BioShock 2

[o'dium]

No it appears when you type a reply you don't 100% give two shits about sometimes you just fluke up.

I played BS2 on the PC, not 360. And comparing it to Quake 3, a decade old game, is a tad retarded. Quake 3 at the time wasn't exactly praised for being chock full of content was it?

Don't forget that the PC version used the same crappy system as IW.Net, so hosts are random. With hardly anybody playing the game anyway that makes every server laggy as hell. You enjoy it, good for you, but to be fair you don't exactly have the best tastes. But good for you, I'm happy for ya.

[Eraser]

You enjoy it, good for you, but to be fair you don't exactly have the best tastes.

There, you do it again. Being your old arrogant self again.
Why are you trying to make my opinion irrelevant by stating that I simply have no taste? It's a real lame attempt to void any other argument I make. I don't have lower standards than you and I don't have poor taste. I think you and I simply had different experiences. I didn't experience lag. I can understand and accept that lag would ruin the experience. However, it seems you are unable to emphasize with my experiences which were lag free. Could you accept the fact that without lag and the control issues that the PC version apparently has, Bioshock 2's multiplayer is quite enjoyable?

As for my comparison to Quake 3, the fact that Q3 was criticized for it's lack of content was my whole point. You and I both still massively enjoyed Quake 3, even though it was all pretty basic (offering only DM, TDM, 1v1 and four CTF maps). Bioshock 2 is no different to me. It may not offer as much as Modern Warfare 2 or Halo 3 or possibly Bad Company 2 does, but I still find it enjoyable.

I know that the following statement is futile when it's directed at you, but everyone here hates you and your so called opinions because you always attack opinions that don't match yours. You attempt to invalidate the opinions of others rather than supporting your own opinion with arguments or offering alternatives to someone else's opinion. And countering other people's opinions isn't even so bad as long as it's done with well thought out and valid arguments. Not by calling someone a retard or saying someone simply has bad taste or doesn't know what he's talking about. Just try it for once. Maybe you'll grow beyond your childish self for once.

[o'dium]

Theres a difference between "basic" and "lacking" though. Quake 3 lacked content, but was not basic at all, as it was a very well made and very well thought out game.

Bioshock 2's MP, no matter how you look at it, is tacked on. Its built poorly, has no content and is so cheap its unreal. Its clear that a totally different dev team (DE I believe?) made it as it feels more like a mod than a quality product. Like I said... You like it. Good, bully fo you, pip pip etc. But I played it for an hour or so tops, before I started to feel the grind. It FEELS horrid, physics wise, and is so unbalanced its crazy. You enjoy it, great. I enjoy stuff that makes no sense too. But that doesn't mean I'm oblivious to them being utter shite. You are.

[DooMer]

I played through the first 2 sp levels and sent it back to gamefly.

Just sayin'

[xer0s]

He's just sayin...

[brisk]

Please don't mention Bioshock 2's MP in the same breath as Q3A.

Bioshock is a fun single player game, but odium is right in that the MP aspect is a horrible, tacked on lagfest. Any game which uses P2P/matchmaking automatically hits my shitlist. It wasn't acceptable 10 years ago and it sure as hell isn't acceptable now.

BF2 is a lot of fun though. That is a mp game done right.

[Eraser]

Christ, all he said is it was fun, which it is. He didn't give it 9 gold stars and a reach-around

Sure it was an obvious afterthought, possibly to cash in on the new grinding mentality inherited from mmos (of which playing actual ones is getting cooler by the day what with console junkies now busier than raiders grinding their noobtube stats) championed by MW. Granted there's no excuse whatsoever for p2p lobby bullshit in ANY deathmatch game. The real failure though was adding extra levels and gear as DLC, now that is an inexcusably cheap move that 2K can get fucked for.

But what Eraser said was pretty much spot on in that you don't die every 4 seconds by some perfect-twitch-shot sniper faggot who takes you down in one cap from 4 buildings away. Being more corridor based you run around and when you find someone there's actual combat between you, rather than first to point and click wins.
I actually had a lot of fun playing capture the sister with the air dash plasmid, tryna snatch her up from amidst the chaos. Bit of a shame tbh there's no lasting appeal

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I am not saying Bioshock 2's multiplayer is the best thing since sliced bread, nor am I saying it's as good as Quake 3. I'm just saying I found it to be enjoyable, almost refreshing after having played too many MW2-esque twitch shooters. Having actual firefights is something I haven't seen in a lot of games lately. I'm pretty sure I'll get bored with it soon enough as well, but for as long as I played it, I had some good fun. Certainly more than I had with MW2's multiplayer.

As for the p2p lobby bullshit, that has been in games ever since the XBox and PS2 came on the market. It suddenly became a problem when Modern Warfare 2 on the PC started doing it, before that no one seemed to really have a problem with it. I agree that it isn't the best client/sever model available, but I don't let it ruin my game. And most of the time you don't even notice that you're not playing through a dedicated server system.

edit:
*que o'dium telling me that you do notice a difference and that I don't because my standards aren't up to his level*

[MKJ]

cue

[Eraser]

I see and acknowledge my error.

[U4EA]

There is too much butter on those trays.

Que?

[MKJ]

uno dos tres.

[brisk]

As for the p2p lobby bullshit, that has been in games ever since the XBox and PS2 came on the market. It suddenly became a problem when Modern Warfare 2 on the PC started doing it, before that no one seemed to really have a problem with it. I agree that it isn't the best client/sever model available, but I don't let it ruin my game. And most of the time you don't even notice that you're not playing through a dedicated server system.

I guess you just don't play on the PC much anymore

Fair enough, but if i'm personally playing a FPS on the PC, it simply must be on a dedicated server with a ping less than 50. Any L4D game which is hosted local is simply unplayable... and that's just 8 players. I can only imagine the horror that occurs with larger games.

It's a real shame standards have slipped so much with people, especially on this forum. Q3A got everything right with regards to wep balance, server connections, level design etc... now games sacrifice so much just to make things easier for the casual gamer

I guess we were spoiled early.

[Eraser]

There's still nothing that beats Quake 3 ofcourse, but then again, I've played no games that demand such sharp focus and reactions as Quake 3 does. Bioshock 2 is a much slower game. Lag plays a much smaller role than in Quake 3. The influence of lag on gameplay is a lot less on many other games as well, like Battlefield 1943 (or 1942, Vietnam, etc), Gears of War or Team Fortress 2.

Also, I'm not as competitive with games as I used to be with Quake 3. I'm certainly not playing clan matches anymore. That also lowers the demands I put on these games. As a more recreational gamer, it's probably true that I demand less of these games. Whenever I do boot up Q3 again (or Quake Live), I do notice that the old habits kick in again and a ping of more than 60 or 70 feels unplayable.