Bioshock Infinite vs 1 and 2

[Agayek]

Infinite set up completely different rules than what you are talking about. You have to judge Infinite by the rules it sets forth like you do with anything else like Dr. Who. It's like Inception in the sense that it sets up its own rules to go by.

Except that's not the case. It established that it was using a many worlds theory, where every choice creates an alternate universe, and that Elizabeth had the power to interact with those many worlds. There are an infinite number of different universes out there where the same people made different choices that led to infinitely many different outcomes, and that Elizabeth is therefore the next best thing to God.

That's the entirety of their cosmology, in this regard anyway. It's explicitly explained by the Luteces and Elizabeth to be that way, so unless you can pull out an example from the game about how making a choice doesn't create a new universe, you're wrong about that.

And again, just to reiterate because you don't seem to be getting it: That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not good storytelling, that much is absolutely true, but sacrificing a measure of internal consistency regarding a central-yet-relatively-unimportant aspect of the story can be easily forgiven when it furthers the exploration of the primary theme(s) of the game. Infinite's ending broke its own rules and didn't make any sense when viewed as a clinical progression of events, but as an exploration of Booker DeWitt and his growth/character arc, it works beautifully. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical though, just orders of magnitude easier to ignore the problems.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Infinite set up completely different rules than what you are talking about. You have to judge Infinite by the rules it sets forth like you do with anything else like Dr. Who. It's like Inception in the sense that it sets up its own rules to go by.

Except that's not the case. It established that it was using a many worlds theory, where every choice creates an alternate universe, and that Elizabeth had the power to interact with those many worlds. There are an infinite number of different universes out there where the same people made different choices that led to infinitely many different outcomes, and that Elizabeth is therefore the next best thing to God.

That's the entirety of their cosmology, in this regard anyway. It's explicitly explained by the Luteces and Elizabeth to be that way, so unless you can pull out an example from the game about how making a choice doesn't create a new universe, you're wrong about that.

And again, just to reiterate because you don't seem to be getting it: That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not good storytelling, that much is absolutely true, but sacrificing a measure of internal consistency regarding a central-yet-relatively-unimportant aspect of the story can be easily forgiven when it furthers the exploration of the primary theme(s) of the game. Infinite's ending broke its own rules and didn't make any sense when viewed from a clinical progression of events, but as an exploration of Booker DeWitt and his growth/character arc, it works beautifully. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical though, just orders of magnitude easier to ignore the problems.

Spoiler

It seems to me Infinite never set up the its rules were every decision itself is made an infinite number of times. What I got was that if you have 2 choices, one universe will spring up with a version of yourself that choose the other choice (all that branching causes a near infinite amount of universes as well). I don't recall the game explicitly stating anything otherwise, I don't even have the game anymore. Even with what you said is that Booker made that baptism decision alone an infinite amount of times it wouldn't matter because they went back before that decision was even made to stop it from even coming into play. Elizabeth made sure Booker was sure on what he had to do before opening that door. You can make the claim that Booker was completely set in doing whatever it took to kill Comstock before he opened the door or you can say Booker could still be making decisions (so the drowning did nothing). But then we'd be arguing about when a decision is made and not made basically. I say you can be set in stone in deciding something (at times, not all the time obviously) regardless of how much time you have to renege on it. I say that's what happened at the end.

 

[Agayek]

Spoiler

It seems to me Infinite never set up the its rules were every decision itself is made an infinite number of times. What I got was that if you have 2 choices, one universe will spring up with a version of yourself that choose the other choice (all that branching causes a near infinite amount of universes as well). I don't recall the game explicitly stating anything otherwise, I don't even have the game anymore. Even with what you said is that Booker made that baptism decision alone an infinite amount of times it wouldn't matter because they went back before that decision was even made to stop it from even coming into play. Elizabeth made sure Booker was sure on what he had to do before opening that door. You can make the claim that Booker was completely set in doing whatever it took to kill Comstock before he opened the door or you can say Booker could still be making decisions (so the drowning did nothing). But then we'd be arguing about when a decision is made and not made basically. I say you can be set in stone in deciding something (at times, not all the time obviously) regardless of how much time you have to renege on it. I say that's what happened at the end.

Except they did, just not in the way you're thinking. Any given choice is only made once, that's true, but what about the universe where the choice is made 0.000001 miliseconds later? Or the one where the choice is made and then the chooser changed their mind? Etc, etc.

There's an infinite number of universes, because there's an infinite number of ways for any single choice to play out.

