Jimquisition: Jimquisition Awards 2013 - BioShock Infinite

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
My only problem with Bioshock Infinite was that the combat was actually kind of boring. The weapons were your standard affair of pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rocket launcher and sniper rifle, and they took away all the fun mods that existed in the previous games. The Vigor's were cool in theory, but the way they worked in game also felt kind of dull. If they'd kept the combo traps from Bioshock 2, then they may have been more fun.

The combat wasn't terrible, but it felt significantly weaker than the rest of it. Making preparations to fight Big Daddies was great fun in the previous two, and setting up a defensive area in Bioshock 2 was also a joy. In Infinite it felt like a standard shooter.

Definitely agree that it is one of the top games of the year though.
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
I was expecting Infinite to be much higher. But the hate towards it is balanced, if not overtaken by it's love. Though personally I couldn't stand the game when I played it, on reflection and when I tried to play it again (but failed to get far). Sorry, portraying Infinite as some kind of underdog fell flat for me. Though yes, accusing it of Discobiscuits was the wrong thing to do.

Edit: It might help next year to not put an image of the game in the episode's picture, I watched it without seeing the picture and as such was more excited and surprised to see Infinite.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,126
66
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Oh, special beginning. I'm getting Bioshock Infinite for Christmas since I was busy around the time of release and never got around to picking it up, so hopefully it's as good as you say :)
 

T3hSource

New member
Mar 5, 2012
321
0
0
Eeeh, yes, Bioshock Infinite was a good experience, but looking back to it it just seems mediocre.

Then again, I love Spec Ops: The Line (<-), which is also just another mediocre shooter.
Tips for tomorrow's award, Jim?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Not too surprising, especially after Infinite became the central game in the discussion in your ludonarrative dissonance video. I still don't really think the game was that great (rather terrible actually), but I think the game is at least worth everyone's time to play. It offers plenty of discussion on how to design games, their worlds, their narratives, and pretty much everything else, and not playing the game robs any serious gamer of the opportunity to think about those issues. Even if it doesn't get everything right, which I think it gets more things wrong than right, it at least makes everything worthy of discussion, and that is at least commendable. I'm just hoping Levine learns from Infinite's mistakes and improves on them in his next game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
BakedSardine said:
No "Thank God for me!"

What gives?
There are five episodes this week. Think of it as a big long one with 24-hour breaks that exist only to satiate my misguided sense of theater.

Basically, I'll say it on Friday.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,371
0
0
Legion said:
My only problem with Bioshock Infinite was that the combat was actually kind of boring. The weapons were your standard affair of pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rocket launcher and sniper rifle, and they took away all the fun mods that existed in the previous games. The Vigor's were cool in theory, but the way they worked in game also felt kind of dull. If they'd kept the combo traps from Bioshock 2, then they may have been more fun.

The combat wasn't terrible, but it felt significantly weaker than the rest of it. Making preparations to fight Big Daddies was great fun in the previous two, and setting up a defensive area in Bioshock 2 was also a joy. In Infinite it felt like a standard shooter.

Definitely agree that it is one of the top games of the year though.
Pretty much this. It can pretty much be attributed to the fact that Ken Levine wanted to sell the game to the CoD crowd. It also explains the crappy cover.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Well, we all thought "Thank God for Me (You?)" anyway.

I have not played Bioshock Infinite. I find award season though is the best time to figure out what games I am going to buy - especially as most are no longer $60. I suspect that I will pick up bioshock infinite sometime over the holiday season and hopefully have time to play it.

Thanks for the recommendation.
 

Naqel

New member
Nov 21, 2009
345
0
0
If it wasn't for you Jim, I'd stop watching after 5 seconds of that intro music.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I really loved Infinite's story but it's combat was just kind of bland and there. It was at it's best when it was showing me the horrors of Columbia and getting into it's "sci-fi" story elements (ambiguous to avoid spoilers).

It got to the point where I was just sighing and bored whenever I had to deal with the combat near the end of the game. It felt like a roadblock to me enjoying the story.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Legion said:
My only problem with Bioshock Infinite was that the combat was actually kind of boring. The weapons were your standard affair of pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rocket launcher and sniper rifle, and they took away all the fun mods that existed in the previous games. The Vigor's were cool in theory, but the way they worked in game also felt kind of dull. If they'd kept the combo traps from Bioshock 2, then they may have been more fun.

The combat wasn't terrible, but it felt significantly weaker than the rest of it. Making preparations to fight Big Daddies was great fun in the previous two, and setting up a defensive area in Bioshock 2 was also a joy. In Infinite it felt like a standard shooter.

Definitely agree that it is one of the top games of the year though.
Yeeeeeah....THIS is what was bugging me a bit about the game. It was fun to swoop around on those rails though, if you fought up there instead of jumping behind boxes, that was a challenge and a kind of fun in and of itself :)
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
I didn't like Bioshock Infinite.

I bought the Collectors Edition expecting a Bioshock-esque premise (i.e. Ideology parodied to the extreme) played with a whole new setting and an interesting commentary to give. I expected memorable quotes and haunting visuals. I didn't feel I got that, my expectation didn't match up with the reality it gave me.

I didn't enjoy the combat either, but I guess that's just because I'm not the kind of gamer who enjoys that kind of combat, remembering I didn't like Bioshock's combat either. But it was forgivable because I enjoyed the tale it had to tell.

It doesn't help that I tend to find alternate reality explanations in stories cheap and contrived, I also feel that they suck out any sense of impact in the story. Tycho from Penny Arcade framed the problem I had with the game nicely:
Penny Arcade said:
'My friend Krast St?or?uub found himself at the helm of this predicament in his excellent Starslip, nee Starshift Crisis. There is an engine in the series that simply finds a universe where you already are in the place you want to go, and plip, there you are. It?s a scenario with nested complexities, but instead of being invigorated by the prospect, he began to feel like it was all a con for the reader: between various dimensionations and a squeeze of fresh time travel, he could concoct any cockamamie thing and it would be lent credence by the structure. It wasn?t empowering to plan the story anymore. What it did was make him feel like a fraud, preemptively.'Tycho, Penny Arcade [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/04/10/emulator-part-one]
Overall the game disappointed me, I'm not sure what I was expecting it to be story-wise, but I felt let down.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I'm playing through Bioshock Infinite right now and while the story is pretty amazing the gameplay is a little cluttered. There's only 2 or 3 guns I actually like to use and only 1 Vigor I use so all the rest might as well be so much fluff.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,652
0
0
I was under the impression that Bioshock Infinite criticism boiled down to "Bioshock 1 is better". Which I tend to agree with, but I love Infinite nonetheless.
 

Manawa

New member
May 13, 2009
42
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
BakedSardine said:
No "Thank God for me!"

What gives?
There are five episodes this week. Think of it as a big long one with 24-hour breaks that exist only to satiate my misguided sense of theater.

Basically, I'll say it on Friday.
Hell, I'll say it right now.
Thank God for You.
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
I too really liked bioshock infinite, didn?t know there was such a big backlash.

