Irrational: BioShock in the Sky Would Be "F**king Boring"

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
Exort said:
Did they just called their game boring?
Last time, I recall it is still titled BioShock, right?
They mean if they'd be bored if they were just making another game exactly like Bioshock, so they're planning to mix up the gameplay a lot.

And to people saying it's stupid that they're calling it Bioshock, why shouldn't they? Noone complains about Final Fantasy games all sharing the same title, and those are almost completely unrelated. Bioshock Infinite is atleast in the same world as the previous games and it's probably still an FPS.
 

Ekonk

New member
Apr 21, 2009
3,120
0
0
GiantRaven said:
Ekonk said:
If that is true than why did you name it Bioshock, you twats! Of course people will think it's exactly like Bioshock!
Because each Final Fantasy game is exactly the same as the previous one (among, I assume, other examples that I'm too lazy to think of right now)? The game clearly has significant elements of the franchise, just in a different setting. That suggests 'Bioshock' to me.

Bioshock is no longer that game set under the water with interesting political overtones and cool special powers. It's now that franchise set in a variety of differing locales with (I assume) differing political overtones and cool special powers.

Personally, I completely fail to see how this is a bad thing.
I think calling all your completely unrelated games "Final Fantasy" is retarded as hell too, by the way.

And,
GiantRaven said:
The game clearly has significant elements of the franchise, just in a different setting. That suggests 'Bioshock' to me.
Actually, the developers just stated that it won't be "Bioshock in the sky".
 

GiantRaven

New member
Dec 5, 2010
2,423
0
0
Ekonk said:
Actually, the developers just stated that it won't be "Bioshock in the sky".
I'm thinking of a game. It's a...

- First-person shooter
- Set in the past, with a bizarre futuristic (yet old feeling) city
- The city is a failed utopia of a political ideal
- You can acquire Plasmids, which grant you special powers

What game am I thinking of?
 

Ekonk

New member
Apr 21, 2009
3,120
0
0
GiantRaven said:
Ekonk said:
Actually, the developers just stated that it won't be "Bioshock in the sky".
I'm thinking of a game. It's a...

- First-person shooter
- Set in the past, with a bizarre futuristic (yet old feeling) city
- The city is a failed utopia of a political ideal
- You can acquire Plasmids, which grant you special powers

What game am I thinking of?
BIOSHOCK!!! AMIRITE?

I know, that's why I said "If that's true, then why did you name it Bioshock?"
Because personally I think it's gonna be exactly like Bioshock in the sky. They claim otherwise, yet they still call it "Bioshock", even though they firmly stress it will be totally different than Bioshock.

It's probably marketing.
 

SamElliot'sMustache

New member
Oct 5, 2009
388
0
0
Ekonk said:
GiantRaven said:
Ekonk said:
If that is true than why did you name it Bioshock, you twats! Of course people will think it's exactly like Bioshock!
Because each Final Fantasy game is exactly the same as the previous one (among, I assume, other examples that I'm too lazy to think of right now)? The game clearly has significant elements of the franchise, just in a different setting. That suggests 'Bioshock' to me.

Bioshock is no longer that game set under the water with interesting political overtones and cool special powers. It's now that franchise set in a variety of differing locales with (I assume) differing political overtones and cool special powers.

Personally, I completely fail to see how this is a bad thing.
I think calling all your completely unrelated games "Final Fantasy" is retarded as hell too, by the way.
And,
GiantRaven said:
The game clearly has significant elements of the franchise, just in a different setting. That suggests 'Bioshock' to me.
Actually, the developers just stated that it won't be "Bioshock in the sky".
Think of the title Final Fantasy, and how it relates to each game. Each one involves similar themes (end of the world, evil empire, magic at the heart of it, crystals/materia/Junctions/etc. that magic is channeled through, life being energy, a small group of people banding together to save the world, etc.) but in a different setting. The idea is to take a look at the same concepts from, theoretically, new angles and new mechanics, and I assume that's what Irrational is doing with Bioshock Infinite.

Both Bioshock and Infinite are exploring the idea of society's based around 20th Century philosophies inventing technology that can alter the very fabric of our DNA, but they have key differences in setting, style (Bioshock's dark, murky, and underwater, while Infinite is brightly lit and up in the clouds), and the philosophy being explored. And, since they're using the new setting (according to this article) to shake up the gameplay a bit, rather than just giving the first game a new paint-job, they are right to say it's a game in the Bioshock series, just not Bioshock in the sky.

