BioShock Infinite Review: A Head in the Clouds

Recommended Videos

Soak

New member
Sep 21, 2010
139
0
0
IamLEAM1983 said:
*snip*
Soak said:
I'd just like to point out that there is one other instance of two iterations of the same individual sharing the same universe. The Lutece "twins". Otherwise, I'm not disparaging or entirely disagreeing with your point of view, even if I loved the game to bits.

*snip*
Hm,...

i didn't really see the Lutece twins as two versions of the same individual. I think, considering they appear to have different sexes, they would have to be different by birth in a biological manner and therefore would not be the same (as Booker and Comstock technically are, except they made different choices in live) - or at least one of them would have had to undergo surgery and hormone therapy which wasn't really present in their time... or would have had to use DNA splicing with something like plasmids, or vigors for that, but it didn't appear to me as if they had. Or in one of the 6 Voxophones i didn't find was an information concerning this i'm now missing, maybe you know a bit more for that than i do :).
I thought they might have been actual twins in their respective dimension but lost their counterpart. Or that their parents just had one child, but different ones in their respective dimension and they would therefore consider each other as their sibling while they wouldn't really be, but still not be "identical".
But hey, that's a part left rather open by the game's narrative and a legit point.



Pyrokinesis said:
I have to agree with parts of your post, for example that the game feels partially "stitched together", at least i thought the same thing considering i followed some of the development and know about some things they dropped in the whole process, like the relationship of Booker and Elisabeth, which was originally planned/described as a love interest. Or Comstocks change from a political head figure into a religious zealot.

Though, some other things you find fault are explained rather well within the game and consistent within itself as well as with our current scientific premises/assumptions, at least as far as i can see it. However those parts are not explicitly explained unless you collect and listen to the respective Voxophones or watch the Teleboxes (or what they're called). Sure you can see this as a flaw for the game as well, considering collecting those things isn't a mandatory part of the game, though i think it makes a big part of the motivation for the game, lighting those backgrounds. On the other hand, considering huge parts of those premises are very much theoretical and not "proven" you would still have no problem to disagree with them.

However, for better understanding i would like to explain those parts i can explain, but for those who haven't played the game yet, here comes another big section of