I did think that the ending was confusing and poorly explained, also while I didn?t mind that the game was so violent It did bug me that booker was a one man army capable of gunning down a entire army, that?s already bad in most video games but in this one it?s ridiculous .
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,093
0
0
If I were Ken Levine right now I'd wear that badge with fucking pride! Just sayin'.

Bioshock: Infinite is easily my game of the generation, let alone this year. It undoubtedly deserves a place in Jim's top 5 list for sure.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
themilo504 said:
I too really liked bioshock infinite, didn?t know there was such a big backlash.

I did think that the ending was confusing and poorly explained, also while I didn?t mind that the game was so violent It did bug me that booker was a one man army capable of gunning down a entire army, that?s already bad in most video games but in this one it?s ridiculous .
I was too really confused at the ending at first. It made really little sense and didn't explain much. Then i tried it again and it turned out i got a bug the first time, that ended the game 5 minutes too early. :-D
Basically after you go through the door i just saw the priest and then cut to credits. :-D
 

windlenot

Archeoastronomist
Mar 27, 2011
329
0
0
I'm really glad that this game made it into your top 5 and absolutely agree with it, but I'm most bothered by the fact that it's spoiled on the front page!
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
I did an analysis paper on Bioshock Infinite for class once.

It's mechanically stripped out combat, inconsistent scope, underwhelming batshit story, and ME3-tier bullshit ending made me view in, shall we say, less than rosy terms.

Then again, I've never been a huge fan of the Shock Series; Bioshock 2 was the only one I actually felt was fun to play, and doesn't that say all kinds of unflattering things about me. If I was making a list, I'd probably put Infinite in the bottom five.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Looking forward to 5 days of Jim.

As for the subject of your video: absolutely agree. Totally worthy winner. I only bought Infinite a few weeks ago because I'd been put off for a very long time with how much I disliked the first Bioshock. But the massive amount of praise plus the cheap price (Steam sale) pushed me over the edge to give it a shot on visuals alone.

And it was magnificent. Absolutely magnificent. Compelling story, gripping characters, solid gameplay (I'm very, very picky about how my shooters "feel"; almost anything that isn't on the Source engine feels awful to me, so Bioshock Infinite was a rarity). Easily made it onto my personal list of favourite games.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,766
0
0
I don't get it Jim, did people REALLY hate this game? I loved it SO god damned much. Arguably the best of the Bioshock games. And where was the ludo-narrative dissonance? Booker was a cold hearted war vet who killed without compassion or hesitancy...and that's how gameplay went.
Maybe I was absent from the forums 'cause I was playing it too much, but where was the hate? All I've heard about this game was glowing, star-spangled review after review.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I seriously hope that anybody calling the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite bad doesn't simultainiously mean to imply that the subpar, loose, clunky gameplay in the original Bioshock or anything in that piece of trash Bioshock 2 is deeper and more fun than Bioshock Infinite. The game easily outclasses every other first-person shooter released in its generation, not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors, but even as a game of just running around and shooting, dicking around with vigors and flying around on skylines.

The game is slick, tight, difficult, rewards experimentation and unique playstiles, oh and lest we forget that tears are the best innovation in the genre, hell, in the entire field of action games, since Bulletstorm's energy leash at least! Maybe even the gravity gun!

(Not to mention Bioshock Infinite has Elisabeth, the pinnacle of a companion character (okay, Ellie can count as well) instead of the half-baked, ultimately failed mechanic of the Little Sisters.)

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
People can like BI all they want, but they have to recognize the seriously gameplay flaws, and that's enough to make it unable to be a GOTY. When a game would become better if it had no gameplay it says a lot about it, and not in a positive way. It's sad the best parts of BI was when I was just walking around NOT shooting people.

Maybe someday I'll finish the game.
 

Azwrath

New member
Feb 23, 2012
58
0
0
Great game. Not perfect, but certainly deserving one of the Jimquisition awards.

Naqel said:
If it wasn't for you Jim, I'd stop watching after 5 seconds of that intro music.
You mean your taste in music is different then someone else's taste in music? My god, ladies and gentlemen, we have found the unique snowflake!
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
I wish I could like bioshock infinite, but like all the Bioshock games the gunplay felt really off to me, floaty even. As today I've completed exactly 0 bishocks despite trying to finish all of them.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
The best explanation for "Why does everyone hate Bioshock Infinite now?" came from Campstar on Reddit [http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/]). His response is lengthy so I'll hide it behind a spoiler tag:

Really I think there are two factors at play when talking about how games seem to have these sorts of severe dropoffs in popularity or popular consensus about their reception.

The first is hardly controversial: The hype train for games tends to naturally result in this pattern. Game marketing is designed to build hype and anticipation up to the day of release. The most important thing the PR team for a game can do is make sure that everyone is talking about/excited for a game the very day of its launch. After that who cares? The majority of sales are made in the first few weeks after release.

So the goal of games marketers is to hype everyone up as much as they possibly can going up to the release, giving people who haven't had access to the game yet the impression that it's going to be the most fan-dabby-babulous title they've ever played. We've seen this a lot this year, especially with Bioshock Infinite and GTAV both getting really gross (borderline pornographic, really) pieces in IGN that are designed to entice potential consumers into boarding the hype train and getting excited sight unseen.

Then the game comes out and (even if it's a darned good game) the reality never reflects the hype. GTAV wasn't the second coming (especially its online components), and while people enjoyed it and its massive scope it's not some flawless work that brings a tear to the eye simply for experiencing it. It becomes Just Another Game - maybe a game you have fond memories of or a game you pull out for years to come, but still just another disk in your collection rather than this intangible idea of perfection. So yeah, general consensus fades because the hype train is designed to build up to the game's release and then immediately cool off.

But the second reason this tends to happen, I think, is the rather stark contrast between reviewers in major publications and genuine critics who aren't usually beholden to all the pressures that a traditional review entails.

We can talk about the grey area between "critic" and "reviewer" and how all reviewers are critics, but let's get real here: Reviewers for publications like IGN or GameSpot or JoyStiq are, like it or not, held to certain standards that more self-appointed critics are not. Stuff like the need to be quote-unquote "objective," the idea that most games should score between a 7.5 and an 8.5, that sort of thing. Generally speaking there's public pressure to stay within bounds of consensus - too far negative and neckbeardy internet trolls insist you're linkbaiting, too far positive and they turn around and insist you're a moneyhat. It's a lose/lose situation the gamers themselves enforce that results in game reviews generally being super milquetoast and usually quite overly flattering to highly anticipated titles.

Add to that: Those flattering reviews from major publications come out first. Those big IGN 10.0 jerkoff reviews for Bioshock Infinite and GTAV? Those happened with big countdowns and week-long promotions and fanfare before anyone else had gotten their hands on the game. So early consensus is always that these games are absolutely amazing because the only people who have seen the game at that point are tied to that system of high expectations.

Independent critics then come by after buying the games themselves and spending time playing it. They post articles as they finish, and a more reasonable consensus forms. "The game is beautiful in this way." "The game is broken in these ways." "The game does harmful or ugly things here and here." It's a more open and honest discussion than in the confines of an 8.5 to 10.0 score these things normally get, and the result (especially for these big shooty games) tends to be far less glowing than the IGNs of the world originally report. And slowly a block of more serious games writing emerges where two or three weeks after the release there's a body of writing where the merits of the game are really espoused and its flaws examined. These ideas then slowly trickle down from erudite game critics to the general public (already slowly realizing the game isn't the Nirvana they'd been promised) and add to the overall feeling that the game was much worse than those initial reviews made it seem.