If you still think having the same name in the title is stupid, fine, but there's part of the idea behind why they put the name on it (I'd also assume money factored in, but at least they put more effort into their money-machine than most companies *glares at EA and Activision*).
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Hey guys...

Maybe it uses the Bioshock name because it's set in the same continuity? We don't know yet, but it's pretty possible.

From the trailer it feels very different, although the gameplay seems pretty similar. So yeah, I think calling it a Bioshock game fits, because it's not something brand new and it's not Bioshock 3 either.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
SAT4NSLILHELPER said:
Well then why call it Bioshock?

I'm sure Irrational will do a great job as they always do but this sounds more like a spiritual successor then a new installment and the Bioshock name is just to sell more copies. They should call it Aeroshock or something.
Because people know the Bioshock name. So automatically they have a whole fanbase to target. If they called it something else, there would be no brand recognition.

Simple as that.

Why are people finding this hard to grasp? We've been over this point with the upcoming X-COM game that has absolutely nothing to do with X-COM at all.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Ekonk said:
If that is true than why did you name it Bioshock, you twats! Of course people will think it's exactly like Bioshock!
Bioshock in name, does not refer to an underwater setting but instead a shock to a biosystem, which can refer to how creatures interact with each other.

Which is to say, this name means "massive changes cause disruption in a biosystem and result in confused and chaotic behaviour, let's watch that unfold, eh". However, I don't think that would have been a very... snazzy title when compared to Bioshock or the more vintage System Shock.
 

MrShadowzs

New member
Apr 5, 2009
222
0
0
i think its good that they decide to take the series in a different direction, instead of just milking the license, i just hope they don't totally cock it up
 

Diligent

New member
Dec 20, 2009
749
0
0
Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and dissect the obvious marketing hype.

Infinite actually came about from the desire to create an alternate version of the turn of the 20th century. At the time, there was an incredible amount of optimism about technology, and America was transforming. The changes in society, along with the style seen in advertisements and architecture, were huge inspirations for BioShock Infinite.
Bioshock actually came about from the desire to create an alternate version of the cold war era. At the time, there was an incredible amount of fear about technology, and America was transforming. The changes in society, along with the style seen in advertisements and architecture, were huge inspirations for BioShock.

"Another big change Irrational wanted to make was to use the environment as a gameplay device rather than just something pretty to look at."

Huh? Really, how does that jive with this marketing hype interview for the original Bioshock?
IGN: As a tester and an overall gamer, how does BioShock rank up there in terms of shooters where strategy and preparation are keys to succeeding, and how much should the player use their surroundings?

Oddey: Well, to get the full BioShock experience, I highly encourage the readers to use their environments to their fullest advantage. Yes, you can play it as a run 'n gun shooter, yes, it is possible to do that, but to really get a feel for what this game is about, you really need to use your brain as a weapon. To me, this is the most interactive game ever in terms of what you can do with the environment. Say you use your Incinerate Plasmid, and it hits a wooden bench, and the wooden bench catches fire, and then the tree next to it catches fire?to me, that's incredible. I'd never seen that in a game before, and it was just awesome to see it for the first time.

IGN: It really is mind blowing with the amount of interactivity in this game. You take dynamic environments that allow you to freeze water, to light up an oil slick? it really removes a boundary that seems only logical to remove in the first place, allowing common sense to take control of your surroundings, which brings us to the Plasmids?

See how easy it is to get people pumped for a game? Just throw out a few buzzwords once in a while and people eat from the palm of your hand. As usual, I'll believe it when I see it!
 

The Wykydtron

"Emotions are very important!"
Sep 23, 2010
5,458
0
0
Nice one calling your own game boring guys although the studio is called Irrational Games.(Zing!)

And why would you call it Bioshock if Bioshock in the sky would be "fucking boring?"

A bit of a contradiction there guys, i'm tempted to bring out the red text and the Objection! bombs...
 