Spoiler

And what you don't seem to be realizing is that everything that could happen does. There's an infinite number of universes where Booker stuck to his decision and let himself be drowned. There's also an infinite number of universes where he changed his mind at some point between making the decision and himself being drowned. That's how the many worlds theory works at the most basic level. He has the opportunity to choose not to be drowned. That means, in an infinite number of universes (though admittedly a smaller infinity than the total number of universes), he changed his mind and chose not to be drowned. Meaning there's an infinite number of universes where Comstock still exists.

TL;DR version: The choice to do nothing is still a choice, and that would create another universe by the rules Infinite defined for its quantum mechanics shenanigans.

 

[porous_shield]

I don't understand why, but people really seem to hate Bioshock Infinite for some very odd reason. I mean it is very similar to the origional Bioshock other than the 2 weapon system(which made no difference to the gameplay) and the Skyrails, which are bloody awesome.

The two weapon system changes the game play pretty significantly from Bioshock 1. Infinite gives you two choices for weapons so you have to make them count and thus players have to pick what guns they think will be most useful or else they they to scavenge around for more suitable; this doesn't leave much of a place for situational weapons. In contrast, the other Bioshock games give you access to any of the weapons so you can keep your rocket launcher and shotgun without being forced to change it for something else.

The other thing that makes it play very differently from the other Bioshocks is the shield. In Infinite it sometimes feels like you kicked over a beehive because of all the weapon fire coming from every direction and that never happened in the first two games because you didn't have a rechargeable shield. You would be dead hundreds of times over with the volume of gun fire in Infinite if you needed to find health packs/food/medical stations. To give the game a sense of challenge or danger there needs to be something constantly ticking away at your shield and forcing you to hide and recharge while the first two games didn't need that because health was a finite resource rather than infinite like in Infinite.

The first two Bioshocks weren't my favourite games but Infinite just isn't my thing at all and I'm sure the reason for that is the two weapon system and the recharging shields that completely changed the way the game is played.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

They are both pretty different games. In terms of gameplay, I think Infinite is a lot smoother and gunplay and plasmids feel incredibly satisfying and responsive. No more flailing to switch to your plasmid, no more useless ironsights, and a lot more running around and jumping to all sorts of different heights. However, combat is easier in Infinite, thanks to Elizabeth always dispensing health, ammo, and salts at you, and the stupid "respawn instead of returning to a checkpoint" mechanic that's become a staple of the Bioshock series now.

However, there is a feel to the first Bioshocks that I miss. Carrying all your guns at once, like what Quake did, is what FPSs (especially singleplayer ones) should stick with, getting even the tiniest bit of customization is helpful. Infinite kind of threw out customization, and you can only carry two weapons at once.

Get Infinite anyway, it really is a unique game that you should experience. The new plasmids, fucking around with Skyhooks, and the setting is enough to get it alone, even if the gameplay and story is pretty wimpy in your opinion. And you either love the story or you hate it.

 

[Evonisia]

I am calling any AoE damaging spell/ability/weapon a 'grenade', because it fits the same purpose. Casting Living Bomb on something in WoW is essentially the same as tagging somebody with a grenade in Gears of War.

And yes you can (by two definitions) be a vanguard in a MMS. Power weapons can be used mainly, I've had no issues using a Shotgun as the primary weapon in Battlefield 3's or Call of Duty: Black Ops II's campaigns.

I agree, shooting stuff can be different, Halo, MMS, System Shock 2, Half-Life and Duke Nukem all have different methods of play. Infinite's gameplay is not that different from a standard MMS on the market. You can play Infinite the exact same way you'd play Battlefield, Medal of Honour etc. and vice versa, and the consequences would be identical. It's almost the exact same health regen, infinite ammo, run about firing against vastly inferior enemies game. Go onto Half-Life 2 and run about firing and enjoy dying fifty million times because your health bar doesn't come back, and your gun needs restocking.

It's why I keep bringing up BioShock 1 because it doesn't play like an MMS, it's gameplay is not exactly original (I'd call it a Halo, System Shock 2 and Half-Life 'inspired' game) but it has a different style of play to the typical MMS.

Just wow, you can't play as a vanguard in COD, BF, etc. I don't know why you're trying to somehow "prove" Infinite is a MMS when it's clearly not. Just because you can play Infinite like COD doesn't make it a MMS. I can play Vanquish exactly like Winback if I wanted to; Vanquish is still nothing like Winback. I said a shotgun ISN'T a power weapon in a MMS while it is in Infinite or Vanquish or Uncharted. I can't play Medal of Honor by throwing crows at enemies, then throwing devil's kiss with lightning going off from my Overload gear, then new crow traps being made by each enemy's death with other enemies running into said crow traps. Even if you think grenades are the same as vigors, you only get a few grenades to use in a MMS and you can't spam grenades like you can vigors or combine them for interesting and awesome combinations.

