Briareos H on 19/6/2023 at 13:16
Regarding Planet of Lana, I acknowledge it's unfair for me to want the game to be something it doesn't want to be and I still enjoyed my time. I think I would have accepted it more easily if I didn't get the impression that its first hour hinted at a one screen - one puzzle structure and lots of mechanics-oriented gameplay. It very competently introduces the tools you would normally expect to use to solve increasingly complex puzzles but never really does anything with them or dares deviate too much from the Limbo/Inside formula. So I felt that the puzzles suffered for the sake of narrative flow and I was spending too much time just pushing the stick to the right and climbing ropes as opposed to thinking about how to address a given obstacle.
I bought Lunark on release but haven't had time to play it yet, really looking forward to that! Same for Shadow of Doubt. Another mechanics-heavy game I think I'll be able to recommend after I spend more time in it is
(https://store.steampowered.com/app/1234180/Moons_Of_Darsalon/) Moons of Darsalon, a sort of tough Lemmings with guns and character micro-management. Still a bit on the buggy side though.
Sulphur on 19/6/2023 at 14:50
I sort of suspected that you meant per-room puzzles, as there's no combat or anything else really in the game apart from the puzzles and scenic views. I think it works well enough without being as condensed as an Another World or Abe's or Flashback, gives the scenery more room to breathe, but I see why that might be a bit disappointing if you were expecting it to be more like any of those. I think the puzzles needing more depth is a bigger, more immediate problem, and I felt exactly like you did at points - too much of it spent on repetitive actions like getting Mui to push a rope to you in place of something serving as an actual progress blocker, which makes a chunk of it feel like superficial busywork. Luckily, the game is quite charming and lovely to look at still (and the orchestral score is quite lush), so it wasn't so bad in the end.
RE: Moons of Darsalon, I'm surprised to hear it's still buggy, because there have been dozens of updates to it since the demo dropped. Clearly a labour of love though, looking forward to when I manage to get around to it.
Malf on 20/6/2023 at 10:39
I am really enjoying Bioshock 2, as the moment-to-moment gameplay is a lot tighter than the first game, and the mechanical streamlining welcome.
The act off adopting and saving / harvesting little Little Sisters also hits harder given Delta's background (although I prefer the aesthetically odd goblin-like Little Sisters from the first game, and how they would fight back even while you were saving them).
But I had forgotten how linear it can feel compared to the first game.
Where you could revisit almost the entirety of Rapture up until the very last moments of the first game, Bioshosk 2 closes off areas once you leave them, which I had forgotten since my last playthrough.
Yes, this comes with some startlingly good set-pieces (such as Lamb flooding Siren Alley), but it feels like some freedom to explore is being taken away from the player.
But then again, maybe that's intentional?
I do love that they leaned harder in to water as a mechanic in this game than in the first. Oddly, despite being an underwater city, water is never really a threat in the first game' Rapture. I remember reading that they initially had bigger plans for water in the first game, and Bioshock 2 feels like the redemption of some of those original ideas. Also, Delta being a Big Daddy allows them to explore that theme more easily.
But overall, I am really enjoying revisiting these games. And with the advance of time, I have found my attitudes towards them, especially the first, becoming more accomodating. I think all of the hype around the first game's story wound me up a bit, especially after the disappointing final boss fight, which at the time I felt significantly undermined the impact.
While I still don't like that boss fight, I can accept it now, and contrary to how I previously felt, I can acknowledge that it actually does very little to impact the importance of the game as a whole.
Thirith on 20/6/2023 at 11:41
For me, the Bioshock games would've been so much more enjoyable if there'd been actual stealth. I experience these spaces differently if I'm sneaking through them than if I'm running and gunning. Make that one change and I would have liked the games so much more, because the environments are definitely memorable.
Malf on 20/6/2023 at 13:00
You know, that's something I've made a conscious effort to break out of recently. Years of Imm Sims and CRPGs have made it so that I usually pick the stealth option by default.
