by Animathias (http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/author/animathias/)

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bioshock.jpg

Who didn’t see this coming? A highly praised blockbuster of a title getting a sequel. Suprising I know. Still, it’s good to have confirmation on the subject.
So far, they’ve chosen the imaginative name of “Bioshock 2.” That could change at anytime, but somehow I don’t see it happening. A release window has also been announced: Q4 2009. So somewhere around August to October, giving them a solid 2 years between releases to iron the aquatic kinks out.

Ken Levine is confirmed to be involved with the project, though his part wasn’t specifically revealed. He’s currently occupied on another yet-to-be revealed title. What type of title? It’s a mystery, but its rumored to be a resurrection of a long dormant franchise that he may have worked on before… System Shock, Thief, or maybe a Tribes resurrection?

In any case, I truly hope he has enough input to keep the game on track with the original. I greatly enjoyed Bioshock when it was released at the front of the pack in August ‘07, so I’ll admit that I’m quite excited for this release. I’m not going to get my hopes up just yet, though. Some sequels just aren’t very good.

Perfect Dark Zero, anyone?
Source: Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6187564.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0)

Every game that sells more then 10 copies gets a sequel these days. But it's the same in the film industry. lets be honest the more titles that come out, the harder it is to think of something which hasn't been done before. And it's still likely we'll all enjoy it anyway, sequal or not. the problem comes when no effort is put into sequels, when there just rushed out to generate money.

If their taking 2 years to make it, there must be some effort involved. Unless of course they have 5 hour long coffee breaks all day or just stare at a goldfish bowl all day doing "research"

I wonder if BioShock 2 will need higher system requirements then Bioshock 1

How is making sequels to brilliant games and films a bad thing? Even if there not as good as the original im sure people would still want to play it.

i'm not saying it's a bad thing.
as long as they are made well. if its just the same game/film with a number 2 behind it, then really is there any point. there has to be some good ideas. (maybe you could get away with 1 or 2 sequals but then it gets crazy, police acadamy 987434638495 anyone?)

i'm not saying it's a bad thing.
as long as they are made well. if its just the same game/film with a number 2 behind it, then really is there any point. there has to be some good ideas. (maybe you could get away with 1 or 2 sequals but then it gets crazy, police acadamy 987434638495 anyone?)

I dont really mind how many they make as long as there all to a good standard. Like Star Wars, granted the first of the new trilogy was rubbish but all the others were really good. They probally should have stopped Rocky after IV though.

There really does seem to be a realtionship between the number of sequels and the quality of the later ones, the more sequels, the worse they are. i guess less effort is but into them really, they become cheap straight to dvd affairs..

I think the title "Bioshock 2" is just sort of a name to currently call it for the moment. I think it was done just to show the shareholders and prospective buyers of take 2 the games that were coming out next fiscal year for them.

Hopefully this game will be a sequel, and will show a little bit more how and why Rapture descended into the mess it became. That would be cool

I think system shock would be a nice surprise, since its like the genius brother of bioshock, who got to play with all the cool toys.. while bioshock got what was left over.

Not to bash bioshock, but any person who played SS or SS2 will know that BS is just a dumbed down version.