Well no you can't (usually) combine grenades in MMS, or many games with them in it for that matter.

van·guard [van-gahrd] Show IPA
noun
1.
the foremost division or the front part of an army; advance guard; van.
2.
the forefront in any movement, field, activity, or the like.
3.
the leaders of any intellectual or political movement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Rocketry. a U.S. three-stage, satellite-launching rocket, the first two stages powered by liquid-propellant engines and the third by a solid-propellant engine.

Yes, by definition 1 and definition 2 you can be a Vanguard in your typical MMS.

But then again, that appears to be the only example of how it differs gameplay wise. Combining the Vigors. Halo's health system, System/BioShock looting, Infinite's vigor combining and the hook gliding mechanic, the rest (gameplay wise) is nothing I couldn't find in your Ghost Recon, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honour etc. Not in level design, not in gunplay, not in set pieces. I try to 'prove' it because when I played through it that's exactly what I could see and play in the game. Obviously the rest of the game (story, character moments and so on) is nothing like your typical MMS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Except they did, just not in the way you're thinking. Any given choice is only made once, that's true, but what about the universe where the choice is made 0.000001 miliseconds later? Or the one where the choice is made and then the chooser changed their mind? Etc, etc.

There's an infinite number of universes, because there's an infinite number of ways for any single choice to play out.

Spoiler

And what you don't seem to be realizing is that everything that could happen does. There's an infinite number of universes where Booker stuck to his decision and let himself be drowned. There's also an infinite number of universes where he changed his mind at some point between making the decision and himself being drowned. That's how the many worlds theory works at the most basic level. He has the opportunity to choose not to be drowned. That means, in an infinite number of universes (though admittedly a smaller infinity than the total number of universes), he changed his mind and chose not to be drowned. Meaning there's an infinite number of universes where Comstock still exists.

TL;DR version: The choice to do nothing is still a choice, and that would create another universe by the rules Infinite defined for its quantum mechanics shenanigans.

Spoiler

Booker locked-in his choice before walking through the door. There's certain choices where you will make the same choice every single time even if you were given the choice a million different times. To me, the whole game was about Booker being led down a path (showing him everything that came to be because of his choice to sell Anna) that there would be no part of him that would choose not to be drowned. You can even extend that to the game's own rules of constants and variables, and Booker's choice to be drowned became a constant after everything he saw and then came to know on his journey. I would never choose to order a salad if I go to a restaurant because I hate salad, that choice is just never going to happen much like there was no "good" Comstock in all the universes because that's just the type of person Comstock is.

---

Well no you can't (usually) combine grenades in MMS, or many games with them in it for that matter.

van·guard [van-gahrd] Show IPA
noun
1.
the foremost division or the front part of an army; advance guard; van.
2.
the forefront in any movement, field, activity, or the like.
3.
the leaders of any intellectual or political movement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Rocketry. a U.S. three-stage, satellite-launching rocket, the first two stages powered by liquid-propellant engines and the third by a solid-propellant engine.

Yes, by definition 1 and definition 2 you can be a Vanguard in your typical MMS.

But then again, that appears to be the only example of how it differs gameplay wise. Combining the Vigors. Halo's health system, System/BioShock looting, Infinite's vigor combining and the hook gliding mechanic, the rest (gameplay wise) is nothing I couldn't find in your Ghost Recon, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honour etc. Not in level design, not in gunplay, not in set pieces. I try to 'prove' it because when I played through it that's exactly what I could see and play in the game. Obviously the rest of the game (story, character moments and so on) is nothing like your typical MMS.

Having powers (plasmids/vigors from Bioshock, biotics/techs in Mass Effect, each character's power in Borderlands, etc.) completely changes the core gameplay of a shooter. Your options on how to go about taking out your enemies change so much compared to a standard shooter. I very rarely play FPS games as, to me, they are just boring because when you think about it, all you can do is literally move your character, aim, and shoot; that's it (and throw an occasional grenade). Whereas in Bioshock/Borderlands/Mass Effect, I have so much more at my disposal. Yes, you can just play Bioshock/Mass Effect/Borderlands as a straight shooter like a COD, but you totally don't have to whereas you can only play COD like COD. It's just like how Dishonored is completely different than Thief because of the powers as well. You can play Bioshock and Mass Effect with barely even shooting a gun, I'm sure there's playthroughs of both games where someone didn't use a gun at all (I know there is for Mass Effect), that's not possible in COD. It's just like how different a stealth game like Metal Gear Solid can play vs an Uncharted, that's really all down to the enemy AI and nothing else as MGS4 actually has the best TPS controls ever, you can play it as a straight TPS if you wanted to. Doing a no-kill run in a MGS game is a much different experience than an Uncharted game.

