Okay, I'm a few hours into it now. I'll officially stop calling it BioSchlock. (Don't worry GG, we'll always have Arkham City).

It is a good game, and a fine first effort from a newly assembled team of developers (at the time).

Three of my objections to the game hold up:

1. The humans look like they are made of tin.  I am guessing that at one point they were supposed to be proto-robots or something until they realized that the plasmids would make no sense on a bunch of robots.  Yes, that is how mad they look, that I came up with an origin story.  It is entirely inexcusable for them to have shipped the game with the enemies (the only thing you see moving on the screen) looking like tin/ rubber mannequins.  Judging from the screens of the third entry in the series they have learnt nothing in the last 6 years.

2. The "story" is very poorly conveyed and is ham-fisted pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. It wouldn't hold up in the pulpiest of pulp sci-fi. Having someone doing their worse Bono/ Groundskeeper Willy impression to relay the story is the only saving grace.

3. The level designs are painful. No matter what the level I always feel like I am lost in a very small shopping mall.  I am not sure what they could have done to change this, as the whole structure is, pretty much, a very compact shopping mall.  Visually, the game is showing its age poorly, but at the time it would have been impressive.

Having said that, everything else in the game is very impressive. The use of the force powers, once you get along into the game is the best implementation I've seen. Usually force-powers are very difficult for developers to pull off (after they have come up with the idea).  The "puzzles" that require their use is as obvious as the libertarian diatribe of a story, but still, their use in combat is pleasing.

The weapons are acceptable, especially after you carefully craft them. I've stuck with a rapid-fire shot-gun for most situations.

Player movement by default is insanely "heavy" and weighty. This can be easily corrected in the options by increasing the camera speed and taking off the framerate lock (a welcome option).

So, there you have it, redemption for Ken Levine. I'm sure he'll sleep better at night.

Dvader said:

My work here is done. Next up I have to fix Arkham City for you.

I'm surprised you did not like Condemned. These games are very similar. Condemned is better in it's characters and suspense, but lacks the gameplay depth, so they are about even in my view.

I never would have finished it without that arrow, lol.

aspro said:

I'm surprised you did not like Condemned. These games are very similar. Condemned is better in it's characters and suspense, but lacks the gameplay depth, so they are about even in my view.

Never played it. I played the sequel which was a good FPS.

aspro said:

2. The "story" is very poorly conveyed and is ham-fisted pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. It wouldn't hold up in the pulpiest of pulp sci-fi. Having someone doing their worse Bono/ Groundskeeper Willy impression to relay the story is the only saving grace.

3. The level designs are painful. No matter what the level I always feel like I am lost in a very small shopping mall.

This is the only part of the post that is relevant brotha.

Dvader said:

I don't know what the issue is with the story. To me "would you kindly" is one o the greatest twists of any game.

If you're basing something on Ayn-Fucking-Rand I'm not sure how you could come up with something good, unless it's a scathing satire.

aspro said:

^Well, the setting is good. I mean the notion of a dude going off and setting up an underwater world is novel. It allows for the constrained levels (most games never really explain why you are locked into such small spaces.

And I've not gotten to the twist yet, I have not been able to play the last two days.

The setting (and the tin characters) is the only reason I want to play it so much. I really mean this: "ham-fisted pseudo-intellectual clap-trap". I mean that's Ayn Rand to a tee.