Jennifer Hepler leaves Bioware due to threats by fans

[Dragonbums]

she did want to take the game aspect out of gaming, and that really bothers me.

No, she wanted the option to skip combat if the player so chooses. A very big difference.

Err how is it that any different? if she has said wanted other gameplay alternatives to combat within a game with combat I.E things like Fallout 1 & 2 or Deus Ex where you can stealth or talk your way out of combat if you didn't want to do it then I'd largely agree because it doesn't sacrifice gameplay but actually expands upon it. But she didn't want this, all she wanted was a big fat button to skip combat with no gameplay alternatives and this essentially means she wanted the gameplay of a game to be skip-able which is very much 'taking the game out gaming.'

Unless she specifically said I want no combat in games, that is not the equivalent of taking the game out of games.
It is an option. Nothing more. You can either press the button. Or not.
It only affects those who actually use said function.
I mean, L.A Noire basically did this and nobody raised a stink about it.

 

[JazzJack2]

Unless she specifically said I want no combat in games, that is not the equivalent of taking the game out of games.
It is an option. Nothing more. You can either press the button. Or not.
It only affects those who actually use said function.
I mean, L.A Noire basically did this and nobody raised a stink about it.

Well I disagree, if a company gives the option to skip gameplay in one of their games it shows they do not consider it integral for the experience of the game (when it should be), which means if a game was to give the option to skip gameplay it would have to weaken the importance of gameplay within the game to avoid damaging the 'experience' for those who choose to skip it. For example imagine skipping the gameplay in something like STALKER or Metro, you would lose out on so much, and not just in gameplay terms, but you would lose out on the understanding of the game world and atmosphere. So imagine if these games had been made to have skipable gameplay, they would have to redesign the gameplay entirely to make it considerably more shallow so the people skipping it would not lose out on the sense of atmosphere or exploration found through the original gameplay, are you seriously telling me that wouldn't cause a massive detriment to the gameplay and the game over all?

Of course you could argue these companies would not do that and simply tell the people skipping to suck it up and that missing out on story, lore and atmosphere is the price they pay for skipping combat but then these where the people only concerned with things like story,lore and atmosphere to the point they wanted to skip combat to get to them. So telling them that in order to skip combat they have to miss out on these things would render the skip button worthless to them and thus worthless over all.

Also as a finishing statement I'd refer back to my previous point about how gameplay and story should not be separate. This will do nothing but further that divide, the ability to skip gameplay just for the story would mean that the distinction between the two would be made more apparent when it should be getting less apparent, this will do nothing but undermine the quality of videogames.

 

[Dragonbums]

Unless she specifically said I want no combat in games, that is not the equivalent of taking the game out of games.
It is an option. Nothing more. You can either press the button. Or not.
It only affects those who actually use said function.
I mean, L.A Noire basically did this and nobody raised a stink about it.

Well I disagree, if a company gives the option to skip gameplay in one of their games it shows they do not consider it integral for the experience of the game (when it should be), which means if a game was to give the option to skip gameplay it would have to weaken the importance of gameplay within the game to avoid damaging the 'experience' for those who choose to skip it. For example imagine skipping the gameplay in something like STALKER or Metro, you would lose out on so much, and not just in gameplay terms, but you would lose out on the understanding of the game world and atmosphere. So imagine if these games had been made to have skipable gameplay, they would have to redesign the gameplay entirely to make it considerably more shallow so the people skipping it would not lose out on the sense of atmosphere or exploration found through the original gameplay, are you seriously telling me that wouldn't cause a massive detriment to the gameplay and the game over all?

Of course you could argue these companies would not do that and simply tell the people skipping to suck it up and that missing out on story, lore and atmosphere is the price they pay for skipping combat but then these where the people only concerned with things like story,lore and atmosphere to the point they wanted to skip combat to get to them. So telling them that in order to skip combat they have to miss out on these things would render the skip button worthless to them and thus worthless over all.

