Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:BioShock 2

Featured articleBioShock 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
January 10, 2022Good article nomineeListed
September 9, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Description of Big Daddy Appropriate?

The overview indicates that Subject Delta, the Big Daddy of the game, is like others in that his skin and organs are grafted to his suit. This is heavily debated on forums dedicated to the game, and the fact that he removes his helmet during the introduction casts doubt on this being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.254.49 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

- Also can't take as much damage as the "real" big daddys, maybe due to being a prototype.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.190.132 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

The idea of the 'Family' and its ideal of the collective being put before the individual is clearly socialist in nature, and meant to go against the first games criticism of Rands individualist ideals. Yet no mention is made of it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.9.21 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there aren't any reliable sources stating that the creators meant as such. Plus, the audio diaries clearly playback debates between Ryan and Lamb discussing the collective vs the individual, so is anything further needed? Unless a non-neutral commentary regarding socialism is to be posted (which shouldn't be posted as it would be non-neutral and commentary), then I don't see the point of mentioning the implications of what a collective focused society would be.~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'a' or 'the'?

There is some inconsistency in this article, specifically concerning references to the antagonist(s) of BS2. Is there one or more than one? An article I read (I believe it was in GameInformer) only mentioned one Big Sister, while a caption and a few lines in the text refer to more than one. I don't really see any references cited that mention more than one Big Sister, but I may have missed something. We need to add a reference which states that there is more than one BS and fix some later lines in this article which state only one BS or we need to remove the inferences to plurality. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there's more than one now. [[1]] states why the change was made, and [[2]] implies that there might be one big sister who's the main one and is unique. I'm not gonna cite either, the Bioshock Wiki one doesn't count as a reliable source, and I'm not so sure about the destructoid.com one.72.130.190.175 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this talkpage is so quiet and things like this aren't getting discussed more, maybe everyone's still busy playing the game. :) There are multiple big sisters, same as there are multiple big daddies, it shouldn't be hard to cite once work on the article starts in earnest. Someoneanother 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC technical issues

There is no mention of the horrendous technical problems that a large proportion of the PC install base are having.

See the 2k technical forums for more information:

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.205.44 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

220.235.228.116 (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I would agree that this is notable, it is very major, there are alot of people complaining[reply]

I don't think anecdotal reports from message forums are noteworthy. Yes, there are some people (hundreds? thousands?) who are having technical problems (my self included,) but with 5 million in cross-platform sales, if there were serious problems there would be reliable media sources reporting on the issue. So far that hasn't happened. Further, a patch has just been released which fixed a number of the common PC problems.
Now, there are structural issues with the game which may be noteworthy. Notably, the game doesn't include gamepad support for the PC (unlike the original) and this has received media attention. http://www.pcworld.com/article/189094/pc_bioshock_2_lack_of_gamepad_support_intentional.html/ Also, there is some question whether the in-game hacking system may pose problems for colorblind players. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/12/bioshock-2-hacking-minigame-could-cause-issues-for-colorblind-ga/ Either of these two issues are much more noteworthy than unsourced technical glitches encountered by message forum posters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.135.10 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