Technically, it is not "rift" technology, but technology based on quantum physics making the city float (which could be possible, while it is out of reach for us now, considering we still have problems properly perceiving/ measuring those quantum particles and their mechanics and if you don't like this theoretical part of physics, obviously you have an unfitting premise for a good game experience in Infinite). As Explained through Voxophones, the Lutece siblings found a way to manipulate quantum particles, "freezing" them in space. After that they started to experiment with the "rift" technology, called "tears" within the game. If we actually exist in a multiverse (which is theoretically possible, but not provable, at least not yet) it just might be possible to travel through these dimensions by "rifts" or "tears". In the Voxophones is an explanation, that they already used a machine to travel through those "tears" successfully. This seemingly gave Elisabeth the ability to manipulate those "tears" herself. However, at some point Comstock tried to sabotage their machine, because he wanted to kill them/ get them out of the way, basically because they knew all his "dark secrets" and he was afraid of them. When they tried to open a tear, the machine malfunctioned and drew the siblings sort of "between the dimensions", so now they exist at every possible point in space-time within every dimension, making them something like "demigods", explaining how they can appear and disappear again "out of thin air" before the player. Also, it was not them who made up the "false shepherd" story, but it was Comstock, who made it to further cover his secrets and in hope to protect his plans, though you are right that he could only knew of all this and set his plan into motion with the aid of the Lutece siblings, however this does not explain the Lutece's motives/ intentions - those could have been totally different, for example, to simply experiment, which is explicitly said in the beginning and easily derived from their behavior throughout the whole game.
This further extends into some other points you mentioned. For example, Comstock isn't really a "future version" of Booker, but an alternate version from a dimension where he made a different decision at a crucial point in his life, or more explicit: The baptism scene at the end of the game, where Booker is the version who refused the baptism and Comstock is the version who excepted it and simply renamed himself afterwards. Or that Elisabeth made her "mother" into some kind of "ghostly being", giving her the ability to "raise others from the dead", is again very theoretical as well, but by their explanation not impossible: In a way, Elisabeth (or the machine forcing her to do so used by Comstock) "drew" an entity resembling Lady Comstock from another dimension, where she wasn't dead. Theoretically, this entity now was neither "her dead mother", nor a person from another dimension anymore, but kind of torn between dimensions. Now imagine this entity seeing multiple dimensions, having influence on, but not fully existing in any of them. She could have "pulled" other entities through those dimensions, who were dead in one, but still alive in another, seemingly "raising the dead" (similar to what Elisabeth tried with Chen Lin), but just creating other "ghostly beings" not fully existing in either dimension anymore. This is partially explained through the dialog between Elisabeth and Booker. Now you can still disagree with this, sure, because it seems very theoretical/fictional.
Another thing is the ending, with multiple Elisabeths appearing. Now, going further from the premise of a multidimensional existence and that Elisabeth seems to be able to see and manipulate those dimensions when she is freed from the influence of the "siphon", this would also be true for all the other versions of her in other dimensions. In the end, multiple versions of her appeared at the point of importance for Booker's/ Comstock's changing decision as a symbol for all of these possible dimensions concluding to one inevitable outcome: Drowning Booker at this crucial point as the necessary action to prevent all this shit from happening. All the then present versions of Elisabeth were purely "cosmetic", but should each represent a version from another possible dimension and therefore the Elisabeth resembling the earlier Elisabeth would have been from another dimension, where she simply did not cut her hair and did not change clothes, for whatever reasons. This would be derived from all the other premises made throughout the game, however, at this point in the game, it wouldn't really matter anymore, you could also explain it through any other possibilities and that is part of the whole twisted theories XD.
Also, Comstock "can't" do what he has foretold, because of different reasons: He does not posses the abilities Elisabeth has. He is not a "miracle child" as she is. And finally, weather the "archangel" who told him to purge the people on the surface simply did not tell him to do it himself, or if he doesn't really hear any "archangel", but derives everything he foretells from the possibilities through the tears he has seen with Lutece's machine, maybe he never saw a possibility to do it himself. Either way, how hard he tried, he was never able to get a daughter or any child for himself and therefore abducts the child of his "alternate version", who got one and he wholeheartedly believes, that he himself is not supposed to do the purge, but that he has to pass this challenge to Elisabeth, this is part of the narrative.
And for Bookers part and why he can't clearly remember what happened to his child. Well, it is not explicitly explained, but easy to do so, weather he is simply traumatized, considering he also branded himself after he sold his daughter/ she got abducted, or that it has to do with the use of the tears and that memories get twisted in the process, which is mentioned rather early in the game. However, none of the things you experience throughout the game is supposed to be "fake", but everything is a possible and therefore in the multiverse existing reality, though some of it got badly twisted through the use of the tears.

Why the respective versions of Booker/ Comstock can exist in the same dimension while seemingly no other (except for maybe the Luteces) can is beyond me, too.

The Rapture scene however, i guess, was purely for fan-service.
Ehm, you don't get any "tonics" in this game anymore, i guess you mean a "gear"... and for that part, those are randomized, which has nothing to do with the narrative structure of the game, but with it's gameplay - and is one of those points i criticize myself. Same goes for the revive thing with the door and Elisabeth. It's solely a gameplay decision, which i find not that smart myself, but supposedly should provide more fluent/ easy gameplay for those who die more often in the fights.
And for songbird... well, this was also another thing i was rather disappointed in. Maybe it is explained in one of the Voxophones i haven't found, but either way i found his role in the game rather weak considering how he got promoted through marketing and that it fucks up so hard even in shallow water was surprising to me as well.


Well, hope i could "explain" some more to your satisfaction, maybe someone else can cover the rest, however, this is kinda part of the fun "discussions" about this kind of games and an interesting way to deal with it myself.

I guess i have thought about all this stuff enough and will let it rest for now.

Yeah, looks like this game creates very opposite sites of recipients, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
 