Also as a finishing statement I'd refer back to my previous point about how gameplay and story should not be separate. This will do nothing but further that divide, the ability to skip gameplay just for the story would mean that the distinction between the two would be made more apparent when it should be getting less apparent, this will do nothing but undermine the quality of videogames.

So if gameplay and story should be integral to the experience of a game, why is it then, that it is universally accepted to allow players to completely skip cutscenes to get back into the action?
This is the kind of thing Hepler is talking about.
We are willing to allow players to skip through the story and dialogue so they can go back to hack and slashing, but it's apparently a sin to allow those of the opposite the same kind of luxury?

 

[JazzJack2]

So if gameplay and story should be integral to the experience of a game why is it then, that it is universally accepted to allow players to completely skip cutscenes to get back into the action?
This is the kind of thing Hepler is talking about.
We are willing to allow players to skip through the story and dialogue so they can go back to hack and slashing, but it's apparently a sin to allow those of the opposite the same kind of luxury?

While I have some sympathies with this reasoning because gameplay is clearly the most important element of games (you can have a game without a story but not a game without gameplay) I would largely agree that the fact story elements are separate distinct parts that can be skipped is a big problem of games. However Hepler's idea does not help at all (in fact it seems to accept it with open arms) the idea of skipping gameplay does not fix the problem of skipping the story (two wrongs don't make) and would leaves us with the absurd situation where apparently gameplay and story are not essential to the game and the whole game could be skipped by. What is a much better solution is, as I have been saying for a long time, to integrate story and gameplay fully, so you can't skip the gameplay to get the story or vice versa because no such distiction between the two exists.

 

[Dragonbums]

So if gameplay and story should be integral to the experience of a game why is it then, that it is universally accepted to allow players to completely skip cutscenes to get back into the action?
This is the kind of thing Hepler is talking about.
We are willing to allow players to skip through the story and dialogue so they can go back to hack and slashing, but it's apparently a sin to allow those of the opposite the same kind of luxury?

While I have some sympathies with this reasoning because gameplay is clearly the most important element of games (you can have a game without a story but not a game without gameplay) I would largely agree that the fact story elements are separate distinct parts that can be skipped is a big problem of games. However Hepler's idea does not help at all (in fact it seems to accept it with open arms) the idea of skipping gameplay does not fix the problem of skipping the story (two wrongs don't make) and would leaves us with the absurd situation where apparently gameplay and story are not essential to the game and the whole game could be skipped by. What is a much better solution is, as I have been saying for a long time, to integrate story and gameplay fully, so you can't skip the gameplay to get the story or vice versa because no such distiction between the two exists.

But that still leaves out people who want to play games for the story, but cannot get past certain stages/bosses/combat sequences.

What she said isn't so much off the mark anyway.
I mean, Super Mario Galaxy 2 allows the player to let Princess Luna play through the stage for you if it notes you lose repeatedly in reward for a bronze star.

L.A. Noire after losing multiple times gives you the option to simply skip that section and continue on with the story.

The only difference between these solutions (which nobody is nearly getting all that upset about.) and Hepler's proposal is that the latter makes you get your ass handed to a dozen times before giving you the skip option.
That is literally it.

 

[JazzJack2]

But that still leaves out people who want to play games for the story, but cannot get past certain stages/bosses/combat sequences.

Well ideally any form of stages/bosses/combat sequences would also be entirely relevant to the story and the story would not be complete without them so anyone who wanted story would have to do them.

I mean, Super Mario Galaxy 2 allows the player to let Princess Luna play through the stage for you if it notes you lose repeatedly in reward for a bronze star.

L.A. Noire after losing multiple times gives you the option to simply skip that section and continue on with the story.

Well again this is what is so wrong with so many games, the fact that gameplay can be disposed without effecting the story or vice versa is just plain bad.

