*OLD*Official Bioshock Thread

[Dallows]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: sirjonk

A game with awesome graphics but terrible gameplay isn't worth playing.
A game with awesome gameplay can look like crap and I'd still play it if it was fun. Hell I still play way too much Internet Checkers that came with XP!

I'd eat burnt chicken before I'd eat well-flavored dogpoop but truth be it I'd not eat either and wouldn't expect to have to in any decent circumstance.

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

I'm convinced that you're constantly high. What games are you comparing this to? I'm well into BioShock and I can safely same this game is on the top of the list. What makes Half-life 2 so different? Tell me graphically or gameplay wise.

 

[pontifex]

Just played the demo. WOW!!! i haven't been that scared of a video game since Doom!
I was literally so scared that I didn't want to walk down that next hallway!

Graphics are great too. I think I had everything maxed @ 1680x1050 and it ran pretty smooth. I had HDR on, so it wasn't using any FSAA or any of that stuff.

The sounds are done extremely well and are very lifelike. The weapon/plasmid abilities and the combos you can do are really awesome and add a very unique touch to the game.

I hate those alarm systems with a passion though! the flying robots are almost impossible to hit whne they are shooting at you because you can't see. I like how you can hack them to make them help you though (even though they are pretty damn weak).

Now the only thing I am concerned about is what was posted in the link in the last 2 posts. the DRM crap sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

I want to buy this game but I don't think I will until I get a clear answer on the DRM BS and that its not as bad as we think or they remove it.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: sirjonk

A game with awesome graphics but terrible gameplay isn't worth playing.
A game with awesome gameplay can look like crap and I'd still play it if it was fun. Hell I still play way too much Internet Checkers that came with XP!

I'd eat burnt chicken before I'd eat well-flavored dogpoop but truth be it I'd not eat either and wouldn't expect to have to in any decent circumstance.

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

half life 2 and farcry are more like 5/10 (or less) in my book. horribly overrated games.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Dallows

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: sirjonk

A game with awesome graphics but terrible gameplay isn't worth playing.
A game with awesome gameplay can look like crap and I'd still play it if it was fun. Hell I still play way too much Internet Checkers that came with XP!

I'd eat burnt chicken before I'd eat well-flavored dogpoop but truth be it I'd not eat either and wouldn't expect to have to in any decent circumstance.

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

I'm convinced that you're constantly high. What games are you comparing this to? I'm well into BioShock and I can safely same this game is on the top of the list. What makes Half-life 2 so different? Tell me graphically or gameplay wise.

I seem high because of what statement(s) exactly? (Perhaps that chicken/doggcrap analogy could have been better.)

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: sirjonk

A game with awesome graphics but terrible gameplay isn't worth playing.
A game with awesome gameplay can look like crap and I'd still play it if it was fun. Hell I still play way too much Internet Checkers that came with XP!

I'd eat burnt chicken before I'd eat well-flavored dogpoop but truth be it I'd not eat either and wouldn't expect to have to in any decent circumstance.

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

half life 2 and farcry are more like 5/10 (or less) in my book. horribly overrated games.

Well, I'll agree that Far Cry was a tad lacking in the story dept, as was HL2 (and Oblivion for that matter).

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

and since you know everything, what do you do when you can't uninstall, like when your HD dies or something like that?

 

[Dallows]

Originally posted by: Frackal

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

I seem high because of what statement(s) exactly? (Perhaps that chicken/doggcrap analogy could have been better.)

Basically alll of that.

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

And what happens if you have a hard drive failure? Or any number of a hundread other problems?

Eh... I wanted to go legit with this game. But it just doesn't look like it's worth all the hassle.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

and since you know everything, what do you do when you can't uninstall, like when your HD dies or something like that?

Or when you don't have internet connection at the time of uninstallation?

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

The issue for some/many(?) is the inconvenience of this, moreso when you don't uninstall because your system dies, crashes permanently, explodes, etc. After it happens once, you can't install it on any other machine except your main UNTIL you call SecuRom and "negotiate" a key back. I guess it's the same inconvenience that annoys Steam haters and online validation haters. It won't bother me too much in the forseeable future. However, one day, with a new system, I might want to load Bioshock back up, and bam: no can do. Turns out I wiped the HDD before uninstalling and my second install is on another machine in the dumpster. Then we gotta be sure SecuRom isn't bankrupt or 2k patched it to remove the protection. One more thing I don't want to keep track of.

