Halo 3 vs. BioShock

[Schmutz]

Before I start, I am a massive Halo fan and quite frankly I'm blinded by my Halo 3 addiction! I equally enjoy playing Pro Evolution Soccer and Guitar Hero. Through these three videogame series I really don't need anything else But anyway, I do try other games including Bioshock, and to be very honest it felt extremely similar with a lot of new FPS games. Continuous "set pieces" and a novelty or two carry the game through, and we get them "sacrifice a little gameplay and make it look REALLY pretty" graphics. The games I'm comparing to here include (roughly, in chronological order) Half life 2, Doom3, Prey, F.E.A.R, The Darkness and so on (see, maybe I do play a big library of games after all!) I must admit Bioshock delivers its format I've defined of the highest quality I've seen, but I'm still disgusted it has been awarded greater scores than my precious Halo 3! Why don't 2K GAMES slap a "Critically better than Halo 3" sticker on the case to improve sales? Again, I'm blinded by my obsession with Halo 3 so please feel free to ignore me guys

 

[pcnthuziast]

This a forum after all and voicing your oppinions is what it's all about so I can respect yours especially since I've never played a Halo game. I did however watch trailers and it loox very good... if/when it makes it's way to the PC I'll probably pick it up. With that being said I'm deffinately looking forward to the release of G.O.W. for the PC, I played it on 360 when I had it and thought it was awesome!!!

 

[link590o]

this thought just blind-sided me in the face...i think a lot of us are forgetting the fact that this is mostly...preference. it's a bit difficult to take two games that are so distinctly different and compare them side by side. all that will happen is one person will say they like one over the other. and then someone else will disagree in a never ending cycle. i think we'd be better off comparing bioshock to crysis when it comes out rather than to halo 3. and even THAT would be a tough comparison.

i may be a devout bioshock fan, but i won't disagree that halo 3 and bioshock are both good games. obviously, large portions of the world will find the experiences both offer to be almost orgasmic in their proportions. all we're doing is separating one type of gamer from another.

in order to more accurately guage the superiority of bioshock over another game, we need to find another game that combines similar elements. a game that incorporates unusual tactics and weapons with a moral responsibility that is made clearer as the game progresses. halo 3 doesn't really fit that category. it's way too clearly defined as an FPS to be compared to bioshock. either find another game to pit against bioshock OR find a game that is very very similar to halo 3 and compare them. in creating the comparison of halo 3 vs bioshock, you're trying to mix oil and water. see what i'm saying?

 

[pcnthuziast]

Very well stated. I agree wholeheartedly with your perspective and am also a huge Bioshock fan as should be evident from my avy! As far as finding a game comparable to Bioshock... there isn't 1 IMO. Bio is truly revolutionary both conceptually and artistically. It contains many unique elements that other games will most assuredly try to mimic in the future which is of course the highest form of flattery. Ratings aside this game is in a league of it's own and I feel the inclusion of a MP component would have detracted from the value of the presentation. I say this because rapture left such an impression on me that I don't want to revisit it in an MP setting where it's all about instant gratification with zero depth... just kill or be killed!!!

 

[link590o]

what you've just hit on is another preference. and its an important idea to grab a hold of.

for some games, the multiplayer is necessary in order to call it a masterpiece. it is what defines it as gratifying, satisfying, and any other word that you could call it that gives the player that rush they're looking for.

and as you said, some games are so magnificent that a multiplayer would ruin it completely. but this is again, preference imo.

the player has certain biases that dictate whether they call a game a masterpiece or not. if they live for the multiplayer where it's an all out in your face kind of thing, then they'll rate a game with a good multiplayer higher than a good game that doesn't have one. and vice versa. this is again splitting hairs really. thats why i sorta made the point that you have to find a game similar on almost every level. outside factors such as if the player likes multiplayers or not will skew the results in one direction over the other.

aren't statistics a biznatch? :3

since there doesn't seem to be a comparable game to bio, then i'd say the outcome of this should be a draw until a worthy game comes into existence...i hate to be a thread killer because i love discussion...but...by my logic, this thread should never have really been made in the first place. of course, people can still share their opinion. but it's almost...moot...it doesn't mean anything because there won't be a winner.

 

[space cowboy4]

Bioshock was simply amazing. I think Halo3 was a little overhyped. And while some of the new features in Halo 3 are pretty sweet, BioShock is just an all around awesome game.

 

[Schmutz]

this thought just blind-sided me in the face...i think a lot of us are forgetting the fact that this is mostly...preference. it's a bit difficult to take two games that are so distinctly different and compare them side by side. all that will happen is one person will say they like one over the other. and then someone else will disagree in a never ending cycle. i think we'd be better off comparing bioshock to crysis when it comes out rather than to halo 3. and even THAT would be a tough comparison.

