Everything in Bioshock 2 just felt more fun for me, I loved the father/ daughter part of the story, and the battle mechanics just felt so much more potent
I love the first BioShock but love 2 as well. I don't understand all the hate it gets. I liked how different it was from the first. When I go back and play the first one, I always have to play the second one as well. I'll always own them.
While I do think that they mishandled Sophia Lamb, in all the ways you described, I think that she is still an interesting character: She is constantly going on about the tyrant, and how selfishness in the root of all evil, yet she is constantly putting herself in a position of power and thinks quite highly of herself. I'm tempted to say she is a narcissist, a narcissist that, because of her father’s teaching, understands that it is wrong to think so much for herself, and that others are important. Her entire philosophy could be described as her fighting herself (literally her-self) and trying to get beyond her egotism. It all concludes with the wonderfully contradictory statement “accepting the sacrifice of this body was her first morale act. In her final thoughts, she will imagine you wailing and gnashing as you fall into the dark". A statement of the greatest sacrifice one can do for a selfish and hate-filled reason. This contradiction is her defining element as a character and her motivation to create a utopian. She imagines that, deep down, everyone is like her, and she hates herself for what she is, and so seeks a way beyond.
There is another element to her, her attempts at control, and more importantly controlling elanor. She mentions how YOU would destroy the entire city in your attempt to get to elanor, and yet, she is the one who sends the splicers to their death, she is the one who refuses you, because she is terrified that her 'lifes work' will be ruined by your influence. If she had simply allowed you to be with elanor, she may have very well succeeded. But her attempts to ruin you ruined her own plans.
I agree with you on most points about B2. I thought the streamlining of the hacking puzzle was the best improvement and I think seeing Rapture through little sister eyes was inventive. I think a lot of fans of B1 didn't like it because they didn't think it brought anything new. This could be because the first one was so inventive, so graphically pretty and immersive. They didnt get that "big" impact with B2, and if they played the game strictly to run and gun, they didn't enjoy the full experience of story and richness in B2
collbn I feel ya. Even as a rabid fan of part 2, I'll be the first to admit that it's not a revelatory experience. But hot damn is it fun, and it tries to improve on most of the first game's faults. If it would've stuck the landing when it came to story, I know people would feel differently about it.
My opinion is that 2K Marin making Sophia Lamb not a good representation of Collectivism was intentional. Because she isn't a Collectivist. I think the point was to show that, at the end of the day, Sophia is a selfish, egotistical person who preys on the most vulnerable of society, and will throw anyone away if they threaten her "vision". She isn't that much different from Father Comstock, in some ways. Or Fontaine.
I loved all the bioshock games, but two has been my favorite since its release. While bioshock laid the foundation, and did so absolutely wonderfully, bioshock 2 made me feel more involved and gave me the feeling that I had my own role to play, not one forced upon me. Bioshock 3, I felt, filled in alot of lore, in a sense, kind of abstractly tying everything together in a connect the dots fashion, but it felt much more like Bioshock, where I was steered from start to end. I loved it as well, but it just didn't have the same intimacy as bioshock 2.
13:42 Actually, deciding what to do about Stanley Poole was the toughest decision in the whole game for me. EVERYBODY wanted him dead. Nobody would have mourned him. It was one of the few times I saw Eleanor in agreement with her mother. But...after five RL minutes of thinking it over, I just got on the train and left. It was Sophia Lamb subtly pushing me to kill him that tipped the scales. I refused to give her more validation on what a monster I was. That was the moment I fell in love with this game.
I spare him because there was no human in front of me. And because Sophia wnated me to kill him. I think, this one and Gil Alexander cases are the strongest two.(wich is obvios, ofc) Stanly Poole is miserable, pathetic. Yes, he is the reason of events, he forces Andrew Rayan to turn Jonny into a big daddy, yes, he is the reason of turning Eleanor into little sister, but... Is he deserve of vengence? I mean, he did all those things out of fear, out of horor before the other people and his responcibilities before those people. Personaly, i don't see a villian in him, i see only miserable pathetic scumbug, who doesn't deserve of vengense. In my playthrou Delta don't want to kill him because of disgust. Because this feel is natural for human, and my Delta becomes human again during the game, even if outside he looks like one of those big daddys. (sorry for any mistakes, not my native language)
I spared him for a different reason. Even if Delta walks away, Stanly is likely to meet an even more painful death at the hands of the splicers wandering Dionysus Park.
There's actually very little finality to Minerva's Den. The whole plan is based around using the Thinker to create a cure for ADAM, so Tennenbaum can return to Rapture and save the city. It sets up BioShock 3 perfectly.
Fantastic series analysis. This franchise is a masterpiece (well, Im not a fan of infinite but still love the first 2 games). Thanks for making these videos.