At the end of the plot it says how the final cinematic is caused purely by whether or not Lamb is killed. I believe it's not, I have played all four difficulties, and have gone through the game several times (Shows how big a life I have) and have come to find it is how you deal with the Little Sisters. (For example, saving all the little sisters results in a trophy/achievement and the nice ending) If anyone can back me up I will happily change the plot Bumpyrat (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Which of the four different endings you receive is based upon your treatment of the little sisters as well as your method of dealing with Grace, Poole, and Gil Alexander. That is also how Lamb's fate is determined. 68.35.219.61 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think there is an error in the ending section. I got the good ending by killing both Stanley Poole and Gil Alexander, the first because he deserved it, and the second because he wanted to be killed (in the registered messages he say that he doesn't want to live as a mad, horrible creature). I think in that case killing Gil Alexander is the "good" choice, because it's an act of mercy (as I said he wanted to be killed), and while I was in the Little Sister body I could see the monument to "Daddy and Gil" as a representation of St. George and the Dragon, that is a positive example, and not as a Daddy killing a human being - like it was for Stanley... Evanderiel (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the good ending why dose Eleanor absorb Delta's ADAM claiming that he is her conscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.42.237 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plot point that could be clearer in the article. The idea is that ADAM extracted from a corpse also imparts some of the donor's psyche. This the reason for both Lamb's plot to aggregate the consciousness of Rapture into Eleanor via ADAM, and Eleanor's decision to absorb Delta's ADAM. I suggest an edit to clarify these points (which, yeah, I'm copping out of doing myself). 98.110.175.105 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The endings you get are based on how you treat the little sisters and how you deal with Grace Holloway, Stanley Poole, and Gil Alexander aka Alex The Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.20.37 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure with this, because I just heard this from a friend who heard it from another friend, but according to him Eleanor doesn't "opt against absorbing Delta's ADAM". He told me that Eleanor was going to absorb Delta's ADAM, but then Delta slaps her hand away or something like that, then as it already says in the Wikipedia article, she "mourns Delta's passing".Pinoypride31 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easter eggs

Is it appropriate to mention Easter eggs in Bioshock 2 in this article? I found one, but I'm not sure whether or not this sort of thing belongs in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.216.22 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

124.150.82.58 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC) no not really if we list one easter egg we may as well list everything in the game here, there are wiki's specific for Bioshock that that sort of thing belongs on[reply]

Was Irrational Games Really Involved?

First of all, I'm totally perplexed by the org chart at 2K Games. Is the entity now known as Irrational Games formerly 2K Boston or was it always Irrational Games??? What is going on at the head table over Irrational Games anyway? That's probably besides the point. If Irrational Games was involved with BioShock 2, they're sure working hard to keep it a big secret. Go visit their website and you'll see nary a mention of it. Seems as if some kind of infighting is going on, hence the rapid and inexplicable name changes, and they had to give up some of the BioShock 2 glory as a result of it. I say "glory" with a bit of tongue in cheek. I got this game as a Valentine's present and I have to say I was left very wanting. Back in the case it goes and we'll take a peek at some of the other goodies hitting the shelves.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Irrational Games, at least in its present form, was NOT involved in the making of Bioshock 2, which is why there is no mention of their involvement ANYWHERE. Unless someone can give me a really, really good reason - I'm going to remove that text from this article in the very near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LactoseIntolerant (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished the game. The credits list personnel from 2K Marin, 2K China, 2K Australia, and 2K Boston (3 people anyways, from Boston). Boston is now Irrational Games again, so I guess they were involved. Additionally, Digital Extremes (Multiplayer) and Arkane Studios are in the credits. It didn't say what role each of the 2K studios or Arkane did, but Digital Extremes was listed as Multiplayer developement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferret99gt (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonen Vasquez?

I've removed the text that said that Jhonen Vasquez "created much of the art for the game." Text like that really needs a reference. All I can find on him and the game is that he created one piece of art for the game (actually a poster that was sold elsewhere). One poster is not "much of the art". — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay and story

There is a paragraph in the Plot section that says, "Delta discovers that Lamb plans to use ADAM to transform her daughter into a superhuman, who can then be controlled by her using the same conditioning methods used on Jack Ryan." I was under the impression Lamb had the same fate planned for Eleanor as Gil Alexander and the same controls, not the controls used on Jack Ryan? Akuvar (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an audio recording in-game where Lamb is talking about Fontaine's control over Jack and how its the perfect tool for what she wants. Gil was just the first attempt, based on what Lamb learned about Jack's conditioning. ferret (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I must have missed that line. Akuvar (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


PAL release date and CERO rating?