Joshua Bryan

New member
Mar 29, 2013
4
0
0
Seriously guys, I can understand that in itself it's a pretty cool game and the new flying city thing is fun, but it's just not bioshock anymore.
The fights are too chaotic, too much ducking behind cover and going pew pew with a gun. The vigors are OK so far but they don't seem to be able to compete with the plasmids of rapture. Now, while a flying city isn't as creepy as an underwater one, where'd the horror go?
What happened to all the psychopathic, plasmid infused, masquerade-style sickos that would stand there chanting about God until you pinned em to the wall with a harpoon/ arrow?
I know there's a few big baddies like the handymen but they don't have that signature creepiness that the big daddy/little girl combo did. When one of those little tykes came wondering around a corner, I'd be at the ready with the most explosive weapon on hand to take out her big bad friend, all the while shitting myself. I've played the game, and while I'm still working through it I'm worried that the lack of suspense and pants-crapping from the fights I've had already will continue when some of the bigger baddies come along. The auto-patriots aren't particularly scary or hard.
Sorry if I sound like I hate the game because I don't, I'm just dissapointed. I picked up this game (pre-ordered premium btw) expecting a lovely new addition to the title, but this isn't bioshock. Mind you, I appreciate the choice of era and style, I've always loved that about the series.
But, the feel and the mechanics just aren't bioshock. Why would they make 2 perfectly working games, then take out things like medpacks that can be carried? (Same thing goes for the salts). I just feel too vulnerable if my vigors won't obliterate my enemies when I need them too and having to search every corpse I've just killed to stay alive isn't an enjoyable method of surviving a fire-fight.
Plus I just miss the subtle horror of each fight. Having health bars over enemies and waiting for them all to come out of cover isn't very new and I miss the psychopaths.
One last negative before I give the game some praise; Weapons.
It's not often we find a game these days with an inventory the size of a closet and it worked for bioshock. Why the 2 weapon/vigor deal? This is bioshock! not some modern fps about terrorists. At that, the weapons we do get are a little generic. What happened to the deal with ammo types and crafting, or the way special once off upgrades actually changed the look of our guns? I LOVED THAT! upgrades you could see. I dunno, maybe I'm just attached to the style of the old guns.

In terms of storyline, this game has a good one going for it. I'm really getting into finding out the protagonist's past (Dewitt) as well as being able to explore the parts of the city to discover more of the context of the game (Propaganda for instance, gotta love the strong enforced patriotism, or when you get to Elizabeth and the rooms contain back story about how they've treated her for her whole life.) Of course, the return of my favourite story telling mechanic; the collectable audio logs, is really helping explain the story for those who want to know fully what's been going on in columbia.

Overall, it's a good game, but I don't think it should be under the bioshock title.
 

ratix2

New member
Feb 6, 2008
453
0
0
And, as the television ads have firmly hammered into all of our skulls, that adventure remains the highest-rated first-person shooter of all time.
Metroid Prime would like to disagree with this statement. While Bioshock was a great game its nowhere near deserving of this title, not with competition like Deus ex and system Shock 2. But that's marketing for you, don't include something for a little difference just to give yourself an advantage in the media.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,002
0
0
So far (3 hours) it's a game where 95% of the gameplay is shooting things. Which is disappointing, but I should have learned my lesson from Bioshock, which wasn't much different.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
I´m dissapointed that they changed the gameplay and level design the way they did. It´s a lot more linear and there´s next to no persistency in the gameplay. You still have choices in each encounter, but it´s a lot more designed and controlled than in Bioshock. This also makes the exploration less interesting because you can´t really find anything interesting. You almost always have full ammo in your guns and health + salts are everywhere, so you are just looking for gold coins to buy new upgrades, not much else. In bioshock you were excited to find all kinds of stuff, you were looking for ammo for your good guns, and special ammo and equipment that could prove useful later on. You had to think about how you approached each situation, should you use your Armor piercing bullets? Or save them for later and use a rocket instead? Maybe try using some plasmids? All this is practically gone and hacking has vanished, so you can´t choose to take control of gun turrets and stuff like that...

It´s a great game and all, but i find it dissapointing that they have made so radical changes to the gameplay that made the first two games soo appealing to me. It just isn´t as interesting to play, especially when every other shooter is based on the same principles as Infinite, atleast Bioshock was unique...

1999 mode also seems to be a bit too easy, the beginning is hard, too hard (since when were games from the 90s about dying constantly?). But later on you find plenty of cash so you practically become immortal and the game also seems to be getting easier as you progress. So i don´t know... Atleast it could have been worse.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Monsterfurby said:
I'm a PC gamer through and through, and I felt the same way about Half Life 2 as I did about Dishonored and this one. They are probably great games - I just feel that, as a narrative medium, the first-person-perspective really falls flat. It's hard to explain, but even with the best-told story, this perspective sucks all the life out of a protagonist for me.

I can handle that in Portal or even the CoD-games, where other characters are the stars. Games like Dishonored though (which it seems is a good comparison to Bioshock Infinite) focus too much on the unseen player character.
Yeah, that makes sense. First-person games generally tend to place a higher emphasis on immersion than storytelling. The same with open world games like GTA, and arguably most MMOs. You're probably more at home with a good JRPG. Though I'm thinking Borderlands 2 *might* work for you, if and only if you can appreciate the dark sense of humor. Fallout 3 *might* work for you because of the way you live through the silent protagonist's childhood and tell the silent protagonist what to say.

