarily forced by the platform for which it was developed, or the 'supposed' audience that exists on one versus the other.

scytherage:
Reviews shouldn't focus so much on a game's weaknesses; it should also look into a game's strong points.

I'm glad a video game publication finally had the balls to point out the game's deficiencies (albeit in a fairly tongue-in-cheek manner). If you want a summation of the games strong points, look up any other game website, because they're all busy drooling over the game, claiming it as the best thing since sliced bread.

Tarmanydyn:
I'm glad a video game publication finally had the balls to point out the game's deficiencies (albeit in a fairly tongue-in-cheek manner). If you want a summation of the games strong points, look up any other game website, because they're all busy drooling over the game, claiming it as the best thing since sliced bread.

Or, just check out Russ's Bioshock Review, which is considerably more positive in tone, though if you look carefully they both say similar things about the actual game.

Geoffrey42:

SaraPh:
As to the "dumbed down for consoles" "PC elitist" argument, I'm rather confused what exactly you are arguing. If you're arguing that Bioshock IS as complex as Stalker, Dues Ex, System Shock, et all, you're wrong, period, it's provable, and it seems to be generally admitted.

Personally, that is not what I was arguing. I was arguing against people using "console" and "casual" as interchangeable words, then using that interchangeability to claim that Bioshock was aimed at casual players, and concluding that Bioshock is the way it is to please the console kiddies.

Back on difficulty, personally I think we would all rather have scaling difficulty but at the end of the day certain design choices make scaling fundamentally impossible. A game either is easy, or is hard. Either the gamers who enjoy a good challenge are left in the cold with an awesome storyline that forces them to wade through miles of lukewarm piss gameplay to experience it, or the gamers who enjoy easy entertainment are left with an awesome story that they can't ever experience in it's entirety without breaking their tv in frustration. Bioshock choose story first so that anyone can experience the entire thing, not all games have, or will make that choice.

Exactly. A design choice, that was not necessarily forced by the platform for which it was developed, or the 'supposed' audience that exists on one versus the other.

Would you stipulate that there are more "casual" gamers on the consoles?
And because of the number of consoles V PC out there they have to "market down" to them in order to sale their products better?

In defense of bioshock about a point that you and every other reviewer complains about....

The vita chambers only make the game too easy if you CHOOSE to play the game like that. In Bioshock, we are given two options to deal with death; We can accept the free rez if the fight is too challenging OR you can play it just like a standard fps and reload and try again. If you want a challenge, start saving and reloading as you die. You will soon realize this game can be very challenging.

We should be praising the game for giving us these two great options to allow us to play the game how we feel it needs to be rather than ignoring one and bashing the option we don't like.

Aside from that, thanks for the great videos. Keep it up!

But that's the thing, this game isn't very challenging. On normal, you'll die a handful of times, if that, because the only thing that's really dangerous is you and a Big Daddy, and a handful of electric buckshot will bring down a Big Daddy like no one's business. I topped off every chance I could and never had less than 10 shells.

I think the biggest problem is that the Vita Chambers attempt to answer an out of game mechanic question (what happens if I die without having saved recently?) in an in-game way. The way they chose to implement it is really jarring. We're already asked to believe in Rapture, which, and let's get this straight, is hard to swallow on a good day. A city that looks like Manhattan, on the bottom of the ocean? Yes, it isn't quite that big. But it's got skyscrapers at several fathoms down. I'm wondering exactly how many marine engineers looked at it and said "Ooh, pretty. But no way, not at that pressure."

To me, the Vita Chamber is just another element of that. It's an obstacle to creating suspension of disbelief that also reduces the difficulty curve to a flat line. You can have some of those in a game, and testament to that fact is Bioshock quality itself, but it's still a strain.

Difficult is not what I think of with this game.

ZippyDSMlee:
Would you stipulate that there are more "casual" gamers on the consoles?
And because of the number of consoles V PC out there they have to "market down" to them in order to sale their products better?