I'm not talking about the literal definition of a Vanguard, I'm talking about the Vanguard class in Mass Effect where you can charge across an area (basically teleport) to an enemy knocking them back and then shotgun them (or whatever). Bioshock Infinite allows for the same thing with the Charge power, it can even be upgraded to recharge your shield on a charge just like in Mass Effect. That's something you can't do in a COD, BF, Spec Ops: The Line, Medal of Honor, etc.

 

[Werewolfkid]

Sad to see another BioShock Infinite Forum fall apart...again. Anyway, if you didn't really enjoy the first 2 BioShock games chances are you're not going to like the new one. The gameplay is much more fast paced and the controls are much better, but that just me. I love all three games equally, but I know it's not everyone's cup of tea and that's perfectly fine. Just wish people were less crazy when talking about games they don't like.

 

[Evonisia]

Well no you can't (usually) combine grenades in MMS, or many games with them in it for that matter.

van·guard [van-gahrd] Show IPA
noun
1.
the foremost division or the front part of an army; advance guard; van.
2.
the forefront in any movement, field, activity, or the like.
3.
the leaders of any intellectual or political movement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Rocketry. a U.S. three-stage, satellite-launching rocket, the first two stages powered by liquid-propellant engines and the third by a solid-propellant engine.

Yes, by definition 1 and definition 2 you can be a Vanguard in your typical MMS.

But then again, that appears to be the only example of how it differs gameplay wise. Combining the Vigors. Halo's health system, System/BioShock looting, Infinite's vigor combining and the hook gliding mechanic, the rest (gameplay wise) is nothing I couldn't find in your Ghost Recon, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honour etc. Not in level design, not in gunplay, not in set pieces. I try to 'prove' it because when I played through it that's exactly what I could see and play in the game. Obviously the rest of the game (story, character moments and so on) is nothing like your typical MMS.

Having powers (plasmids/vigors from Bioshock, biotics/techs in Mass Effect, each character's power in Borderlands, etc.) completely changes the core gameplay of a shooter. Your options on how to go about taking out your enemies change so much compared to a standard shooter. I very rarely play FPS games as, to me, they are just boring because when you think about it, all you can do is literally move your character, aim, and shoot; that's it (and throw an occasional grenade). Whereas in Bioshock/Borderlands/Mass Effect, I have so much more at my disposal. Yes, you can just play Bioshock/Mass Effect/Borderlands as a straight shooter like a COD, but you totally don't have to whereas you can only play COD like COD. It's just like how Dishonored is completely different than Thief because of the powers as well. You can play Bioshock and Mass Effect with barely even shooting a gun, I'm sure there's playthroughs of both games where someone didn't use a gun at all (I know there is for Mass Effect), that's not possible in COD. It's just like how different a stealth game like Metal Gear Solid can play vs an Uncharted, that's really all down to the enemy AI and nothing else as MGS4 actually has the best TPS controls ever, you can play it as a straight TPS if you wanted to. Doing a no-kill run in a MGS game is a much different experience than an Uncharted game.

I'm not talking about the literal definition of a Vanguard, I'm talking about the Vanguard class in Mass Effect where you can charge across an area (basically teleport) to an enemy knocking them back and then shotgun them (or whatever). Bioshock Infinite allows for the same thing with the Charge power, it can even be upgraded to recharge your shield on a charge just like in Mass Effect. That's something you can't do in a COD, BF, Spec Ops: The Line, Medal of Honor, etc.

Thanks for bringing up Dishonored, because it is quite a good reference point. It practically was Thief gameplay wise and was only different in the slightest because of the magic.

Similar to Infinite, besides it's Vigors (which I've already said were different) it's just the same. It's why I can barely call BioShock any different from System Shock 2 (or rather the SS2 style of gameplay, see Doom 3/Dead Space too) because really the gameplay was nearly identical bar maybe one major change maybe. Halo (until 4) was essentially a DOOM clone besides the regenerating shields and vehicle combat.

And perhaps it would have been better to refer to Vanguard as you intended it rather than just use it incorrectly.

