Fun Stuff > CLIKC

A New Irrational Game. It is called "Project Icarus"

<< < (2/6) > >>

KvP:
So it looks like "Columbia" is the Rapture of the skies, and that is has something to do with racial purity ("Burden Not Columbia With Your Chaff"). So probable eugenics theme, which fits with the time period (unlike Bioshock 2). Also probable parallel to the Civil War, with Columbia seceding into a supra-nationalist enclave (not unlike the Enclave).


--- Quote ---He doesn't call it prequel though and drew no narrative connections between the BioShocks we have played and the one his team is making. "I don't want to think about that," Levine said to me. "I don't think it's particularly constructive to have that conversation."
--- End quote ---
Good fucking luck, dude.

Could be neat, but gameplay-wise it sounds worryingly like a Bioshock Total Conversion Mod with extra bells and whistles. After the pretty dismal sequel (before that, even) I've been worried about the "CHA-CHING CHA-CHING" sound that no doubt sounded loud between the ears of the 2K brass who, if you remember, were in pretty dire financial straits around the time of the first Bioshock, looking for a buyer but possessed of too many expensive franchises (GTA and Bioshock, in particular) to find one. Bioshock 2 was a rush job with some pretty stupid ideas, where it actually had them.

Anyway, the 4 years of development time might not really be a smooth unbroken process. They could have gone through several revisions of the game or they may have started a different game before working on Infinite. Game development is littered with false starts and cancellations that fans never hear about. My hope is that they've used that time to fashion a new engine, because the version of UE3 they used for the first two had some major limitations.

Melodic:
Was Bioshock 2 so bad? I never played it.

Alex C:
It's not really an outright bad game by most metrics. It's just that conceptually they were playing around in the bones of a much better game and familiarity breeds some contempt-- and rightly so! You can't hang your hat on originality and atmosphere to the extent that Bioshock did and not expect to take some knocks when you revisit things to the extent Bioshock 2 did. The developers really needed to be more ambitious to have a crack at being as good as the first one, and in that regard I guess you could call it a failure.

Really, I'd say the big liability was Rapture itself. If you can't rejigger things from the ground up you should at least try and deliver a bigger and badder gameworld, and unfortunately being limited to Rapture, as iconic as it may be, was a huge liability there. Contrast it with the Fallout series-- Fallout 1 wasn't really crying out for a sequel either. It had a pretty nicely self-contained story. But Fallout 2 still managed to get away with being pretty decent simply by virtue of sheer size and having so much new ground to cover. Maybe it wasn't up there with its forebear conceptually, but it was easy to admire the craftsmanship and the sheer variety of things you could do in the game. Bioshock 2 didn't have that going for it.

Tom:
Turning Bioshock into a Final Fantasy-like series seems the best way to go, I'm really looking forward to this game, albeit, cautiously-optimistic.

KvP:
On the contrary, I like historical sci-fi as much as the next guy (then I eat pie and fly in the sky) but this is pretty much exactly Bioshock where you drink gene tonics instead of taking them intravenously and there's a city in the sky instead of underwater (which is far less cool in my estimation). Just offering variations on Rapture's peculiar setting and ideological critiques are a surefire way of making them less compelling.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page