All comments

looks a bit hectic if anything,not day 1 for me,graphics look no better either which is a shame

?

You can clearly see that there's been some polish and more details added. The only thing that's preventing this game from looking better is the 360 with it's limited power (out since 2005). I'm still impressed and this game is gonna be something really special. Different story - developed gameplay - but still the same atmosphere. Go 2KGames! ;D

I'm thrilled . 9 February - Here I Wait =P

The best game that i ever played on my xbox , and one of the best game that i ever played in my whole life. I can wait to put my hands on this sequel. Great atmosphere , great story and pretty graphics. (at the time only gears had prettiest graphics than bioshock). Well lets see whats is coming on 2010...again , i can wait!

whatever...

anyways, the game looks incredible. i love the new enemies. i can't wait to try the new multiplayer. a day 1 collectors edition pc buy for me. well, i hope they have a collector's edition, the first one with the big daddy figurine was awesome, maybe hey'll have a big sister figuine now. ;)

I have played the game last month on PC in dx10 with everything maxed out. And this looks looks a lot better. Better lighting, more details, scharper textures, particle effects, better volumetric smoke.

I loved the first game so much. I just hope they don't turn this game into a fraggfest.

Since the first BioShock is a System Shock 2 remake, it will be exciting to see, if BioShock 2 can stand on it's own.

Although a remake, BioShock is a great game, and I will buy BioShock 2 with my eyes closed.

Looks awesome to me.

I really don't understand where the hate for this game comes from. I can't imagine anyone who enjoyed the first BioShock as much as I did and didn't think "damn, I want a sequel" afterwards.

Hopefully the graphics of the PS3 version will be on-par with the 360 version this time. But I'm certain they will, since it's developed simultaneously instead of developed for one platform and then ported to the other.

would be the most anticipated game had the original team been behind it..and had their marketing team not totally given away all of the plot to GT last week

There are still people left using GameTrailers? Wow... did they really give away the entire plot?
And what makes you certain that the new team can't do a job as good as or even better than the original one?

yep they pretty much gave away the whole plot..which was a shame. But they did so because of 2k's marketing team.

I dont know that they cant do as good a job.. but that doesnt mean i wouldnt of preferred ken livines? original image built upon by the guy himself.

Looks like a brain-dead shooter. Nothing like its original and atmospheric predecessor. Can the big publishers please stop killing off all the creative games that came out from the developers before they bought them?

I know where you're coming from, I was concerned too when I heard that Ken Levine won't direct BioShock 2. But it's not like he said "Guys, I'm going on vacation for the next few years, if the people from BioShock 2 need my help, tell them they can go f**k themselves." He's quite involved in the process and I doubt the team will do anything that isn't a good idea in the opinion of Ken Levine. Also, quite some people who were involved with the first game are working on the sequel, as far as I know.

Ken Levine is not involved at all with sequel. He;s actually doing something entirely different at the moment.

Yes he is involved, even if only to a degree. He's a creative consultant. If 2k Marin wants to do anything critical (like the awesome innovations they have implemented into the BioShock concept so far) they ask Levine for his opinion. And if Levine doesn't like anything about BioShock 2, he says it and 2k Marin listens. I know 2k Boston and 2k Austraila are working on a different game, but it's hard to imagine that Levine has no interest whatsoever in the progress of the sequel to the IP that he and his team gave birth to.

i'm playing through Bioshock again at the moment, and the atmosphere is still unmatched - something i think you'll lose alot of with the removal of the human side, whilst playing as a big daddy.

Personally i would of preferred the rumoured story of playing as a detective in a prequel to Bioshock..where little girls are getting stolen and taken off to the sea. A prequel would of been alot more interesting (especially allowing us to see known characters on the verge of insanity), than a possibly thumbled attempt at explaining why the first big daddy was so much more advanced than the last big daddy (use of plasmids ect)

No, no, no. This sequel should never have been made in my opinion - at least, not in the direction it's heading in. I feel like the first game's reputation will be tarnished by what can only be described as a sequel that, based on what I've seen, shares few similarities with its predecessor, other than the obvious resemblance in name and visuals. Don't get me wrong, I thought the trailer above was actually very good indeed, but it just doesn't follow on from the premise of Bioshock 1.

