Bioshock V Half-Life 2
It is not often that a first-person shooter is uniformly held in such high regard as Bioshock, and having just finished the game, it is easy to see why comparisons are being with between it and Half-Life 2. The inevitable question is: which is better?
Both demonstrate the kind of polish that is only found in games created by highly-talented teams with the time to devote and the dedication to making everything right. The art and environmental design suggest the involvement of many gifted and experienced artists and designers, which has led to game environments for both games that are believable, thereby creating a sense of place and presence.
While both games have strongly engaging game play, distinctive storylines and interesting characters, I believe that it is in these three elements where small differences between HL2 and Bioshock can be found and hence, from which the answer to my question can be determined.
As far as I am concerned, prior to Bioshock, HL2 was the benchmark for outstanding game play design. Its pacing is outstanding and the variation in game play dynamic means there is no opportunity for boredom. Put simply, HL2 was an exercise in juxtaposed game play. Tight, linear environments that mandate specific actions are separated by large, open environments in which there are many ways to succeed. Bioshock’s locale – the undersea city of Rapture – dictates a more traditional FPS game play space: generally smaller, tighter ‘room and corridor’ design. The brilliance is that, even in a confined environment, the design, in combination with the plasmids, allow for multiple ways to succeed. I don’t think I have ever pondered so carefully decisions about which weapons (i.e. plasmids) and ammo to utilise for a specific battle. There were even times when I replayed sections of the game after realising that a different combination would have led to a better outcome. Both HL2 and Bioshock are excellent examples of game play design, but I think that Bioshock is more distinctive and engaging.
The storyline of HL2, while simple, is well-constructed and unfolds throughout the game. Like HL2, Bioshock’s story unfolds initially from a point of uncertainty – “why is this happening to me?” At the outset, the storyline is reasonably straightforward, almost clichéd, but it soon becomes more involved, with an intriguing twist and even a moral decision. One becomes aware of the multi-threaded back story that both informs the game play and propels it forward. To my way of thinking, this is a significant difference between HL2 and Bioshock.
The representation of the non-playing characters in these games is, however, the ultimate point of distinction. The characters in HL2, in particular their mode of interaction with the player, are still unmatched. Their capacity for facial expression that is both believable and immediately understandable remains, almost three years later, unmatched. Bioshock’s design, on the other hand, generally prohibits direct interaction with other characters, but when this does happen in open game play (as opposed to in cinematic mode) the characters, bar the little sisters, lacked genuine facial expression and often stood in one spot, staring into the distance, delivering their speech.
As an overall game experience, I love both games, but found Bioshock slightly more compelling. My only point of hesitation about the game is that I found myself wishing that the few characters with whom I was able to directly interact were not to the same standard as the rest of the game and certainly well short of benchmark set by HL2.
posted by Plutonic @ 8:26 AM
0 comments
