all games are not created equal

Both of these games are amazing.  Both were very enjoyable for every hour that I played.  However, the one thing that Fallout 3 has over Bioshock is replayability.

Once I finished Bioshock, I felt like I was most definitely done with the game; that I had experienced everything.  For Fallout 3, the second I finished, I wanted to play it again, to find all those little things that I may have missed the first time through.  And then maybe even the second time through, I can do all the evil things that I avoided doing the first time through =)

Bioshock is a linear game with a fantastic story and atmosphere.  You learn about the main characters of the game as you play through and learn more of the backstory through audio tapes.

F3 does have a linear storyline, but this isn't where the real storytelling is.  The real storytelling exists all throughout the Capital Wasteland, the main area in F3.  As you explore and talk to people, you learn about what happened, why people are where they are, how they feel, what the problems are and so on.  It's this non-linear storytelling that really makes this game quite enjoyable, that is, if you want to know the story.  If you don't then you are just as welcome to run around and kill everything, complete the main storyline and call it a day.  But you will be missing out on some great gameplay.

Hard to do this to Bioshock, but Fallout 3 has you beat on this one.

In both games, you arrive at a location that has been transformed because of previous events and you'll find out over the course of the game what happened. They tell the story through logs that you find throughout the game. It's nice because it keeps things pretty mysterious and doesn't get too much in the way of gameplay. Both games do pretty well with this, so no complaints there.

One place where Bioshock clearly outshines Dead Space is in the upgrade system. You can upgrade your weapons, rig and accessories in Dead Space, but I had a problem noticing that my upgrades really did anything at all. The obvious ones like increased ammo are clear to see, but stuff like .1 seconds off your reload time or an extra point of damage per shot are really hard to notice. The upgrade system also didn't motivate me to level up my stuff just because I didn't feel like it was doing anything. In Bioshock, when you upgraded something, you knew it. Added abilities were the clearest, but weapon and ability upgrades were pretty clear too.

One thing that was pretty bothersome in Dead Space was the lack of a good melee weapon. Bioshock had a wrench that you could pound on people with if you ever ran out of ammo. Dead Space gives you hands and feet. Out of ammo? Then swing awat with your fists at the wave of monsters and watch as they don't die. You really really really need ammo in Dead Space because once your out, you're really screwed.

Both games do have a pretty convincing atmosphere, but Bioshock wins for lasting impression. Dead Space achieved this through some cheap scares at times, which I always frown upon. In Bioshock, I was always waiting for that scare to help relieve the tension that the environment created, but it never came.

None of this is saying that Dead Space is a bad game. Not at all. It's actually a pretty good game. It just isn't as good as the total package that is Bioshock.

Bioshock was truly one of the most epic survival games I've played, everything about it screamed different, the depth of the storyline, and the setting, an underwater utopia set in the 50's,c'mon, who thinks of that? The random mini-games (for hacking and such) really kept you entertained as well , the game play, giving you a series of physical enhancements, despite the fact that fire and electricity are common, really had different ideas as well, and, though this isn't as innovative, I loved how your choice to save or kill the little sisters affected the end.

F.E.A.R was just another attempted pop up scare in my opinion, giving pretty gruesome depections to try to envoke fear, when in reality the game wasn't near as worth the hype of how scary it was. I love gruesome, but I don't like how it tried to use that as really the only scare tactic in the game. In my opinion the storyline was a bit etchy to follow as well, and not nearly as entrancing enviroment wise as Bioshock, it all felt like most shooters, through warehouses and things like that. The game play was pretty bland, not really appealing to anything different than normal shooter games.

Even though Bioshock is a single player game, and I couldn't see it as anything else, could play it over and over, for hours on end.

Shooter wise, Bioshock is way better than Crysis.  The game is more balanced.  Both games the player have powers that they can use against the enemies.  But Crysis is just dumb.

The million dollar super suit you have is weak, the battery life on it is worse than my cellphone.  Sure it recharges itself but you can't even make it pass 5 ft before your battery is dead.  Therefore you're practically fighting a group of enemy soldiers in your boxers.  It takes a lot more bullets to kill a enemy soldier and they all have aim bot!  They can hit you from sniper range, yet I have problems holding a sniper rifle steady with all this "advanced" technology on me.  The government pretty much screwed you over, making it look all fancy.  The game is pretty difficult even in easy or normal settings but in expert mode, the enemy soldier will speak Korean!  OMG!  They're going to talk trash at you in Korean as they shoot you while you're standing there trying to figure out what they're say.  C'mon...I'm sure their aim bot is turned on more often.

The story wasn't that great either, government consiracy, Koreans stealing alien technology, aliens got pissed and want to blow up earth.  The only credits this game deserve are the fancy engine and graphics.

It seems like a lot of you have already talked about Bioshock so I will just leave that alone and say I like that game too.