TL/DR:

1) The hype machine and marketing behind new releases is obviously going to proclaim any game it can as the Second Coming, and often the audience gets swept up in the hype.
2) The initial reviewers from the mainstream, consumer-oriented publications aren't going to deviate too far from the expectations generated by the hype machine, to avoid being labelled link-baity trolls or corporate shills.
3) When the game is released, no matter how good it is, it can't possibly live up to the hype, and eventually becomes Just Another Game in your collection.
4) Weeks or months later, more self-appointed game critics are able to contemplate and investigate the game long after the hype and rush of release have faded, and are better able to articulate its shortcomings.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
Whether hating it is cool or not, I simply didn't enjoy Infinite much. I practically forced myself through most of it just so I could see what the narrative would do.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).

109 said:
I seriously hope that anybody calling the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite bad doesn't simultainiously mean to imply that the subpar, loose, clunky gameplay in the original Bioshock or anything in that piece of trash Bioshock 2 is deeper and more fun than Bioshock Infinite. The game easily outclasses every other first-person shooter released in its generation, not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors, but even as a game of just running around and shooting, dicking around with vigors and flying around on skylines.

The game is slick, tight, difficult, rewards experimentation and unique playstiles, oh and lest we forget that tears are the best innovation in the genre, hell, in the entire field of action games, since Bulletstorm's energy leash at least! Maybe even the gravity gun!

(Not to mention Bioshock Infinite has Elisabeth, the pinnacle of a companion character (okay, Ellie can count as well) instead of the half-baked, ultimately failed mechanic of the Little Sisters.)

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
Yeah, no. There's this whole thing called "subjectivity" and to some Infinite's gameplay was utter shite and/or mediocre, Elizabeth was a crap character and as a whole the game was bland.

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
A full episode on BI and not even one mention on the actual (average) gameplay?
Of course not, Infinite's story is SO good that it excuses it. Same with The Last of Us (I've seen entire reviews that don't mention the gameplay of that, nevermind Top 5s).
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
Most criticism I've heard these days is leveled at the gameplay, the combat not being as interesting or fun as the previous games (BioShock 2 as well) outside of the rail sequences and I'm inclined to agree but everything else from the characters to the world to the themes are still great.

At least it got flack later, most popular games these days get it immediately (see GTAV), although the Last of Us has avoided as much for now.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
Of course I can, BECAUSE IT DID!

Bioshock Infinite's gameplay is on par -if not superior- to any of the great first-person shooters from Quake 3 all the way to Modern Warfare 2!
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
109 said:
Evonisia said:
Yeah, no. There's this whole thing called "subjectivity" and to some Infinite's gameplay was utter shite and mediocre, Elizabeth was a crap character and bland.
Yeah, and there's this whole thing called "people being wrong". Also: "people having bad taste".

I'm not even going to bother with your laughable "thought" regarding The LAst of Us.
My thought regarding The Last of Us? I can barely have an opinion on TLoU beyond the fact that it's overhyped (which at this point it is).

No offense, but "You're wrong" and "You have bad taste" are very, very poor ways to call out people for hating Infinite.
 

mronoc

New member
Nov 12, 2008
104
0
0
Goliath100 said:
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.
There are a fair amount of people who associate any instance of graphic violence in a serious attempt at storytelling in games with Ludonarrative Dissonance. I'd wager the prominence of this opinion can be linked back to statements on the original Bioshock by John Blow. I'm typically in agreement with John Blow in a lot of his criticisms with gaming at large, but in this case, he was just dead wrong, specifically, he said the violence was out of place in a game about "altruism", but the issue is that Bioshock isn't about altruism, it's about objectivism, and the violence serves as a literalization of the economic struggles inherent to an objectivist system.

Regarding Infinite, it has it's share of LD, but it has nothing to do with how violent the game is. It's mainly a symptom of them carrying over the item scavenging mechanics from the first game that make no sense in a still functioning society.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Well this was definitely way better than the VGAs. You need to send out trophies or something. (trophies that of course are figurines of you)
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
109 said:
Evonisia said:
My thought regarding The Last of Us? I can barely have an opinion on TLoU beyond the fact that it's overhyped (which at this point it is).
You're not acting contrarian just to look cool at all...
It's not contrarian to say that a game which has received overwhelming praise is overhyped. Quality of a game has nothing to do with how it is hyped.

109 said:
Evonisia said:
No offense, but "You're wrong" and "You have bad taste" are very, very poor ways to call out people for hating Infinite.
No offense, but it's all the effort you and your ilk deserve.
My ilk? Oh wow, that's actually made my day. But I guess if I mustn't be cruel, what crime have I and other people who didn't like Infinite committed to deserve such a blunt "you're wrong" statement.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
2,315
1
3
Country
United States
:) A grand first choice, Jim. I too was a bit confused when people complained Bioshock was too violent for the story.

I mean, have ya seen the Miracle of Sound song on it? Kind of explains the messages of the game.

Anyway, looking forward to the rest!

p.s. My reaction to the dog was first; ":D Aw. Jim added a little doggy to the set.".

Then; "<.< What is he going to do to it?"

You answered that question soon. ;p

Thank God for you, Jim.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,368
0
0
Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
 

TheKrigeron

New member
Apr 4, 2013
28
0
0
I liked Bioshock Infinite when I first finished it because it had such a good ending I left it on a very good note, but ater taking a step back and replaying the game I realised that I didn't Actually enjoy it. I like to think it wasn't because of the insipid articles like "Why Bioshock Infinite is not as good as you think it is"or something of the sort
 

Britpoint

New member
Aug 30, 2013
85
0
0
I disagree with Jim in that I do think Bioshock Infinite is a victim of ludonarrative dissonance to some extent for reasons I can't honestly remember at this point. I'm assuming I was satisfied with the argument at the time I formed the opinion.

Anyway, I'm not going to try and claim it didn't deserve this prestigious award though. While I certainly had some issues with the way the story and gameplay interacted it was still at the end end of the day a damn fine story with some pretty good gameplay. Could Bioshock Infinite have been better? Absolutely. Does that stop it being brilliant anyway? Absolutely not.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".

Most FPSs are just shooting stuff with regular guns & throwing the occasional grenade. Just think about the standard FPS like COD, all you can do is move your character & aim, Infinite allows for much more. Infinite has a lot of powers to use & combine along with the fun as hell skyrails plus the Elizabeth tear aspect. There's not many shooters with powers (FPS or TPS), Infinite does stand out. The shooting is good (not the best), I was quickscoping enemies with the sniper rifle just fine on my PS3 without aim-assist whereas the 1st Bioshock, I needed aim-assist.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Ahhhh BS Infinite, what a game. I've actually got it pulling an upset on GTA V to take Game of the Year on my Escapist bracket!