 

[CloudAtlas]

This faux controversy is pretty hilarious. Has anyone in the industry actually been harmed, raped or killed as a result of the changes they've made to any video games? Does any of that happen often enough that it's become a true occupational hazard for everyone involved? I certainly haven't heard about it if it has.

These alleged people who are allegedly frightened away from the industry, do they ever actually leave their homes, or do they just not have the wherewithal to realize that one stands a better chance of losing their life, virtue and family in a freak traffic collision on their way to the to buy soy milk from the convenience store than they do of being robbed, raped and devoured by Internet savages?

Threatening to kill someone's children? Hilarious indeed. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Do you really believe that it doesn't harm anyone mentally to be exposed to this kind of abuse? Just do a quick google search, and you'll find accounts by devs or other people from the industry who talk about their anxiousness to open their mail box every morning for this very reason, and similar stories.

While I have some sympathies with this reasoning because gameplay is clearly the most important element of games (you can have a game without a story but not a game without gameplay) I would largely agree that the fact story elements are separate distinct parts that can be skipped is a big problem of games. However Hepler's idea does not help at all (in fact it seems to accept it with open arms) the idea of skipping gameplay does not fix the problem of skipping the story (two wrongs don't make) and would leaves us with the absurd situation where apparently gameplay and story are not essential to the game and the whole game could be skipped by. What is a much better solution is, as I have been saying for a long time, to integrate story and gameplay fully, so you can't skip the gameplay to get the story or vice versa because no such distiction between the two exists.

What do you care if someone wants to skip the combat? How does it affect you? Yea, of course it would be awesome if gameplay and story were both equally great, and so tightly interwoven that you can't even separate one from another, so nobody would ever want to skip any of it, but unfortunately that's not exactly always the case.
Now if someone likes the story of a game, but gets bored of its combat or whatever, why shouldn't he be able to skip combat? Is setting the difficulty to easy to just get it over with really a better solution? Or just giving up altogether?

And gameplay is NOT "clearly" the most important element of games. Is it in Bioshock: Infinite? Heavy Rain? L.A. Noire? The Walking Dead? Journey? A phenomenal story or... "experience"... can carry a game just as well as awesome gameplay.

 

[Dragonbums]

Well ideally any form of stages/bosses/combat sequences would also be entirely relevant to the story and the story would not be complete without them so anyone who wanted story would have to do them.

The keyword here is ideally. This is not an ideal world and most of the time, the gameplay is in there because of gameplay. The same can be said for bosses.
The only games I can think of on the top of my head that made bosses actually important was Bayonetta and Okami.
Most of the time they are simply there to provide a difficulty spike and test your skills.

Well again this is what is so wrong with so many games, the fact that gameplay can be disposed without effecting the story or vice versa is just plain bad.

How?
This has nothing to do with gameplay being easily disposed.
It has everything to do with gameplay being just too damn hard for some people.
I think it's an even greater insult when people basically put it on super easy mode just so they can blast through the game.

Look how many people went into a rage fest over dark souls having an easy mode?

 

[JazzJack2]

What do you care if someone wants to skip the combat? How does it affect you?

I made it quite clear how it will affect me in a previous post.

Well I disagree, if a company gives the option to skip gameplay in one of their games it shows they do not consider it integral for the experience of the game (when it should be), which means if a game was to give the option to skip gameplay it would have to weaken the importance of gameplay within the game to avoid damaging the 'experience' for those who choose to skip it. For example imagine skipping the gameplay in something like STALKER or Metro, you would lose out on so much, and not just in gameplay terms, but you would lose out on the understanding of the game world and atmosphere. So imagine if these games had been made to have skipable gameplay, they would have to redesign the gameplay entirely to make it considerably more shallow so the people skipping it would not lose out on the sense of atmosphere or exploration found through the original gameplay, are you seriously telling me that wouldn't cause a massive detriment to the gameplay and the game over all?

Yea, of course it would be awesome if gameplay and story were both equally great, and so tightly interwoven that you can't even separate one from another, so nobody would ever want to skip any of it, but unfortunately that's not exactly always the case.