I think the Alex the Great decision is brilliant, not because it's a hard decision, but because the decision is so obvious to you, yet the belief of which on is the correct decision is so split among the players. I think sparing him is the correct thing to do. comparing him to a rabid dog isn't fair, and the implication that killing him is just like killing the splicers is also wrong, because at that moment, Alexander the Great is defenseless. The only reason you kill splicers is for self preservation, and a killing a defenseless splicer would be immoral just as killing a defenseless person (ignoring the fact that this is a video game, and nothing you do is actually immoral of course)
This makes sense to me actually. I remember a very specific moment in the first game where you walked into Sander Cohen's apartment and saw two splicers dancing with each other. They don't do anything but that and you can get surprisingly close before they agro, but for the most part, you can watch them from a distance and it's incredibly sad and weirdly satisfying scene. Of course they agro the moment the song ends, but the first time I encountered that whole scene (and I still do this with every playthru), I just sat and watched them. I had no reason to kill them because they weren't immediately a danger to me and I was content on just letting them do their thing. If they had never attacked me after the song stopped, I would've just let them be. The same can be said for Alexander. The decision to kill him or not didn't sit well with me simply because at that point there was nothing Alexander could do to stop me, and I really wished there was a way to just set him free into the ocean (even tho he'd probably never survive). Despite the awful things he did, we can't really blame him entirely for going insane. And the fact that at that point there's nothing he can do anymore to hurt anyone makes the decision to spare him more sensical. He's not human anymore, simply a pitiful, sad creature with no power left.
I spared completely by accident. I got the genetic key and left, no glowing for the button that would have killed him to draw my eye. It's a worse punishment than dying, really...and what that control freak deserved.
Well, i don't think, that Alex the great truly wants to live. I mean, in seconds or even minutes when his damaged mind is clear i'm sure he wants to die, but he simple can't. And even more, Gil asks to kill him while he is sane, and Alex is difenetly crazy and have huge mental issues so you can't trust him in his selfpreservation passion.
I would have loved if BioShock 2 and Minerva’s Den were the same game. In that both existed at the same time and the duality was the point. The narratives and setting interlocking, and given your state as a Big Daddy, never knowing which character you were inhabiting until the rug is pulled out from under you, it could have been a unique feat. Not only that, but it might have explained some things I find bare in Minerva’s Den (however, I do understand they were limited as an expansion pack) such as a lack of multiple endings. It makes me wish these games came out at the end of 2011 and not the start. BioShock 2 is still my favourite of the franchise however, even with Minerva’s Den. I think the game is crafted with so much meta as to being a sequel - the Aliens to Bioshock’s Alien (similar remark made by the creative director Jordan Thomas himself) that your points of Lamb being lesser to Ryan and forced into Rapture until the other characters comes across as intentional. However, if I did have one complaint it would be that knowing Lamb more would have emboldened her being out of place. In Persephone, when we play as a Little Sister, we understand that she perhaps loves Eleanor and feels genuinely bad about what she is doing to her. Which begs the question why that was only revealed at the end of the game and not a building block to impact the moral decisions and make the player think about their consequences more? All wishful thinking in hindsight, but this video brought a lot of ideas and discussion out, so thank you for making it. Your channel is amazing. I didn’t quite see the first two BioShocks as immersive sims on-par with the originals until your videos. BioShock really shows that sometimes less can be more. Except for BioShock Infinite because I personally thought it was shit.
For what you said about Lamb; yes she isn't as strong as Ryan. I feel that's the point. Ryan was Rapture in both a physical and metaphorical way. Physical as he built the city and metaphorical as his will was the will of the city until atlas. Lamb is subverted, cunning and is almost passive when she took control. Slowly persuading or manipulating those in Rapture to accept her as the new de facto leader. Not until Delta is revived is she forced to act, forced to make an offencive. And because she is not Ryan or atlas she fails, and resorts to stopping Eleanor's heart to stop Delta.
My only problem with Bioshock 2 is that Telekinesis 3 is only available in the last level of the game. Being able to pick up and throw live enemies, reel them in close for an attack, or using them as a human shield is awesome.
While I don't agree with all your critique, I will say that you really did this game justice. I was a huge fan of the second game, and still am, and it disheartens me when the fandom and gaming community (and the original development team itself) just completely dismissed it just because it's narrative was flawed. And it was flawed in many ways, but it wasn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be (and thank you for pointing out that a good Bioshock story doesn't have to hinge on a plot twist, that always frustrated me about BS2 reviews). As for Lamb, I do think she could have been implemented better into the overall lore, but I wouldn't say she wasn't memorable. In fact, she's more memorable to me than Ryan is, simply because of how much I hated her. It mostly had to do with the fact of how contradictory she actually was and how she practically patronizes Delta (and really everyone else) to seem more powerful than she actually is. She's hypocritical, but tries to hide it a lot. When she goes on philosophical rambles, she's doing it to show that she's somehow /better/ than everyone else. What's worse is that at some point, she's completely aware of this, that's she's hypocritical. Which is why she tries to hard to force her philosophies on her paitients and eventually try to achieve her goals by using her daughter as a proxy, and claiming it as "sacrificing for the family", even tho it really isn't. But what I think people tend to miss (and it's understandable unless you have the BS2 artbook like I do), is that she's actually supposed to be the opposite of Tenenbaum. Lamb was designed to look like the opposite of Tenenbaum (where Lamb is tall, Tenenbaum is short, where Lamb is angular, Tenenbaum is round, where Lamb is made up and looks like she cares about her appearance, Tenenbaum doesn't give two shits about how she looks) And it makes sense when you realize that it also goes into how they think and act. Despite saying that family is sacrifice, Lamb never really sacrificed anything. Not her power, not her wealth, nothing. Tenenbaum, however, sacrificed a lot for the betterment of people's lives, especially for the little sisters. She even comes /back/ to Rapture to risk her life to more save more little sisters, then helps Subject Sigma revert the Big Daddy treatment, and brings The Thinker up to the surface for the world's benefit. She better represents Lamb's ideals than even herself, and it's that that made me realized why I love Lamb as an antagonist and why I love to hate her.