But yeah, in general, first person shooters aren't about storytelling so much as theming and immersion and worldbuilding. And of course, gameplay. (Planning & Execution challenges.)
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
So far (3 hours) it's a game where 95% of the gameplay is shooting things. Which is disappointing, but I should have learned my lesson from Bioshock, which wasn't much different.
Interesting complaint about a first-person shooter. I'm curious. What percentage of the gameplay did you expect to not be shooting, and what kind of gameplay did you expect instead of shooting?
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
MrBaskerville said:
1999 mode also seems to be a bit too easy, the beginning is hard, too hard (since when were games from the 90s about dying constantly?). But later on you find plenty of cash so you practically become immortal and the game also seems to be getting easier as you progress. So i don´t know... Atleast it could have been worse.
It's called 1999 mode because that's when System Shock 2 came out. Actually, I'm really intrigued by the existence of this mode. SS2 was a game all about carefully optimizing your character for the long haul. Should I improve my defense so I can take more hits, or improve hacking so I have access to more health kits? Unfortunately, it was almost impossible to make informed choices on your first playthrough. When the original Bioshock first came out, people who had played SS2 were expecting more of the same, but instead they got a modern shooter in which it was completely impossible to run out of resources or paint yourself into a corner, which were primary modes of failure in SS2.

The point of 1999 mode is not to just make the game harder. The point is to turn the game into a ruthlessly cold simulation of a world. If it becomes too easy, it's because you made optimal use of limited resources and figured out how to bend the world to your will. Congratulations.

(Of course, that's assuming they didn't just slack off after balancing the first few levels in 1999 mode.)
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
WarpZone said:
MrBaskerville said:
1999 mode also seems to be a bit too easy, the beginning is hard, too hard (since when were games from the 90s about dying constantly?). But later on you find plenty of cash so you practically become immortal and the game also seems to be getting easier as you progress. So i don´t know... Atleast it could have been worse.
It's called 1999 mode because that's when System Shock 2 came out. Actually, I'm really intrigued by the existence of this mode. SS2 was a game all about carefully optimizing your character for the long haul. Should I improve my defense so I can take more hits, or improve hacking so I have access to more health kits? Unfortunately, it was almost impossible to make informed choices on your first playthrough. When the original Bioshock first came out, people who had played SS2 were expecting more of the same, but instead they got a modern shooter in which it was completely impossible to run out of resources or paint yourself into a corner, which were primary modes of failure in SS2.

The point of 1999 mode is not to just make the game harder. The point is to turn the game into a ruthlessly cold simulation of a world. If it becomes too easy, it's because you made optimal use of limited resources and figured out how to bend the world to your will. Congratulations.

(Of course, that's assuming they didn't just slack off after balancing the first few levels in 1999 mode.)
I know what the intention was, but in reality it´s just a mode where you recieve more damage and the enemies takes more bullets before they die, and ofcourse it costs a 100 bucks to revive (i have 1600 in my pocket at the moment and i kinda suck at this game^^). I don´t really see how this is anything similar to System Shock 2, it´s more like a "ultra" hard setting in a game that was fairly easy to begin with. Oh yeah, and it disables the guide thingy, which doesn´t really make a difference since the correct path is always obvious. Resourses aren´t sparse, you find enough food and salt lying around every area after each encounter to replenish everything back to full, and if you don´t find enough, Elisabeth will help you out.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
While I found the story and characters enjoyable, and the ending very kickass, the setting wasn't explored to it's fullest potential, and the gameplay leaned too much on the dude-bro shooter formula, making it overly shallow.

After that ending, I get why someone would give it a 10/10, but a day later, no.
But it's a good enough game, and perfect scores have been given to much worse things.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
MrBaskerville said:
WarpZone said:
The point of 1999 mode is not to just make the game harder. The point is to turn the game into a ruthlessly cold simulation of a world. If it becomes too easy, it's because you made optimal use of limited resources and figured out how to bend the world to your will. Congratulations.

(Of course, that's assuming they didn't just slack off after balancing the first few levels in 1999 mode.)
I know what the intention was, but in reality it´s just a mode where you recieve more damage and the enemies takes more bullets before they die, and ofcourse it costs a 100 bucks to revive (i have 1600 in my pocket at the moment and i kinda suck at this game^^). I don´t really see how this is anything similar to System Shock 2, it´s more like a "ultra" hard setting in a game that was fairly easy to begin with. Oh yeah, and it disables the guide thingy, which doesn´t really make a difference since the correct path is always obvious. Resourses aren´t sparse, you find enough food and salt lying around every area after each encounter to replenish everything back to full, and if you don´t find enough, Elisabeth will help you out.
That's disappointing. I was expecting it to be something more... substantial. In fact, it sounds like they just called hard mode "1999 Mode" because they expected it would resonate with the vocal minority of players who actually played SS2.