Actually, I would not stipulate that. Unless you have some surveys/studies to point towards, my understanding/assumption is that the mix of casual/hardcore and in between on any platform is essentially the same, with mild variation. In my experience, the idea that console users are "kiddies", or majority "casual", is a self-important belief held by PC evangelists.

I think all of the platforms have strengths and weaknesses, and fulfill a niche, I just dislike this sort of scapegoating on "the other".

Geoffrey42:

ZippyDSMlee:
Would you stipulate that there are more "casual" gamers on the consoles?
And because of the number of consoles V PC out there they have to "market down" to them in order to sale their products better?

Actually, I would not stipulate that. Unless you have some surveys/studies to point towards, my understanding/assumption is that the mix of casual/hardcore and in between on any platform is essentially the same, with mild variation. In my experience, the idea that console users are "kiddies", or majority "casual", is a self-important belief held by PC evangelists.

I think all of the platforms have strengths and weaknesses, and fulfill a niche, I just dislike this sort of scapegoating on "the other".

So because consoles have 5 or 10 times the amount of users compared to the PC it must have a even amount of hardcore and casual gamers?
If this were the 90s still I might believe you.... sadly with the mediocreness begin pushed by the industry as the best sht ever sorry I wont buy it for a minute, the industry knows it can take advantage of consumer unawareness and sale bargain bin games for top dollar and sadly the damn woolies will eat it up, I guess I have lost it and gone insane to see reality for what it is.

Once this 'review' stated that the game was 'dumbed-down' for 'console-tards', that pretty much destroyed any credibility and apparent objectivity this review might have. It's this kind of 'elitist PC fanboy taint' that reduced my ability to even take the review seriously.

It's this kind of obvious 'elitist Console fanboy taint' that reduced my ability to take your views seriously. :D.

Games for Consoles have to be 'dumbed-down', not because we 'PC elitist Fanboys', as you like to call us, think all console players are retards (although a very few do hold this belief) but because the console genuinely cannot do some of the things a PC can.
Pour Example: TES4:Oblivion. That was developed for both PC and Console... what PC owners of the game got was a lazy, and I mean very lazy, port. The menus were claustrophobic, the constant loading (though not as bad as the console) were in strong evidence, especially when riding and countless other small niggling features that obviously serve console users and not PC users.

Luckily for us we have both free and very easy access to the construction set and the very files that make up some core parts of the game, we can make half the problems go away; menus have been made longer for instance to take advantage of the high resolutions and close user distance from the monitor.

That we have such a uniquely mod-able game is a blessing, but it does not change the fact that, because it's primarily console based, the game had to sacrifice some features that a PC user would cherish.

There are some areas that are unmodable however, leaving the game, while still one of the best Hack and Slash RPGs I could name, not quite what it could have been if it was a PC exclusive title.

Consoles also lack the power of a PC. Tell me do you think that a game like Supreme Commander would run on a Console? No. Would that game be ruined by the 'Dumbing-Down' that would have to occur to make it run smoothly on a console, sacrificing key features and graphics for enough runtime to handle the unit load? Very possibly, yes.

I'm not going to argue any more, but if you truly believe that a console is equal to a PC then, while you are mistaken, I'm sure I can't change your mind on a message board such as this.

ZippyDSMlee:
So because consoles have 5 or 10 times the amount of users compared to the PC it must have a even amount of hardcore and casual gamers?
If this were the 90s still I might believe you.... sadly with the mediocreness begin pushed by the industry as the best sht ever sorry I wont buy it for a minute, the industry knows it can take advantage of consumer unawareness and sale bargain bin games for top dollar and sadly the damn woolies will eat it up, I guess I have lost it and gone insane to see reality for what it is.