Then people should be working towards achieving that and not just accepting this awful problem we have and then trying to work around it as if it has to be. Developers should work on implementing interesting gameplay instead of implementing ways to skip their bad gameplay.

And gameplay is NOT "clearly" the most important element of games. Is it in Bioshock: Infinite? Heavy Rain? L.A. Noire? The Walking Dead? Journey? A phenomenal story or... "experience"... can carry a game just as well as awesome gameplay.

The first three games illustrate my point quite well actually, they are all games that thought they could get away with bad gameplay by making them story focused games and as such turn out to be complete and utter shit (although that could be down the fact they couldn't even get the stories right.) And the Walking Dead is great not just because of it's story but because of the way it integrates story with gameplay so well, there seems to be almost no distinction between gameplay and story sections when playing it. So I don't think I can say it's more reliant on story than gameplay since there is little distinction between the two. (And I haven't played journey so I can't comment on that).

How?
This has nothing to do with gameplay being easily disposed.

If people are arguing for the option that gameplay could just be skipped (which means it would have to be inconsequential to the plot) then how is that not 'easily disposed.'

I think it's an even greater insult when people basically put it on super easy mode just so they can blast through the game.

How is that worse? at least they're experiencing the gameplay and respecting its designers to some extent.

Look how many people went into a rage fest over dark souls having an easy mode?

Imagine how bad the rage fest would be if Dark souls had an option to skip bosses.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Threatening to kill someone's children? Hilarious indeed. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Do you really believe that it doesn't harm anyone mentally to be exposed to this kind of abuse? Just do a quick google search, and you'll find accounts by devs or other people from the industry who talk about their anxiousness to open their mail box every morning for this very reason, and similar stories.

I think it might upset some irrational people who are prone to be upset by things that otherwise shouldn't upset them. As of yet, they appear to be "mentally harmed" by nonevents. That's on them.

I didn't ask for examples of people who are afraid of what someone said about them on the Internet of all places. I asked for meaningful accounts of physical violence against game creators that followed nasty language from faceless strangers. I asked for evidence that this violence is a pervasive threat that everyone in the industry must endure; even if one, or two, or ten creators were killed by 'crazed' fans within, say, a decade, what overall percentage of creators would this violence actually effect? .0005%? Less? More? Those numbers certainly wouldn't be enough to stop me from pursuing the career I wanted, nor would 0%, which is apparently where we're currently at.

"Threats" aren't actually threats without actual intent to do harm; in the overwhelming majority of cases, if not all of them, this obviously isn't the case, either that or the people making the threats are physically incapable of carrying them out. In both cases, the threats amount to so much hyperbole and butthurt because someone who lives faraway, and whom you'll never meet, doesn't like a creator or what that creator wrought.

Get back to me when nine out of every ten graphic designers are gunned down in the streets for changing the color of Mario's hat.

 

[wulf3n]

But she didn't want this, all she wanted was a big fat button to skip combat with no gameplay alternatives and this essentially means she wanted the gameplay of a game to be skip-able which is very much 'taking the game out gaming.'

The only way this would be "Taking the game out of gaming" is if humanity had no level of self control, that the mere existence of said feature would mean the entirety of gamers would use it.

Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I wouldn't use it if I enjoyed the game.

So the game is still there, it's not taken out. People just have the option to bypass it if they so choose.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Then people should be working towards achieving that and not just accepting this awful problem we have and then trying to work around it as if it has to be. Developers should work on implementing interesting gameplay instead of implementing ways to skip their bad gameplay.

People have been working on that for many years already, and it turned out a rather difficult thing to do. And as long as it hasn't been figured out by every developer, reality looks different from your imagination, and being able to skip combat is a totally valid intermediate solution for certain types of games (like BioWare games). I just can't see why it would be worse than setting difficulty to the easiest setting and just mindlessly rush through encounters. How is it "respecting the designers" if you like combat so little that you just want to get it over with? And do think a developer would prefer it if someone just quits out of frustration, instead of skipping the parts he doesn't like and enjoy - and appreciate - the rest of the game?