That said, I did have some issues with it. Only two, really, one is a popular nit-pick at the game, the other is just my personal feelings.

1: Going with the popular nit-pick: the combat wasn't that great. Didn't like the 2-gun system (because all that does is say "find your two favorite guns and run through the game with them since Elizabeth basically gives you infinite ammo"). At least give us some special ammo types or something. What, they could peek through dimensions to get the concept for Vigors - super-power inducing beverages based off of a substance found only in sea-slugs at the bottom of the ocean - but the concept of armor piercing bullets? What fine-ass madness is this! Altering ammo is physically impossible!

Other than that, the typical "bullet sponge" complaint about most of the enemies beyond the standard dime-a-dozen soldiers. I'm not asking for CoD-style "one to three shots will kill any enemy" style combat, but good lord...you shouldn't have to unload 5 clips of ammo into some guy to bring him down.

2: I still say that the ending to the story doesn't work, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. By that, I'm specifically referring to the plan to completely get rid of Comstock, permanently. To wipe him completely away from all of existence so that there's no way any of the madness he caused could happen again. For starters, if every choice you make spawns a universe in which the opposite of that choice is made, I don't think you can wipe out a choice by killing yourself before that choice is made. Why? Because you're making a choice to kill yourself, so that would create a universe in which you refused to make that sacrifice. "But...but...but the choice to kill Booker was made out in that Limbo area where all the lighthouses are! Therefor it doesn't really count!" Oh go fuck yourself with that explanation. That was never, not once, established during the ending that "any choices made in this area don't spawn a new universe" and beyond that it's highly debateable when the choice was actually made. If somehow killing himself in that ethereal baptism pond somehow has consequences on the universe, then that implies that any choice in that pond would have consequences. Such as, I don't know, allowing Elizabeth to hold you under and drown you? As opposed to flipping the fuck out, pushing all the hers off of you and trying to run away. I'd say THAT'S certainly a possible outcome of that situation, no matter how slim the chances are. Thus a new universe is spawned in which Booker refuses the suicidal sacrifice.

Beyond that, doesn't the very existence of Burial At Sea prove that the ending didn't work? Granted, I haven't played it yet, but if all the wrongs were righted by Booker's sacrifice, then Trans Universal Elizabeth shouldn't exist anymore if Comstock doesn't exist anymore. So what the fuck?

All in all I still enjoyed the game thoroughly. Great setting and the story (at least up until the ending) was engaging and fun to play through. To make a long story short: I can agree with naming this as one of the Games of the Year, especially since it was really one of the only few games I was actually looking forward to this year. :p
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, award shows are all about opinions, and yearly award shows tend to be limited by comparing them to what else came out in the year in question.

As I've said many times Bioshock Infinite is a decent game, and is probably worthy of being called one of the year's best generally due to pretty much crap coming out this year, so it doesn't have a lot to really compete with in the final equasion. As a game it has a large number of flaws, starting with of course the attempt to be a giant bash on the American right wing, oftentimes without an understanding of the positions it's trying to satirize, and of course the weakest cop out of an ending since "Mass Effect 3" where they pretty much decided to fire out a shotgun of weirdness, had no real idea on how to tie things up, so in the end they pretty much decided to go with a surreal "Infinite Paradox" type ending that is supposed to be profound due to the entire thing pretty much rendering itself irrelevant and ending on a note equivalent to a giant wet raspberry coming from your dog's posterior before it rolls over and goes to sleep.

The thing is that Bioshock: Infinite is an example of a game that still manages to be really good, despite numerous failures, especially in light of simply not being up against much else that really seemed to make the effort. It has beautifully constructed environments, an illusion of depth in it's storyline for a while (even if it takes a dump all over it), and some amusingly quirky ideas. I mean simply contriving an environment where you can see warbots in the form of George Washington and Abe Lincoln cut loose on each other with mini guns deserves points for the simple "WTF" factor if nothing else.

All told it's a decent, safe, choice for any awards show.

That said I will say that where the initial Bioshock games tried to present their powers in the context of the setting for example, the disconnect with this one was immediate which I think is where a lot of my personal issues come from. When the very first thing you run into is them pretty much giving away what amounts to free mind control powers at a faire it makes my brain hurt. Seems like we're dealing with a society that should have had more of a rape and civil disobeidience problem on that merit alone before a bunch of anarchists came along... I mean the problems with that one almost write themselves.
 

The Goat Tsar

New member
Mar 17, 2010
224
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
You can't say those three games are mechanically inferior to Bioshock Infinite. Some people like regenerating health. Some people don't like mouse aiming. It's not bad, it's just different.

The issue I had with Bioshock Infinite's gameplay had nothing to do with the gunplay, I actually liked that. It was the enemies. Almost all of them were way too easy to me, but then I got to the handymen, who were just dumb. They were just giant bullet sponges that did tons of damage, I feel like they could've had more interesting mechanics and counterplay.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".
Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".

Most FPSs are just shooting stuff with regular guns & throwing the occasional grenade. Just think about the standard FPS like COD, all you can do is move your character & aim, Infinite allows for much more. Infinite has a lot of powers to use & combine along with the fun as hell skyrails plus the Elizabeth tear aspect. There's not many shooters with powers (FPS or TPS), Infinite does stand out. The shooting is good (not the best), I was quickscoping enemies with the sniper rifle just fine on my PS3 without aim-assist whereas the 1st Bioshock, I needed aim-assist.
And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.

Thanatos2k said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
Goldenye had shit controls, but for its time it was simply revolutionary, level design, soundtrack, aiming, different body damage hits.

And you assume regenerating health is objectivly inferior, and I argue it depends on how the game is made around it. Slower games usually benefit from health packs while faster games benefit from regeneration. Some exceptions like Team Fortress (another FPS way better than BI), which is a fast paced game, but it has many ways of recovering health.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
The COD games aren't anything special, there's no lean & no slide (Ghosts finally has a slide). In pure gunplay, MoH Warfighter blows any COD out of the water (Warfighter's campaign is shit but its superior controls & gunplay makes its online so much better than COD). At least, Bioshock has powers & gear to makes things a lot more interesting along with the skyrails. In COD, you literally just move your character, aim, and shoot while throwing an occasional grenade; that's better than Infinite how? Plus, COD still has that stupid exploitable aim-assist that has no place in a competitive environment.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,871
843
118
It looked very, very nice, and I'm glad it's one of the only games that still uses keyframe animation instead of simply opting for mo-cap.

I'll leave it at that.
 

Eevee

New member
May 28, 2012
17
0
0
I loved Infinite! I've played it though when it came out and I loved it. It was a definite #1 Game of the Year for me.

Then I played it again, post the backlash it received... And I still love it, I just adore the series as a whole and I know it doesn't work for everyone. But I still recommend the game to anyone looking for good gameplay and story. I love Elizabeth, I love Booker, and I love Columbia. Call me a fanboy, but I appreciate your opinions too!
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
The COD games aren't anything special, there's no lean & no slide (Ghosts finally has a slide). In pure gunplay, MoH Warfighter blows any COD out of the water (Warfighter's campaign is shit but its superior controls & gunplay makes its online so much better than COD). At least, Bioshock has powers & gear to makes things a lot more interesting along with the skyrails. In COD, you literally just move your character, aim, and shoot while throwing an occasional grenade; that's better than Infinite how? Plus, COD still has that stupid exploitable aim-assist that has no place in a competitive environment.
I'm talking about PC. Who cares about the inferior consoles?