In other words, more of the same Gaming Industry Marketing Spin Bullshit we know and love. The only thing interesting is the fact that they bothered to try and market it directly to the SS2 purist crowd at all.

It's not like it would even be hard to make a REAL 1999 mode. Just TURN OFF all the bullshit that makes it impossible to fail. Don't increase any enemy stats, just force the player to ration their own. There's your hardcore game mode. Elizabeth just looks at you bleeding out and winces and maybe, if the sample already exists, says something like "I'm sorry... I couldn't find anything," but if not she could just look sympathetic and it may not be PERFECT, but it would at least be WHAT THOSE PLAYERS ACTUALLY EXPECT from a spiritual successor to System Shock with the gall to call something "1999 Mode."
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
unacomn said:
While I found the story and characters enjoyable, and the ending very kickass, the setting wasn't explored to it's fullest potential, and the gameplay leaned too much on the dude-bro shooter formula, making it overly shallow.
I'm very curious what you would have liked to see. How could the setting be better explored? How could the gameplay be made deeper? If you can't put it into words, use examples from other games that did it better.

Man, I feel like I'm monopolizing the conversation, responding to everybody. I should take a break.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
WarpZone said:
unacomn said:
While I found the story and characters enjoyable, and the ending very kickass, the setting wasn't explored to it's fullest potential, and the gameplay leaned too much on the dude-bro shooter formula, making it overly shallow.
I'm very curious what you would have liked to see. How could the setting be better explored? How could the gameplay be made deeper? If you can't put it into words, use examples from other games that did it better.

Man, I feel like I'm monopolizing the conversation, responding to everybody. I should take a break.
Bringing back the alternating upgrades for the weapons would have been good. They just upped the number and made them too painfully generic. I ended up cycling through them a lot, meaning that it didn't really matter which ones I upgraded, near the end I just took what I could find. Would have helped if the weapon limit was set to at least 4, but honestly, not a lot, with the weapons they had, they all seemed too meh. Not even secondary ammo types.
They could have done more with Liz's power than just have her spawn cover and supplies. She could have shifted enemies, turned regions of the map into gaping holes in space, bring a velociraptor to the fight. This thing could have had velociraptors in it, and it would have made sense. It just became dull after a time, to the point where it was barely present in the final fight. Sure, before that she summoned tornadoes, but nope!
The hook was a fairly useless melee weapon when compared to the wrench, absolutely no sneak-up-bash-em-over-the-head action unless execution was involved. No sneaking whatsoever, until that last bit, was a letdown.
Absolutely no sense of exploration, Liz would just point out the only other place of interest in a level before we got to the exit, and that was that. No hunting for codes and secrets, just a couple of keys and books.
As for the setting, it starts out with a very nice Anachronoxian feeling, but it never delivers on it, After the first scene, you never see buildings moving around, rearranging themselves. And you never go into the belly of the beast. It floats because of exotic particles, ok, I want to see those things, the control mechanism, the steering. In Rapture you got to see everything.
More random tears, with stuff you could actually do, or influence in and around theme would have been good. Heck, replacing the voxaphones with tears or tear-ghots would have been fantastic.
I feel they underused Songbird, and instead of having him be the focus of the second quarter of the post-Liz game, you meander around looking for some gunsmith.

The overabundance of indoor shooting scenes with generic armed thugs were a poor decision when they could have had more battles that utilize the skylines. As it stands, combat tends to become bogged down in resources. On hard, I rarely had enough of what I wanted to have fun with it, but an overabundance of the stuff I didn't care about. Lack of self applying salt was a let down, it meant I couldn't really go all out, I kept having to go around the level picking salt or waiting for Liz to find some. Resources really got on my nerves during the ghost fight, the things would just endlessly respawn, to the point where, in the vault, I ran out of ammo and would just let myself get killed in order to get more. That part got annoying, but the idea of it was one of the best combat situations in the game, a nice change of pace.