Its not a matter of preference from my perspective. When I look at any two games I take what it trys to achieve and calculate a maximum possible score, then I see how well it is executed. Bungie where on a mission to achieve a lot more than 2K games and executed it almost flawlessly, whereas 2K games attempted less, but executed it arguably to perfection. This is a dilema in itself, but by my theory if halo can pull all that off well enough then Bioshock is not capable of being as good a game. This isn't an unfair way to assess the games either in my opinion, it simply requires that Bioshock adds tons of extra features* to match Halos and executes them to a similar standard.

*this does not need to be limited to multiplayer - multiplayer vs single player is a preference. It could be anything from Cooperative play to something we haven't thought of

 

[link590o]

that's all well and good. but my point is that this thread didn't take it from that angle. it tried purely to guage the excellence of the game in the eyes of the player on far too many categories for it to work. although i feel that the method you suggested allows for a few too many biases in determining if a game is great or not, it's not a bad idea. it could work given the right parameters.

did the company achieve the goals they set forth? did they exceed them? did they meet the expectations of the player? was it purposeful that they exceeded their expectations or pure chance? were these goals lofty or minimalistic? was the game well made despite everything? could it be improved upon?

these are in essence the most important questions to ask, and although most of it will be opinion, thats the whole point and its a decent way to guage success. and you're the one who hit on these questions. so kudos to you.

since the question has somewhat changed, here's my stance on the issue:
2kgames hit on a very novel idea with bioshock. it combined a lot of very interesting elements and moral dilemmas, and it set it in a time frame that made it a thrill. and the dystopia created was vastly superior to many i've seen outside of silent hill. and that was some creepy ****. graphically, plot wise, and in terms of gameplay, i think 2kgames set some very lofty goals and managed to exceed them.

to me, Halo 3 seems too....generic now. the overall plotline doesn't really change. you get new enemies and new guns and that's pretty much it. they did maintain their style and all that very very well sure. but outside of that, it seemed...uninspired. it was simply one of those series that got worse as it progressed. they certainly achieved their goals and pulled it off well, but if all people looked forward to was the multiplayer, then it was hardly worth making the campaign for it. all the hype about halo 3 wasn't really worth listening to because outside of a few small changes, it was practically the same as the last 2 games. in that sense, they achieved the company goals, but they didn't exceed my expectations. i expected better of the game than what it offered. it needed a bigger plot twist, better weapons etc.

 

[Sharkfood]

I had a hard time voting since I really can't compare the two games one bit. While they are both first-person/shooter games, they are so different from gameplay and immersion factors, I'd consider them totally different genres.

That being said, I do enjoy Bioshock a bit more as I find the atmosphere, gameplay dynamics, sound and story to be quite riveting. It's unfair to pit Halo 3 against these as it doesn't attempt nor try to compete in this realm as it's more of visceral/action game with a flowing storyline.

Good news is- as gamers, we're getting a lot of variety in our games and developers are putting more effort into the "whole experience"- so mindless shooters with some glitzy graphics are becoming extinct; but games with flowing stories, tuned gameplay, interesting events/mechanics are becoming the new standards.

 

[link590o]

in all fairness to them, i'd say they were somewhat bound by the limits of computers. i'm fairly sure that there were tons of games that had awesome story lines, fantastic characters, graphics and concept art, but the computers of the age couldn't handle them. ever since dual core came to be, and graphics chips started evolving like they did recently, more games could take advantage of the advances. bioshock is so graphics intensive that unless you're using the 2900hd, geforce 8800, or a better one which comes out in november, you won't be ABLE to take advantage of all the graphics and stuff it has to offer.

now that we have the ability to create and display all kinds of ideas, rendered at a graphical level unprecedented by previous technology, it can finally TRULY be the new standard. i think it always has been the standard, but there was a barrier in terms of how far it could go. now that we have what we need to render it, all we need is a few creative ideas, and a group of game developers that know how to please.

 

[Myzz617]

IMO i dont see what the big hype is behind either game. HALO has been out since 01 and of course with each new version...sequel its gonna only get better..well at least we hope. Halo seems played out to me and i couldnt get into the first Halo..but hey it made 300Mil the frist week of sales lol

Bioshock does not look all that promising to me..mayb bacuase i dont own a 360 yet thats prob why..but if i did or i was going to vote i would choose Bioshock.

 

[link590o]

the hype behind bioshock comes from its gameplay. its like nothing anyone has ever seen. and it adds moral responsibility on top of it all. the plot is fantastic. graphics are freakin sweet. i constantly saw new games coming out, and for a while, i was indifferent. i didn't see the reasons for the hype behind them. i was waiting for that new game that everyone would be sent reeling from. a game that introduced a brand new spin on things. something that wasn't played out like halo or world of warcraft. thats when i saw trailers for bioshock. i was very impressed with what they had done with it. its got raving reviews, and people i know that bought the game went on a binge-playing spree until they beat it. that said, i'd say it adds up to something that gives you chills, and makes you want to try it yourself. i know i do.

i guess it might just be preference in your case. maybe you're just...not the halo or bioshock kinda guy. *shrug*. in either case, i don't plan on persuading you to like either one. thats just how i saw the games. what kinda stuff are you into? rpgs? rts? mmorpgs? fps?