If I'm correct in saying this, BioShock 2 recently released in Japan. Consequently, I believe that we should include the PAL release date and respective CERO rating. Link 486 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unreal Engine Version

I'm fairly certain this game and the original Bioshock both use versions of UnrealEngine 3. It would be pretty hard to modify Unreal 2.5 to use Directx 10 "Detail Surfaces." Have you seen Killing Floor? Sure they added some pretty shaders, but the original Bioshock far-and-away blows it out of the water, graphically. And I'm pretty sure, from playing it a few hours on PC, Bioshock 2 Uses the same engine as, at least the original, and perhaps even Mass Effect 2 and Borderlands. (That would be the 3.5 variant.) They all act very similarly with streaming textures and a particular bug I have with Anti-Aliasing on my ATI cards. And belligerently citing a gamebanshee review isn't exactly backing up the contrary to my suspicious. Unless someone can definitively explain to me how 2k games modded the Unreal 2.5 engine for directx 10, please leave the engine (on both pages, Bioshock 1 & 2) to Unreal 3.0 & 3.5 Respectively. 70.41.204.97 (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this backed up by anything other than your own observations? Rehevkor ✉ 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can play at your game http://www.joystiq.com/2007/08/29/bioshocks-helping-hand-to-unreal-engine-3s-image/ Apparently the game was largely developed on a heavily modified version of Unreal 2.5, but moved to Unreal 3 towards the end of development. Can we please just be reasonable about this. The base Unreal 2 engine was released in 2002, and have you actually played Unreal 2.5 games, like Swat 4: Stetchkov or Killing floor? The difference between them and Bioshock is night and day. Hell, Bioshock 1 was one of the very first games to even have DirectX 10 capability in 2007. It is really absurd that these mis-truths are spreading around the internet. Based on things people saw at E3 '05-'06, they're still going around saying Bioshock uses 2.5, and just the thought of a new game using such deprecated resources with such spectacular results. Please, before reverting these two pages back to "2.5" can you find definitive proof that Bioshock Retail uses anything but Unreal 3.0. It's always guilty until proven innocent when an unregistered user tries to better this wonderful wealth of knowledge that is Wikipedia. We are constantly stalked by experienced zealots who would like nothing more than their source to be the end-all be-all. Again, please just consider this, I've given up trying to battle you guys, you have way too much time on your hands editing articles and I'm way too busy to be arguing whether a game that came out this year uses 8-year-old technology. 70.41.204.97 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My game? What game do you think is being played here? Rehevkor ✉ 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's "guilty until proven innocent" when *any* user makes edits that change facts while removing an apparently reliable source that disagrees with their new facts. If you had provided a source for your edits in the first place, no one would have reverted you or otherwise interfered. IP or not, you still have to adhere to WP:V. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both BioShock 1 and 2 use modified Unreal Engine 2 Build 3369: http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Unreal_Engine_Versions/2#Unreal_Engine_2_using_released_projects_on_more_than_300_over_titles.2C_included_all_of_the_unknowned_PC.2C_Xbox.2C_PS2.2C_GameCube_titles http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/03/bioshock-infinite-is-to-unreal-engine-3-as-bioshock-was-to-unrea/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.81.203 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 65.215.162.63, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The original article about Bioshock 2 refers to Rapture as a dystopia which is a totalitarian ruled society with no individual freedoms. Rapture on the other hand was originally designed to be a city free from overpowering rulers and flowing with individual freedoms. It later gets overwhelmed by the parasites that drag it into a civil war. Therefore, using the word utopia may be more grammatically accurate to describe the city of rapture. Please remove the word dystopia before this article misinforms it's readers.