Ok, keep in mind, I KNOW about the unofficial fix; this is the stab at the PR announcement and presumed idiocy.

Been reading some "literature" on the official forums, and The official "explanation" does seem like a cop-out if you look at the main characters right hand: it's cut off in WS when holding the wrench. I can't recall a single 1st person game (CS most common example) that only shows the fingers with the melee weapon equipped. Hell, Bioshock doesn't even do it when running 4:3. In 4:3, this game is showing exactly what all other 4:3 first-person games show: the full hand and a bit of wrist. (sound like OJ...)

A follow-up: my PC copy shipped before I could cancel. No 360 version for me.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: cheapherk
If I had known THIS I would have bought it on Steam :frown:

same.

Goddamn you people don't read. You will always have 2 installs. To install again, you need to uninstall one of the previous installation.

that has been proven false. read the thread posted.

Also what if you have a HD failure? upgrade?

not ot mention if i purchase a game i should be able to install it as many times as i need to be able to run it.

2 installs is BS. IF i had known before i purchased the game i would not have given 2K my money.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Dallows

Originally posted by: Frackal

I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.

Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion.

Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all.



Finally, all great, epic, 10/10 games, FFVII, Half Life 1,2, Far Cry, etcetera had superb graphics. This game is very good, but it doesn't reach this 98/100 level that its being touted at when most of its graphics are 6/10

I seem high because of what statement(s) exactly? (Perhaps that chicken/doggcrap analogy could have been better.)

Basically alll of that.

Ok I'll clarify. I'm eating low carbs now so it wouldn't surprise me if I seemed a little loopy

"I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. "

- I said this because it seems that so often when the topic of poor graphics in a game comes up, several people inevitably say things like "Who cares about graphics, I'm all about gameplay." Since the two are not mutually exclusive, I don't see a reason to mention that. It's like people saying: "Well I'm into good control mapping on the keyboard, not graphics."

"Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.
Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion. "

- A hallmark of a good game for me is when I really "get into it." If the graphics are distractingly bad, it prevents that, and perception of good/bad graphics changes as graphics advance in quality. Movie theatres are dark, big screened, "good sounding" for this reason.

For example, when I played HL1 in the 90's, I was very immersed in the game. Were I to play it for the first time now, I wouldn't have the same experience. The now crappy graphics would be too much to overcome suspension of disbelief. (I can explain suspension of disbelief if it's not familiar)

"Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all. "

- If graphics are really that minor compared to gameplay, people ought to be playing many games from 10+ years ago which have great gameplay but (now) horrible graphics.
Most people don't do this. The biggest changes in gaming have come on the graphical front. Storylines, plots, types of games have not changed greatly.

 

[pontifex]

it looks like some people say its ok if you buy through steam?

is that because of how steam works (it is its own copy protection sort of)? or is the secrom remoevd from steam versions? or si that not true?

 

[swtethan]

FROM 2K

hey guys,
first, let me say this. you DO NOT NEED TO USE THE INTERNET EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THIS GAME. it is only the first time.

second, you can uninstall and reinstall this game, and if, by chance, you have 2 computers you want to simultaneously play this game on, you also can do that.

if by some chance you are reinstalling this game without uninstalling it first, a lot, there is a chance you may have to call securom and get a key, or deactivate some older installations.

but if you upgrade your hardware next week, you'll still be able to play the game. if you revamp your system and need to reinstall bioshock, just uninstall it before you go through the overhaul, and then do your reinstall.

calling it "hardware fingerprinting" is a bit alarmist. we do not transmit any of your data to any companies.

really, the only people who will be concerned about any of these security measures are those who are rapidly putting bioshock on many pcs... if you use the game as you normally do, you won't notice this at all



ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

 

[Newfie]

Ugh, If I had known about the CD-Copy protection in Bioshock, I would have gotten the X360 version. Ahh well....The game is amazing regardless and I am enjoying it .