But now I'm instead treating stealth like just another tool in the box instead of the only tool in the box.
I think it was really when Death of the Outsider and Prey stopped punishing me for breaking stealth that I noticed just how restricted my playstyle had become.
It's partly thanks to achievements, partly morality systems that have gradually steered me towards going stealth and nothing else, effectively invalidating 50% or more of the available powers / abilities / weapons.
Like how getting great scores in Hitman games involves being stealthy, but sometimes the reward will be a loud-as-fuck shotgun or explosive that you're never going to use if you're even remotely interested in maintaining stealth and getting that Silent Assassin rating.
Also, we need more games like the Riddick games, where stealth and lethality went hand-in-hand, making you feel more like a predator than prey.
Thirith on 20/6/2023 at 13:22
I see what you mean, but Bioshock was the opposite: stealth wasn't even an option (until Burial at Sea). Which is fair enough, but I very much wanted to explore Rapture the way it made most sense to me: sticking to the shadows, trying to stay out of trouble, eventually failing. I wanted the game to be much more Looking Glass/Arkane than it ended up being.
Sulphur on 20/6/2023 at 13:34
I have a hot take on both of your opinions: Bioshock's gameplay was bad enough that it didn't really matter that there wasn't stealth, because it would have been half-assed too (and while it was welcome in Burial at Sea Part 2, it was still half-assed). Bioshock 2 did in fact tighten up the gameplay so that it was much more fun as a shooter, but there's nothing about the games that looks like they're actively encouraging you to take seriously different approaches to their challenges - just forcing you towards a vapid moral choice. They are very much wearing an imsim-shaped mask on top of a boring old shooter face.
Malf on 20/6/2023 at 13:35
@ Thirith
I dunno, I seem to remember the first time I played through the original, heavily investing in wrench and natural camo and having a pretty successful stealth run. Yes, natural camo means you have to stay still, but splicers are twitchy, unpredictable fuckers and will inevitably meander within twatting distance.
That was a pretty effective way of stealthing the game.
True, not as nuanced as traditional stealth, a la Thief / Splinter Cell, but stealthy all the same.
Tangential Edit:
Oh yeah, I don't think I really noticed before, but especially in the first game, the economy is incredibly well-implemented, and on top of which serves to augment the overarching message.
It dimishes a little in the second with the addition of the occasional free fuel or Eve stations, but again, that may have been a conscious decision to highlight some of the more collectivist leanings of Lamb's faction.
heywood on 20/6/2023 at 13:56
Quote Posted by Thirith
For me, the
Bioshock games would've been so much more enjoyable if there'd been actual stealth. I experience these spaces differently if I'm sneaking through them than if I'm running and gunning. Make that one change and I would have liked the games so much more, because the environments are definitely memorable.
Yeah, I liked looking at the game but that was about it.
It would have to be a different game design to support stealthy play. They were going for Shooter 2.0.
Thirith on 20/6/2023 at 14:40
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I have a hot take on both of your opinions: Bioshock's gameplay was bad enough that it didn't really matter that there wasn't stealth, because it would have been half-assed too (and while it was welcome in Burial at Sea Part 2, it was still half-assed). Bioshock 2 did in fact tighten up the gameplay so that it was much more fun as a shooter, but there's nothing about the games that looks like they're actively encouraging you to take seriously different approaches to their challenges - just forcing you towards a vapid moral choice. They are very much wearing an imsim-shaped mask on top of a boring old shooter face.
Not so much a hot take as just the truth, I'd say. It definitely didn't help that they kept pointing to that imsim-shaped mask and saying, "Spiritual successor, see? See?" I went in with the wrong expectations (and by
Bioshock 2 I'd adjusted those expectations enough for the game to have a better chance with me) - though I think that the setting would've lent itself to a proper immersive sim, more so perhaps than the straight shooter we got. But you're right: I don't think there's much reason to think they would've done a good immersive sim.