65.215.162.63 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both utopia and dystopia have been used in sources to refer to rapture at different points in time. Changing it is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now unprotected. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 216° 26' 0" NET 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Under this section is "The first appearance for BioShock 2 came in the form of a teaser trailer that was available in the PlayStation 3 version of the game." Should this read "The first appearance for BioShock 2 came in the form of a teaser trailer that was available in the PlayStation 3 version of Bioshock 1."?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements

I played the game through using a 7600GT graphics card (admittedly not looking as pretty as I would have liked) - not sure the system requirements are therefore accurate.

82.17.28.40 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of language wrt PC lack of DLC/support

Let's please avoid making the lack of future support on the PC side (including the lack of the DLC packs) be an emotional thing here. We're an encyclopedia, we cannot make such arguments ourselves. If a reliable source (NOT FORUM SOURCES) comes out and laments the fact that the PC version got shafted, we can include that, but without anything else, all we can say is that despite the initial promise of PC DLC, they have since had to renege on that statement. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed that section (didn't see this until after) as it was only added today, and like you say was just based on people saying things in forums. Miremare 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2K Elizabeth is 2K's Community Manager. That's as official information as you can get guys. Several websites have reported it as official too: http://kotaku.com/5659593/pc-misses-out-on-bioshock-2-downloadable-content

I'm restoring an earlier version that was more neutral, presenting only the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.50.159 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum sources should always be avoided unless absolutely necessary, doesn't matter who's posts they are. As is the section goes into far too much detail relying entirely on these forum sources. We just need say that the DLC was canceled and little more - not a description of a long chain of events and forum posts. Rehevkor ✉ 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a ton of difference who's posts are. Plus they're not relying entirely on forum sources, they're relying on BioShock's official website too: http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2patchnotesmay
[...]we will be fixing vending machine sounds for all three platforms.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2augustpatch360ps3
The PC patch is still getting some final touches - when finalized, I'll be posting a full note list and release date here, as well!
These are far from unreliable sources.
And then you have reputable websites, such as AOL's BigDownload reporting Elizabeth's post: http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/10/08/bioshock-2-pc-wont-get-minervas-den-or-protector-trials-dlc-af/ that vending machines sounds and a PC patch (two things that were promised as coming on the official website) are in fact NOT coming.
As Elizabeth herself says "these are the most definite answers I have and you guys should deem them final decisions. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.50.159 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section still relies too heavily on forum posts. Rehevkor ✉ 20:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which are Elizabeth's, Sr Manager, Interactive Marketing of 2K: http://www.2kgames.com/blog/contributor/1 and are considered as official as you can find.
Michael Kamper: http://www.kamperaudio.com/ & http://www.kamperaudio.com/about.html is also indeed 2K's Audio Lead, that was apologizing for the missing vending machine sounds and promising that they would be fixed.
Also please note that Wikipedia's guideline's generally are not against the use of forums sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
Wikipedia suggests against using forums sources on two occasions:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
Which is clearly not the case here. Elizabeth is paid by 2K to act as a community manager, she's not self publishing anything while claiming she's something she's not.
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.
Which has nothing to do with our case here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.50.159 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the lecture, I don't recall bringing up WP:SPS. As primary sources they should be used with care, and not as the basis of a whole section. No one has questioned the authority of the people making the posts. Rehevkor ✉ 20:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of what Elizabeth has said in the forums as that point has been repeated by other reliable sources :no more support and DLC for the PC version. That's all that needs to be said, which is in the article right now. What people want to add is the sense of betrayal that they promised all this support and aren't getting it. If a reliable source talked about this (that it, the fact BS has turned 180 on this), we could include it (like the FOV issue from BS1) but no, all that they've said is just the fact. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discontent among fans about the lack of support for PC is at least worthy of mention. Currently the "Reception" section mentions the "controversial" lack of support for gamepads on the PC, but a refusal to patch outstanding issues is equally, if not more, noteworthy. Is the problem that no reputable sources mention the player reception?