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: swtethan
FROM 2K

hey guys,
first, let me say this. you DO NOT NEED TO USE THE INTERNET EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THIS GAME. it is only the first time.

second, you can uninstall and reinstall this game, and if, by chance, you have 2 computers you want to simultaneously play this game on, you also can do that.

if by some chance you are reinstalling this game without uninstalling it first, a lot, there is a chance you may have to call securom and get a key, or deactivate some older installations.

but if you upgrade your hardware next week, you'll still be able to play the game. if you revamp your system and need to reinstall bioshock, just uninstall it before you go through the overhaul, and then do your reinstall.

calling it "hardware fingerprinting" is a bit alarmist. we do not transmit any of your data to any companies.

really, the only people who will be concerned about any of these security measures are those who are rapidly putting bioshock on many pcs... if you use the game as you normally do, you won't notice this at all



ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

yeah thats what elizbeth2k (?) said. but many others have said thats not true. they have tried it and it does not work as they say.

 

[JD50]

Did anyone ever figure out the sound issue with Vista? I have Vista 64 home premium, using onboard sound for now, and after the opening scene I get absolutely no sound. I have the latest drivers, etc....

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: JD50
Did anyone ever figure out the sound issue with Vista? I have Vista 64 home premium, using onboard sound for now, and after the opening scene I get absolutely no sound. I have the latest drivers, etc....

Try running the DirectX update utility on the CD or demo download. I had to run it to get the game to run at all.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think it's a bit much to expect a demo to leave you with the impression that it's the best game you've ever played. I found it really atmospheric, and can't believe it would generate the reviews it has from people who have played the entire game if it didn't transcend the traditional shooter during the course of the gameplay.

If you're holding out on buying this game, exactly what does a game have to achieve for you to buy it? It's nearly universally hailed as the second coming. You're allowed to disagree, but I wouldn't base my opinion of the game just on a 10 minute demo. The people who've seen more have been extremely impressed.

That is true to some degree, but you can still get a good overall feel of a game from demos. The full game will certainly be better in many ways, especially on the story side, but some things aren't going to change. I highly doubt that the full game will, for example, allow you to throw objects around or have large, sprawling level layouts with multiple paths to objectives.

Also, there are many reviews these days that just buy into the pre-release hype and don't really bother to compare with existing games. SCDA for example got uniformly high review scores, even on the PC, and that game turned out to be crap compared to the previous SC game.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is looking like an excellent game, but it seems to be more or less a standard FPS and not quite in the all-time classic category. That is, of course, just an initial impression.

Hey I agree with you here. Bioshock is no 10/10 (Quake 2 was much funner for me back in the day). It's a good game with the illusion of a good atmosphere, but even if the gameplay was a tad different than other FPSes I didn't find the demo that much fun. I'm glad I gave it a try, but the weird graphics consistency and story I couldn't relate to that well kept me from being immersed in it, and I got bored in the middle of it to be honest. It actually started out great, then it just got tedious and pretty dark like Doom 3. You can "pick up" objects as in search the corpses for ammo/etc but you can't actually throw them, which is probably what you meant.

I liked the character ideas, the audio was out of this world, lighting quality (technically) was very good, and the water looked great, but I think this game could have been put together better to give a better experience. The models were low-poly, the in-doors level design was rather boring, and the textures didn't go together very well (bland as described above). The physics feel about as advanced as the original Quake. I guess the physics were there on second thought, but they didn't play a role in anything. I don't see how the gameplay was revolutionary but I definitely had fun fighting enemies in the bathroom. Probably my favorite moment of this game. If they had fixed the other issues I would probably have few to no qualms about gameplay (I know FPS can't really be revolutionized anyway).

The only reason I feel I have to be overly critical is because of the 10/10 ratings, because honestly I think this game would do fine. It's pretty good and it has truckloads of potential. It's just not 100% by any means. That rating is something to be reserved. But perhaps I will never be impressed as I was with games like Quake 2 since everything has been done already, so to speak. And no, I have not tried the full version of Bioshock, only the Bioshock Demo on PC. Based off the demo, I don't feel that this game is a "classic".

Of course, no AA in DX9 mode doesn't make this game much exciting to me since I use an LCD where jaggies detract from the experience a bit. This apparently is not possible with UE3, or D3D9, or something, but that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. I'm not going to complain about copy protection since practically every game has it these days, but the lack of proper widescreen support is another really big setback in a time where we want companies to begin fixing these issues, not prospering them. Face it: the only way to get them to fix the problems is to complain about them. I'm only trying to make this game reach its full potential, not just whine about it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: JD50
Did anyone ever figure out the sound issue with Vista? I have Vista 64 home premium, using onboard sound for now, and after the opening scene I get absolutely no sound. I have the latest drivers, etc....