In my opinion letting Alexander live is more of a vengeful choice. He became the same as Delta, devolved and cut away from the humanity he had. Killing him is, through perspective of Delta, giving him your hand in helping gesture, something I presume he would not want to do after what Alexander did.
Great video mate! I recently went through Bioshock 2 again and was quite surprised at how strong the environments were from what I remembered. I prefer Bioshock 1 simply because it has that unique special quality only a few games have. After your subtle wink hint I look forward to your take in Infinite a game which I've always been disappointed in.
Bioshock 2 is great, just as great as the other 2. It’s grown in the eyes of people. Lamb is a fantastic character, just as great and memorable as Ryan. 2 is just as memorable as the others. Bioshock 2’s story using fail at all, it’s fantastic, it did not fail to attain intimacy at all, it succeeded with flying colors. Lamb’s absence is explained in 2. “Her name was forgotten”. Lamb is 3 dimensional character not 2 D. Bioshock 2 has a great story and characters on par with the original. It’s story is one of it’s greatest strength. It’s theme of metamorphosis is well executed and not clumsy at all. Bioshock 2 is both personal and has high stakes, it’s not muddled at all and it’s great and does both very well. You aren’t doing the game justice. Lambs dialogue means a lot if you just listen to it. Let me explain: Look at it this way, I was interested in the story from start to finish. I cared about Eleanor and wanted to see her safe. As someone who grew up with “imperfect” parents I know what she felt like. The more I learned about her situation the more I wanted to help. Same goes with every character, each one well acted and written, and very interesting. I wanted to learn more about each one, some I cared about and felt sorry for, others I hated and wanted to see fail, and some were just interesting. Plus Bioshock 2 expands raptures story a lot, it lets us know why people would fight against Ryan. Sofia Lamb is an excellent villain, the way she manipulated the splicers and citizens of rapture, as well as the pain she caused. Her philosophy was interesting, but also flawed. Plus seeing characters like Sinclair turned against you after all that happened was sad. Hearing the stories of grace Holloway, Stanley pool, Gil Alexander, mark meltzer, etc. Each one has an interesting personality and story. Plus given how well the characters tie into each game other, learning about one tells you so much about the others. The ending is also great showing the impact our choices had on Eleanor. I could go on forever. I hope I’ve helped explain more about why I love it so much. That’s why I don’t understand the criticism that some have, and why so many people love it so much.
Most people dont like infinite as much because it directly confronts the dark side of American exceptionalism. As well as not being a dark claustrophobic game the change of scenery turned others off. I personally think infinite was beautiful but needed more consequence. It does at least set up the possibility of a multiverse giving us a chance of oneday returning to a light house somewhere above a diffrent version of rapture.
I expected you to bash the story of BioShock 2, but you actually handled it quite well and constructive. I certainly expected worse from you. I personally liked the story in BioShock 2. To me it was almost as memorable as the first game's story. Sure it wasn't as good, but it didn't really need to be and I can't see it as a weak link, except maybe Lamb herself. I'm personally used to retcons and the ay she was introduced into Rapture actually made sense for me. She was of course nowhere near as good of a villain as Ryan but a much more interesting villain than Fontaine who was little more than a crook outside of the big twist. She was also a much more memorable villain than Reed Wahl, who I consider to be the least interesting villain in the entire franchise, which is ironic because I consider Minerva's Den to be one of the best things the franchise had to offer.
Also, I feel Bioshock 2 is in a different universe that had similar events happen, but not the same as, the universe that Bioshock 1 and Burial At Sea 1 and 2 take place in.
I spared Stanley my first time, and not because I wanted another ending. Personally, I wanted Stanley to suffer with his guilt in his little shitty life. I remember thinking “he’s not worth the drill fuel”. I didn’t spare him, mainly because death was too easy for him.
I weirdly felt something similar my thought process was he is so pathetic he sunk a bit of rapture to cover his own ass he was so small and pathetic I didn’t want to kill him because of that he was weak and I could prove to lamb I wasn’t a monster
@@TheWholesaleHow I had a simpler reason for sparing his life after five long minutes of thought: Sophia Lamb wanted me to do it. And the last thing I was ever going to do was what she wanted.
I think Dr Lamb would work better as the underdog who decided to go higher after main baddie was struck down. It would work better than what we got. Overall, I'm not mad at bioshock 2.
I actually preferred this one than I did the first one. Bioshock 1 did have a better story but imo that's the only thing 2 was really missing. I think the concept was great but it's execution was off. Seeing the underwater city from the perspective of someone who actually lives there and has(or had) a role that the city relies on was a good way to make a sequel with a distinction from the 1st one..if only they had done it better I think more people would've liked it but other than that I think it was great. The gameplay was much better and the City felt more alive (probably due to the friendly NPC's even though they were usually hidden behind a glass or something) and I felt there was much more background lore you could find in the game. Infinite on the other hand... I thought it was good all the way up 'till close to the end where it completely screws the story it had built up to that point, that ending was ridiculous. I'm looking forward to seeing the next video to see if you've got the same problems with it. The one thing I really liked is the nostalgia factor when you learn about the two City's connection and then the end when we end up in Rapture at the very moment we hear that loud screeching noise during Bioshock 1 and learn that it was the Songbird, it was almost poetic(I think that was really the only great moment in the game). I'm not even going to mention the bs they pulled with Booker again during the DLC (which I overall enjoyed, I loved going back and using plasmids that actually help in exploration instead of the almost useless ones we got in the main game.
i actualy always spare Stanley there is no better prison then that he help greated for himself in ruins of the city. Deat is easy live life which you choose
Very late comment but its ab out the character of lamb and the story . I think Lamb should have always been a nobody whose beliefs made her at odds with the anarcho capitlaist nature of rapture leading to her failure to perform in the city as ryan falls apart she introduces her ideologies slowly in poor places and becomes a true counter this means she souldnt be any less of aperson but she could at least have reason to not be famous in game but capable of immense power under the right circumstances. if bio 2 is aloose criticism of extreme communism the rise of a simple worker to a terrifying dictator is a tale as simple as that in history itself.