I think you're missing the point. The sheer number of "casual" gamers on the PC dominates the number of "hardcore" PC gamers. You might not consider them "gamers" but they are people that play videogames, on a PC. In fact, if I had to put money on it, I would bet that the ratio on a PC of casual-to-hardcore is HIGHER than it is on all consoles combined. My reasoning being that people (by and large, forget PS3 marketing) buy consoles to play videogames. People buy PCs for a variety of reasons, including gaming, but some people stumble upon it after the fact. They bought a wordprocessor, and they ended up with videogames.

These are casual players. As in the other thread, think Bejeweled. Solitaire. Minesweeper. Casual gaming.

Edit: I just noticed your "5 to 10 times" bit. What? Are you serious? 5 to 10 times more console users than PC users? My understanding of the world is very different from yours. I'm not entirely sure we even live in the same one.

Nanolathe:
Consoles also lack the power of a PC. Tell me do you think that a game like Supreme Commander would run on a Console? No. Would that game be ruined by the 'Dumbing-Down' that would have to occur to make it run smoothly on a console, sacrificing key features and graphics for enough runtime to handle the unit load? Very possibly, yes.

Based on the minimum specs for Supreme Commander, I would have to say, yes, both the Xbox360 and PS3 could run the game. Would the control scheme need to be drastically changed? Yes. And as far as I know, no one has been innovative enough to really make a good console oriented RTS control scheme, but I put that down to lack of effort, on half-assed console ports of PC RTSs.

I'm not going to argue any more, but if you truly believe that a console is equal to a PC then, while you are mistaken, I'm sure I can't change your mind on a message board such as this.

Console != PC, and that's what I've been saying all along. But along the same lines, Console !> PC, and Console !< PC. They are different. Everything beyond that is personal preference, for different niche purposes. I still have not been convinced that a console game must inherently be "dumbed down" to survive on a platform.

The PC will always be the more versatile platform to produce certain sorts of games for because of the range of input as well as freedom the mouse/keyboard combo provides, coupled with decent hard drive capacity and graphical superiority. Fact of the matter is that consoles are locked systems with fixed limitations and subsequently the games developed on them are always going to be ham stringed by those limitations. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great games on consoles, GT, ICO, Tekken, etc, but games like FPSRPGs aren't their strong point.

The core to Yatzees review is the fact that when you look beyond the graphics and setting at Bioshock it's not actually a progression onward in gaming design from it's predecessor System shock 2. In fact it's less than it in terms of complexity and that in itself is the shame to the game. SS2 was one of FPS RPGs genres finest moments, Irrational instead of trying to go beyond it in terms of game play in say the same way that Valve topped Half life with half life 2, went down the same route Ion storm did with Deus Ex 2:IW in removing much of the depth.

I think you put it better than I did Kadayi, and a little less hostilely too. Kudos.

Nobody ever said a game has to be more complicated than another for it to be better than it. The whole point of gaming is to have fun. People today just try to write off a game by looking at the technical layout (how many cars a freeroamer has, graphical performance, etc) but if you're so determined to evaluate a game based off reading technical builds and reviews, then quite frankly you don't even know what you want, or what you need to have fun.

quite frankly you don't even know what you want, or what you need to have fun.

And you do? How can you know my mind better than I know it myself? I know exactly what I want and need to have fun. Bioshock does not fulfil these needs or wants.

Nanolathe:
you know my mind better than I know it myself

Yay! Quotes just barely in context are so much fun!

Nanolathe:
And you do? How can you know my mind better than I know it myself? I know exactly what I want and need to have fun. Bioshock does not fulfil these needs or wants.

Never said i did. I'm talking about people who draw these conclusions based on what the game is on paper, not from conclusions they draw by playing the game. If you didn't find it fun after playing it and using that to draw the concusion, I'm not referring to you.

Geoffrey42:

Nanolathe:
Consoles also lack the power of a PC. Tell me do you think that a game like Supreme Commander would run on a Console? No. Would that game be ruined by the 'Dumbing-Down' that would have to occur to make it run smoothly on a console, sacrificing key features and graphics for enough runtime to handle the unit load? Very possibly, yes.