And also, Halo called, it wants its shield back.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,002
0
0
WarpZone said:
Blood Brain Barrier said:
So far (3 hours) it's a game where 95% of the gameplay is shooting things. Which is disappointing, but I should have learned my lesson from Bioshock, which wasn't much different.
Interesting complaint about a first-person shooter. I'm curious. What percentage of the gameplay did you expect to not be shooting, and what kind of gameplay did you expect instead of shooting?
Well wasn't Bioshock a first-person shooter as well? That had puzzles, although not very good ones imo. I was hoping that for all the hype I'd heard over the game it would somewhat transcend boundaries. Like System Shock did.

I don't know anything about development, so maybe I'm wrong and developers really do sit down and say "Right. Let's make a first-person shooter" instead of actually planning out a game from scratch, sans genre.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I don't know anything about development, so maybe I'm wrong and developers really do sit down and say "Right. Let's make a first-person shooter" instead of actually planning out a game from scratch, sans genre.
From what I've heard, the reality is much worse than that. In general, it starts with the publishers going "what sold the highest last month? Gritty brown war game? Awesome! Let's fund one of those. And see if you can get them to shoehorn in multiplayer and micropayments, while you're at it. And if it's not a sequel, slap a movie license onto it because the name alone will move units." So then when developers come in and elevator pitch 20 interesting new game ideas and one boring brown shooter, the publishers greenlight the boring brown shooter.

But Bioshock is a special case. Even though Bioshock swiped the story from SS2, it pretty clearly had no intention of transcending anything other than graphics. Bioshock was all about taking what worked in System Shock 2 and repackaging it in a slick modern interface for console players and FPS noobs. And it worked. Antisocialfatman goes into it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJUJXOxztE

But the point is, Bioshock taught the gaming industry the unfortunate lesson that if you dumb down your gameplay, you will sell more units. Then Metal of Duty and Gears of Killzone and all the other brown games somehow pushed the FPS genre to the top of the charts, and the industry further learned the equally unfortunate lesson that (Halo notwithstanding,) if you make everything brown and grey and set in the modern day and use real guns from real gun manufacturers, you will create a best-selling franchise out of whole cloth overnight.

Puzzles, story, NPC support characters, skyhooks, respawn chambers, and even the whole steampunk aesthetic are all just seasoning as far as publishers are concerned. Gimmicks which differentiate this shooter from all the other shooters out there. If anything, we're lucky we got this much variety. The successor to System Shock 2 could just as easily have been called Patriot Shock or Desert Shock or something and been all about shooting people in the middle east with an MP5.

I don't think Irrational Games is capable of creating an actual spiritual successor to System Shock 2. Even if they wanted to create it, I don't think they would be allowed to publish it. If it ever happens, I think it'll come from some indie developer, possibly with one or two names from SS2 on board. It won't be named Bioshock or System Shock unless by some miracle of kickstarter they can afford to rent back the System Shock lisence from whoever owns it. It'll be PC-only and it won't sell well. But if we're very, very lucky, maybe it'll get on steam, maybe it'll sell a little, and maybe they'll go on to make another one.

Same goes for Thief, Descent, Deus Ex, Serious Sam, and all those other quirky little first-person games that were born in the 90's. These games are the extinct species that died off throughout the evolution of the modern shooter. Even the ones that had sequels are gradually becoming homogenized into Spunkgargleweewee. (I know I shouldn't need to link you guys to the origin of this term, but here we go for posterity's sake: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6492-Medal-of-Honor-Warfighter-Doom-3-BFG-Edition )

And I know as little about the design process as you do. Everything I just said is based on an outsider's observation of industry trends, and from reading articles and watching commentary videos like the ones here on the Escapist.

If people actually sat down to create a brand new game from scratch every time, starting from a story or an idea or an innovative new core gameplay, I think very few of them would be first person shooters in the first place. Because the first person perspective is only really useful for pointing and clicking in a 3D environment. No, the reason we have so many shooters is because of sales trends. And the reason the shooters keep getting less cerebral and less challenging is also because of sales trends.

It's tempting to blame us, to blame gamers, but the problem isn't that we're selecting dumber and dumber games. It's that new gamers are selecting dumber games than we would select, and they have more purchasing power than we do.

I do appreciate that Bioshock Infinite had the balls to do anything novel or interesting with its setting at all. I'm not surprised at the lack of puzzles, though. My expectations going into this review were low, the effusive praise and 10/10 scores only lowered them, and hearing from people who have played the game bumped them back up, but only a little bit. I think it does live up to the hype to an extent. It just doesn't live up to the natural expectations of people who've played System Shock. And I'm honestly starting to think that nothing Irrational touches ever will.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
WarpZone said:
So the bad guys are normal humans just following orders, the real enemy is political corruption and cultural decay, but the protagonist has no actual ability to speak or argue and instead EVERYTHING revolves around the player leading one helpless female NPC around and shooting people in the head?