Pc has no aim assits and the games I mentioned do have lean.

And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
It's the feeling you get from using them, or shooting on an FPS. BI simply sucks at it.
 

BrownGaijin

New member
Jan 31, 2009
895
0
0
First thought: At first I went "AWWW PUPPY!" and then I went "PIIIIINK! NOOOOOO!"

It's been a strange day with Bioshock especially after finding this article just after watching the video:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/16/5215468/tea-party-facebook-group-begins-posting-bioshock-infinite-propaganda

Well it might not be an example of Ludonarrative Dissonance, but it's certainly an example of irony.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Ronack said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".
Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!
I didn't mean to correct you based on a technicality. I said it that way so I didn't have to put spoilers in.

Booker and Elizabeth aren't going to different universes, Elizabeth is pulling stuff from other universes into their universe. And yes, if they are indeed leaping or going through tears, then the plot makes no sense. Flip that around though and everything then makes sense

---

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.
It is very important, but COD does not do it to near-perfection either. Just from a movement, shooting, and controls standpoint, MoH Warfighter blows COD out of the water. Warfighter's campaign is shit for level design, story, enemy placement, and just about everything else (besides controls, movement, and shooting), but its online shines because all that stuff that makes the campaign suck is not present in the online multiplayer. Warfighter has a MANUAL lean (not that contextual bullshit that Ghosts and BF4 has) and a slide, which is a game changer (Ghosts finally has a slide). 1v1 gun battles are just so much more dynamic in Warfighter compared to COD. Infinite's shooting isn't the best but it's good and very competent. Plus, if you are playing Infinite properly, you're not shooting that much anyways, or at least you should be using the power weapons.
 

Antsh

New member
May 15, 2012
50
0
0
Always laugh at that pre-release trailer.

That was not the game that I played lol
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D
People hate on the combat because they are pretty much FPS junkies, and miss the point that Bioshock is still trying to make pretensions of being an RPG even if it isn't one anymore, it actually has become a substandard FPS game when it comes to the mechanics. The idea being that in Bioshock the number of options you have is supposed to counterbalance the core mechanics being somewhat less than a dedicated shooter. What's more being based around super-abilities and crazy stunts it really is kind of floaty in an attempt to balance the gunplay with the use powers and such compared to other games that are priding themselves on the kind of realism that pretty much has you feeling the recoil of each shot.


In general the complaint about combat being "floaty" nowadays generally comes from people who primarily play games that have trained them to balance their reflexs with more realistic expectations, so they tend to automatically aim as if they expect a gun to be more off the mark based on it's recoil, compensate for simulated bullet drop, and similar things, and when that isn't there, and is replaced more by video game logic, it tends to be noticible. Compared to the amount of work a lot of games have put into their gunplay and making each gun "feel different" even over a computer, Bioshock is very much a "bad" game because Booker does all the assumed compensation as opposed to you the player.


In the overall scheme of things this is not bad, despite making it a bad FPS, I'd normally argue it's the best way to handle things in an RPG right behind simply making the gunshots stat based since it's supposed to be an RPG. The problem of course being that Bioshock also tends to fail as an RPG because Booker tends to wind up being able to do everything and pretty much solves most of the assigned problems in the same exact way, your choices in how to build him usually come down to what FX you like to watch when he kills.

Basically Bioshock started as a spiritual successor to "System Shock" especially the classic "System Shock 2" which in of itself was an attempt to pretty much transpose "Ultima Underworld" into a science fiction environment. This was done alongside the basic assumption that your typical gamer nowadays is too dumb or impatient to really deal with something like "System Shock 2" and to try and increasingly simplify it while trying to maintain the premise.

In System Shock 2, you pretty much had three major "paths" of skills, psionics, navy, and marines each of which had their own ways past problems, and specific things that could only be done by one skill set. You could also pick up abilities from each of the paths as you progressed and found the materials to unlock more abilities, but there was limited advancement opportunities and it was virtually impossible to make a perfect character who could get/see/do everything, not to mention if you spread yourself out too much it was possible to kind of put yourself into a sort of "Fail state" where progression would be almost impossible (say facing a battle your not tough enough to take on head to head, while lacking any of the abilities to circumvent the fight).

In Bioshock it pretty much removes the technical skills (Naval Path), and gives you what amounts to gunplay and psionics, with the psionics being used for the problem solving, and every ability being unlocked to it's basic level automatically which is sufficient to bypass any of the "puzzles" you run into if you use the right thing in the right place. Ultimatly it comes down to a choice of how you decide to deconstruct each area of enemies in front of you with the puzzles being ways of blocking arena to arena. You don't have to make choices like "do I want telekinesis, or lock picking, or the ability to have someone not laugh at me as much when I shoot them" and then being forced to apply your choice to problems from there on out, intentionally choosing to miss/close off options for a while. By the time you might have the ability to gain more than one, you wind up having more options and have to weigh the potential benefits of say becoming better at something than gaining a more versatile selection of skills. Nothing really closes out quite the same way in Bioshock... which is simpler, and more to the liking of people who want to do it all, but leads to less of an RPG-type experience as well.

Not sure if I'm articulating this particularly well.


The thing is that Bioshock is a good game, especially with what it's up against this year, but it's flaws are many and myriad, and that includes it's disadvantages coming from it's origin. In an attempt to at least seem like it's maintaining some RPG elements from it's spiritual predeccesor when it really isn't (powers just being basically more weapons that also act as keys) it's kind of become a lite FPS, "lite" being pretty accurate due to the amount of work FPS games put into the elements Bioshock is overlooking intentionally by being specialist games.

Those who complain about Bioshock being floaty, seem to mostly be argueing that the game should ultimately feel like a vintage gun simulation, and require the same kind of ingrained reflexes and adaption from other FPS games, especially seeing as it can be as hard to unlearn reflexs for compensation as it is to learn them.
 

Clive Howlitzer

New member
Jan 27, 2011
2,783
0
0
I'll have to disagree because despite all of its upsides, the actual gameplay itself was...boring. Unfortunately, that is kind of a key aspect of a video game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".
Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!
I didn't mean to correct you based on a technicality. I said it that way so I didn't have to put spoilers in.

Booker and Elizabeth aren't going to different universes, Elizabeth is pulling stuff from other universes into their universe. And yes, if they are indeed leaping or going through tears, then the plot makes no sense. Flip that around though and everything then makes sense

---

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.
It is very important, but COD does not do it to near-perfection either. Just from a movement, shooting, and controls standpoint, MoH Warfighter blows COD out of the water. Warfighter's campaign is shit for level design, story, enemy placement, and just about everything else (besides controls, movement, and shooting), but its online shines because all that stuff that makes the campaign suck is not present in the online multiplayer. Warfighter has a MANUAL lean (not that contextual bullshit that Ghosts and BF4 has) and a slide, which is a game changer (Ghosts finally has a slide). 1v1 gun battles are just so much more dynamic in Warfighter compared to COD. Infinite's shooting isn't the best but it's good and very competent. Plus, if you are playing Infinite properly, you're not shooting that much anyways, or at least you should be using the power weapons.
Oh well, I won't bother continuing arguing. And again, the games I mentioned had manual lean.