Based on the minimum specs for Supreme Commander, I would have to say, yes, both the Xbox360 and PS3 could run the game. Would the control scheme need to be drastically changed? Yes. And as far as I know, no one has been innovative enough to really make a good console oriented RTS control scheme, but I put that down to lack of effort, on half-assed console ports of PC RTSs.

Heh. would you happen to be a comedian by any chance? It might just be me being the slightly jaded PC gamer that I am, but experience tells me to ignore whatever minimum specs are printed on the box, and for Supreme Commander, that is definitely the case. Yes, Sup Com will run on those specs, but, I'll put it this way, my machine meets the recommended specs rather easily and it still sometimes drops to about 5 fps in large battles. One RTS port that appears to be doing ok is C&C 3: Tiberium Wars, but thats a completely different kettle of fish.

The Eupho Guy:
Heh. would you happen to be a comedian by any chance? It might just be me being the slightly jaded PC gamer that I am, but experience tells me to ignore whatever minimum specs are printed on the box, and for Supreme Commander, that is definitely the case. Yes, Sup Com will run on those specs, but, I'll put it this way, my machine meets the recommended specs rather easily and it still sometimes drops to about 5 fps in large battles. One RTS port that appears to be doing ok is C&C 3: Tiberium Wars, but thats a completely different kettle of fish.

I like to think I'm funny, but I'm not quitting my day job, THAT's for sure. And no, minimum specs are never quite enough for any PC game, but they do represent the bare minimum, and there will be people out there riding the line.

What bugs me a little in this whole discussion is that when discussing the capabilities of PCs, people tend to talk about cutting edge PCs. Most of the PC gaming community, myself included, are not running those hypothetical machines. Right now, my PC is about as powerful as a 360 (give or take). Based on the Steam hardware survey, I'm not alone in running a rig in that range.

For the sake of argument, if we plotted the performance distribution of PCs used for gaming, I'm going to bet that we'd get a bell curve. I'm also going to bet that with "performance" increasing from left to right, the graph will be right-skewed (most mass on the left, with a long tail out to the right). If I showed you a picture of that, and asked you which part of the graph would be a useful basis for comparison against something else, where would you point? The 66% encompassed by +-1 SD? Or the 0.1% at +3 SD?

I <3 my PC, which was built lovingly with my very own hands. But, I love my consoles too. I just get irritated when people start blaming consoles for ruining their PC games.

Geoffrey42:
I like to think I'm funny, but I'm not quitting my day job, THAT's for sure. And no, minimum specs are never quite enough for any PC game, but they do represent the bare minimum, and there will be people out there riding the line.

What bugs me a little in this whole discussion is that when discussing the capabilities of PCs, people tend to talk about cutting edge PCs. Most of the PC gaming community, myself included, are not running those hypothetical machines. Right now, my PC is about as powerful as a 360 (give or take). Based on the Steam hardware survey, I'm not alone in running a rig in that range.

For the sake of argument, if we plotted the performance distribution of PCs used for gaming, I'm going to bet that we'd get a bell curve. I'm also going to bet that with "performance" increasing from left to right, the graph will be right-skewed (most mass on the left, with a long tail out to the right). If I showed you a picture of that, and asked you which part of the graph would be a useful basis for comparison against something else, where would you point? The 66% encompassed by +-1 SD? Or the 0.1% at +3 SD?

I <3 my PC, which was built lovingly with my very own hands. But, I love my consoles too. I just get irritated when people start blaming consoles for ruining their PC games.

I <3 my PC too, although a friend built mine, the prospect of wrecking rather expensive hardware was enough for me to ask someone else (plus that's his job)

I agree that the emphasis should be placed more toward the median of computer hardware, but I think the perception is that its easier to talk about the cutting edge because a)It looks better and b)It is easier. As long as there are differences in hardware, there will always be idiots saying "Mine is better than yours" which is easier to do when you take a look at the biggest and best, not something that might be a year or two old.