Try running the DirectX update utility on the CD or demo download. I had to run it to get the game to run at all.

Nope, didn't work, thanks though.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: swtethan
FROM 2K

hey guys,
first, let me say this. you DO NOT NEED TO USE THE INTERNET EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THIS GAME. it is only the first time.

second, you can uninstall and reinstall this game, and if, by chance, you have 2 computers you want to simultaneously play this game on, you also can do that.

if by some chance you are reinstalling this game without uninstalling it first, a lot, there is a chance you may have to call securom and get a key, or deactivate some older installations.

but if you upgrade your hardware next week, you'll still be able to play the game. if you revamp your system and need to reinstall bioshock, just uninstall it before you go through the overhaul, and then do your reinstall.

calling it "hardware fingerprinting" is a bit alarmist. we do not transmit any of your data to any companies.

really, the only people who will be concerned about any of these security measures are those who are rapidly putting bioshock on many pcs... if you use the game as you normally do, you won't notice this at all



ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

yeah thats what elizbeth2k (?) said. but many others have said thats not true. they have tried it and it does not work as they say.

well I refuse to buy the game now...screw them ...I will never give them my $40 ...how dare they install essentially a "virus/malware" to portect there game...BS

Limit my installs...etc...they will never see my money, no game is worth that..Period

these companies think we are sheep....I hope sales suck and the game fails to live up to the expectations...the reviewrs should have hyped there BS crap protection, they enablers of this junk....

They need to find some better method that does not interfer with my computer function or my money stays with me

those installing this securom product are foolish...it will lead to problems later....you have been warned

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: lupi
I wouldn't worry so much. Currently there this topic seems to be getting a fair amount of (negative) media attention which always leads to possibility of changes.

Perfectly said. Especially with 2K forums, we should expect a patch. Hopefully it will come within a month? I'll play it again to arrive at a different ending. More DX10 besides water? Time will tell...

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CP5670

I think it's a bit much to expect a demo to leave you with the impression that it's the best game you've ever played. I found it really atmospheric, and can't believe it would generate the reviews it has from people who have played the entire game if it didn't transcend the traditional shooter during the course of the gameplay.

If you're holding out on buying this game, exactly what does a game have to achieve for you to buy it? It's nearly universally hailed as the second coming. You're allowed to disagree, but I wouldn't base my opinion of the game just on a 10 minute demo. The people who've seen more have been extremely impressed.

That is true to some degree, but you can still get a good overall feel of a game from demos. The full game will certainly be better in many ways, especially on the story side, but some things aren't going to change. I highly doubt that the full game will, for example, allow you to throw objects around or have large, sprawling level layouts with multiple paths to objectives.

Also, there are many reviews these days that just buy into the pre-release hype and don't really bother to compare with existing games. SCDA for example got uniformly high review scores, even on the PC, and that game turned out to be crap compared to the previous SC game.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is looking like an excellent game, but it seems to be more or less a standard FPS and not quite in the all-time classic category. That is, of course, just an initial impression.

Hey I agree with you here. Bioshock is no 10/10 (Quake 2 was much funner for me back in the day). It's a good game with the illusion of a good atmosphere, but even if the gameplay was a tad different than other FPSes I didn't find the demo that much fun. I'm glad I gave it a try, but the weird graphics consistency and story I couldn't relate to that well kept me from being immersed in it, and I got bored in the middle of it to be honest. It actually started out great, then it just got tedious and pretty dark like Doom 3. You can "pick up" objects as in search the corpses for ammo/etc but you can't actually throw them, which is probably what you meant.

I liked the character ideas, the audio was out of this world, lighting quality (technically) was very good, and the water looked great, but I think this game could have been put together better to give a better experience. The models were low-poly, the in-doors level design was rather boring, and the textures didn't go together very well (bland as described above). The physics feel about as advanced as the original Quake. I guess the physics were there on second thought, but they didn't play a role in anything. I don't see how the gameplay was revolutionary but I definitely had fun fighting enemies in the bathroom. Probably my favorite moment of this game. If they had fixed the other issues I would probably have few to no qualms about gameplay (I know FPS can't really be revolutionized anyway).