I'd spare Grace Halloway, but kill Stanley and Gil. I idc if it leads to Eleanor letting her mother die (after all she did, she deserves it). I think you still get the good/happy ending with Ellie and the Little Sisters tho.
I don’t like the good ending letting Sofia Lamb survive. She was horrible, she was beyond saving morally, and Eleanor saying she may change sounded naive and idiotic. Especially since she causes Delta’s death with the explosives.
I feel like the plot of Bioshock 2 was an obvious "NU UHHH SOCIALISM IS SUUUU BAD AND CAPITALISM IS SUUUUU GOOD U GUYS HERE LOOK" response to the 1st. Although it does admit Ryan's rampant "Objectivism" as reprehensible, it still comes off as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to play "Minerva's Den" for the same length of time I played Bioshock 2. Also, isn't it always engineers that fuck up everything? I hated the engineers I went to school with, they are like the dumb jocks of the STEM world.
True, but you're also an Alpha Series. The fact that you're weaker than the more modern Big Daddies is reflected in that the other Alpha Series you encounter throughout the game are nowhere near as resiliant as the other Big Daddies as well.
Actually I can see why killing Alex the Great is considered bad. He is helpless and can no longer pose a threat to anyone. The comparison to Splicers is false because Splicers will always pose a threat to the player. Killing them is self defense. Killing Alex is NOT self defense, and that's why it's considered bad. Even killing Poole can be considered defending other people. Poole still poses a credible threat as he would clearly kill again, if given a chance. With Alex living in the deep ocean there is no credible threat to anyone. While I certainly agree that BioShock 2 did somethings better than the first game especially in gameplay, I think that the writing is a clear letdown. Almost all of the characters have the "The same but different!" feeling to them. The only real fun, and I think interesting character, is Alex. But even then he is a "same but different" version of Sander Cohen. Eleanor really just acts as a puppet for Delta's world view and should have been a much better character. One problem with the writing is that it went through a major overhaul near the end of development. Originally there was only going to be one Big Sister (Eleanor) who would attack Delta during the game but always escape when beaten. But 2K Marin thought that the players would hate her because she was always attacking and there would be no moral choice in regards to her.Minerva's Den is great though and even Ken Levine is stated as loving it. While he has not said anything similar about BS2 itself. One basic problem with BioShock 2 is that many of the devs 2K Marin really did NOT want to go back to Rapture. They wanted to make their own City. But time constraints and 2K telling them they had to set BS2 in Rapture meant they had to go back. More than a few devs left 2K Marin after BS2 saying they wanted to make their own games. sm
7 років тому
I don't think Bioshock 2 is "better" than 1. They both have good and bad things about them. I'd say both games are equally good. I play 1 for the story (or, epicness) and 2 for a better feel of the controls. Which is to say is "better"? IMO you can't.
![Bioshock Series - Retrospective (Part 3: Bioshock Infinite & Burial at Sea) [SPOILERS FOR BOTH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lCgrlX79ZCo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Bioshock Series - Retrospective (Part 3: Bioshock Infinite & Burial at Sea) [SPOILERS FOR BOTH]](/img/tr.png)
![Bioshock Series - Retrospective (Part 1: System Shock - Bioshock) [SPOILERS FOR BOTH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AKuWL5ZXarU/mqdefault.jpg)
IDK why, but I loved Bioshock 2 a lot more than Bio 1.
Also, Like if you Cried for Delta at the good end.
LinkieLinkGameing 👍👍👍
Everything in Bioshock 2 just felt more fun for me, I loved the father/ daughter part of the story, and the battle mechanics just felt so much more potent
Same here!
I love the first BioShock but love 2 as well. I don't understand all the hate it gets. I liked how different it was from the first. When I go back and play the first one, I always have to play the second one as well. I'll always own them.
While I do think that they mishandled Sophia Lamb, in all the ways you described, I think that she is still an interesting character: She is constantly going on about the tyrant, and how selfishness in the root of all evil, yet she is constantly putting herself in a position of power and thinks quite highly of herself. I'm tempted to say she is a narcissist, a narcissist that, because of her father’s teaching, understands that it is wrong to think so much for herself, and that others are important. Her entire philosophy could be described as her fighting herself (literally her-self) and trying to get beyond her egotism.
It all concludes with the wonderfully contradictory statement “accepting the sacrifice of this body was her first morale act. In her final thoughts, she will imagine you wailing and gnashing as you fall into the dark". A statement of the greatest sacrifice one can do for a selfish and hate-filled reason. This contradiction is her defining element as a character and her motivation to create a utopian. She imagines that, deep down, everyone is like her, and she hates herself for what she is, and so seeks a way beyond.