"There's further bad news for players on all platforms, as the same post confirms that 2K has no plans to work on a playlist for multiplayer DLC maps. This means the problems reported back in May, from people who purchased DLC map packs and were unable to actually play the maps they bought, are set to continue indefinitely. Elizabeth's post also notes that vending machine sounds which have been missing from the game since it shipped earlier this year will not be reinstated in any version of Bioshock 2.
While 2K inevitably made no promises to give every single platform the same level of support, it seems extremely bad form to just abandon the PC release in this fashion. This, and the lack of any fix for multiplayer map issues, gives owners of Bioshock 2 legitimate reason for complaint and reflects very poorly on the publisher."
"She also revealed that a patch to fix problems with the game would not be coming to the PC, despite it being promised months before... The reaction to the announcement has been understandably visceral, with many members of the 2K community feeling that they have had their goodwill taken advantage of."

Are these reputable news sources? ~ Gardimuer (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Escapist is. So yes, the fan reaction can be discussed, but it has to stay neutral. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid problems, I wrote the section out myself, which I believe captures the relevant information without bias. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Discontinuation of Windows support" header be reworded?

I see someone already appended to the section to reflect the new information that just came out about Windows support (that 2k Marin's earlier decision to discontinue Windows support has now been reversed).

The section header, while still accurate (it *does* discuss the discontinuation of Windows support), gives the impression - in my opinion - that Windows support is still discontinued.

I'm just not sure what would be a more appropriate header. I do think the entire section is a noteworthy bit of history and should remain as-is (despite the fact that PC gamers are essentially back where they started) - I just think the header should be revised to make the current situation clearer. RHelg80 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't judge a section by it's header.. while it may be a little misleading I can't think of any alternative title that wouldn't be long winded, except maybe "Windows support", but the section is specifically about its discontinuation. As is the title is accurate and anyone reading it should read it to the end and see it has [supposedly] been reinstated. Rehevkor ✉ 20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change the header so it probably has just remained as is (unless someone else made a change - I have not checked the history).
While I agree that the header is technically true, it is - as you admit - misleading. The purpose of a header may not be to summarize, but in introducing the subject of the section, I feel it should not misrepresent the section in any way. Anyway, there is no "judgment" here: either the headline is accurate or it is not. I believe that most reasonable individuals would read this header and assume that Windows support is currently discontinued. This is false, and so the header should be changed.
Another example, though extreme, would be if a section were added to a celebrity's wikipedia page titled "<Soandso's death>" and the body stated that the person is not dead. Technically, the section does discuss the person's "death" (or lack thereof) the way this section now discusses the discontinuation of Windows support, but the header still conveys the wrong meaning. It no longer only discusses its discontinuation, but also its reinstatement.
Anyway, you admit it "may be a little misleading" and I think that should be enough to garner a change. English offers enough precision to not be misleading at all, particularly in a situation such as this. I can think of various headers that also properly introduce the section and are not misleading (such as "Controvery over Windows support" or "Discontinuation and reinstatement of Windows support") but I would rather defer to someone more experienced for this article. But wouldn't the latter example I just offered also fit and more appropriately introduce the section as it now stands? RHelg80 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BioShock 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reviewing this article.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete.--Dom497 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Review Suggestions

