BioShock . . . champion or menace?

Tom Hatfield · Post by **Tom Hatfield** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:36 am

If it doesn't have co-op, I'm going to be severely disappointed. All game developers who don't add co-op should be flayed alive and submerged in lemon juice and set on fire. But anyway, I'm a massive fan of System Shock 2, and this looks to be a step in the right direction.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/705/705454p1.html

mikko · Post by **mikko** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:32 am

I like System Shock 2 very much also. Although I consider the original System Shock far better than the sequel. The only things where it is worse are the engine (of course since it's 5 years older - oh the good old Ultima Underworld engine) and the lack of co-op. Everything else is better. Should be interesting to see how BioShock compares.

Post by **Gambit37** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:28 pm

I still haven't played Bioshock, my PC won't handle it. Did it end up with co-op play?

Tom Hatfield · Post by **Tom Hatfield** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:46 pm

Nope, but it is a sweet game.

Post by **Sophia** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:31 pm

And what about all that death and horror you wished upon the developers?

beowuuf · Post by **beowuuf** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:42 pm

I'm a bit worried that a few games I hear reviews about mention the criminally short normal games - probably balanced by the time spent to get the co-op!

Tom Hatfield · Post by **Tom Hatfield** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:13 pm

Nah. Halo was pretty sizeable. I just finished Crysis last night and was severely disappointed in the length, or should I say lack thereof. Talk about anticlimactic endings. At least BioShock didn't feel like it should have been 50 percent longer. On the contrary, every time I thought BioShock was over, it just kept on going! Gears of War, on the other hand, I cannot wait to play co-op tonight.