Way to advance gaming as a medium, guys. Sexist escort missions, here I come!
If you actually play the game, you will realize just how completely wrong that view is.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Redingold said:
Is it better than the first one? Because for me, Bioshock ran out of steam two thirds of the way through, after the confrontation with Ryan. After that, it was an uninteresting slog through dull, tedious combat and some really crappy escort missions.
I'd say no, but I'm in the minority that thinks this game made significant mistakes.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
unacomn said:
WarpZone said:
unacomn said:
While I found the story and characters enjoyable, and the ending very kickass, the setting wasn't explored to it's fullest potential, and the gameplay leaned too much on the dude-bro shooter formula, making it overly shallow.
I'm very curious what you would have liked to see. How could the setting be better explored? How could the gameplay be made deeper? If you can't put it into words, use examples from other games that did it better.

Man, I feel like I'm monopolizing the conversation, responding to everybody. I should take a break.
Bringing back the alternating upgrades for the weapons would have been good. They just upped the number and made them too painfully generic. I ended up cycling through them a lot, meaning that it didn't really matter which ones I upgraded, near the end I just took what I could find. Would have helped if the weapon limit was set to at least 4, but honestly, not a lot, with the weapons they had, they all seemed too meh. Not even secondary ammo types.
They could have done more with Liz's power than just have her spawn cover and supplies. She could have shifted enemies, turned regions of the map into gaping holes in space, bring a velociraptor to the fight. This thing could have had velociraptors in it, and it would have made sense. It just became dull after a time, to the point where it was barely present in the final fight. Sure, before that she summoned tornadoes, but nope!
The hook was a fairly useless melee weapon when compared to the wrench, absolutely no sneak-up-bash-em-over-the-head action unless execution was involved. No sneaking whatsoever, until that last bit, was a letdown.
Absolutely no sense of exploration, Liz would just point out the only other place of interest in a level before we got to the exit, and that was that. No hunting for codes and secrets, just a couple of keys and books.
As for the setting, it starts out with a very nice Anachronoxian feeling, but it never delivers on it, After the first scene, you never see buildings moving around, rearranging themselves. And you never go into the belly of the beast. It floats because of exotic particles, ok, I want to see those things, the control mechanism, the steering. In Rapture you got to see everything.
More random tears, with stuff you could actually do, or influence in and around theme would have been good. Heck, replacing the voxaphones with tears or tear-ghots would have been fantastic.
I feel they underused Songbird, and instead of having him be the focus of the second quarter of the post-Liz game, you meander around looking for some gunsmith.

The overabundance of indoor shooting scenes with generic armed thugs were a poor decision when they could have had more battles that utilize the skylines. As it stands, combat tends to become bogged down in resources. On hard, I rarely had enough of what I wanted to have fun with it, but an overabundance of the stuff I didn't care about. Lack of self applying salt was a let down, it meant I couldn't really go all out, I kept having to go around the level picking salt or waiting for Liz to find some. Resources really got on my nerves during the ghost fight, the things would just endlessly respawn, to the point where, in the vault, I ran out of ammo and would just let myself get killed in order to get more. That part got annoying, but the idea of it was one of the best combat situations in the game, a nice change of pace.

And also, Halo called, it wants its shield back.
Yes! These are not small mistakes! I made a post in another thread about more of these.

I totally agree with your assessment of the weapons, I had the carbine the entire game, and while I tried the other weapons none of them felt particularly useful. I felt the same way about the vigors, half of them stun enemies in different ways and only four of them can kill, one is situational, one is a single enemy only, one of them puts you directly in the middle of situation you don't want to be in and one of them works rather well.

Why are there vigors in Columbia? In Rapture genetic intervention is a way of life, their society is geared around turning yourself into a super smart, super strong apex of humanity, ubermensch but why do these sheltered people in Columbia need the ability to shoot weaponized balls of flame, control robots and charge things and kill them?

What purpose do handymen serve in this society? Why don't we ever see them moving those freight containers or something. They have no connection to the society and as such it just feels like they exist to be video game enemies, which they are, it feels hollow.

