Fumbling The Handoff

I like Bioshock 2 WAY more than I like Bioshock Infinite.

People hated that it was just "Bioshock (1) again" but I liked playing Bioshock so I don't see the problem on that end. I know the story is pretty bland overall but Infinite's story did several things I really didn't like.

If I were to compare the two games, I'd do it like they were two children with the first game as the parent. Bioshock 2 is the nice child, always following in their parent's footsteps and looks up to them greatly. Bioshock Infinite is the rebellious child who is always talking about how much they are not like their parent, talking about how they do cool things like chain riding and time travel which their parent would NEVER do and talking about how much they are embarrassed by their parent.

Yet that child will never see or admit that they are more like their parent than they can ever hope to imagine.

Please don't write anything bad about Bioshock 2 ever again or I'll report you to the FBI

A bit of a rambling pointless article. All sequels are cash grabs. They know fans of the original game will buy it regardless of its quality. And nearly all aren't a patch on the original. Apart from the odd new gem the gaming industry is about as original nowadays as the movie industry, just endless sequels, rehashes and reboots. We all buy them blindly, I know I do. It doesn't really matter who makes the damn things does it? And god knows what the football thing was about.

bioshock 2 was better than infinite both gameplay and story wise

Necromorph11 said:I'm offended, they're all perfect 10s

Dead Rising 2 had 3 "cash grab" games which where Case Zero ($4.99), Case West ($9.99), and Off the Record ($19.99). It also looks like they plan to bundle Dead Rising 1, 2, and Off the Record for Xbox One.

Necromorph11 said:Totally agree, Infinite was good but overrated while 2 was good but underrated

...I don't really get the point in this article.

The article's end point kinda just reads, "Yeah, some games work out, others don't. And publisher's try to maximise profits in order to keep making games."

I thought it was gonna be more focused on the 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' story of disaster, when a developer farms-out their game to multiple studios to just get anything made as opposed to a decent something.

Also: The whole thing kinda reeks of 'Video-game nostalgia', which is a massive proponent of both consumer and publisher cynicism. "Halo 5? Ain't no Halo 1!" Well... no. 'Cause it's been over ten years now, guy!

Borderlands Pre-Sequel is pretty crap compared to the other two games, in my opinion. Everything else you've listed was also not as good (or even good at all) as their other developed counterparts, GoW: Judgment in particular. Baird is my favorite character in the series and they shit the bed with his game.

I thought BioShock 2 was pretty great; it's definitely an underrated game. It had an unpretentious story with tight gameplay, unlike the other two entries. And say what you will about Arkham Origins, but at least it had a story that made sense (unlike Arkham City), had a proper Bane, and some of the best boss fights in the entire series (Deathstroke).

I'm a little confused with the comparison between Fallout 3 and New Vegas. You placed them alongside other well-intentioned sequels but also noted:

"You could also compare the differences between Fallout 3, which Bethesda as a studio used to reinvigorate the once PC-exclusive series, with its follow-up, Fallout: New Vegas in which Obsidian gave us a lot more of the same from just two years prior."

New Vegas is vastly superior to Fallout 3 in many areas--narrative, choice & consequence, companions, gameplay additions, and general role-playing. These improvements are thanks to the fact it was created by many of the same developers (now working under Obsidian) who made Fallout 1 & 2, unlike Fallout 3. In a sense, one could claim Fallout 3 is the filler sequel handed off to another studio.

Every great series that gets a new company tries to add something, their own spin or ideas. The more they add the more it takes away from what made the previous games great. Halo 5 is a good game. But it's not halo anymore. It vaguely resembles what made it great 15 years ago. If it ain't broke. Don't fix it. 343 will never be fully accepted by halo fans after they botched MCC and have completely failed to fix it in the years since. I hope gears 4 is not dramatically different from what it was and should be. The beta was good and hopefully they can improve upon it.

Don't like much this article.
First of all I was underwhelmed with Bioshock 2 to be honest, it had many different features and I was just simply scared haha... But when I played Bioshock Indefinite, I wasn't underwhelmed, I wasn't disappointed, I was SHOCKED, the game was fu**ing shit and I couldn't believe how everyone was praising it, one of the most overrated games I've seen, next to Half Life 2.

Am I the only person in the world who thought Infinite was awful?

New Vegas was also better than Fallout 3, in my opinion.

Bioshock 2, Halo 4 and Judgment weren't horrible games though. All had great stories attached to questionable MP elements which dragged them down (Revelations and Wolfenstein 2009 as-well) considerably.

I will say Halo 4 MP is a heck of a lot better then Halo 5 in some ways like BTB and Infection.

If you want examples of sequels fumbling the ball look at Ace Combat Assault Horizon, Battlefield Hardline, Borderlands Pre-Sequel, Advanced Warfare, Conflict Denied Ops (Yes it is a sequel to a vastly better series), Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, Resident Evil 6, Soldier of Fortune Payback and so forth.

Point being the examples aren't exactly bad games, the games mentioned above are awful sequels that were handed off to other devs.

They can only get away with this kind of thing when the title sells on name recognition alone. IPs like Halo and Gears will pay for themselves ten times over in preorders even if the only trailers are done in GoAnimate.

Customers can literally get a turd in a box like New Vegas and they'll still buy the next game in the franchise because it can only get better from there, yeah?

New Vegas is an exponentially better game than any of the other Bethesda games - and that includes Skyrim.

The range of freedom you have in completing the quests or achieving your aims, including the in-game repercussions of your decisions, are things that have been missing from every single Bethesda game. What would you prefer? Being the head of every faction in the game, including of some you're not even qualified for (like how you can be the head of the Mages in Skyrim without being able to actually do any magic), or other factions turning on you and stop you achieving those goals?

New Vegas >>>>> other Fallouts and Elder Scrolls games.

matdan said:I totally agree with you on this one! Operation Flashpoint: Red River and Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel were really bad compared to the other games in the series and just not a good game themselves (I've played them both on PC). Especially Operation Flashpoint, don't get me started on that crap game!

The examples given in this article are maybe less compared to other games in the series, but they're still good games on their own.

More targetted to the subject of the article:
The grudge some Halo fans have against 343 Industries is because of the bitterness the Master Chief Collection left behind. Even now, I still encounter bugs in the game's menu's, with playlists resetting etc. But if you just look at the story of Halo 4 objectively, it's a good one and still fits well inside the Halo universe. I've been with the series since 2001 but the series can't stay the same forever. Otherwise you get the same comments people give on the Assassin's Creed series. And Ubisoft ultimately decided to pauze the publishing for a year in their series.