SomeBritishDude

New member
Nov 1, 2007
5,081
0
0
Exort said:
Did they just called their game boring?
Last time, I recall it is still titled BioShock, right?
I get the impression the name is just there to sell copys. It's kind of like Rockstar calling Red Dead Redemption "Grand Theft Horse", or Valve calling Portal "Half-Life: Puzzle Edition". I can't say I'm pissed with them for it, it's just a name.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
All I have to say is that is that this is ridiculous. They are calling the game "Bioshock" and continueing the franchise. "We want the game to be totally differant, but are using the name to sell more copies" pretty much summarizes everything wrong with the game industry today. If they want the game to be entirely differant and people to perceive it that way, then launch it as a new title as opposed to attaching it to an existing franchise! Also I don't want to hear them whine if they game IS extremely differant and a lot of gamers who don't follow the gaming news closely get all POed because "It wasn't a Bioshock game despite the name".

That said, the game doesn't look all that differant to me either. Retro future technology, a strong overriding left wing message (especially in the second one, the first one was slightly more balanced due to some of the reveals, the second one just made Ryan out to be a pure douche) that seems to be making stong statements about conservative American ideals (going by the vibe, the posters, and the state of the city... a sort of arguement against serious patriotism and an America First in America logic, with the characters being exagerrated to crazy extremes in how they take it to make a point).

I mean don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first couple of Bioshock games, and this looks pretty cool. I'll probably try it, and am expecting a differant approach to things storywise and deeper gameplay going by the trailers. Unless those reveals were totally false, I am having some trouble seeing exactly where the developers are trying to go with these statements.

I'll also say that as much as I would have liked it to have been, I never saw "Bioshock" as survival horror, it was more "dark, retro future fantasy". It just wasn't all that horrific, being more in the vein of action/sci-fi. The hero was extremely powerful and heroic in both games, the situation fairly straightforward, and everything being resolved by action and derring do. I rarely if ever had to avoid monsters, felt overpowered, or had my jaded mind shocked (even briefly) by what I was seeing or was revealed. Even the "Big Daddies" didn't quite get into the horror thing (basically a retro future take on an enslaved super soldier), especially seeing as they rarely if ever pursue you and you can just leave them alone until your ready for them usually... and being ready for them isn't all that difficult since the "solution" is pretty much to employ the right super powers and heavy weapons... neither of which are in short supply. I killed pretty much every one of them in the game. I never felt a horrific fear of them, more like "oh goody, another loot pile and ADAM drop" at most figuring I'd have to backtrack a couple of rooms after I got more ammo and another healing kit.
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
I hope they're being honest I already found Bioshock to be F**king boring, at best and frustrating at worse, which is why I never bought 2 (I'll never get over that wasted 5 dollars). I can't see this game being any better unfortunately.
 

Seriin

New member
Jun 4, 2009
187
0
0
Different is good, so I am pretty happy about this. The biggest problem with Bioshock 2 was that too similar without any of the wonder of the first, so if they are trying to make this one fresh beyond simply putting it in a new setting I can respect that a lot.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
TheRightToArmBears said:
Hey guys...

Maybe it uses the Bioshock name because it's set in the same continuity? We don't know yet, but it's pretty possible.

From the trailer it feels very different, although the gameplay seems pretty similar. So yeah, I think calling it a Bioshock game fits, because it's not something brand new and it's not Bioshock 3 either.
I like this guy right here.

Ekonk said:
I know, that's why I said "If that's true, then why did you name it Bioshock?"
Because personally I think it's gonna be exactly like Bioshock in the sky. They claim otherwise, yet they still call it "Bioshock", even though they firmly stress it will be totally different than Bioshock.

It's probably marketing.
Probably. But I think people aren't giving Irrational enough credit here. I really don't see why everyone is getting all uppity about this, there's absolutely no reason to. This is like complaining about each friggin' Final Fantasy game, or Grand Theft Auto game, and going off saying "If they're not the same, why name it [name]?" Fine, marketing is one aspect, but the titles, you know, mean something in themselves.

Bio = Life
Shock = shaking, disrupting, change, a surprising revelation. etc...
Bioshock = A change, disruption, or a life changing revelation/event to a person's life.

Couldn't it be that Bioshock is not just a game but more of a *gasp* concept? Just sayin', I'd like to think Kevin Levin and his team are a smart bunch, and if this newest game from them turns out as good or better as everyone is expecting it, then they're going on my "List of Developers to Support" list.