The only reason I feel I have to be overly critical is because of the 10/10 ratings, because honestly I think this game would do fine. It's pretty good and it has truckloads of potential. It's just not 100% by any means. That rating is something to be reserved. But perhaps I will never be impressed as I was with games like Quake 2 since everything has been done already, so to speak. And no, I have not tried the full version of Bioshock, only the Bioshock Demo on PC. Based off the demo, I don't feel that this game is a "classic".

Of course, no AA in DX9 mode doesn't make this game much exciting to me since I use an LCD where jaggies detract from the experience a bit. This apparently is not possible with UE3, or D3D9, or something, but that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. I'm not going to complain about copy protection since practically every game has it these days, but the lack of proper widescreen support is another really big setback in a time where we want companies to begin fixing these issues, not prospering them. Face it: the only way to get them to fix the problems is to complain about them. I'm only trying to make this game reach its full potential, not just whine about it.

i played the demo and wasnt overly impressed but definitely thought it had a lot of potential.

after playing the full game for only 2 hours that has been realized.

this game is immersive if you play it lights out, sound on. i am pretty sure some people are so anal retentive that they see an inferior texture and it ruins the experience for them. i feel bad for them.

the graphics are definitely good, sometimes great and sometimes average - but one thing is for sure, you again have to be darn anal-retentive to start focusing on those things. the game just looks tight and it absorbs your attention. again, if the graphics in this game are distractingly bad, you have issues, take meds.

i dont care about the security if it works as the 2k spokesperson said.

why the hell do i need a game installed and activated on more than 2 machines at once?
personally i dont. i have one rig. maybe down the road ill have 2 rigs and by then i wont be playing this, and if i do, i can play it on two rigs anyways.

 

[Dallows]

Originally posted by: Frackal

"I'm not sure why people come out defending gameplay over graphics so often. It's weird to me. It's not like better graphics means poorer gameplay. Although the vice versa is true to me. "

- I said this because it seems that so often when the topic of poor graphics in a game comes up, several people inevitably say things like "Who cares about graphics, I'm all about gameplay." Since the two are not mutually exclusive, I don't see a reason to mention that. It's like people saying: "Well I'm into good control mapping on the keyboard, not graphics."

Seems like graphics over game play or vice versa would be a personal choice. There are a lot of things that can immerse a player in a game experience. I'm sorry your experiences thus far have been lacking. Its the same reason why good movies don't need a whole heap of CG to provide a good movie-going experience.

Originally posted by: Frackal

"Poor graphics = poor experience because suspension of disbelief won't happen.
Bioshock looks so fake I never get to the point of immersion. "

- A hallmark of a good game for me is when I really "get into it." If the graphics are distractingly bad, it prevents that, and perception of good/bad graphics changes as graphics advance in quality. Movie theatres are dark, big screened, "good sounding" for this reason.

For example, when I played HL1 in the 90's, I was very immersed in the game. Were I to play it for the first time now, I wouldn't have the same experience. The now crappy graphics would be too much to overcome suspension of disbelief. (I can explain suspension of disbelief if it's not familiar)

Have you tried to go back and play HL1 recently? I played it a year or so back and the game was just as good. Sure the graphics were dated but it was everything else that kept me playing. But your statement about graphics being distractingly bad? I just find unfounded and ridiculous. You're entitled to your own opinion and in my opinion you're just out of your mind and flat out wrong when it comes to BioShock.

Originally posted by: Frackal

"Why aren't you guys buried in games from the 1990's if your assertions are true? Some of the best adventure games are from those days. Space Quest, etc etc. You can't have played them all. "

- If graphics are really that minor compared to gameplay, people ought to be playing many games from 10+ years ago which have great gameplay but (now) horrible graphics.
Most people don't do this. The biggest changes in gaming have come on the graphical front. Storylines, plots, types of games have not changed greatly.

How do you know people aren't still playing old games? Perhaps it's just new games that have grasped their interests for the time being. Would you say Warcraft 3's graphics are dated or "horrible"? What about the gameplay? Do you have any idea how many people play that still?

A lot of people play games like they watch movies. Or enjoy games as they do movies. Basically games like Halo, Gears of War, etc are all overrated games that people love for some reason because they're pretty, or omg there's multiplayer. Your assumptions and conclusions about gaming are just wrong.

Sorry dude.