Bioshock 2 Reviews: Cynics Swayed, but Masterpiece? Maybe Not

Bioshock 2, released today for Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC, is getting good-to-great reviews. I’ve kept the game at arm’s length because I have this thing about video game endings where I just want them to end, already, and Bioshock’s conclusion was poetic enough that it could’ve been a great send-off for the literary-minded first-person shooter. But once my current plate is cleared, Bioshock 2 seems worth a second look, still with a grain of skepticism. Here’s a change of heart from GamesRadar:

First, a confession. We thought BioShock 2 was a mistake. … While we desperately wished to revisit the haunting underwater dystopia of Rapture, we suspected that doing so would ruin, or at least diminish, the thematic significance of the initial trip. To us, BioShock was one-of-a-kind, not one-of-a-franchise.

Well, you know what? We were wrong. Somehow, with less than three years of development time and without the direct involvement of creator Ken Levine, the BioShock team has pulled off another masterpiece.

GameSpy’s Anthony Gallegos didn’t grant Bioshock 2 a perfect score, but appreciated that Bioshock 2’s morality system is more fleshed out than the first game:

This time around, though, things get more complicated: Instead of merely choosing to save or harvest the Little Sisters (harvesting yields more genetic material for you to use), you can choose to adopt the children, acting as their stalwart protector and defending them while they gather precious resources… and then saving or turning on them at the last minute. It boils down to a small change in the process, but the additional interaction makes you care that much more about your choices… and makes you that much more of a bastard if you kill the Little Sisters after gaining their trust.

1UP’s Justin Haywald notes little changes to the gameplay, such as weapons that can be upgraded, plasmid powers that evolve more substantially than they did in the first game, and the ability to wield plasmids and weapons simultaneously. His conclusion: “For the most part, all of the changes make both the combat and gameplay better, but it’s hard to feel like you haven’t done it all before.” Haywald also confirms what I feared about the game’s revisit to Rapture: “BioShock felt like an introduction not just to an underwater city, but to a maniacal philosophy and alternate history. BioShock 2 feels like a solid but plain knock-off of that world.”

VideoGamer’s Tom Orry came to a similar conclusion, noting that Bioshock 2’s story “isn’t as interesting or as clever as that of the first game,” though he liked the gameplay and thinks Bioshock 2 has the best shot at pulling you away from Modern Warfare 2:

If 2K had managed to tell a story that equalled or bettered that found in the original, we’d have been left with an unquestionably better experience, rather than just a more exciting, smarter shooter.

The pattern here? Bioshock 2’s action has been refined, as it should be. That’ll satisfy people who weren’t wowed with the first game’s story, and didn’t see anything special in the gameplay. But if you came to Bioshock 1 for director Ken Levine’s grand philosophies on egoism, you won’t be quite as stimulated. Oh, and critics are willing to forgive a tired story for improved mechanics, as proven by Bioshock 2’s Metacritic score of 89.