??
You're the one who's getting worked up. :erm:
One would almost think you've never read my posts before, do you really think this is how I'd act if "worked up"?
Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, but again you're putting it out in such a dickish way. You know, simple things like instead of saying "Bioshock is shit", you should say "I think Bioshock is shit", and then give your reasons as to why you think it's shit, rather than trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
Anyway, you complain about Bioshock being "on rails", yet defend PES 2013 when people bitch about it. Talk about double standards. :laugh:
Being goaded from one point to the next with absolutely no impact on the story, i.e. you either fail or prevail while traversing the only (obstacle) path towards the next cutscene, isn't what I call a "game" to be honest. The only redemption for such "games" is if the core gameplay excels in any way, like Mount & Blade for example (Shitty graphics, non existent story but fun large scale battles and individual duels). BioShock's combat system and core gameplay is below standards, it's actually taken back to Wolfenstein 3d .
Now, it does have some improvements, if you want to call it that, where your sidekick jumps in from the side to spray a bunch of mobs with water so you can execute them all with a lightning spell (Nice way to kill the challenge when it finally arrives by the way). But in the end, when a first person game fails to make the player feel anything other than a bodyless floating head, it's simply a big fat fail in the gameplay department.
As you can see, these aren't my opinions, they're facts that the game is lacking technically.
If I've had anything against the story, which are most likely quite good judging from its predecessors, then it would be more down to opinion. It's different to fancy a poor story than to fancy poor game mechanics because a story is triggering emotions which makes you either like, dislike or be indifferent to it. Certain experiences in your life might trigger you to like a "truly poor" (according to the masses) story, and nobody can say to you that you're wrong and the story is bad. It may be poorly written, but a story is never worse or better than the number of people who enjoys it. I really don't like Shakespeare, and I believe he is overrated, but I can't say that he sucks. I think he uses an unnecessary amount of words to express very little storywise, and all the emotions he does express in an over abundance is platonic love wrapped in sugarcoat to make it seem "oh so deep and intense". But if you like that sort of thing, Shakespeare is the best in the business.
Basically, if you don't mind playing a sub par FPS with nice visuals and a good story, then BioShock is among the best sub par FPS's on the market.
PS. I attack and defend PES 2013 at the same time, when I see someone bitch and moan and I suspect it is the actual player that is lacking, not the game, then I defend PES. I've also made it crystal clear that the game is below expected standard in almost every single way. Funnily enough, I don't feel the need to include every god damn detail of my opinion about the game to argue a few isolated points about the game. I suspect many people are perfectly happy with PES until they stumble onto the whinefest that is here after every release, then fire up their own game again only to notice every little quirk they've read about and suddenly they join the bitch choir... and the snowball evolves...
Story, atmosphere, dark humour.
None of them are gameplay related though, so you might aswell watch a good movie or TV show. Which brings me back to my earlier suggestion, make BiosHock into a graphic novel and/or animated series.
