When is a Sequel Not a Sequel? A BioShock 2 Review

Bioshock 2 (Instant Match as of 6/9/2010)

Metacritic score: 88

The original BioShock was a groundbreaking video game: unique concept, incredible graphics and animation, great use of plasmids and it was uber creepy. The fans ate it up, loved it, and named it Game of the Year. And for good reason: the game really was that good. However, and this is a stickler, it did not hold much replay value. Hacking the machines turned into a chore rather than a fun puzzle and there's only so many crazies out there that you can shoot. With that said though, the game was gold, and along came the sequel.

BioShock scored a 96 on MetaCritic, which is the second highest score of all time for the Xbox 360. BioShock 2 scored an 88, a somewhat significant drop for a game that plays nearly exactly the same as the first. How does this come to be? Let's look at this way, if BioShock 2 was released without a BioShock to compare it to, then it probably would have scored a 96. However, presented as a sequel, it starts to pale. Why? The answer lies in the theory that it's not a true sequel. It's just another flavor of the same game. It's kinda like Coke and Diet Coke. Diet Coke isn't a sequel to Coke; it's just another flavor. There's just not enough new substance to call it a sequel. The fans deserved a sequel and what they got was Diet Coke.

For sake of comparison, and to illustrate what qualifies as a sequel, is Modern Warfare 2. That game is a true sequel in that it amped up the excitement and the anticipation. There were new environments. You want to keep playing more and more until you reach the end. You don't necessarily feel like you've been there and done that.

BioShock 2 attempted to advance the story in that now you play as Big Daddy from the start. But you already did that at the end of the first one. It also attempts to move the game along by adding the Big Sisters. But skinny aluminum-clad shriekers are far more annoying than exhilarating.

What the game lacks is continuity. There's far too much start-stop-start. You walk around and loot a bit. You experience small sporadic battles, walk around and loot some more, experience a bigger battle, then walk around and loot some more. It's like, ok, let's go to Point A and then on to Point B and on to Point C and all along the way you listen to ever increasingly annoying audio tapes and voice overs, which you tend to drown out after awhile.

It might sound like a dreadfully dull game. But it's not. If you loved BioShock then you will like BioShock 2. It's just that ultimately it is not a true sequel; it's just a recreation of the same game. And the fans deserve more than that. They deserve a sequel. Not a different take on the same game.

A sequel implies that a game is a subsequent development that continues the story as the next installment of a series. It should contain new elements, new dimensions and an evolving story: it should expand upon all that is good and remove all that was bad. After playing the first couple of hours of BioShock 2, you'll probably still feel that same sense of eeriness, that same sense of foreboding doom, and that same wonderment of what lies around the next corner. The problem, and the key word in that last sentence, is that it is the same. Sure, this time you start out as the Big Daddy, you know who the little sisters are and so on so forth, but there's so much there that just feels like you've been there and done that. So does the story continue? Yes and no. You really could pick up this game without playing the original and get right into it. You might have some question marks over your head about certain aspects of the game but the manual does a pretty good job of catching you up to speed. And the countless diary tapes and continual over voices that you listen to keeps you current on what is going on. That is, of course, if you bother to listen and pay attention to them. It's very easy to start tuning them out as you seek out your next battle.

The battles are where the action is, and if you're not battling, then you're exploring and checking luggage, trash and corpses for an extra few bucks and any other loot that you can find. And there's a lot of that. A lot of walking. A lot of exploring. A lot of, Ghee, isn't this a pretty game? And it is a pretty game. Just like the first was. It would be a horrible pity if the game went backwards in the art department. But it didn't.

BioShock 2 does move some things forward; like hacking the machines and the security cameras. That is a vast improvement over the puzzles you had to solve in the original and it might lend some replay action to the single player campaign. However, there is a very good possibility that BioShock 2 is a play-it-once kinda game. It's the type of game you don't really want to drop $60 on. Wait a few months for the value to go down and there's bound to be some deals.

As for the multiplayer, all one has to do is look at the Xbox Live Top 20 list and you'll see BioShock 2 sitting at the number 12 spot as of Feb 8. For a relatively brand new game, that doesn't say too much. Especially when a couple of different demos are battling it out in the top five.

Is BioShock 2 a fun game: Yes. Is it better than the first: Yes and No. Is it a rush-out-and-buy kinda game: No. Is it worthwhile to put on the backburner and pick it up on the cheap in a few months: Yes. Do we need a BioShock 3: No.