With the impending release of Bioshock less than 24 hours away, and the abundance of reviews already hitting the net, there are a few questions left to be answered. Bioshock has really brought it to the table getting an average of 99% from all reviews thus far released.

Some have thrown out the term “Shooter 2.0”. With indefinite replay ability in this shooter, be it shock, burn, shoot, or throw bees at them, this game seemingly has made people “think” before they act, with their limited resources.

So that said, is it really a ‘2.0’ of the FPS genre?

From what I’ve played on the Xbox360, I would have to disagree, thus far anyways. Granted it does have a wide variety of set them a-blaze, then have them run to the water, at which will be electrified by your 1000 watt shooting hand, but what makes this different from an older game in mind, like Red Faction? Or a newer one like Stranglehold?

Yes, I know there is a fine line here (with Red Faction anyhoo), but what’s the big difference?

Never being played the same could happen many times, like in Red Faction, instead of finding a Keycard you can shoot through a wall. Or in Stranglehold, instead of shooting the guy in the face, you shoot the air conditioner vent above his head, thus dropping it and successfully crushing his head.

Perhaps, just perhaps I just haven’t seen the big picture yet, seeing as how I’ve only sampled the delicious demo (Pay attention, I never said it was a ‘bad’ game).

Well, I suppose it hasn’t really been decided to be deemed “Shooter 2.0” yet, not in my book at least.

Verdict, coming soon in the form of a good ‘ol review

Till next time, keep on fraggin’!