Negative impressions are up. My biggest issue is with the story and writing overall, though sometimes it feels more like I've gone on a tangent. I don't know if it's even worth the time to provide examples of how I would have done things differently, or even interesting to read. I'm really looking to hear some feedback on this one. Is it better for me to focus on mechanics more?
Though honestly, there was no way I wasn't going to tear this game apart for the story. To clarify,
it's not bad. I did enjoy it and there were things I'll get to in the positives that I happened to like. However, it just pales in comparison to all of the things Ken Levine was able to tackle in the first Bioshock. The biggest problem is that they were limited to 2 years, but naturally that was going to be the case because there was no way 2K was going to sit on this.
At the end I tried to think of excellent games that have stood alone without sequels, but with few exception of recent titles I couldn't really think of any. For some reason the games industry sees it necessary to create a sequel to
everything. It's pretty depressing, to be honest.
I may be unable to play Bioshock 2's single player for the same reasons I can't watch Jurassic Park or, in particular, The Lost World anymore. Each time I do I can only think of everything they did
wrong as opposed to what they did right.