Unfortunately, the BioShcok 2 article is not yet at the good-article status... but very close. The main issue was in the 'plot' section of the article. There was not one single reference that was included for that section. There must be reference's for everything in the article. Another suggestion that I have is to try to include more pictures. Adding a FEW more pictures (make sure it does not get over crowded) may help increase the chances of the article passing the review and reach the good-article status. In my opinion, everything else looked good. Once someone fix's the main issue (the 'plot' section) and adds a few pictures, re-nominate the page for good-article status and hope for the best.--Dom497 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion, copied from Dom's talk page- while I agree that the article is not GA-ready, I have a few other concerns: First, plot sections in video games and other media generally do not have references- they are implicitly sourced to the game/media itself. Second, "A few more pictures" will not help the article pass GAN, as pictures are not a requirement there or anywhere. In fact, for most reviewers it would stand out as a problem, as all BioShock 2 images are copyrighted, so using them as decoration would be a violation of fair use laws. Thirdly, there are a host of other issues with the article that need to be fixed for GAN - the Gameplay section has a huge tag on it, Multiplayer goes into excessive detail on the modes, Development has a big table of hardware requirements for no reason, Music is a single sentence, and Reception has a longer table than prose (and has a cite-needed tag). Those are issues that I saw just by scrolling down. The problems are all fixable, and the article's in a pretty good shape, but I didn't want you to think that you should just slap some images on it and renominate. --PresN 18:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Dom497 and PresN, thank you both for your comments, and thank you Dom497 for your review. I will personally work to fix the issues you both pointed out. I have no time table for completing this, as it will just be a side project when I have some free time. I will especially work to fix the things that PresN mentioned, as well as comb the article for more touching up/citation verification. Thank you both for your time. Mordecairule 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of an OS X version of the game

An OS X version of the game was announced for January 2012. I came here to see if it was actually released or not (nothing obvious right away on google). Seems like it may be worth covering in the article, since supported plataforms are discussed at some length. Winecellar (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Sigma

I would like to learn more about Subject Sigma in the main article or here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.20.37 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BioShock 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BioShock 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Modifed

I have just add to the plot. I talked more about the ending and how many different endings a player could see. I also helped specify how certain ending were obtained. Cardwellma (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BioShock 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@David Fuchs: Hello, I'll be the reviewer for this GAN. Below is the GA criteria that I will use to evaluate the article as a whole. Any recommendations will be listed at the bottom. Please note, I am writing this at work so it may take a bit of time for me to get the entirety of this review out, assessments will be added piecewise. I'll ping you whenever I finish my initial review.


Template for GAN Templates and Tools for my own convenience:  Done

Strikethrough

Highlight

Common errors: WP:CITELEAD, Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, WP:PUFFERY

Earwig


1. It is reasonable well written:

Very well written. I see no outwithstanding issues, I will be giving a more in-depth dive but the outward prose looks good so far. Etriusus (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

For the purposes of video game articles, plot generally does not require citations. Some of the citations come across as extraneous and unnecessary. This should be addressed prior to passing the article. There are also citation-needed tags present.  Done Review of the citations looks good overall, with a few tweaks needed. Ultimately, there should be some compromise.
Earwig is having a proverbial stroke upon assessing this article. There are entire paragraphs that come up as copyvio's, that being said, this appears to be a blog that pulled from Wikipedia and therefore not an issue. I will double-check this  Done. There is a minor section that also comes up that'll need to be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage

Page has improved substantially since its last GA review. Prior issues were predominately around the amount of coverage in this page, which appears to be adequately addressed in this review. No other expansions seem necessary or practical without getting into unnecessary detail. This section is well done and I commend those who have been so vigilant in correcting these issues.


4. Is it neutral?;

  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
No issues noted. Reception appears to be in line with WP policy and I've crosschecked with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games for their guidelines on video game articles. Etriusus (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is stable

  • It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No ongoing edit wars or instability. Etriusus (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images, where possible and appropriate;

Images look good, fair use rational is in order. No copyright violations, good captions, all images are appropriate. All images follow established guidelines for video game images. I would love to see more but understand this is neither necessary nor practical. Etriusus (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above.

hulking, please remove per WP:PUFFERY
There are 3 citation needed tags that need cleaning up.
Why does that art section have in line citations without a link/in two different formats? Is this intentional?
BioShock 2 also deals.. The list has an inconsistent citation scheme. Either list the citations out next to their respective theme or cut out any extraneous citations.
BioShock 2 was revealed... This whole paragraph has two citations per sentence, is this necessary?

:In the Reception section, the citations need some work. There appear to be a few WP:OVERCITE violations, namely the Metacritic score likely does not require 3 citations. Please review the use of so many citations, most sentences don't require 3-4 citations.