Antsh said:
Always laugh at that pre-release trailer.

That was not the game that I played lol
Yeah, I should know better not thinking a game will be good due to the trailer. But the first time I got in contact with Bioshock Infinite was on a video on the Escapist, from either Bob or Jim I don't remember, and I absolutly loved the video. Shame the game is average.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
The only think i really liked about Infinite was that it looked expensive, i thought it was an absolute chore to play and i must admit that i thought the story was rubbish, and not just because of he silly plottwist. I hated all the silly v-logs (When do we retire this innefective storytelling device?), the endless moral discussions by random people in the streets (When do we retire this innefective sorytelling device?) and the overabandunance of underdeveloped themes. Booker was a boring character and i didn'tparticularily care for Combstock or Elizabeth either. It's the worst game i've played this year (Retail, mind you, not counting shitty demoes). It's one of those games where i just don't see where people are coming from, when they praise it.

Not that i think it's the worst game ever or anything, i just thought the gameplay was underwhelming and the story was kinda shit. Had the gameplay been good, then it wouldn't have been a problem, but when i wasn't bored trying to shoot stuff with my limited arsenal of weapons and my identical plasmids, i was just good old annoyed that people were crowding me from all sides. This game have a very annoying way to introduce challenge, to compensate for the fact that your health regenerates it basically just crowds you with enemies from all sides. And don't even get me started on the stupid revival system or the inapproperiatly named 1999 mode :/.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
The Goat Tsar said:
Thanatos2k said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
You can't say those three games are mechanically inferior to Bioshock Infinite. Some people like regenerating health. Some people don't like mouse aiming. It's not bad, it's just different.
I could go into detail about why regenerating health is bad, but I can admit it's more preference based than some of the other things. Mouse aiming on the other hand is not "just different" - it's a factually superior aiming method proven time and again against controllers and arrow aiming. The point of an fps is to shoot your gun where you want the projectiles to go, and nothing does that better than mouse aiming. So yes, Goldeneye and Doom are mechanically inferior. It's not entirely their fault (Doom is a product of its time, and Goldeneye is on a console) but it's undeniably true. Same with any FPS on a console.

The issue I had with Bioshock Infinite's gameplay had nothing to do with the gunplay, I actually liked that. It was the enemies. Almost all of them were way too easy to me, but then I got to the handymen, who were just dumb. They were just giant bullet sponges that did tons of damage, I feel like they could've had more interesting mechanics and counterplay.
What difficulty were you playing on....? The harder difficulties are pretty damn hard.

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
What does this even mean? Bioshock Infinite had more moving and aiming than nearly any other FPS, occasionally annoyingly so. You could barely stand still and had to constantly be running, gunning, flying around, and hiding. How in any way did BI mechanically "fail" to reproduce the same FPS move and aim experience you've gotten before? Use actual examples, not "it feels wrong!"
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
I'm talking about PC. Who cares about the inferior consoles?

Pc has no aim assits and the games I mentioned do have lean.

And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
It's the feeling you get from using them, or shooting on an FPS. BI simply sucks at it.
So you're a PC master race elitist then. I don't find playing playing shooters on a PC fun because it's so easy to aim and shoot with a mouse, it's takes the fun out of it. Nailing that perfect shot on a controller is so much better feeling. I played Metal Gear Online, which is a game that required headshots to kill and the best players (including me) could headshot you across the map in less than a second after just seeing you. I get accused of using an aimbot in every shooter I play and it's not even possible to have an aimbot on PS3. Plus, I hate using a keyboard, it was designed for typing not playing a game, and it only has digital inputs. I'm playing Dishonored now and while its powers are cooler in some respects, they are really overpowered, Blink alone is ridiculously overpowered, then you have time stop and the vision that lets you see through walls (which I will not get or use because seeing enemies through walls defeats the purpose of playing a stealth game).
 

Vkmies

New member
Oct 8, 2009
941
0
0
Goliath100 said:
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.
It was explained that the "blueprints" (or the idea, whatever you wanna call them) for the salts were stolen by Fink and the Lutesces from Rapture through a portal. The same machine that they used to steal Elizabeth. Can't remember if it was explained how Adam can exist there, but I imagine the Lutesces worked out a man-made elixir to replace it that they implemented in the actual salts. What other critisisms have there been about salts? I haven't been following too closely about the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing some more. :)
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
I'm talking about PC. Who cares about the inferior consoles?

Pc has no aim assits and the games I mentioned do have lean.

And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
It's the feeling you get from using them, or shooting on an FPS. BI simply sucks at it.
So you're a PC master race elitist then. I don't find playing playing shooters on a PC fun because it's so easy to aim and shoot with a mouse, it's takes the fun out of it. Nailing that perfect shot on a controller is so much better feeling. I played Metal Gear Online, which is a game that required headshots to kill and the best players (including me) could headshot you across the map in less than a second after just seeing you. I get accused of using an aimbot in every shooter I play and it's not even possible to have an aimbot on PS3. Plus, I hate using a keyboard, it was designed for typing not playing a game, and it only has digital inputs. I'm playing Dishonored now and while its powers are cooler in some respects, they are really overpowered, Blink alone is ridiculously overpowered, then you have time stop and the vision that lets you see through walls (which I will not get or use because seeing enemies through walls defeats the purpose of playing a stealth game).
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
B:I exists in a strange place for me. I'm not sorry I played it, it's visually gorgeous, and it has a fascinating and well-realized world.

But I think the plot is a mess- just a mess that keeps enough balls in the air to keep many people impressed with the juggling act and distracted from the ones that fell. And I still very much feel that infinite possibilities and unavoidable conclusions are a conflict- and the game wants you to accept that conflict as a conclusion itself, rather than actually try to resolve it. I hesitate to say a game that so much work clearly went into is lazy, but it feels not unlike one of those other games we've all played where it's clear that after a certain amount of work they had to tie things off and get it out the door- only what got tied off and pushed out in this case was less the engine or feature set, but the storyline. That the Elizabeth of the reveal trailer has all her fingers only serves to reinforce this view.

So what do I say? I would love for more games to put as much detail and thought into their games as Bioshock:Infinite. I'm delighted that so much vision shows through in the final product, even if I miss promises like the falling bell churning up the street. I want to see more games shoot for the stars like Bioshock: Infinite clearly did... But at the same time, I can't help but feel a little disappointed in it.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Oh well, I won't bother continuing arguing. And again, the games I mentioned had manual lean.
They only had a manual lean on PC. So, you won't argue anymore because Infinite isn't about aiming and shooting if you are playing it properly yet you want to criticize Infinite for not having the best aiming when that's not what the gameplay is about? It's like criticizing Mass Effect for not having the best TPS aiming when the games aren't about pure aiming and shooting skill either.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Therumancer said:
Those who complain about Bioshock being floaty, seem to mostly be argueing that the game should ultimately feel like a vintage gun simulation, and require the same kind of ingrained reflexes and adaption from other FPS games, especially seeing as it can be as hard to unlearn reflexs for compensation as it is to learn them.
I think this is a good summary. I remember back in the day when I used to play Counterstrike a lot I would usually be Terrorists and use an AK47. When not going for the single shot headshot, I would aim at a person's feet because the AK47's recoil would naturally drift the aim upwards when fired repeatedly.