There is another element to her, her attempts at control, and more importantly controlling elanor. She mentions how YOU would destroy the entire city in your attempt to get to elanor, and yet, she is the one who sends the splicers to their death, she is the one who refuses you, because she is terrified that her 'lifes work' will be ruined by your influence. If she had simply allowed you to be with elanor, she may have very well succeeded. But her attempts to ruin you ruined her own plans.
@@95wave Because of all this, I say that Eleanor, not Delta, was Sophia Lamb's real opponent in this game.
Great video! Minerva's den was absolutely the best thing about Bioshock 2
chomungus I'd go on record saying it's the best bit of Bioshock, period. Or at least, my fave. 👍
I agree with you on most points about B2. I thought the streamlining of the hacking puzzle was the best improvement and I think seeing Rapture through little sister eyes was inventive. I think a lot of fans of B1 didn't like it because they didn't think it brought anything new. This could be because the first one was so inventive, so graphically pretty and immersive. They didnt get that "big" impact with B2, and if they played the game strictly to run and gun, they didn't enjoy the full experience of story and richness in B2
collbn I feel ya. Even as a rabid fan of part 2, I'll be the first to admit that it's not a revelatory experience. But hot damn is it fun, and it tries to improve on most of the first game's faults. If it would've stuck the landing when it came to story, I know people would feel differently about it.
dont stop making these, they are so good.
Jimmy SawFinger I have one more retrospective to do, then back to the lore.
Im glad you went back to give some credit to bioshock 2 its one of my favorite game even tho it has some small flaws. Great Video!
Its Noodles707 Of course. It's the black sheep of the series, so we gotta show it some love.
My opinion is that 2K Marin making Sophia Lamb not a good representation of Collectivism was intentional. Because she isn't a Collectivist. I think the point was to show that, at the end of the day, Sophia is a selfish, egotistical person who preys on the most vulnerable of society, and will throw anyone away if they threaten her "vision". She isn't that much different from Father Comstock, in some ways. Or Fontaine.
I loved all the bioshock games, but two has been my favorite since its release. While bioshock laid the foundation, and did so absolutely wonderfully, bioshock 2 made me feel more involved and gave me the feeling that I had my own role to play, not one forced upon me. Bioshock 3, I felt, filled in alot of lore, in a sense, kind of abstractly tying everything together in a connect the dots fashion, but it felt much more like Bioshock, where I was steered from start to end.
I loved it as well, but it just didn't have the same intimacy as bioshock 2.
Joshua Hanning, 2 is definitely my favorite I love Eleanor/Delta relationship and battle just feels waaaay better
13:42 Actually, deciding what to do about Stanley Poole was the toughest decision in the whole game for me. EVERYBODY wanted him dead. Nobody would have mourned him. It was one of the few times I saw Eleanor in agreement with her mother.
But...after five RL minutes of thinking it over, I just got on the train and left. It was Sophia Lamb subtly pushing me to kill him that tipped the scales. I refused to give her more validation on what a monster I was. That was the moment I fell in love with this game.
I spare him because there was no human in front of me.
And because Sophia wnated me to kill him.
I think, this one and Gil Alexander cases are the strongest two.(wich is obvios, ofc)
Stanly Poole is miserable, pathetic.
Yes, he is the reason of events, he forces Andrew Rayan to turn Jonny into a big daddy, yes, he is the reason of turning Eleanor into little sister, but... Is he deserve of vengence?
I mean, he did all those things out of fear, out of horor before the other people and his responcibilities before those people. Personaly, i don't see a villian in him, i see only miserable pathetic scumbug, who doesn't deserve of vengense.
In my playthrou Delta don't want to kill him because of disgust.
Because this feel is natural for human, and my Delta becomes human again during the game, even if outside he looks like one of those big daddys.
(sorry for any mistakes, not my native language)
I spared him for a different reason. Even if Delta walks away, Stanly is likely to meet an even more painful death at the hands of the splicers wandering Dionysus Park.
I loved BioShock 2.
We need a direct sequel!
Excellent review + analysis. I always look forward to watching your videos.
And now I want to play Bioshock 2.
Love your stuff dude, your observations are great. Way better than a lot of other game reviewers and you're a lot more engaging too.
diggy dogpaco Thanks. This is my first real attempt at a review, so that's swell to hear 🙏
Masterpiece. Keep up the with the great content dude!
Hoxton haha, masterpiece is such a strong word, but thank you!
please do Observer. I fell in love with your work on Soma and I feel like Observer will be of the same tone !
There's actually very little finality to Minerva's Den. The whole plan is based around using the Thinker to create a cure for ADAM, so Tennenbaum can return to Rapture and save the city. It sets up BioShock 3 perfectly.
Literally one of the greatest voices ever. I hope you do make more vids.
Amazing work. Thanks for making these! Can't wait for part 3.
Michael Stieger I can, lol. I'm a lot more critical of Infinite and it's DLCs, so I'm bracing myself for backlash.
What a passionate observation.
Fantastic series analysis. This franchise is a masterpiece (well, Im not a fan of infinite but still love the first 2 games). Thanks for making these videos.
Found your retrospective and it's absolutley brilliant. Keep up the good work :)
These really do the series justice. Looking forward to the next installment.
Dat ending, epic man.
Great review, had my sub sandwich lunch during it, greatest lunch ever. :)
Ian Knau If I had a tie on, I'd be adjusting it with flattery. Thanks!
