Anyone else *INSANELY* disappointed by Bioshock Infinite?

[squid5580]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Isn't it that she was also wiping away her own existence by drowning Booker? I assummed the baptism was before conception

The way I understand it, by drowning Booker, they alter what happens to the Booker who after wounded knee accepts the baptism and therefore killing the one who becomes Comstock. The Booker that chooses to walk away lives like he did in the player character version of him, only because there is no possibility of a Comstock existing anymore he can not take Anna from our Booker, ergo the Elizabeth in the game who was trapped by Comstock never exists, only Booker's daughter Anna. Considering Booker was a gambling alcoholic at the time and irresponsible enough to potentially give his own daughter away to pay a debt, potentially this couldn't be considered a 'happy' ending.

That isn't what I got from it. I understand that when she drowns him she kills both (or all) versions of Booker. Like his plan to suffocate Comstock as a baby. Which leads to the question whether Anna was conceived before or after the baptism. Either way she can never become Elizabeth

 

[Weatherking]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Isn't it that she was also wiping away her own existence by drowning Booker? I assummed the baptism was before conception

The way I understand it, by drowning Booker, they alter what happens to the Booker who after wounded knee accepts the baptism and therefore killing the one who becomes Comstock. The Booker that chooses to walk away lives like he did in the player character version of him, only because there is no possibility of a Comstock existing anymore he can not take Anna from our Booker, ergo the Elizabeth in the game who was trapped by Comstock never exists, only Booker's daughter Anna. Considering Booker was a gambling alcoholic at the time and irresponsible enough to potentially give his own daughter away to pay a debt, potentially this couldn't be considered a 'happy' ending.

That isn't what I got from it. I understand that when she drowns him she kills both (or all) versions of Booker. Like his plan to suffocate Comstock as a baby. Which leads to the question whether Anna was conceived before or after the baptism. Either way she can never become Elizabeth

Let's see if I can still keep this all clear in my head.
We know that Anna was born 1892, two years after wounded knee, I don' remember if it's something I made up but I think I remember the baptism taking place directly after wounded knee, before Anna would have been born. The implication from the after credits sequence (which is to be honest pretty loosely inferred) is that only the versions of Booker who accepts the baptism are killed, and the one who chooses to walk away lives on as I said. The reason for this change of fixed events in the alternate timelines has to do with Elizabeth's ability to change what is a constant and a variable event in the Infinite multi-verse structure, if this doesn't make sense look up the audio logs from Lutece which brings up the principles of constants and variables in the Infinite universe.
Regarding the point about smothering lil' baby Comstock, the baptism is effectively Comstocks birth out of Booker thus drowning him during the baptism is smothering him in his crib albeit figuratively.

It feels wierd to take this so seriously, I think it's the first time I've gone to this degree with speculating the events of a work of fiction.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Than your expectations were insanely high.

I was a little disappointed the game couldn't keep up with the amazing first hour, though I would have been very impressed if it had. The middle of the game, when the city had more or less completely crumbled, just kinda got a little flatfooted. The environments were rather bland for a good section of the game (sorta around the time the Vox take over)

As for the ending, I thought the reveals were fine. It's a love it or hate it type thing, and I thought it was good. I think the drowning sort of came out of nowhere, and was a little disappointed that was the only way the game could end (even though that was kind of the point). I wish it had gone more along the lines of the first Bioshock. You get the twist, and than you get one or two more levels worth of gameplay.

Though I will say I was pleasantly surprised by the choices in the game. The first time I played through, I picked all of the "good" choices. The second time through, I picked most of the bad ones, and it was actually a lot more entertaining. Had a real Han Solo vibe with it, and made Booker as a character feel a lot more bad ass.