Why are there no unique tears that aren't story driven? The tears themselves are a really dull mechanic, honestly how different would the game be if all of the tears you can open were already open. It's not as if it takes effort to find them or uses resources, the consequences for choosing one over another are non-existant. If you have a rocket bot open, and you need health you just point to the health, open it, take the health and point back at the rocket bot to reopen it, there's no consequence in choosing so why even have a choice? The one you need is always open either way.

Why are there skylines that are completely closed loops that lead nowhere and don't carry cargo?

Anybody else feel the environments became very similar after the Heroes Memorial?
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
MikeWehner said:
knight steel said:
Wait a minute this review is too positive,not one negative was mentioned......IMPOSSIBLE Nothing on this earth can be perfect as that would mean that it has no flaws making it divine,but the game was made by humans which means if the game is divine in it perfection.....so must be the developers,but this is impossible for a human as our brains and bodies are designed in such a way that we will make mistakes,which means we can't be divine and that this game inturn can't be perfect unless,that this game must be made by gods,wait why would they make a game unless.........THIS GAME IS CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!It all makes sense target gamers who are more likely to be atheist's and convert them to Christianity,but why?.......Unless GOD needs us to believe in him in order to exist in this reality, EVERY ONE DON"T PLAY THIS GAME,by doing so you will be mind controlled by god for his sinister purposes.

Umm.... let's see. Flaws.... ummmmmmm.

The iron sight on the pistol is kind of lame. It has a point, like a sharp point, rather than a flat top, which kind of bugged me. Some of the NPCs have the same face. You can't fly a giant dragon.

That's all I can come up with at the moment.
More meaningful choices would be nice, and having more than two weapons at once, but screw it, the game and the story where awesome, even if I managed to predict a small part of the ending...

I sortof guessed Comstock == DeWitt, though I couldn't work out how. However, everything else about the ending was pure awesome.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
My 2 cents:

Overall: good story, ok gameplay (guns and abilities were meh but enjoyable) - two first acts dragged on a bit - last third was a thrillride that did not prepare me for the ending at all... which was... weird, but neat

Now, for the EXTREMELY spoilerific sidenotes:

Unresolved stuff that I'd have loved to have learned more about:

1) The Letuce characters. I would really have liked to have gotten some more info on them earlier in the game - and what little exposition we're given (That sister brougth her brother from another reality into her own via quantum technobabble) is never really followed up on. This doesn't need much, just an anwer to 'why' and perhaps how they are able to move around everywhere... which leads to:

2) The whole tear/vigor/floating city at 1912 thing. I want the tech explained. In Bioshock the 1950s tech and the ADAM more or less perfectly explained the setting. Here I'm at a loss. How do the buildings fly? Quantum particles locked at a certain height? Ok, but that should have been told a lot earlier - I just feel that this is never used.

The setting could have been a LOT more interesting if comstock had used the vigors to present 'divine powers' to his flock, along with all the other tech. Heck, we're never told how vigors work or why they drain your 'salts' (sounds like they needed some Brawndo, its got what Vigor's need!) Equally, if the idea was that much of the city's tech was gleamed from tears into the future/alternate realities, then I would have loved to have seen more of this... make Columbia a strange mix of sci-fi and retro and 1912 all mixed together.

Also: we got what felt like a more violent rehash of bioshock 2's communist uprising with the Vox Populi who honestly seemed tacked on to pad the game with you running around to first find them guns, then suddenly become their leader, then an imposter, then... ya - it just seemed like padding ultimately. I got the idea of them, but its not really a part of the story you can ever work with, since they just turn on you in the end anyway.

And finally, regarding the ending
3) Ok, so she can do the alternate reality shuffle. Cool beans. I liked the final explanation to "give the baby/wipe the dept" - but at the same time the finale where you're drowned? Nah that didn't make that much sense. Could IMO have been resolved better, a la Dewitt having accepted why he came to Columbia and who he is in relation to Elizabeth, could now live happily ever after... or something, but instead they just up and kill him? What, so he couldn't sell her in the first place? This doesn't make that much sense, but I'll accept it.

Ultimately the finale had a strange 'anti mass effect" vibe to it: You're told that your choices now don't matter - because you've already done it in some alternate reality, so you have to do it now. That's kinda weird. Would have been interesting to have see the game take on a more "fighting your destiny" approach, with the Letuce pair and Comstock trying to force your hand while you fight back

Also, for the bioshock fans
I loved the bioshock shoutout when birdy got terminated - but damn if that character, considering how big a part birdy had in the early trailers and whatnot, didn't get criminally under-used. What, turned into a point-n-kill weapon wtih a cooldown? Not cool.