This made me effective in Counterstrike but when playing another FPS I would still do that - reflexively aiming at the target's feet. Except in other fps games this didn't work so well. The problem wasn't those games - the problem was me, conditioned by another game. The lack of recoil felt "wrong"...for a while.

I think the same thing is happening here when people complain about Bioshock Infinite in the same manner, not realizing it's their own conditioning that's probably to blame.
 

nevarran

New member
Apr 6, 2010
347
0
0
Agreed.
Fun to play, gorgeous to the eye, and it made me think about a thing or two... What's more to ask from a video game?!

Choose your next hit carefully, Jim. I'm here to cry like a baby, if you choose a game I haven't played or didn't liked!
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
999 is better. BI gets a little paradoxical at the end, much more so than 999 - which can actually make sense if you think through the situation and build a set of rules for the events that occur. BI never really makes sense. BI also goes for more metaphorical crap than direct event-driven stuff like 999 has.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
So you want me to play on a PC with a controller to only end up being at a disadvantage against other players? PC is only objectively better with regards to graphics, which are the least important part of a game. I'm playing Dishonored now, which isn't very good looking but it's a bunch of fun, it can't be much of a looker even with max settings on a PC.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
999 is better. BI gets a little paradoxical at the end, much more so than 999 - which can actually make sense if you think through the situation and build a set of rules for their "situation." BI never really makes sense. BI also goes for more metaphorical crap than direct event-driven stuff like 999 has.
Really?
Then I really don't feel like finishing BI.

But I really liked 999, so much that I'm afraid Zero Escape won't feel as good.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
So you want me to play on a PC with a controller to only end up being at a disadvantage against other players? PC is only objectively better with regards to graphics, which are the least important part of a game. I'm playing Dishonored now, which isn't very good looking but it's a bunch of fun, it can't be much of a looker even with max settings on a PC.
The fact that you admit you have a disadvantage is exactly why it's objectively superior. The point of an FPS game is to point, move, and shoot. Mouse keyboard is the best way to do this in the fastest and most accurate manner. Circle strafing while maintaining aim on a controller is laughable.

Do you play football with one hand tied behind your hand and call it superior? I'm sure you could play football that way, and the players would "get used to it" and even eventually get good at it, but don't pretend it's a better game that way. (Edit: And NO, I'm not talking about soccer!)
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Thanatos2k said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
999 is better. BI gets a little paradoxical at the end, much more so than 999 - which can actually make sense if you think through the situation and build a set of rules for their "situation." BI never really makes sense. BI also goes for more metaphorical crap than direct event-driven stuff like 999 has.
Really?
Then I really don't feel like finishing BI.

But I really liked 999, so much that I'm afraid Zero Escape won't feel as good.
You didn't play VLR? Play it now!
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
Halo: CE has the exact same health system as BioShock: Infinite, so no it's not inferior (considering the fact that this is the only point towards it being inferior according to you).
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Vkmies said:
Goliath100 said:
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.
It was explained that the "blueprints" (or the idea, whatever you wanna call them) for the salts were stolen by Fink and the Lutesces from Rapture through a portal. The same machine that they used to steal Elizabeth. Can't remember if it was explained how Adam can exist there, but I imagine the Lutesces worked out a man-made elixir to replace it that they implemented in the actual salts. What other critisisms have there been about salts? I haven't been following too closely about the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing some more. :)
The fact that the salts don't cause any mental issues which the plasmids did. The plasmids were a major part of BioShock 1's story and yet nobody thought to take the salts from Columbia? Rapture fell 40 years after Infinite, why did nobody think of this? You could have avoided the whole disaster Ryan... oh wait, they (the writers) don't care and gave a very crap explanation.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
I couldn't stand Bioshock Infinite. It found the Vox Populi plotline to be quite despicably racist, and also when you get right down to it, Elizabeth is not the heroine of the game, she is the villain.

The ending basically amounts to her deciding to destroy an entire multiverse because she doesn't like how it turned out.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Bioshock Infinite has a terrible narrative full of plot holes and very flawed characters. Smudboy best explains everything wrong with this series:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiWzMOLohpMm7SHPvti22PeAUfS13oEfp

Though Extra Credit did explain well why trying to make this game like Bioshock just made it worse.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/in-service-to-the-brand

Seriously if Elizabeth can create tears to alternate worlds why can't she escape by herself? Why does anyone consider Booker a hero when he spends the whole game going on a murder rampage against police officers? Why does Comstock even want Elizabeth to be his heir given that she's constantly trying to defy him? Why does anyone want Elizabeth to be Comstock's heir when they have to spend all their time forcing her to do what they want (why not launch a coup after Comstock dies)? Why don't the Lutece Twins use their powers to save Elizabeth or give Booker some more help?

The whole game is a mess.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Thanatos2k said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
999 is better. BI gets a little paradoxical at the end, much more so than 999 - which can actually make sense if you think through the situation and build a set of rules for their "situation." BI never really makes sense. BI also goes for more metaphorical crap than direct event-driven stuff like 999 has.
Really?
Then I really don't feel like finishing BI.

But I really liked 999, so much that I'm afraid Zero Escape won't feel as good.
You didn't play VLR? Play it now!
No money for it :/

But I will play it sooner or later.
 

The Goat Tsar

New member
Mar 17, 2010
224
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
The Goat Tsar said:
Thanatos2k said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.
You can't say those three games are mechanically inferior to Bioshock Infinite. Some people like regenerating health. Some people don't like mouse aiming. It's not bad, it's just different.
I could go into detail about why regenerating health is bad, but I can admit it's more preference based than some of the other things. Mouse aiming on the other hand is not "just different" - it's a factually superior aiming method proven time and again against controllers and arrow aiming. The point of an fps is to shoot your gun where you want the projectiles to go, and nothing does that better than mouse aiming. So yes, Goldeneye and Doom are mechanically inferior. It's not entirely their fault (Doom is a product of its time, and Goldeneye is on a console) but it's undeniably true. Same with any FPS on a console.

The issue I had with Bioshock Infinite's gameplay had nothing to do with the gunplay, I actually liked that. It was the enemies. Almost all of them were way too easy to me, but then I got to the handymen, who were just dumb. They were just giant bullet sponges that did tons of damage, I feel like they could've had more interesting mechanics and counterplay.
What difficulty were you playing on....? The harder difficulties are pretty damn hard.
Ah okay, I see what you're saying about the mouse aiming then. I wouldn't hold it against Doom or Goldeneye, though, seeing as how they were products of their time, as you said. But I agree they're mechanically inferior.