I think the Alex the Great decision is brilliant, not because it's a hard decision, but because the decision is so obvious to you, yet the belief of which on is the correct decision is so split among the players. I think sparing him is the correct thing to do. comparing him to a rabid dog isn't fair, and the implication that killing him is just like killing the splicers is also wrong, because at that moment, Alexander the Great is defenseless. The only reason you kill splicers is for self preservation, and a killing a defenseless splicer would be immoral just as killing a defenseless person (ignoring the fact that this is a video game, and nothing you do is actually immoral of course)
This makes sense to me actually. I remember a very specific moment in the first game where you walked into Sander Cohen's apartment and saw two splicers dancing with each other. They don't do anything but that and you can get surprisingly close before they agro, but for the most part, you can watch them from a distance and it's incredibly sad and weirdly satisfying scene. Of course they agro the moment the song ends, but the first time I encountered that whole scene (and I still do this with every playthru), I just sat and watched them. I had no reason to kill them because they weren't immediately a danger to me and I was content on just letting them do their thing. If they had never attacked me after the song stopped, I would've just let them be.
The same can be said for Alexander. The decision to kill him or not didn't sit well with me simply because at that point there was nothing Alexander could do to stop me, and I really wished there was a way to just set him free into the ocean (even tho he'd probably never survive). Despite the awful things he did, we can't really blame him entirely for going insane. And the fact that at that point there's nothing he can do anymore to hurt anyone makes the decision to spare him more sensical. He's not human anymore, simply a pitiful, sad creature with no power left.
I spared completely by accident. I got the genetic key and left, no glowing for the button that would have killed him to draw my eye. It's a worse punishment than dying, really...and what that control freak deserved.
Well, i don't think, that Alex the great truly wants to live.
I mean, in seconds or even minutes when his damaged mind is clear i'm sure he wants to die, but he simple can't.
And even more, Gil asks to kill him while he is sane, and Alex is difenetly crazy and have huge mental issues so you can't trust him in his selfpreservation passion.
dude your videos are awesome
I would have loved if BioShock 2 and Minerva’s Den were the same game. In that both existed at the same time and the duality was the point. The narratives and setting interlocking, and given your state as a Big Daddy, never knowing which character you were inhabiting until the rug is pulled out from under you, it could have been a unique feat. Not only that, but it might have explained some things I find bare in Minerva’s Den (however, I do understand they were limited as an expansion pack) such as a lack of multiple endings. It makes me wish these games came out at the end of 2011 and not the start.
BioShock 2 is still my favourite of the franchise however, even with Minerva’s Den. I think the game is crafted with so much meta as to being a sequel - the Aliens to Bioshock’s Alien (similar remark made by the creative director Jordan Thomas himself) that your points of Lamb being lesser to Ryan and forced into Rapture until the other characters comes across as intentional.
However, if I did have one complaint it would be that knowing Lamb more would have emboldened her being out of place. In Persephone, when we play as a Little Sister, we understand that she perhaps loves Eleanor and feels genuinely bad about what she is doing to her. Which begs the question why that was only revealed at the end of the game and not a building block to impact the moral decisions and make the player think about their consequences more? All wishful thinking in hindsight, but this video brought a lot of ideas and discussion out, so thank you for making it. Your channel is amazing. I didn’t quite see the first two BioShocks as immersive sims on-par with the originals until your videos. BioShock really shows that sometimes less can be more.
Except for BioShock Infinite because I personally thought it was shit.
For what you said about Lamb; yes she isn't as strong as Ryan. I feel that's the point. Ryan was Rapture in both a physical and metaphorical way. Physical as he built the city and metaphorical as his will was the will of the city until atlas. Lamb is subverted, cunning and is almost passive when she took control. Slowly persuading or manipulating those in Rapture to accept her as the new de facto leader. Not until Delta is revived is she forced to act, forced to make an offencive. And because she is not Ryan or atlas she fails, and resorts to stopping Eleanor's heart to stop Delta.
My only problem with Bioshock 2 is that Telekinesis 3 is only available in the last level of the game. Being able to pick up and throw live enemies, reel them in close for an attack, or using them as a human shield is awesome.
While I don't agree with all your critique, I will say that you really did this game justice. I was a huge fan of the second game, and still am, and it disheartens me when the fandom and gaming community (and the original development team itself) just completely dismissed it just because it's narrative was flawed. And it was flawed in many ways, but it wasn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be (and thank you for pointing out that a good Bioshock story doesn't have to hinge on a plot twist, that always frustrated me about BS2 reviews).
As for Lamb, I do think she could have been implemented better into the overall lore, but I wouldn't say she wasn't memorable. In fact, she's more memorable to me than Ryan is, simply because of how much I hated her. It mostly had to do with the fact of how contradictory she actually was and how she practically patronizes Delta (and really everyone else) to seem more powerful than she actually is. She's hypocritical, but tries to hide it a lot. When she goes on philosophical rambles, she's doing it to show that she's somehow /better/ than everyone else. What's worse is that at some point, she's completely aware of this, that's she's hypocritical. Which is why she tries to hard to force her philosophies on her paitients and eventually try to achieve her goals by using her daughter as a proxy, and claiming it as "sacrificing for the family", even tho it really isn't.
