Gameplay is 8/10, overall 9.5/10. okay.jpg
Actually, I can't tell if this is pasta...
I hope you are not quoting me, because I claimed GUNPLAY was 8/10 not gameplay.
Uh... there's something else?
Something else to the gameplay besides gunplay? Yeah, there is. There is the world design, skyrail, character design, and pretty much any other factor that comes into affecting how the game is played. In fact in this game I would argue that the plot is the reward for progressing, and thereby should be considered part of gameplay.
Still though, if gunplay and gameplay are viewed as one in the same and seperate from plot and other things in the game, why couldn't gameplay be viewed as 8/10 whilst the experience as a whole be viewed as above that?
...
Well, if you really like your games to be movies so much that the major bulk of gameplay matters that little to you, I don't know what to tell you. Go play some fucking David Cage games, I think they'd be right down your alley.
I just find it absurd that you pretty much tried to write off the game's flaws while still thinking it's nearly perfect. If the game's flaws are commonly shared by the entire genre, they somehow don't apply to this particular game? lol? If the genre the game was chosen to be conflicts so much with what it tried to achieve with its narrative, then I'm sorry, but that's a massive fucking flaw in terms of game design. If you review games by completely ignoring (and you literally did use the term "ignore") the bad parts, then every game is perfect.
Also, he didn't misunderstand the ending, it's you who completely failed to pick up on the massive internal contradictions in the ending.
I Don't think they are serious flaws. I enjoyed the Gunplay, I just did not think it was on par with the rest of the game. Also I don't view those mechanics as flaws. Characters in shooters will aways have these random abilities/strengths that just don't make sense if you really sit down and think about them, but they are not the point. Getting bogged down in mechanics that don't really detract from the story of the game is not something I would recommend doing, and its something that you have to deal with in every medium. We all look past things that we can tell are CGI, in movies we are often forced to look past problems with physics, ignore giant gaps in time. These things may effect character progression, but only if you stare into them. I see the mechanics, but I am not looking at them.
Ignoreing mechanics that are not "bad" is not the same as ignoring flaws in the game. I don't think that they are really flaws, they are simply things that are there to make it a game rather than a movie. In most games this is a non issue, as the gameplay, gunplay, or whatever you want to call it is the main draw of the experience, sometimes the only draw. But In Bioshock, the world, the atmostphere, and the plot are the draw, the result being that the fighting done in between, while fun, ends up feeling like something stuck inbetween the story rather than part of the story. The end result is that the game is near perfect, but not perfect. I found that the pacing was such that I was very often engaged in the story between quick short fights, or exploring the city looking for more lore, so I never felt like the gunplay was becoming to overwhelming or annoying, even if I felt it was below what I would consider a near perfect story and environment.
Let me put it this way, the shooting quality, the fun of the fights, was well above average in my point of view. It is only subpar to other elements of the game, but it is in no way bad, boring, or annoying. Maybe on higher difficulties, but I was playing on hard and found it to be just fine.
As for the ending, why don't you explain what you think it means/what happened rather than just say I got it wrong?