Did you order some Gulag?

Very different story too

By the way, if you want to play a game that's more of a spiritual successor to system shock/2 then even BioShock, play prey from 2017. Severely underrated game for the time. The amount of player choice you get is insane, then feels insanely tense because one of the basic enemy types can transform into everyday objects around the game world, so you're always going around wondering if that chair in the corner is actually a chair or if that teacup on the desk is actually a teacup. Really drives home the paranoia.

I guess the reason I don't call it a horror game is because it doesn't have tons of scary moments. It just has scary moments sprinkled here and there. Horror doesn't feel like the main drive of the game, it just uses some horrific elements to sell its world and atmosphere. It does a good job of making you feel uneasy, especially on your first playthrough. But nothing that really makes you jump out of your seat. It also doesn't help that there's really no penalty to dying when playing the game on its default settings. Yeah, you can turn off the Vita Chambers if you really want to make the game more tense. But beyond that the ability to save wherever you want kind of mitigates that too.

Let me put it to you this way, my first time playing through Bioshock I didn't die single time. The game gives you more than enough ammunition, gives you all the tools you need to survive, You never scrapped for supplies. And there's absolutely no penalty to dying if you play the game with all of its default settings because you always respawn at a vita chamber and everything is exactly as you left it when you died so you can just brute force your way through everything.

If it's a horror game, then it fails at being a horror game because there's no penalty. The game can have scary moments but still not be a horror game.

Yea early on you might be a little more strapped for everything, but even then it's not difficult. Going through and playing the game with primarily the wrenche is just as doable it's going full throttle with the shotgun or Tommy gun. If I remember correctly, you can pretty much two shot most enemies with the wrench.

Compare that to horror games, using melee is only a viable strategy if you know the ins and outs of the game. Like in Dead space for instance, shooting at their legs to get them crawling on the ground, using stasis on them to slow them down, then stomping like crazy. Or doing the same thing in resident evil 2, except with the knife. Your melee attacks are always the last resort or an advanced strategy to save on ammunition. But in BioShock you don't ever have to worry about that, you can two shot most enemies with the wrench. And if you can't two shot them, it's not really detrimental to just keep smacking them until they go down. After all, death isn't really much of a roadblock when you just respawn at the nearest buy to chamber and the enemy you were just wailing on is still standing where he killed you.

I don't dislike BioShock. It's a game that I go back and play every now and then because I love the atmosphere, setting, and themes. The game plays a lot of fun. Both BioShock 1 & 2 are some of my favorite games of that generation. But I really wouldn't classify them as horror games. Just first person shooters with horror elements. Probably the scariest scene in the first BioShock was that one flooded room with the mannequins and a single spotlight. Pretty sure just by saying that everyone that's played the game knows what I'm talking about. It's a really memorable scene and shows that if the BioShock developers wanted to make a horror game, they could pull it off pretty well. But horror wasn't the focus for BioShock, which is the reason why moments like that are few and far between.

Then you need to get your head checked, because bioshock isn't a horror game. It's never been categorized as a horror game by anyone, even by the developers. It's a first person shooter. Having some horror elements doesn't make it a horror game, it just means it has some elements of horror to make the player feel uneasy.

Clock speed doesn't equal IPC. That's why a Pentium for processor clocked at 4ghz it's outperformed by a modern day i3 processor like 2.8 gigahertz.

The Xbox 360 is definitely more of a single threaded CPU. It's got three physical cores, each handling one thread. The PS3's so architecture is a bit different, having a single very fast core, but seven smaller synergistic processing units that are meant to run threat asymmetrically. Issue is, it's a pain in the ass to develop for.

I do genuinely think that the PS3 and the 360 could have run crysis better than they did, But it probably would required an entire engine rewrite from the ground up to better utilize multithreaded processing. It's pretty evident even today that crysis remastered shows that despite all the optimization they've done, they still haven't changed up the way that their engine handles CPU utilization. It's not a very multi-threaded engine, still hammering only a few select cores at a time rather than spreading the workload across as many cores as it possibly can.

I don't blame them for that either, it would take a lot of work to do.

Biggest issue with crysis was it's CPU utilization. The engine was designed for high IPC processors because at the time, crytek assumed that fast individual cores would be the thing instead of us packing more cores into CPUs. It really didn't utilize more than 4 concurrent threads, and even then it seemed to hit 2 threads harder than anything else.

The remastered port didn't really fix this either. It's still very CPU limited, utilizing no more than 4 threads, even if you have 16 physical cores.