But what I think people tend to miss (and it's understandable unless you have the BS2 artbook like I do), is that she's actually supposed to be the opposite of Tenenbaum. Lamb was designed to look like the opposite of Tenenbaum (where Lamb is tall, Tenenbaum is short, where Lamb is angular, Tenenbaum is round, where Lamb is made up and looks like she cares about her appearance, Tenenbaum doesn't give two shits about how she looks) And it makes sense when you realize that it also goes into how they think and act. Despite saying that family is sacrifice, Lamb never really sacrificed anything. Not her power, not her wealth, nothing. Tenenbaum, however, sacrificed a lot for the betterment of people's lives, especially for the little sisters. She even comes /back/ to Rapture to risk her life to more save more little sisters, then helps Subject Sigma revert the Big Daddy treatment, and brings The Thinker up to the surface for the world's benefit. She better represents Lamb's ideals than even herself, and it's that that made me realized why I love Lamb as an antagonist and why I love to hate her.
In my opinion letting Alexander live is more of a vengeful choice. He became the same as Delta, devolved and cut away from the humanity he had. Killing him is, through perspective of Delta, giving him your hand in helping gesture, something I presume he would not want to do after what Alexander did.
BioShock 1’s switching worked quite well with pc controls, so I don’t see it as too big of a deal, but I can understand frustration with bad controls
Great video mate! I recently went through Bioshock 2 again and was quite surprised at how strong the environments were from what I remembered. I prefer Bioshock 1 simply because it has that unique special quality only a few games have. After your subtle wink hint I look forward to your take in Infinite a game which I've always been disappointed in.
Bioshock 2 is great, just as great as the other 2.
It’s grown in the eyes of people.
Lamb is a fantastic character, just as great and memorable as Ryan.
2 is just as memorable as the others.
Bioshock 2’s story using fail at all, it’s fantastic, it did not fail to attain intimacy at all, it succeeded with flying colors.
Lamb’s absence is explained in 2. “Her name was forgotten”.
Lamb is 3 dimensional character not 2 D.
Bioshock 2 has a great story and characters on par with the original.
It’s story is one of it’s greatest strength.
It’s theme of metamorphosis is well executed and not clumsy at all.
Bioshock 2 is both personal and has high stakes, it’s not muddled at all and it’s great and does both very well.
You aren’t doing the game justice.
Lambs dialogue means a lot if you just listen to it.
Let me explain:
Look at it this way, I was interested in the story from start to finish. I cared about Eleanor and wanted to see her safe. As someone who grew up with “imperfect” parents I know what she felt like. The more I learned about her situation the more I wanted to help.
Same goes with every character, each one well acted and written, and very interesting. I wanted to learn more about each one, some I cared about and felt sorry for, others I hated and wanted to see fail, and some were just interesting.
Plus Bioshock 2 expands raptures story a lot, it lets us know why people would fight against Ryan.
Sofia Lamb is an excellent villain, the way she manipulated the splicers and citizens of rapture, as well as the pain she caused. Her philosophy was interesting, but also flawed.
Plus seeing characters like Sinclair turned against you after all that happened was sad.
Hearing the stories of grace Holloway, Stanley pool, Gil Alexander, mark meltzer, etc.
Each one has an interesting personality and story.
Plus given how well the characters tie into each game other, learning about one tells you so much about the others.
The ending is also great showing the impact our choices had on Eleanor.
I could go on forever.
I hope I’ve helped explain more about why I love it so much.
That’s why I don’t understand the criticism that some have, and why so many people love it so much.
The first two feel alot more enjoyable than infinite. Also, a lot more replay value.
Most people dont like infinite as much because it directly confronts the dark side of American exceptionalism. As well as not being a dark claustrophobic game the change of scenery turned others off.
I personally think infinite was beautiful but needed more consequence. It does at least set up the possibility of a multiverse giving us a chance of oneday returning to a light house somewhere above a diffrent version of rapture.
Awesome video, as usual. May i ask for the F.E.A.R. serie next ? I really think there is the material in it for you to excel.
great idea. FEAR is an absolute classic. Im still waiting on a modern game with A.I as good as the originals.
I expected you to bash the story of BioShock 2, but you actually handled it quite well and constructive. I certainly expected worse from you. I personally liked the story in BioShock 2. To me it was almost as memorable as the first game's story. Sure it wasn't as good, but it didn't really need to be and I can't see it as a weak link, except maybe Lamb herself. I'm personally used to retcons and the ay she was introduced into Rapture actually made sense for me. She was of course nowhere near as good of a villain as Ryan but a much more interesting villain than Fontaine who was little more than a crook outside of the big twist. She was also a much more memorable villain than Reed Wahl, who I consider to be the least interesting villain in the entire franchise, which is ironic because I consider Minerva's Den to be one of the best things the franchise had to offer.
Also, I feel Bioshock 2 is in a different universe that had similar events happen, but not the same as, the universe that Bioshock 1 and Burial At Sea 1 and 2 take place in.
Man you sure love Decoy lol
I spared Stanley my first time, and not because I wanted another ending. Personally, I wanted Stanley to suffer with his guilt in his little shitty life. I remember thinking “he’s not worth the drill fuel”. I didn’t spare him, mainly because death was too easy for him.
I weirdly felt something similar my thought process was he is so pathetic he sunk a bit of rapture to cover his own ass he was so small and pathetic I didn’t want to kill him because of that he was weak and I could prove to lamb I wasn’t a monster
@@TheWholesaleHow I had a simpler reason for sparing his life after five long minutes of thought: Sophia Lamb wanted me to do it. And the last thing I was ever going to do was what she wanted.
is it me or does it sound like Dig and the voice actor for Porter in Minerva's Den sound scary alike?
I think Dr Lamb would work better as the underdog who decided to go higher after main baddie was struck down. It would work better than what we got.