 

[barbzilla]

I enjoyed the game enough to finish it, which is something I can't say about 2 so that says something. However, I feel the game missed its mark. The weapon systems have been oversimplified to the point that I feel as though I am playing Halo. You rely on regenerating shields with static health (like halo), and can only hold two weapons (like halo again). Gone are the interesting weapons from the bioshock universe. That was always one of the key points to the bioshock games (granted story is the key, I will get into that later), along with the plasmids (vigors as they are called here). The vigors are also kind of meh. The early vigors you receive all play the same style roles, it isn't until late game that you get some utility vigors. On top of that, the environmental interactions have been "streamlined" to the point that they are just a series of light tactical choices, though they aren't even all that useful. You can create a hook (by far the most versatile choice of the tears), create a weapon/health/salts cache, create an ally, or create a tiny environmental hazard. This just doesn't feel organic any more. In the other bioshock games, everything felt organic and put together, as though you were actually engaging in this beautiful set piece, instead of just altering it.

The story was pretty good though. Granted there are a few questions and holes left behind, the story was fantastic otherwise. So I still enjoyed the game. I just think it left a sour taste in my mouth because of the lack luster combat.

 

[Dogstile]

EDIT: Oh yeah,

Spoiler

When that chick mistakes Ellie for Annabelle, (should have tipped us all off but it didn't)it had me think, why was Elizabeth's name changed to Elizabeth in the first place? Beside to hide the fact she was your daughter. And how did this random chick know about that, unless it was bleed-over from another universe? That whole part didn't make sense to me.

Not sure if someones answered this, but...

Spoiler

She was one of the agents ambushing you. Everyone in that area was an agent making sure you were the people to ambush. The gateman is in on it (closes it down right after you get through) the vendor and the customer are in on it (stop and listen to the dialog, its hilarious. Comstocks agents are bad actors) and obviously the ticket guy is in on it.

It honestly baffles me how many problems people have with this game, especially as almost all of them are explained in game and you've just not taken the time to listen.

 

[R.Nevermore]

And as for the Annabelle thing from that random chick, I just thought it was some coincidence. Booker's daughter was never Annabelle, it was Anna. While similar enough to present some foreshadowing, it wasnt solid enough to give me any indication that this random agent knew the connection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the girl who asked Elizabeth that, part of the group opening fire on Booker after trying to get tickets out of Colombia in the scene directly after that? If that's the case I saw it as she was baiting Elizabeth to find out whether or not it was really her so they could get the right person.

Regarding my own views on the game, I was the opposite of disappointed. It will probably go down as one of my top ten if not five favorite games ever after I'm done playing trough it the second time to pick up all the stuff I missed. I just think it's an exquisitely and lovingly crafted experience on just about every front and I love this sort of sci-fi even though I can see it's easy to poke holes like crazy in these sorts of stories. It inspired me to re-watch Primer and I'm planning on watching The Butterfly Effect again too, alternate timeline stuff is great

I figure she was an agent of Columbia's FBI or something, just trying to get a good look at her, moving in closely to see if it was indeed Elizabeth. She made up a fake name as an excuse to get up close. When she had her confirmation, she gave the signal to her other agents.

 

[ungothicdove]

I really enjoyed the game; I love when a game makes me go to the web immediately after finishing it to read up on others thoughts and theories about what happened.

That being said, I do have a couple things that are minor complaints.

1) I never really used any vigors besides the power jockey. Once I got, I pretty much relied on it unless I was going against the handy-man. Shock and shoot, shock and shoot. Maybe it's just my style of play but it seemed the most effective and didn't drain my salts as much as some of the others.

2) While two weapons might be more realistic, Infinite isn't exactly the most real world based game. Even if we couldn't have them all, a four weapon system could have been a nice middle ground I think.

3) Some of the backtracking got very tedious for me. I hate backtracking.

4) I wish there was a way to holster or put away your weapons in some areas. I like being able to enjoy the gorgeous views of Columbia without my gun getting in the way.

5) No saving unless it's one of their checkpoints.

But, I should mention one thing I absolutely loved about the game: Elizabeth not needing any protection. God I hate when NPCs die and fuck you so that you have to start the mission over. And that she was actually helpful in combat by giving you salts or ammo. She was the most enjoyable companion I've had since Alyx.

 

[IPunchWithMyFists]

My thoughts are that this topic took a week later than I expected to arrive.