I really don't have a problem with console ports on PC, mainly because they aren't games I usually play, I'm more of a strategy fan, although with the current batch of RTS games I've played, (Supreme Commander not included) I might have to start looking at other genres for new games as most of the current RTS games haven't impressed me much :(

The Eupho Guy:
One RTS port that appears to be doing ok is C&C 3: Tiberium Wars, but thats a completely different kettle of fish.

C&C:TW came out on the PC firstly, the Xbox version is the Port.

UnaidedCoder:
Nobody ever said a game has to be more complicated than another for it to be better than it.

Than it's predecessor? In System shock 2 you had a limited inventory system which actively impacted upon how you played the game and what equipment you could take with you, and what you had to discard as you progressed through the environments. The system was smart in that you couldn't discard that all important key card necessary to get to the next level, but it did mean you had to live with the choices you'd made regarding your weapons etc, and that impacted upon how you approached certain obstacles, and provided another form of challenge. When a game allows you to carry everything, and you've acquired everything, then you've lost that whole decision making process.

While I agree with most of the points stated in this review, such as the game being way to easy and the likes I have one major gripe with it: The supposedly 'dumbing' down for the consoles (being a long time PC and console gamer myself that statement just doesn't sit right with me). There have been and are plenty of console games with functioning inventory systems in place.

I rather think that this dumbing down (game being too easy/inventory screen missing/etc) is a result of the developers trying their hardest to keep you immersed and in the game itself, rather than watching a loading/inventory screen 50% of the time. One of the developers said in a GT Interview that, at one point in development, they discussed Vita chambers (among other things) and reached the conclusion that not having to load and getting an instant revive would be beneficial to the game. I have to agree with you on this one, though, they went way overboard with it and made the game too easy in the process.

p.s.: I thoroughly enjoyed all your reviews and hope you keep going with this, because your style is awesome.

I know, I was talking about PC -> Console RTS ports before that, or the possibilities thereof, What I said there was a continuation of that. What I was trying to say is that RTS is possible on a console, with C&C 3 an example of that. Another would be Starcraft on the Nintendo 64. (This is directed at Kadayi, btw)

I think that we should get to the core of what a game is supposed to do. Forget everything else and answer just one question:

Were you entertained?

That is the measurement that PC games should be put on. Everyone's opinion is different but, to me I was not entertained by Bioshock; the plot, though a breath of air, still had that old familiar staleness to it. Imaginative? sure. Predictable? You bet. The graphics are what I expect. so that's not really a plus or a minus. The AI was freaking stupid. I expected better. Gameplay; The review used the words "Same sidetracking shit used in SS2", I'd go further and say that it's the same sidetracking shit most games pull. Predictable in the extreme. I don't mind being slowed down, what I don't like is when I know exactly when and where, I'm going to be slowed down. Last but not least; is it a crime to ask developers to, even if they are trying to copy an older successful game, to add just a hint of innovation?

If I could use a phrase to describe Bioshock it would be: "Same old, same old."

hwo the fuck do i watch it? i feel like a total douchebag/retard now, but wtf, no matter what i do, i dont get a vid to watch :S

The Eupho Guy:
I really don't have a problem with console ports on PC, mainly because they aren't games I usually play, I'm more of a strategy fan, although with the current batch of RTS games I've played, (Supreme Commander not included) I might have to start looking at other genres for new games as most of the current RTS games haven't impressed me much :(

Have you tried Company of Heroes? I can't say that it does anything special or impressive, except that I think it is well done.

As per console ports on PC, some are just bad. I think "phoned in" is a good way to describe it. For example, in the Blazing Angels PC demo I played, the tutorial level was directing me to use various XBOX controls to perform actions. Disgusting.