The first game was built upon an enthralling world with a sense of mystery and horror being its driving force; the sequel looks like nothing more than a cheap shooter that's filled with short-term thrills and action. That isn't what Bioshock's about.

Even if the original team had been behind it, I still can't say I'd be on board. Bioshock to me was a one-time experience; it should stand alone as a single game, remembered for its significance and quality. Visiting the same place again within a 'new' context won't make much of a difference in my opinion, and will only make the Bioshock universe come across as repetitive and - dare I say it - dull.

Man, that's crazy when you think about it, and people are still calling it "Next-gen" :D

I find it amusing how ps3 fanboys are adding this to their arsenal of whinning these days. The 360 is limiting games... yet inexplicably still offers the most polished versions of these 3rd party multiplatform games.

Goes right up there with sites that are "in microsofts pocket" and biased...giving uncharted 2 9+ scores.
And GT sabotaging comparrison video's by turning the contrast right up on the ps3 version...which some how make that version have framerate issues, screen tearing, or lack certain effects/details.

Pay attention, the only thing thats preventing this game from diverting from the art deco look that made the first stand out so much is because its staying true to Original. Not because the 360's limiting... as you can put safe money on the ps3 version not adding any "bells and whistles" on top of it.

sequel shouldnt have been set in rapture imo. should have been a fresh start, the fact it's set in the same place just makes me uninterested. rapture was amazing becasue it was an original location for a game to be set, now this looks like a more action oriented copy/paste affair. i can tell you right now this isnt going to get the mass praise of the first game. just not going to happen.

I don't want to sound like a fanboy but I gotta explain something in reply to bleachedsmiles.
Many 3rd party multiplats look better on the 360 for a sole reason, that is the PS3's unique architecture. Sony developed it so that the games can take advantage of the Cell engine; the GPU is less important in this architecture. You have to go a different way (not necessarily a more complex one). The critical part is to have the Cell do a portion of the graphics processing, therefore splitting up the graphics processing between CPU and GPU. That's why Uncharted 2 looks so damn good, because ND put a lot of effort into utilizing all of the Cell's processing power.

Most multiplat developers refuse to invest the time and effort, and instead try to treat the PS3 the exact same way as the 360. That's how frame rate issues, screen tearing, watered down textures etc. in PS3 multiplats come into being; the PS3's GPU is weaker than the 360's, but it was never intended to render the graphics all by itself.

If you utilize the PS3's hardware like it was intended, you should be able to reach the same results as on the 360 at the very least. If you just go the copy-and-paste kind of way like Sega does, you get stuff like Bayonetta on PS3.

The setting is fine. They set up Rapture with huge amounts of possibilities to tap into for possible sequels. There is too much content there not to access it.
I don't like the looks of this trailer though. It looks like it's selling to someone else other than the people who enjoyed the original. This looks like it has mainstream marketing written all over it. It's like a disease this generation that is dampening some great franchises.
I'd say this has the likelihood of being just like Call of Duty, where they don't really call it a Call of Duty sequel unless the real devs handle it.

@typhoonS9k

I'm well aware that in teh majority of cases not enough time is spent on ps3 ports..as so far its not been cost/time efficiant to dedicate such resources to bring the ps3 versions up to scratch. But to say that the reason a game isnt progressing leaps and bounds visually above its predecessor is because its limited by the 360's hardware is foolish.
Exclusives usually look better on BOTH platforms than 3rd party games because more expense/resources is spent on them. But that doesnt mean that all exclusives on the ps3 will end up with the visual quality of uncharted 2. It will always depend on the developer...as hardware will always be limited by the developers.