It seems to me that, at the end of the day, you just want to impose your idea of playing games correctly on everyone.

And gameplay is NOT "clearly" the most important element of games. Is it in Bioshock: Infinite? Heavy Rain? L.A. Noire? The Walking Dead? Journey? A phenomenal story or... "experience"... can carry a game just as well as awesome gameplay.

The first three games illustrate my point quite well actually, they are all games that thought they could get away with bad gameplay by making them story focused games and as such turn out to be complete and utter shit (although that could be down the fact they couldn't even get the stories right.) [/quote]

This is your personal opinion, but I think it is fair to say that it is not shared by everyone. To me (and apparently all of the press) the story of Bioshock: Infinite was among the best stories I ever experienced in games, perhaps even the best, and made more than up for the not so awesome, and somewhat unfitting, gameplay.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Threatening to kill someone's children? Hilarious indeed. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Do you really believe that it doesn't harm anyone mentally to be exposed to this kind of abuse? Just do a quick google search, and you'll find accounts by devs or other people from the industry who talk about their anxiousness to open their mail box every morning for this very reason, and similar stories.

I think it might upset some irrational people who are prone to be upset by things that otherwise shouldn't upset them. As of yet, they appear to be "mentally harmed" by nonevents. That's on them.

I didn't ask for examples of people who are afraid of what someone said about them on the Internet of all places. I asked for meaningful accounts of physical violence against game creators that followed nasty language from faceless strangers. I asked for evidence that this violence is a pervasive threat that everyone in the industry must endure; even if one, or two, or ten creators were killed by 'crazed' fans within, say, a decade, what overall percentage of creators would this violence actually effect? .0005%? Less? More? Those numbers certainly wouldn't be enough to stop me from pursuing the career I wanted, nor would 0%, which is apparently where we're currently at.

"Threats" aren't actually threats without actual intent to do harm; in the overwhelming majority of cases, if not all of them, this obviously isn't the case, either that or the people making the threats are physically incapable of carrying them out. In both cases, the threats amount to so much hyperbole and butthurt because someone who lives faraway, and whom you'll never meet, doesn't like a creator or what that creator wrought.

Get back to me when nine out of every ten graphic designers are gunned down in the streets for changing the color of Mario's hat.

Do you believe that verbal abuse, including specific threats to your kids or graphic descriptions of you being beaten up, raped, or murdered have no effect on people? Yes or no?
And you believe the current situation is just fine, that we shouldn't attempt to do something about it, that everyone should just deal with it?

 

[JazzJack2]

Then people should be working towards achieving that and not just accepting this awful problem we have and then trying to work around it as if it has to be. Developers should work on implementing interesting gameplay instead of implementing ways to skip their bad gameplay.

People have been working on that for many years already, and it turned out a rather difficult thing to do. And as long as it hasn't been figured out by every developer, reality looks different from your imagination, and being able to skip combat is a totally valid intermediate solution for certain types of games (like BioWare games).

Its not a valid intermediate solution because not only does it breed apathy to attempting to integrate gameplay and story (why bother when people can skip them right?) it would actually force further seperation, if a game is made with skipable gameplay in mind then the gameplay will have to be skipable without effecting story and thus the elements will become even more distinct and disparate.

I just can't see why it would be worse than setting difficulty to the easiest setting and just mindlessly rush through encounters. How is it "respecting the designers" if you like combat so little that you just want to get it over with?

Well because at least you are experiencing it, unlike skipping it which would just completely ignore the work of entire teams of designers. (I am not defending rushing through on easy though, I think everyone should at least try and rise to the challenge of a game)

It seems to me that, at the end of the day, you just want to impose your idea of playing games correctly on everyone.

