Pixelnauts.net

Bioshock was a pretty tough act to follow. I think that's pretty much understood throughout the gaming community. Most of the time, when a great game comes along it leaves fans clamoring for a sequel, but in Bioshock's case, a large portion of the fans were pretty dubious that a sequel could ever live up to the standard set by the original. I too had my doubts, though my reasons for feeling that Bioshock is a tough act to follow are a little different. I don't think Bioshock was a masterpiece next to which any attempt at a sequel would pale in comparison. Quite the contrary, at the time, I felt (and still feel) that Bioshock was just a decent shooter lifted above its more mundane components thanks to an exceptional premise, fantastic art design, and a surprisingly intellectual story. My reasons for saying that Bioshock is a tough act to follow are a little more abstract.

At its climax, as the underwater city of Rapture's founder and de facto ruler Andrew Ryan finally falls and his objectivist utopia lays in shambles, the story of Bioshock came to a defined and final close. There were no lingering questions; no final twists that leave an opening for a sequel; no stories left to tell. It was implied and satisfactory that Rapture would continue to rust at the bottom of the sea until the day when some rivet would give way and the icy Atlantic waters would finally claim the failed city-state.

Of course we all know that it's not in the nature of business to let 'sleeping IP lie,' as it were. Bioshock was a hit, and hits mean sequels. So tough act to follow or not, Bioshock 2 is here and the question is does it deliver the same kind of unique experience that Bioshock did? Short answer: where it didn't matter, yes, and where it mattered most, no.

Bioshock 2 is a slavish reassembling of the mechanical and functional components of the original. This game looks the same, sounds the same, plays the same, follows the same layout etc. I guess 2K though it smart to apply the 'if it ain't broke' philosophy. The problem is that the strongest component of Bioshock, its story and subtle philosophical subtext, are things that can't just be copied and pasted like the controlling mechanics or environment assets. Unfortunately, they tried, and the result is a rather heavy-handed attempt to imbue intellectual weight onto a story that feels forced, unnecessary, and unbelievable.

Bioshock 2 takes place in Rapture a decade after its collapse -- 2K's first mistake. Andrew Ryan is dead, but in his place a new megalomaniac, Dr. Sophia Lamb has arisen and convinced all the left-behind, drug-addicted 'splicers' to join her new cult calling themselves 'The Family.' First, a couple of practical questions:  with the exception of one or two people, everyone in Rapture is quite clearly out of their mind. Now I'm no engineer, but it would seem to me that maintaining a structure like Rapture would be one of the most intensive and complicated undertakings anyone could possibly have. Ten years after this city collapsed, who exactly is maintaining everything? Who is recycling oxygen? Who is keeping the sea flora from overwhelming critical engines? With Bioshock, it worked because the city had just collapsed and you assumed everything was running on auto-pilot, but in Bioshock 2, ten years have passed.