 

[hermes]

The game is definitely worth 14 bucks, but if you didn't like the previous ones, I can't really advice you to get it. Other than the different setting and a better combat, its still a very similar game at its core.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Thanks for bringing up Dishonored, because it is quite a good reference point. It practically was Thief gameplay wise and was only different in the slightest because of the magic.

Similar to Infinite, besides it's Vigors (which I've already said were different) it's just the same. It's why I can barely call BioShock any different from System Shock 2 (or rather the SS2 style of gameplay, see Doom 3/Dead Space too) because really the gameplay was nearly identical bar maybe one major change maybe. Halo (until 4) was essentially a DOOM clone besides the regenerating shields and vehicle combat.

And perhaps it would have been better to refer to Vanguard as you intended it rather than just use it incorrectly.

I haven't played Dishonored yet (I just bought for $8 on Black Friday though), but it seems to be a combination of Thief, Hitman, and Bioshock to me; Thief for 1st-person stealth, Hitman for the hits (and open-endedness to accomplish the hits), and Bioshock for the powers and unique world. Dishonored allows you so many more options than Thief, which is much more of a straight stealth game. And, Dishonored allows you to go in all crossbows blazing. It's much more of a play your own way type game compared to Thief. Lastly, you're forgetting a stealth game like Thief only plays much differently than a standard shooter due to enemy AI, enemy placement, and enemy patrols; you have enemies placed in a manner like in a COD game, and Thief would play like a normal FPS but with a bow and arrow instead of a gun. It is usually the little things that greatly change how one game plays from another. You put MGS4's controls into an online shooter (Metal Gear Online) and MGS4 now plays as an extremely face-paced TPS with the same exact control scheme and mechanics in play. That's pretty much the whole point I'm making and why Bioshock is so much different than a MMS, it's not in the similarities but in the differences.

 

[Ruzinus]

2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

Pretty sure Racism in BS: Infinite would fall under Definition 2 of being a "theme". You calling it an "environmental flourish" is pretty cute, however. :3

Key word here being "unifying". A theme is the central concept of a narrative. You can have multiple themes, but they're all at the heart of the story. If it is your contention that Bioshock Infinite was, at its heart, a meditation on racism, I'd have to ask you what game you were playing and/or are you out of your mind. It's no more centrally concerned with racism than, say, Dragon Age Origins was. At best you could argue it's a minor/secondary theme. Yet every time someone wants to ***** about the narrative in Infinite I hear this LOL RACISM business, as though it were a game primarily concerned with exploring racism.

What did you think the theme in the first game was? Submersibles? Drug use?

Yeah, forgive me, but when I play a shooter I do prefer that my target dies after being shot oh, say, at least 5 times in the frickin' face.

Odd. I had absolutely no trouble single-shotting regular mooks with head shots. What difficulty were you playing on? What gun did you use?

I could go on all day about issues with the minute to minute game play in Infinite. I don't think "bullet sponging" would even be in the top 100 points though.

I agree with you on many things, but I am curious, what do you think Bioshock Infinite is about? Because, I for one, really don't know. It's never happened to me before. I've always been able to identify key themes on narratives, but for some reason, Bioshock Infinite escapes my grasp.

You look like you aren't talking out of your ass, and seem actually quite clever, so I ask you, what is the damned game about? How the decision of one can influence many? That you shouldn't dwell on the past? That an individual is only as good as the experiences he had in life?

I know I'm not the person you posed the question to, but it's about Redemption. With a capital R.

 

[Dalisclock]

I liked BS1, found it creepy but felt the game didn't use a lot of it's potential(like the whole "underwater setting" thing, where a room floods maybe twice in the entire game, the rest feels like you just have a lot of rooms that border really big aquariums). Not to mention the game seems to lose all purpose after you meet Andrew Ryan.

Never played 2. Yahtzee saying it was pretty much the first one was enough to make me take a pass on it. If I want to play bioshock again, I'll go play it again.

Loved Infinite. While I am a little disappointed some of the stuff from the E3 demos didn't make it in, I loved the setting, the aesthetic and the fact that every so often you got to chill and just explore the city between combat areas. I also liked how you could go back through the game a second time and see all the little clues that foretell the big plot twists(though it occasionally felt like they were trying to cram a little bit of everything in at time). I also felt they kind of lost some opportunists with the whole tear and vigor thing, especially compared to the demo where they could do some amazing things with tears and vigors. Also, both love and hate constock house. Love the concept but felt the whole boys of silence thing was pretty cheap for the most part.