Kadayi:
The PC will always be the more versatile platform to produce certain sorts of games for because of the range of input as well as freedom the mouse/keyboard combo provides, coupled with decent hard drive capacity and graphical superiority. Fact of the matter is that consoles are locked systems with fixed limitations and subsequently the games developed on them are always going to be ham stringed by those limitations. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of great games on consoles, GT, ICO, Tekken, etc, but games like FPSRPGs aren't their strong point.

The core to Yatzees review is the fact that when you look beyond the graphics and setting at Bioshock it's not actually a progression onward in gaming design from it's predecessor System shock 2. In fact it's less than it in terms of complexity and that in itself is the shame to the game. SS2 was one of FPS RPGs genres finest moments, Irrational instead of trying to go beyond it in terms of game play in say the same way that Valve topped Half life with half life 2, went down the same route Ion storm did with Deus Ex 2:IW in removing much of the depth.

Dark messiah tried to step outside the grave the publishers had in mind for it (it was arx 2 till ubi got done with it) I have a feeling that after being bought out 2K made it clear to make BS into a "as simple as you can make it" console game.

All in all it could be worse,I have not played stalker yet as I do not know whitch patch is best,I heard the newer ones nerf the game 0-o

I love the posters that take his reviews far too seriously. The stupid children need to lighten up.

Gus_Smedstad:
I know the point of the Zero Punctuation video reviews is absurdist humor, so there's not a lot of point in taking them seriously as reviews. Yet I can't help but see the contradictions between this and his column on Psychonauts.

In the Psychonauts review, he complains that gamers gave Psychonauts the shaft by not buying it, and that in doing so they struck a blow against unusual games with great writing and creative backgrounds. Games as art, he even says. The review even starts with a bit where he instructs you to hurt yourself with a pencil in punishment for not buying Psychonauts.

Then along comes Bioshock, an unusual game with great writing and a creative background. A game that is arguable "art." And he complains about it being popular and too easy.

It's quite true that if you strip away all the writing and the background and the art direction and look at the bare gameplay elements, Bioshock isn't a first tier game. It's a somewhat easy shooter with a few novelty bits like telekinesis. Though "somewhat easy" is a relative term, I found it challenging enough on Normal that I was never bored, and I did the usual nervous creeping about thing that's common to any first time playing through a shooter.

Both games are memorable for all the things about the setting, and it would be nice they were wrapped around an extraordinary game as well, like Deus Ex was. Yet between the two, it's much better to wrap such a setting around an average-to-good game that's not too difficult to play, rather than a tedious below-average game that's hideously frustrating in parts. Croshaw complains that Bioshock kicks you in the crotch, but in fact that is exactly what Bioshock does not do. And for that I am grateful.

- Gus

Well, like he says in the beginning--nobody likes him when he's being overly positive :P So he opted to focus on the negative qualities for the sake of humor.

I just registered with the sole purpose of making this comment, in regard to people complaining about how easy the game is with all the respawning chambers around. Have some integrity and play the game without using it even a single time. What's stoping you from simply ignoring the respawn option and playing like it simply isn't there. Quicksave before every major battle and try to conserve health and ammo like you usually do in an FPS. Problem solved, everyone's happy.

Sorry if someone already posted a similar comment, to be honest i didn't have the patience to read through most of the 2nd page and the whole 3rd.

Anyways just tried to view the bioshock zero punctuation vid on you tube..
If you click the vid thats the message you get:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.

Seems like they cant handle criticism

P.s: Well i didnt use the vita chambers and still played the game through :>

Lametta:
Anyways just tried to view the bioshock zero punctuation vid on you tube..
If you click the vid thats the message you get:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.

Seems like they cant handle criticism

Actually, we can't handle people ripping our videos without asking permission ;)

You can still view the video in its original home, here at The Escapist, by following this link:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

And you can view all of Yahtzee's videos here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation

We aim to please.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here