 

[Myzz617]

umm well im the SOCOM kinda guy..MADDEN of course these are becoming played out but I'll always own the newest ones

Im just getting into games in COH, been loved C&C3, WIC, GRAW2. Some fps games are okay esp Tom clancy ones. Yea Bioshock seems like it might be something I try once the price goes down or if I can find a used one.

and urself? Do you own bioshock?

 

[link590o]

HAH! own it? I WISH i owned it. and i wish i owned a computer that could run it. sadly, my world revolves around saving up for a new computer that i can maybe buy in january or so. and that's gonna drain everything i have. i'll have to wait another 6 months or so before i get more cash and can CONSIDER buying bioshock. first things first though. i need the computer before i can consider the game.

as for what type of guy i am for video games, i really can't say. all i can go on is if it strikes my fancy. i've tried World of Warcraft, owned Command and Conquer Generals and Zero Hour, owned Halo, and owned Call of Duty 2. and for gamecube, i played through the first Metal Gear Solid. unfortunately, the collection doesn't grow more than that because of my p.o.s. computer, and money problems. so just going off that, i can't EXACTLY pin myself as any one genre because they're all really different. i gotta say though, i'm a fan of first person shooters for the most part though. as long as it's from my perspective, and i get to do all kinds of stuff. hence why i loved metal gear solid and call of duty and halo.

but bioshock though...i'm really anxious to try it...when i have the money.

 

[pcnthuziast]

You don't own Bioshock yet you posted literally many paragraphs in this thread. I'm not flaming you, but you took a simple comparison thread that coulda just been a fun slew of oppinions and tried to boil it down to such an extremely finite degree that quite honestly I got annoyed after awhile. I've noticed that you are very outspoken and oppinonated which is fine... I would even venture to say it's a good trait, but you are entirely over analytical IMO. Although I can totally see where you're coming from on many of your views I feel you take things too seriously and need to just relax and have fun... instead much of your commentary seems to be aimed at undermining the oppinions and views of others. You come off like what you have to say is the bottom line and that merely demonstrates an ego rather than intellect.
I'm not trying to villify you, I'm just very curious as to what your motives are. I see forums as an opportunity to share ideas and oppinions in a very discreet and casual environment. You're obviously very intelligent and articulate and I hope you don't feel as though I'm attacking you, I'm just genuinely interested in knowing your agenda!

 

[link590o]

i'm a college student. i'm used to being over analytical. and i guess it gets the best of me at times...

BASICALLY...all i was trying to do was to help clarify the genuine traits of each game to more easily assess which one was better. after all, that was the point of the thread. to see which one is superior. maybe i was trying too hard? whatever. people don't have to go off what i post when they make their own posts. whatever i write doesn't stop anyone from writing whatever they wish. you can have all the fun opinions as you like. you don't have to respond to my thoughts.

just know that i realize what you're trying to say, i too think i might have been trying too hard....just...chill.

 

[pcnthuziast]

At no point was I not chillin... peace!

 

[Myzz617]

Threads are made for discussion. but nevermind that talk...I think you just eed something to do in the mean time and are interested i learning the game cuz there is a lot of hype fir the both of them. I like drawing Analogys ad its like comparing SOCOM to MGS series even they both differ in genre...which does not make a game alone worth buying because of its classification.

But yes i conside my self a collector..have sold all my nintedo and sega stuff cuz i was 2 broke 2 upgrade then...but i got my FT job..getting the 360 prolly black fri..after thanks giving

I own over 40PS2 games...GTA series...splintercell...socom...hitman///ace combat..so yea im just continuing on my spree @ times when i have the money as well

 

[herringtonjc]

link590o, This isn't a thread I created to find a superior game. It was an opinion thread. Glad to hear your opinion, but it seems somewhat...Negative towards the thread itself. I was just trying to evaluate people's opinions on the two games to base my own judgment. However, I did manage to play Halo 3, and beat it in 6 hours straight on heroic. Mind you, it did seem mostly like the other Halo's, but that's the point of a STORYline. So I can't criticize. However, all that time they spent making the game, you'd think they would have made it at LEAST a longer game.

 

[matt1522]

ok so right now I have only started to play bio-shock but so far it is way better then halo 3 campaign. I think its the graphics really i think that they did a really good job of designing the game, I will come back to give my input on the story line when I really get into the game.