Laura of GAMElitist.com - "This year I’ve decided I will force myself to get better at First Person Shooters.
I’m generally not a fan of FPS games, partly because I find them really difficult, and partly because I think they’re very generic and samey. Bioshock was a nice variation for me, and I enjoyed it, but I still wasn’t very good at it."
The fourth game in the ‘BioShock’ series has been in development for more than a decade
Bioshock is one of my favourites franchises. I love all 3 games and have played each several times. I even have a room in my house that is loosely decorated around the theme of Bioshock (with a Lighthouse, coral models and postcards styled as though they are from both Rapture and Columbus).
And yet I am going to find it extremely difficult to get even remotely excited about any future episode in the series after all the problems this has had in its development cycle.
Leave the franchise alone. Remaster them again if you have to. Then put whatever talent you have to use on something brand new.
Since ken levine isn't involved i'm not surprised what's going on. i'm more excited for his next game which looks like bioshock. Yet he still works under take2 and they are making bioshock 4 without him, strange situation.
Yes. Judas. Looks brilliant, but it's one of those games that seems to never have had a release date. Instead it's had release windows that keep getting pushed back.
Once it's ready, I'll be there for it though. Ken Levine is an excellent developer.
I get the feeling he dissolved Irrational Games simply so that 2k couldn't tell him what to do. It seems it will pay off, but I feel sorry for those who worked as part of Irrational before it was dissolved, who hadn't independently made a name for themselves.
"Remaster them again if you have to"
Well apparently they were doing a remake but that got cancelled
It sucks this game is in development hell because I love BioShock and would love a 4th game. I hope it turns out great, but I guess we'll see.
It's been in development hell since 2014. This is nothing new. It saddens me because it's one of my favorite series. At this point, Judas may end up releasing first.
Bioshock 4 (if it ever comes out) will probably still look and play like a Bioshock game, but without Kevin, it might miss that spark that made the originals so special. Honestly, Judas might end up feeling more like the real spiritual successor.
Learn where you can get BioShock Remastered for free and enjoy playing it on your devices, including the Steam Deck.
Console Creatures writes, "The BioShock film at Netflix is still happening but with a reduced budget."
Remember there past attempts at game based show's i do heck i still remember that teenage resident evil trash fire.
It's 10 years too late for a BioShock film. The world of Rapture would have been perfect for a film. It's actually a good candidate for proper utilization of 3D, for increased depth rather than bullshit popping out of the screen. It could really show off the underwater city that way. But BioShock as a brand is so irrelevant these days that a film just doesn't make sense. Especially considering it would need a big budget and top notch effects to really take advantage of the IP.
i agree on the bigger budget. all the cgi they'd need for the background.
but i think it would work better as a show. a movie would be too short to establish the story
Netflix greenlights anything, so that shows me very little faith in the project. Enough to just crap something out as they're, more and more, known to do.
its where b movies go to live, its run by democrats , dont expect anything good from netflix
I'll laugh if it turns out to be better then the Borderlands movie
If you want to learn to play FPS's for real, get Battlefield. Call of Duty isn't learning anything valuable to any real FPS game. They aren't hard at all when you can have 1 person win a game, like I usually do on a consistent basis, and it's not fun either. Go play some Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 3, or and other FPS for that matter. Just stay away from COD and you'll develop into a way better play than anybody on Call of Duty.
My news years resolution is going to be 1920 by 1080
i don't play online, nor i play battlefield or cod.
a few years ago, i played a few hours, on the bad company 2 demo online, and i also played a cod game a couple of hours (can't remember which one)
i don't want to say which one is better, so please don't disagree.
for the small experience online, on battlefield and cod, i would say cod maps are/look smaller than battlefield ones, where you have several square kms to play on, with planes, etc. for someone who starts playing fps online, and want to become "pro" or "really good", wouldn't it be better to play on smaller maps, like on cod ?, where you can't walk 3 seconds without seeing someone, or being seen (i don't know how big they are now, on mw3), maybe they're as big as on battlefield. but looks like in battlefield, you need/it's better to play with people, squads, etc, in order to progress, since the maps are huge, when, in cod, you can try to play alone, no squads, and can manage to make some good kills on every session.
so, Laura, if you read my comment here, i would go Cod, ok, some people cheat, camp, if you don't play often , you may feed some bad guys that will wait for you to spawn, and kill you. but, at least, you don't need to walk 2 minutes before getting killed by a sniper,10 kms away, or before finding someone to kill.
so please, people, this is not "this game is better than that one", please don't disagree.this is about "which game, imho, would be easier to start playing fps online on"
out of topic, yesterday, i finally bought arkham city for ps3. played a couple of hours, so far, it's great.i understand why it got all those 10's.
one thing i don't like, or i like less than arkham asylum, is the upgrading windows. it looked easier to understand what we were upgrading, and what we needed to upgrade, etc.
in arkham city, even it everything is still "there", it looks less evident, what we have or not, what we can have, how, etc. a bit confusing for me.
also, in arkham asylum, we started with almost no weapons, and, slowly, were able to upgrade, and discover new things and powers. in arkham city, we start with almost everything, from the beginning. i'm afraid, i don't know if there will be some really new weapons and powers, i wonder if the game will surprise me with new stuff, like, in arkham asylum, where you were "yeah, great, with this, i can now go there and there, and do this and that".
i only played a couple of hours, for a 30+ hours game, it's too early to talk. and i loved the first batman, this one can only be better, judging by all the 10's it got.