Does this really happen that often? I'm not trying to be a dick about anything.

Not like your thread. Normally they are along the lines of "Why does everybody like this? Here is a list of reasons for why you should not". There is a pattern of sorts when big name games come out.

Your post, however, was merely giving your honest opinion on the game, so I was exaggerating really. It's a shame you didn't like it, but I guess it all depends on individual preferences. It's not going to appeal to everybody.

That said, my comment seems to have come across as more snarky than intended, so I have removed it from my first post.

The lack of explanation for some things was a little disappointing. I'd like to have found out more about the SongBird and the Vigors for example.

Not sure about the SongBird, but the Vigors were explained as being the same thing as Rapture's Plasmids, I believe. In some of the audio tapes Fink talks about stealing technology from the tears that show him other worlds, and at one point he mentions observing a brilliant biologist (presumably Tenenbaum).

It's kind of funny, as soon as I read this reply my memory suddenly "pinged" and I recall hearing Fink mentioning using tears to learn things. Thank you for reminding me.

It's cool man, no worries.

 

[Rob Robson]

I sum up Bioshock 2 like this: 'That game that stands in the shadow of Dishonoured'. There are too many similarities not to think of Dishonoured, and Dishonoured is just a better game in almost every way.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I sum up Bioshock 2 like this: 'That game that stands in the shadow of Dishonoured'. There are too many similarities not to think of Dishonoured, and Dishonoured is just a better game in almost every way.

I think you're thinking about the wrong game.

 

[Kajin]

I loved it, but it kinda felt like the game removed a fair bit of strategic depth that had been present in the first game. I felt hardly any need to use any vigors outside of my personal holy trinity of Possession, Murder of Crows, and Shock Jockey. The guns felt relatively interchangeable and I felt almost no attachment to any of them. The Tear mechanic and the Sky Rails (when they were actually present) more than made up for it, but all throughout I felt an almost profound sense of loss wherever combat was concerned.

I also really loved fighting the handymen, and I was rather annoyed when I got to the end of the game and I'd only fought like, three or four of them up to that point.

Overall, though, the combat was still pretty fun and the story was awesome. I don't care what anyone says, the plot isn't all that convoluted if you actually paid attention.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

As good as the story/atmosphere and world they have created is, my biggest disappointment is why the games have to be built on a first person shooter template. or any template for that matter.

Though credit to the devs; they seemed to have approached the game mechanics with a 'well as it's going to be a shooter, what powers and story elements can we add to make it less jarring'. So immediately it's a massive improvement over Tomb Raider.

It's a very good shooter with a story. But as an overall game it's the same old stuff, just executed very well, an immersive fresh universe, interesting characters and fun shootings with different approaches to the combat.

Can we blame them? In the last month there have been two traditional shooters, one third person (Tomb Raider) and one first person (Bioshock Infinite). Both games have come from franchises whose past installments have been a lot more creative in their gameplay than "stand here and shoot things in the face". Both games have had the hell praised out of them by fans and critics alike.

Meanwhile any game that shows the slightest bit of creativity or endeavor in its gameplay is criticized for tiny niggling flaws and insignificant bugs. Despite all our talk of "innovation" and games in general failing to "move forward", what we really love is the same thing we are used to, repeated over and over with a fresh coat of paint each time.

 

[Floppertje]

I really liked the gameplay and the story (once i understood what was going on) but the world... there's this whole 'pure capitalism'/racism/religion thing going on that i feel the game wants me to think is more shocking than I do. I could be very wrong here, but it feels to me like the game means for me to go: 'wow, this is crazy! but it's not all that different here!' maybe the US IS more capitalist/racist/religious than Europe is, because I just thought: 'wow, this is just ridiculous.' what i'm saying is it feels like it's more geared towards americans and therefore it doesn't impact me as much as it would like to. or something like that.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Disappointed? Yes, though not insanely so. I went in pretty much being ready to compare everything to the original Bioshock, and in that regard I did come out disappointed.