Overall, I'm not mad at bioshock 2.
bioshock suffered from some of the things it took from system shock, which didn't quite fit
Thx for the Delta's personality spoiler mate
I actually preferred this one than I did the first one. Bioshock 1 did have a better story but imo that's the only thing 2 was really missing. I think the concept was great but it's execution was off. Seeing the underwater city from the perspective of someone who actually lives there and has(or had) a role that the city relies on was a good way to make a sequel with a distinction from the 1st one..if only they had done it better I think more people would've liked it but other than that I think it was great. The gameplay was much better and the City felt more alive (probably due to the friendly NPC's even though they were usually hidden behind a glass or something) and I felt there was much more background lore you could find in the game.
Infinite on the other hand... I thought it was good all the way up 'till close to the end where it completely screws the story it had built up to that point, that ending was ridiculous. I'm looking forward to seeing the next video to see if you've got the same problems with it. The one thing I really liked is the nostalgia factor when you learn about the two City's connection and then the end when we end up in Rapture at the very moment we hear that loud screeching noise during Bioshock 1 and learn that it was the Songbird, it was almost poetic(I think that was really the only great moment in the game). I'm not even going to mention the bs they pulled with Booker again during the DLC (which I overall enjoyed, I loved going back and using plasmids that actually help in exploration instead of the almost useless ones we got in the main game.
Love bioshock 2
i actualy always spare Stanley there is no better prison then that he help greated for himself in ruins of the city. Deat is easy live life which you choose
Very late comment but its ab out the character of lamb and the story . I think Lamb should have always been a nobody whose beliefs made her at odds with the anarcho capitlaist nature of rapture leading to her failure to perform in the city as ryan falls apart she introduces her ideologies slowly in poor places and becomes a true counter this means she souldnt be any less of aperson but she could at least have reason to not be famous in game but capable of immense power under the right circumstances. if bio 2 is aloose criticism of extreme communism the rise of a simple worker to a terrifying dictator is a tale as simple as that in history itself.
I'd spare Grace Halloway, but kill Stanley and Gil. I idc if it leads to Eleanor letting her mother die (after all she did, she deserves it). I think you still get the good/happy ending with Ellie and the Little Sisters tho.
You are supposed to kill Gil Alexander. Its a mercy killing. I would do it in real life and did it in game.
I don’t like the good ending letting Sofia Lamb survive. She was horrible, she was beyond saving morally, and Eleanor saying she may change sounded naive and idiotic. Especially since she causes Delta’s death with the explosives.
So its not just me that was confused with the morality system when it come to killing Alex the Great...thank God
I feel like the plot of Bioshock 2 was an obvious "NU UHHH SOCIALISM IS SUUUU BAD AND CAPITALISM IS SUUUUU GOOD U GUYS HERE LOOK" response to the 1st. Although it does admit Ryan's rampant "Objectivism" as reprehensible, it still comes off as a knee-jerk reaction.
I wanted to play "Minerva's Den" for the same length of time I played Bioshock 2. Also, isn't it always engineers that fuck up everything? I hated the engineers I went to school with, they are like the dumb jocks of the STEM world.
The think is that your not a big daddy, your to fast, to fluid, to weak.
Sir Aroun Buh?
True, but you're also an Alpha Series. The fact that you're weaker than the more modern Big Daddies is reflected in that the other Alpha Series you encounter throughout the game are nowhere near as resiliant as the other Big Daddies as well.
Actually I can see why killing Alex the Great is considered bad. He is helpless and can no longer pose a threat to anyone. The comparison to Splicers is false because Splicers will always pose a threat to the player. Killing them is self defense. Killing Alex is NOT self defense, and that's why it's considered bad. Even killing Poole can be considered defending other people. Poole still poses a credible threat as he would clearly kill again, if given a chance. With Alex living in the deep ocean there is no credible threat to anyone. While I certainly agree that BioShock 2 did somethings better than the first game especially in gameplay, I think that the writing is a clear letdown. Almost all of the characters have the "The same but different!" feeling to them. The only real fun, and I think interesting character, is Alex. But even then he is a "same but different" version of Sander Cohen. Eleanor really just acts as a puppet for Delta's world view and should have been a much better character. One problem with the writing is that it went through a major overhaul near the end of development. Originally there was only going to be one Big Sister (Eleanor) who would attack Delta during the game but always escape when beaten. But 2K Marin thought that the players would hate her because she was always attacking and there would be no moral choice in regards to her.Minerva's Den is great though and even Ken Levine is stated as loving it. While he has not said anything similar about BS2 itself. One basic problem with BioShock 2 is that many of the devs 2K Marin really did NOT want to go back to Rapture. They wanted to make their own City. But time constraints and 2K telling them they had to set BS2 in Rapture meant they had to go back. More than a few devs left 2K Marin after BS2 saying they wanted to make their own games. sm
I don't think Bioshock 2 is "better" than 1. They both have good and bad things about them. I'd say both games are equally good. I play 1 for the story (or, epicness) and 2 for a better feel of the controls. Which is to say is "better"? IMO you can't.
Still prefer bio 1 combat more. Dunno why.
Shame they screwed up the Bioshock lore with this game, hence why it’s not considered canon.
If this game screwed up canon, then Burial at Sea dropped it's pants and took a fat steaming shit all over the canon.
Bio 2, too short, horrible plot, bland characters, too easy combat. no final boss. You make good points but I still think bio 1 is very superior.
I don’t like the mini game change. I’m colorblind and there is no way around that