The major reason I enjoyed Bioshock was because of the story and the atmosphere that came along with being in Rapture for the first time. The second just felt like a rehash of the first game, which was a major disappointment.

I guess if I played it without playing the first it would have been better, but the story (up to the point I played) seemed weak.

What Thom said. I'm happy I played the game cause now I feel ready for Infinite, and it was far from a bad game, just a big disappointment.

Bioshock's greatness came from its story, atmosphere and characters. I challenge you to name a single character from 2 that was as compelling as Andrew Ryan, Frank Fontaine or Sander Cohen. The atmosphere suffered as a result (not to mention the audio diaries which weren't interesting at all in the 2nd game) and the levels seemed more bland to me at least than the first game.

Hypocritical seems a very strange choice of words. I certainly feel that 2 was a disappointment, so I'm not sure how that makes me a hypocrite.

i've only played System Shock

I think the best way of summing it up is that Bioshock 2 was Bioshock without the charm.

I'd use the phrase "Obvious franchise cash-in", but that's just me. That being said, if the money from that game went to funding the obviously superior BioShock: Infinite, then I suppose it's not all bad.

I don't know, I thought the story line for Bioshock 2 was pretty good, it seemed to focus a lot on the history of Rapture, which was petty much what I expected. Not sure how much people expected them to push the idea, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Hypocritical because to me, Bioshock 2 simply felt like more Bioshock. Hence, people who love the first should at least like the second. If you don't, it's a bit like having pancakes for the first time in your life and loving it and then hating it when you get your second serving because it's what you got the first time around. It just seems strange to me - first you love the recipe and then you don't.

I don't think the levels nor the story was much of a let down in the second game. It had a lot less novelty factor and I think people's disappointment in a lack of "new " manifests itself with a projected dissatisfaction with story, level design, etc. Not saying that's the case with any of you guys, but in general terms of how the game is rated, I believe that sort of stuff bleeds over and makes other aspects of the game seem less positive - even if they may well compare well to the previous game to a more objective observer.

As I stated, the second game failed in bringing anything new and significant to the table. That makes it slightly inferior to the first. Everything else was pretty much like before. As I enjoyed Bioshock and wouldn't mind exploring the city of Rapture a little more after the first game, I was happy to come back. In the end, I finished both and I enjoyed both. I thought that would go for most Bioshock fans.

I disagree, as myself and others have pointed out, the recipe wasn't the same at all. You're taking one aspect of it (the gameplay) and acting like since that part was unchanged from the first to the second, we should love it equally.

Well what puts Bioshock above other standard shooters like COD? I can tell you it certainly isn't the gameplay, COD's is far smoother and more refined. No, the reason people loved the game in the first place was the world and atmosphere it created, and the unique Ayn Rand utopia-turned-dystopia it parodied.

While it's true that the lack of excitement contributed, it also had to do with the whole contrived feel of the game. I found none of the characters interesting, the story was a bland love/emotional connection story lacking any of the political themes or objectivist philosophy that made it compelling in the first place. Plus the whole thing felt off, I can't remember any events in the 2nd game on par with those of the first. It just wasn't memorable.

You seem wholly focused on the black and white here, the fact that the gameplay and the setting is the same means we should instantly like it. Hell it didn't even feel like the same Rapture to me, the colors were a lot more dull in the game and, as I've said so many times, there weren't any colorful personalities to fill the empty halls of Rapture. The only thing that beared resemblance IMO was that it's still underwater.

To me, it was pretty much the same. The big story things which I adore were still there, like the underwater Utopia gone wrong, the little sisters and big daddies .. As you play the game, you get to know various twisted residents through audio recordings here and there, just like in the first game. You follow a story through the game which was still interesting, at least to me.

To me, Bioshock 2 was similar enough to feel like an expansion or a large "DLC" for Bioshock. Anyways, if you really disliked it for being such a poor sequel (or prequel), you're free to do that, of course. It's hard to argue against taste and opinion.

edit :

Did you ever finish Bioshock 2? If not, for how long did you play it?

Yeah I think a lot of people have this preconception that bio shock 2 was a "cash in", but it's a superior product in every way, including narrative presentation.

The ending is far stronger than the original bioshock.

The gameplay was more open ended. I beat the game a second time by using the "drill specialist" tonic, which meant i couldn't use any guns but had a lot of oil. It was fun just freezing every person and drill bashing them to death, and it remained effective for the entirety of the game lol