-Didn't really dig the story, the whole "alternate universes" thing just didn't really jive with me the same way the story for "Bioshock" did, just felt a lot less grounded and a lot more ridiculous.

-The art direction was great, but to me doesn't hold a candle to Bioshock's art-deco design.

-No aesthetic changes on the weapons when you upgrade them? Bioshock had this feature like 6 years ago.

-If Vigors are so easy to use, why isn't everyone in Columbia using them? (Bioshock sort of explained this, with the Splicers having become so deteriorated through their use they needed ADAM just to keep from falling apart). The only enemies that seemed to use them were "Crows".

-But perhaps what I disliked the most is how they're continuing to make the "Shock" games more and more simple. I was willing to forgive Bioshock for not being as complex as "System Shock 2", but Infinite has now gotten rid of carryable medkits and Salts, you can hold as many vigors as the game offers and use them instantly, and there is simply less choice involved. I liked how in Bioshock you had to make decisions like "Do I want to be able to access one more Plasmid, have more health, buy this tonic, or be able to carry more EVE?", and that was in addition to the choices you had to make regarding buying items. Infinite removes a ton of that stuff from the game (though I did like how you buy weapon upgrades as opposed to just finding them).

 

[Karlaxx]

I'm with you on the backtracking, but it's been so long since I've even played a first-person game,let alone anything of the Bioshock pedigree, that I'm still thoroughly stunned by everything. You're probably right about the enemies too, but I opted to only play on Medium for the time being; Hard might be a little more interesting, as I've only died twice in six hours of gameplay.

Edt: And there was a BARBERSHOP QUARTET, with the stripey suits and straw hats and everything, singing a song with which I am familiar, so I'm pretty much satisfied no matter what.

 

[jcfrommars9]

As good as the story/atmosphere and world they have created is, my biggest disappointment is why the games have to be built on a first person shooter template. or any template for that matter.

Though credit to the devs; they seemed to have approached the game mechanics with a 'well as it's going to be a shooter, what powers and story elements can we add to make it less jarring'. So immediately it's a massive improvement over Tomb Raider.

It's a very good shooter with a story. But as an overall game it's the same old stuff, just executed very well, an immersive fresh universe, interesting characters and fun shootings with different approaches to the combat.

Can we blame them? In the last month there have been two traditional shooters, one third person (Tomb Raider) and one first person (Bioshock Infinite). Both games have come from franchises whose past installments have been a lot more creative in their gameplay than "stand here and shoot things in the face". Both games have had the hell praised out of them by fans and critics alike.

Meanwhile any game that shows the slightest bit of creativity or endeavor in its gameplay is criticized for tiny niggling flaws and insignificant bugs. Despite all our talk of "innovation" and games in general failing to "move forward", what we really love is the same thing we are used to, repeated over and over with a fresh coat of paint each time.

I agree and disagree with you. Agree with you because when something is truly innovative, it is often criticized for not being like everything else. Disagree with you because I feel that is how this recent rebooted Tomb Raider was criticized; for not being the game it was 17 years ago which isn't a fresh or even different perspective at all, just a old one. Repeated over with a fresh coat of paint. As for Bioshock Infinite, the gameplay to me was fun. Very fun. The first Bioshock is still the better overall game in my opinion but using that camera for example drove me nuts so in this game, I did not miss that in the slightest. However what I feel is missed in the gameplay of both Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite is how it works itself into the narrative. The killing of all those mercenaries that Lara does, has an effect on who she becomes and how the men start to react to her as the game progresses. In Bioshock Infinite, Elizabeth notices Booker killing people as well as his brutal use of the skyhook on enemies. The gameplay in both games isn't there just for the sake of "standing there and shooting things in the face." There's a point and creativeness to it as well. It in part addresses who these characters are and where they come from. So can I blame them? Yes. For the same reason I can blame Elizabeth for immediately dismissing Booker as a monster. Make no mistake, the man's a bastard but it wasn't until much later in the game that she finally comes to understand him. I feel people in turn should take the time to look beneath the surface of the gameplay.