No not really, I am not attacking this because I don't like that people would choose it, I am attacking it because will cause huge damage to the quality of games.

This is your personal opinion, but I think it is fair to say that it is not shared by everyone. To me (and apparently all of the press) the story of Bioshock: Infinite was among the best stories I ever experienced in games, perhaps even the best, and made more than up for the not so awesome, and somewhat unfitting, gameplay.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but to me Bioshock Inifite has to be one of the worst examples of storytelling I've ever seen. The game is plagued by a constant inconsistency in tone, the logic of the plot and in the behavior of characters, the game brings up themes which it treats very amateurishly and doesn't really develop upon them at all (racism for example is brought up but to seemingly no consequnce). All of this is finished off by one of the most insulting uses of quantum physics and the Multiverse theory ever used, I mean they may have well said it was magic that caused the tears.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No not really, I am not attacking this because I don't like that people would choose it, I am attacking it because will cause huge damage to the quality of games.

You haven't established that in the slightest. And you hand waved almost every recent title that doesn't support your theory with the tossed off conclusion that they were "shit", without supporting that either.

I think you raise a valid argument, but that's all you do. You raise it, and then you drop the mic and act like your hypothetical concern is writ.

So yes...to some degree you ARE imposing your idea of "playing games correctly" on everyone. Which is a popular theme in this thread, so at least you're not alone.

 

[JazzJack2]

No not really, I am not attacking this because I don't like that people would choose it, I am attacking it because will cause huge damage to the quality of games.

You haven't established that in the slightest.

I refer you to these posts

Its not a valid intermediate solution because not only does it breed apathy to attempting to integrate gameplay and story (why bother when people can skip them right?) it would actually force further seperation, if a game is made with skipable gameplay in mind then the gameplay will have to be skipable without effecting story and thus the elements will become even more distinct and disparat

Well I disagree, if a company gives the option to skip gameplay in one of their games it shows they do not consider it integral for the experience of the game (when it should be), which means if a game was to give the option to skip gameplay it would have to weaken the importance of gameplay within the game to avoid damaging the 'experience' for those who choose to skip it. For example imagine skipping the gameplay in something like STALKER or Metro, you would lose out on so much, and not just in gameplay terms, but you would lose out on the understanding of the game world and atmosphere. So imagine if these games had been made to have skipable gameplay, they would have to redesign the gameplay entirely to make it considerably more shallow so the people skipping it would not lose out on the sense of atmosphere or exploration found through the original gameplay, are you seriously telling me that wouldn't cause a massive detriment to the gameplay and the game over all?

Of course you could argue these companies would not do that and simply tell the people skipping to suck it up and that missing out on story, lore and atmosphere is the price they pay for skipping combat but then these where the people only concerned with things like story,lore and atmosphere to the point they wanted to skip combat to get to them. So telling them that in order to skip combat they have to miss out on these things would render the skip button worthless to them and thus worthless over all.

And you hand waved almost every recent title that doesn't support your theory with the tossed off conclusion that they were "shit", without supporting that either.

Well I could go into a huge amount detail as to why I didn't like them, but that doesn't seem entirely relevant to the thread nor would it prove much.

EDIT: Altough in the case of Bioshock Infinite I'd suggest you watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdNhwb7iuI4 most of the points I would make can be found in this video (and explained a million times better than I ever could)

 

[ronald1840]

I hope she's alright now. Some people take videogames too seriously. Tey're not that important. No one's forcing anyone to buy Dragon Age.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I refer you to these posts.

Again, this is just you making statements and predictions. You're not supporting them in the slightest. It is 100% conjecture and slippery slope. If you're going to argue that A inevitably follows B, you need to offer up a lot more than airy hypotheticals as evidence to why this is so. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can understand why.

Well I could go into a huge amount detail as to why I didn't like them, but that doesn't seem entirely relevant to the thread nor would it prove much.