Look at Ninja Gaiden sigma 2 as a recent example... temco have had ps3 kits for over 3yrs now, they've a team dedicated to the ps3 version, they've invested the time, built it from the ground up, and still had to make alot of sacrifices to get the same year old game running on the console. Ofcourse it has the polish you would expect over a year old game..but it's telling that it still has to come at a price.
The last bioshock.. again had a dedicated team on the ps3 version..again came up short with sacrifices made to it.
Or how about ghostbusters? should 360 owners blame the developers limitations with the ps3 for the game not looking as good as it could of had the 360 been the lead platform? Even with the ps3 the lead it still came off short (infact its one of the worse cases)

Point being that the 360 cant be blamed for it's "limiting power preventing the game from looking better" when even when the excuse of a rushed/lazy port is taken out of the equazion the ps3 versions still come up short.

@ bleachedsmiles:
I agree with you, and since I'm not a PS3 fanboy but a good informed PS3 supporter, I think the 360 is a worthy opponent for the PS3. I also think, even if it made awesome looking titles like the Uncharted series, God of War 3, Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 and all the other gorgeously looking exclusives possible, Sony's decision on the PS3's unique architecture was a poor one. Going a different way than the 360 is one thing, but also going a different way than the PC, which always was, is and will be the defining benchmark for every console, can only result in pain for the dedicated PS3 owners like me when it comes to spending hard-earned cash on multiplats. I love Bayonetta, it's my type of game with very well-designed gameplay - but the PS3 version looks just awful in comparison and I won't spend 50 Euros on an inferior game if I can get an awesome game for the same amount of cash. With the particular case of BioShock, I overlooked my high standards because I was well aware that it's going to be a port, even if a rather high-quality one in comparison to others. And before the PS3 version was announced, I was considering to get me a 360 just for that game. So, the port did well for me.

Even if the 360 is a great console with lots of reasons to have one, I have to say this - I don't think that the 360 is holding the PS3 back, but you can't deny that the existence of the 360 makes it difficult for the PS3. Even if the developers do a good job, the advantages of the Cell, Blu-Ray and integrated HDDs are rendered useless when it comes to multiplats.

@TyphoonS9k: ok, so link me to those revelation of yours, since I read an interview some time ago, where Levine said he is not involved.
And as for 2K listening to any disliking by Levine - I highly doubt that 2K trebmbles before any game developer of theirs.

Through all of this doesn't mean, that I wouldn't want Levine to actuall yBE involved in this game. I certainly would.

And as for x360 holding back PS3.. lol, stop kidding yourself. The point is, the exclusives, that are released only on PS3, don't represent any leap gfx-quality-wise from those on x360. A lot of people claim that PS3 has superior hardware, but it really doesn't show even in PS3s exclusives.
I know Hirai would like us to believe different, but reality is crushing his efforts with ease.

Those advantages are only as good as the developers make them. The ps3 is certainly the most capable, and offers the most potential of the "next gen" consoles.. but thats meaningless if the softwares not taking advantage of it. Look at last gen. The xbox was more powerful, and had more hardware advantages, than the ps2.. but that offered the platform no favours in the end. Developers always get more out of a console because of the hardwares limits. Blueray will rarely get taken advantage of this gen..and compression tools are advancing all the time. The Cell...well its been 3years now and only this year have we seen developers take advantage of what it has to offer - with far too high a cost that the majority of 3rd parties would invest. HDD's ...well its foolish that MS still arent releasing the 360 with a hdd as standard, especially when most of their promotional investments require one. But limiting game quality? no.. because the 360 streams just fine, lacking a need for an install. What may limit game <b>quantity</b> will be MS placing extra charges on developers for 3 disc games - case in point Rage, which then built the game around that limitation of space..and you now have 2 seperate islands, instead of one big one (2 that now varie greatly in design - see, getting the most out of limits).

The existance may make it difficult for the ps3..but not in terms of limits placed on the console - the only thing thats made that difficult is sony. Theres no reason why 3yrs on the ps3 shouldnt be the lead platform as standard.. but the when it is the lead platform we've seen that there are no advantages to the version.. the 360 doesnt come off the weaker port. This isnt because developers are holding back whilst making the game on the ps3...its simply because they cant get the most out of it..and dont have the years to spend, and the money to spend, in order to do so.

I think an interesting question would be that without the 360's existance would we see alot of these games even hitting the ps3? Or would we see the PC gaming scene alot more healthy with more exclusives.