Sequelicious

Given my rant last week about the glut, worse in games than movies, of remakes, reboots, and sequels, I thought I'd highlight a couple of games that, while they may be part of this trend, at least aren't examples of what make it a bad thing.

New Feature! How long did it take me to get to a game? Release Date will tell you how far behind I actually am!



My BioShock 2 Stats

• Platform: 360
• Release Date: 2/9/10 (5 months behind!)
• Playthroughs: 2 @ 25 hours, 3 hours MP
• Achievements: 910/1000 (Before DLC)
• I compare it to: BioShock, Again (hence the 2)!
• Play it again?: There may be a BioShock marathon before Infinite comes out.
• Urgency: Used or queue, prices are good.

I hate to admit it, but I tend to rely strongly on Metacritic scores and Game Informer reviews. Less so lately, but a low score (or a mediocre score from a generally high scoring franchise) will usually keep me from playing a game, simply because who wants to waste their time with a game that isn't fun? (Granted, I sometimes will just for some more interesting material for the blog, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, a somewhat lukewarm critical reception for BioShock 2, a sequel with impossibly big shoes to fill, kept me from checking it out right away, and now, I kind of regret that.

After finally playing BioShock 2, I really think the only thing that kept it from getting the good press it deserved was the fact that it wasn't BioShock 1. All of the elements that made the first BS great are here, the immersive (in more ways than one) atmosphere of Rapture, the power-infused gameplay, upgradable pwers and weapons, philosophical conflict, Big Daddies and Little Sisters, pretty much everything. The only thing BS2 doesn't have is the feeling of entering a completely new world, one that had never been seen before. Sadly, it seems that for many, this was the crowning achievement of the new franchise, and no subsequent entry could ever be more than the sum of its parts.

I must strongly disagree with this perspective. BioShock 2 is another part of the story of Rapture, and it follows that as a second entry (if not second act, as it more or less stands alone), the setting is already established. An excellent story awaits those willing to return to Rapture, featuring some truly intriguing insights into Rapture's history, the development of the class warfare its founders sought to escape, and a new antagonist, Andrew Ryan's intellectual equal, and philosophical opposite.
Much of this story is told in the fast-becoming ubiquitous audio logs. They may be in just about every game nowadays, but BioShock is still king of of this particular expositionary device.  

Fun fact: I recorded an audio log with my notes on this game for some random protagonist to find later.

BioShock's "Genetically Enhanced Shooter" formula has been streamlined for the sequel, and is as good as ever. The ability to use plasmids and weapons without having to switch is great, and will definitely make things more difficult when I replay the first one. There's not a lot of new weapons or plasmids, but the classics have been tweaked, and combat is finely tuned. 

Though I was most certainly not one of them, many apparently clamored for a multiplayer component after the first BS. Granted, I thought BioShock's unique power/gunplay could make an interesting multiplayer game, but I really wasn't terribly interested. BioShock 2 included this multiplayer component, and to its credit, it doesn't feel shoehorned in. It even has a narrative setup (you play as a citizen of Rapture during its fall fighting for Atlas or Andrew Ryan), thin as it is. It's fun, sure, but far from revolutionary.

I'm all about giving bad and mediocre games the bad press they deserve, but it makes me mad when a great game gets bad press for not being absolutely perfect. It makes me even more mad when I listen to said bad press and deprive myself of a great game experience. Don't make my mistake.

My Ghostbusters Stats 

• Platform: PS3
• Release Date: 6/16/09 (1 year behind!)
• Playthroughs: 1+ @ 15 hours
• Trophies: 39/52
• I compare it to: Ghostbusters 3
• Play it again?: All done thanks.
• Urgency: It's cheaper than the movies now, and fairly easy to find.

Did it feel to anyone else that there was a piece missing from the Ghostbusters franchise? Ok, well, not really. The Ghostbusters movies were made in a time where not every sequel had to be part of a trilogy (or endlessly, needlessly continuing franchise). Nonetheless, I loved the Ghostbusters as a kid, and always did want to see more of them. So, imagine my delight when I read the GB cover story in the December 2007 issue of GI, then my disappointment when the game went into publishing hell (another victim, like Brutal Legend, of Kotick/Activision's new Yearly or Bust policy).  But, any franchise that could have potential life in it is still valuable to publishers (especially when the game is already finished), and Ghostbusters did eventually come to us.

The highlight of Ghostbusters is the script, penned by OGBs Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis. This, more than any other feature in the game, makes it feel like the third Ghostbusters movie. Granted, it does retread some material from the movies, ok, a lot actually, but more often than not, it comes off more nostalgic than anything else, and still feels like the real deal.

Much to my pleasant surprise, the cast is back as well! Akroyd and Ramis are here of course, along with Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, and even supporting characters like constant antagonist bureaucrat Walter Peck (William Atherton, who was one of the leads in a movie I shot B-camera on last year) are voiced by their original actors. If you look around carefully, you might even find a certain painting with a voice that sounds a lot like Max Von Sydow! Ok, I know, I'm geeking out. Just go with it. Alyssa Milano (the lead in the other movie I worked on last year) joins the cast this time, as Venkman's sexual-harrassment-suit-or-serious-relationship-waiting-to-happen. You play the Rookie, a capable but apparently mute new character who has no real connection to any of the others. (the third I've played this year, by the way).

While fairly odd and clunky at first, Ghostbusters' gameplay develops a rather smooth rhythm after a little while, and what at first seemed counterintuitive and frustrating becomes very playable and, dare I say it, fun. The first time you really get how to grab a ghost and slam it into the trap is very, very satisfying. The basic proton pack is upgradable, and joined by three other types of streams (don't cross them!) which, along with varied enemy types with weaknesses to specific energy, mixes up the gameplay more than enough to keep it interesting. Some truly spectacular bosses (including the unexpected return of a GB classic) top off a thoroughly solid gameplay experience.

This is not to say that Ghostbusters is without its flaws, however. No matter how well you may dodge or find cover, there always seems to be a teammate standing right in front of a ghost getting pummeled. The teammate AI isn't nearly as smart as the dialogue, and very often, you'll find yourself running into danger to revive a fallen Ghostbuster, if only because if all of you get knocked down, the game is over. More often than one should like, this frequent babysitting actually causes this outcome, as many boss and mini-boss attacks are powerful enough to kill with one hit, and they're just waiting for you to break cover.

A word about multiplayer: I never played it. Not for lack of trying, but no one plays it anymore, and I couldn't get into a game. Sad face. Another victim of the Multiplayer Effect. 

These grumblings aside, I'm very glad that I got to spend some more time with Ray, Egon, Peter, Winston, and whatever my character's name was. Ghostbusters is a lot of fun once you get into it, and if you have a "No Ghosts" sticker on your car and still occasionally wear a brown jumpsuit with a homemade proton pack some Halloweens, you need to play this game.


By the way, Bill Murray would win.


Next Week: Game Over Man!