Going into any amount of detail would be more instructive than "they're shit", especially when they are being offered as evidence of popularly and critically acclaimed titles that stand in opposition to your ad hoc theory that game play and narrative must be fully integrated "or else". It's nice you found a video to support your perspective, but you and I could sit here cross linking videos and articles alternatively praising and damning the game all day. At best, you can argue it was a contentious title. "Shit" or "one of the worst examples of storytelling I've ever seen" is probably overdoing it. That kind of naked hyperbole serves nothing, it just polarizes discussion. Of course there's no accounting for personal taste, but I'm going to go with the likeliest scenario and assume you're indulging in good old fashioned hyperbolic exaggeration in an attempt to underscore your position.

 

[JazzJack2]

I refer you to these posts.

Again, this is just you making statements and predictions. You're not supporting them in the slightest. It is 100% conjecture and slippery slope. If you're going to argue that A inevitably follows B, you need to offer up a lot more than airy hypotheticals as evidence to why this is so. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can understand why.

Err no I can't understand why, not all reasoning has to be evidence based (particularly in the case of discussing art or entertainment.) In my opinion I derived my argument logically from sound premises, if you think I didn't then tell me where my reasoning has went wrong, but don't ask for object evidence for a subject where there is none.

Going into any amount of detail would be more instructive than "they're shit", especially when they are being offered as evidence of popularly and critically acclaimed titles that stand in opposition to your ad hoc theory that game play and narrative must be fully integrated "or else".

But what more is there to say, they can't be used as evidence because whether or not these games where a success is a purely subjective opinion, like I said before expanding upon why I think they are shit is mostly irrelevant to this thread because it will serve to prove nothing (I guess you could argue discussing them could bring up important ideas anyway even it doesn't prove them but most of those games quoted I thought where shit for reasons irrelevant to the subject of discussion anyway).

The only case I feel will help to discuss is Bioshock Infinite because I feel this is perfect example of where the failure to integrate gameplay into story largely ruined a game, at least in my mind(it should be noted that even without the intense dissonance between gameplay and story I would still despise it, as stand alone sections the gameplay and story are still awful.)

Bioshock Infinite's story is constantly at ends with the gameplay, the behavior of characters during gameplay makes no sense in the context of the story, for example Booker murders thousands of people with little to no remorse and will scavenge and eat out of bins for seemingly no reason (and whats worse is citizens will make no reaction to this) police officers (who are basically ordinary citizens) will for no reason behave like a psychotic swarm with no regard for their own life and even attempt to seize booker with a mere truncheon when he has something like a machine gun or rifle.
It gets worse in the sense that the gameplay and story feel so separate it does not even feel like a single game I am playing, the way the game breaks up combat sections and story ones is so jarring they feel like they have no relevance to each other bar the fact they are both titled Bioshock Infinite and both have characters sharing the same name. I seriously think that if you where to remove the story and gameplay from Bioshock and place them separate removing any immediately obvious links between the two (like setting or character names) I would not only be unable to link these as one game but would most likely be insistent on the idea that they would be two different games because of how desperate the tone and the way the characters behave are between the two.

These factors combined practically destroys any consistency in tone the game may have had and removes all believe-ability, which throws the whole story into disrepute in my mind. How can I care about anything that happens when I can't believe in the world due to it having no rational, logical or tonal consistency?

(I know you said you didn't want a constant exchange of videos and I understand that but I would seriously recommend watching that video I linked you, it hits on everything wrong with Bioshock Infinite.)

Of course there's no accounting for personal taste, but I'm going to go with the likeliest scenario and assume you're indulging in good old fashioned hyperbolic exaggeration in an attempt to underscore your position.

Hand on heart it's not hyperbolic, Bioshock Inifite is one of the worst video games I have ever had played and has one of the worst storylines I ever had to endure.

 

[Free Thinker]

While I can't say I was too happy or impressed with her skills as a writer, no one deserves those kind of threats. It shames us as a community and gives off an image of us being angry children. I wish her leaving of Bioware had happened under different circumstances.