 

[mbarker]

I thought the story was one-of-a-kind, the incorporation of Booker joining the Vox, joining Comstock, and joining no one into one linear storyline was cleverly done. The timelines is a good solution to start a franchise with the same name and different game-play. Sky lines were a neat mechanic and the ending was final but left room for speculation which gave you time to hypothesise and motivated replay of the game. Voice acting was good the animation and design of everything was fantastic. This was the first game I played a second time. I`m still thinking about it after a couple of days I finished it. I also loved the ?When the Circle Goes Unbroken? Easter egg with Elizabeth.

With all of that being said I don`t think the game should have game of the year status. I found a few things disappointing.

Not enough skyline play, I would have liked to have been flying around on the skylines more.

Not enough heavy hitters like the Handymen, Sirens, or Boys of Silence.

I wasn`t as emotionally attached to Elizabeth as they claimed I would be. I think this is because they didn`t really do that much to force you to interact with her. An example that made Booker closer to her was when he picked the choker pendant for Elizabeth, an interaction like that should have occurred much more often. Certain areas this could have happened were when Elizabeth was dancing on the beach and the part when Elizabeth asks if they should go to New York or Paris. There are a ton of other examples that interactions could have been done to strengthen or weaken your connection with Elizabeth. Irrational never capitalised on those moments, or had them cut, and I was very disappointed. I could elaborate on this but I`m going to write something a little more in depth about it later in the week.

I was disappointed that school girl Elizabeth was used through most of the game. I wanted to see more of the sexy corseted Elizabeth.

When they put in the different models of Elizabeth It seemed really incoherent.

I could have done without Elizabeth becoming the omnipresent omnipotent ethereal being.

The background chatter done by Elizabeth and the other characters I couldn`t catch any of it, even with the additional play throughs, or settings adjustments.

There wasn`t enough still-time between action events , something could have been done to fill out more of the story, but to be fair on that point perhaps I could have slowed down, but when geared up an adrenalin and Red Bull you may need a little assistance.

Last but not least that little movie with Ken Levine and the voice actors kind of ripped me out of the mood of the game so the games impact on me at the end was lessened.

But it?s a good game not the greatest.

 

[Requia]

Thanks for this, I've been all afraid of ending up in the wrong quadrant of the gamer reaction chart, by dashing all my hopes you've ensured I can play the game safely ^^

 

[scorptatious]

I personally really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite, and I'm currently playing through it a second time on a hard mode whilst finding all of the voxophones, infusions, and sightseers.

I haven't really played the first Bioshock in a long time, so comparing that and Infinite is kinda difficult for the most part.

However, I know that Infinite did two things a lot better than the first game:

1. The main character. Now, this is mostly opinion based since I'm sure some people would prefer playing as a silent protagonist they can project themselves onto. Me though, I prefer playing as someone with an established character and voice. Booker Dewitt was a very interesting guy and I enjoyed playing as him.

2. The ending. Say what you want about it, but to me, it was so much more complete and satisfying than the ones we got in the first game. The twist at the end was mind blowing, and while it was pretty confusing at first, it sorta made some amount of sense when you really think about it.

And of course, there's Elizabeth, who is pretty much the heart and soul of the game.

As for whether or not I like Rapture or Columbia better? That's a tough question. I guess I sorta like Rapture a bit better, probably because I like the underwater city theme a bit more. But Columbia was also a really cool place, it was vibrant, colorful, and has a ton of detail to it.

Overall, I feel that it's a great game. Definitely worth buying.

 

[Rock-nerd]

I wouldn't say dissapointed, rather deflated by the end.

I felt that the game was easily 10/10 worthy... riiiiiight up until the first encounter with Fitzroy, after that it it was just kinda...didn't go up from there.

And after the ending i just felt empty and confused, i thought that the death of songbird was the equivalent to going up the beam in mass effect 3. It just gets waaayyy too convoluted out of nowhere.

Still, a great game but 10/10 from pretty much every major reviewer? that's awfully generous.