Hey User:Etriusus, thanks for reviewing the article. I've added citations for the [cn] tags (simply forget to add more detailed ones since they all came from the same source, my bad.) The citations in the Art section are to the same book repeatedly, so rather than have a bunch of identical citations with page numbers I just used a single one with {{rp}}; it's the only print source used as such (and there's no URL for it.)
As for your complaints of overciting, I'm afraid I'm going to push back on it. Clauses with multiple citations at the end of them have multiple citations because they draw from multiple sources. The plot section has no citations; the setting section does, because it's filled with background material not directly or easily sourced from the plot itself. The Metacritic statement has three citations because it's linking to three different URLs to verify it, and the reception section has multiple refs because they are summarizing critic commentary and need to demonstrate which critics. WP:OVERCITE is an essay, and I believe in erring on the side of making it easy to verify where material comes from (not to mention none of the examples in OVERCITE actually apply to this article—it's not ref-bombing, it's not repeating reprinted information, it's not repeating itself multiple times.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Thank you for the clarification. You caught me before I was finished with the review but thank you for being so attentive. I'm someone who generally prefers to keep citations to a minimum/what is necessary, and seeing so many citations per sentence did raise a red flag. If the amount is justified then I see no issue with leaving it as is. Etriusus (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely surprised that the Metacritic score was the same for all 3 releases. That sourcing looks good.
@David Fuchs: I've finished my review of the article. I've thrown a few minor edits that need to be cleaned up but once that's done, the article will be good for GA sign off.


the player character in the first game please specify that this is Bioshock 1, it is implied but not stated in this paragraph.
"As this sequel is an extension of the first game's storylines and characters, there are direct contrasts between the extreme politics of Andrew Ryan's objectivism and the extreme religion/politics of Lamb's collectivism", he writes. "BioShock 2 specifically asks players to question all sides of debates when extreme stances are taken, and asks players to weigh their decisions in an alternate and complex history." BioShock 2 Earwig is picking this up as a copyvio.
Adjusted the above two (added BioShock 1, and cut down on the length of the direct quote.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Separate the reviews for the PC, Xbox, and PS in the review infobox (similar to what Bioshock does) would cut down on confusion and fix the overcitation issue. I know that the review was a 88/100 for each platform but the infobox does not specify this.
Would you be able to supply an archive/readable link for the Schiesel, Seth (March 5, 2010) source, it is paywalled.
Critics often highlighted the gameplay changes as improvements on the original. The 4 links at the end are excessive. The rest of the paragraph supports this idea enough. It is equally appropriate to expand these out into their own sentences. Source 103 is used twice in this paragraph, where it fundamentally serves the same purpose. Per our earlier conversation, I agree that some of the 2-4 citation sentences are fine as is but this one should be fixed.
I've separated the review scores and tweaked the gameplay paragraph. As for the Schiesel ref, the NYT is behind a registration paywall; you can get around it if you disable Javascript in your browser but otherwise there's not really an option as far as I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Thank you for working on the article and putting up with my hectic schedual. With that last round of edits, I've passed the article for GA. Congradulations. Finally Bioshock 2 can join its predecessor. Etriusus (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting comments

@David Fuchs: I'll leave my comments/questions here as I go through the article. I have never played this game before or anything like it. Ovinus (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue tomorrow. Ovinus (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks in advance for the efforts. I kind of went back and forth on the tenses; in general I like keeping everything present when writing plot but given that it's all stuff that happens before the plot of the game past tense makes sense as well. I think 'exacerbated' works best given that the ADAM usage is sort of background for the power struggles (explicitly in the tie-in books.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, continuing, sorry for the delay.

Many of these comments aren't particularly related to copyediting, but since you're taking it to FAC I thought I should put some relevant content comments as well. I'll probably take a second pass after your responses, as I usually do. Ovinus (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BioShock_2