I played through the game on the hardest difficulty it gives you at the start. I haven't played it through on the mode you unlock by beating the game, but that's because I wasn't very motivated too. I found the handymen REALLY annoying on hard, didn't want to go up against them again. The firemen and raven priests were fun to fight, but the handymen weren't.

EDIT: On a side note, I'm also not a fan of regenerating health, the only shooter where I was ok with it was Halo. So far the best health system I've found in a fps is in the new Shadow Warrior game. You can heal up to half your health with an ability, but have to use health packs for the rest. I also like the stronger, mini-boss enemies in Shadow Warrior, the giant minotaur creatures are how I feel handymen should've been done, if you're familiar with them. Of course, in Shadow Warrior, there's not much in the way of story...
 

Grach

New member
Aug 31, 2012
339
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Other than that, the typical "bullet sponge" complaint about most of the enemies beyond the standard dime-a-dozen soldiers. I'm not asking for CoD-style "one to three shots will kill any enemy" style combat, but good lord...you shouldn't have to unload 5 clips of ammo into some guy to bring him down.
I loved the game, because it actually engaged me in way other than shooting through russians. But I completely agree with you, especially on the case of the Handymen. I had to actually tone down the difficulty from hard to normal because I couldn't get past the second (or third? the one before you meet Daisy) handyman. That's frankly a first time for me.

2: I still say that the ending to the story doesn't work, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. By that, I'm specifically referring to the plan to completely get rid of Comstock, permanently. To wipe him completely away from all of existence so that there's no way any of the madness he caused could happen again. For starters, if every choice you make spawns a universe in which the opposite of that choice is made, I don't think you can wipe out a choice by killing yourself before that choice is made. Why? Because you're making a choice to kill yourself, so that would create a universe in which you refused to make that sacrifice. "But...but...but the choice to kill Booker was made out in that Limbo area where all the lighthouses are! Therefor it doesn't really count!" Oh go fuck yourself with that explanation. That was never, not once, established during the ending that "any choices made in this area don't spawn a new universe" and beyond that it's highly debateable when the choice was actually made. If somehow killing himself in that ethereal baptism pond somehow has consequences on the universe, then that implies that any choice in that pond would have consequences. Such as, I don't know, allowing Elizabeth to hold you under and drown you? As opposed to flipping the fuck out, pushing all the hers off of you and trying to run away. I'd say THAT'S certainly a possible outcome of that situation, no matter how slim the chances are. Thus a new universe is spawned in which Booker refuses the suicidal sacrifice.

Beyond that, doesn't the very existence of Burial At Sea prove that the ending didn't work? Granted, I haven't played it yet, but if all the wrongs were righted by Booker's sacrifice, then Trans Universal Elizabeth shouldn't exist anymore if Comstock doesn't exist anymore. So what the fuck?
The problem with the ending is something that Yahtzee touched upon on his review of Infinite. It ends with Booker killing himself because it's suppoused to signify that by killing the player, it also kills the other side of player. The one that keeps causing misery in the world of Bioshock, since the player himself continues to play the game and continues the franchise for the sake of entertainment. That's what Yahtzee referred to as the point of maximum wanky metanarrative.

As for burial at sea, I just gather it's the story of another Booker whatsoever, one who was simply born into the world of the original Bioshock. Besides, "trasnuniversal Elizabeth" applies to more than one Elizabeth.

uanime5 said:
Seriously if Elizabeth can create tears to alternate worlds why can't she escape by herself?
She can't.
She can do it, except said power is being controlled by the angel statue, since it's a giant coil designed for that specific reason. In fact, the first thing she does when Songbird destroys it is open up a tear to Rapture in order to kill the now out of control Songbird.

Why does anyone consider Booker a hero when he spends the whole game going on a murder rampage against police officers?
No one does at first.
You get to another timeline where Booker looked for Elizabeth in different way, getting himself killed and martyrized by the Revolution, who actively seek out policemen to murder them.

Why does Comstock even want Elizabeth to be his heir given that she's constantly trying to defy him? Why does anyone want Elizabeth to be Comstock's heir when they have to spend all their time forcing her to do what they want (why not launch a coup after Comstock dies)?
Because they're crazed fanatics of Comstock and his ideology and Elizabeth is way too powerful an asset to abandon. Comstock needs this power specifically so that his vision of the world can be fulfilled.

Why don't the Lutece Twins use their powers to save Elizabeth or give Booker some more help?
Because that would skewer their results. Scientists don't usually like that. They don't care about the misfortunes that Booker goes through, they just want to see how many tries does it take Booker to eventually find out the truth about Comstock. Judging from their "heads or tails" count, it's been a lot. To them, it's just another experiment. Same initial conditions for all instances, different results.

I'm sorry man, but it looks like you didn't even gave the game a chance to begin with.

Off-topic: The help button on the captcha window has been jiggling absolutely all the time. Does this happen to someone else?

I find it one of the most irritating things I've come across recently.
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
mronoc said:
There are a fair amount of people who...
Do they people have names?

Vkmies said:
It was explained that the "blueprints" for the salts were stolen by Fink and the Lutesces from Rapture through a portal.
The problem is that the abilities have not affected Columbia in any meaningful way.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
So you want me to play on a PC with a controller to only end up being at a disadvantage against other players? PC is only objectively better with regards to graphics, which are the least important part of a game. I'm playing Dishonored now, which isn't very good looking but it's a bunch of fun, it can't be much of a looker even with max settings on a PC.
The fact that you admit you have a disadvantage is exactly why it's objectively superior. The point of an FPS game is to point, move, and shoot. Mouse keyboard is the best way to do this in the fastest and most accurate manner. Circle strafing while maintaining aim on a controller is laughable.

Do you play football with one hand tied behind your hand and call it superior? I'm sure you could play football that way, and the players would "get used to it" and even eventually get good at it, but don't pretend it's a better game that way. (Edit: And NO, I'm not talking about soccer!)
Aiming and shooting a real gun is much more difficult than even using a controller. Playing a shooter on a PC is much easier than using a controller so a shooter is just too easy on a PC. Shooting a gun in PC shooter is further away from shooting an actual gun than using a controller to shoot a gun. What about the controller's analog buttons that allowing leaning to not be purely a digital input. A console shooter is objectively better in that regard.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
Yet to play it, but I'm also one of those horrible people that didn't play the first Bioshock either. Due to a lack of not having a console/device capable of playing it when it first launched and then just never really developing an interest to go play it with so many other things out and taking my time and attention. I hope to one day get to both that and this because while this might have a fair share of criticisms I've seen, it still LOOKS interesting and fun.

Also, feel free to scold me for not playing either OR for knowing the spoilers to both prior to playing the games. I generally don't care about things being spoiled for me if I know I'm not going to get around to playing or watching them in the foreseeable future.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".
Those weren't "leaps".
Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!
I didn't mean to correct you based on a technicality. I said it that way so I didn't have to put spoilers in.

Booker and Elizabeth aren't going to different universes, Elizabeth is pulling stuff from other universes into their universe. And yes, if they are indeed leaping or going through tears, then the plot makes no sense. Flip that around though and everything then makes sense
Euh ... not exactly.

Elisabeth can open up tears so that Booker can use whatever is on the other side, like ammo caches and the like. However, like that first time with the asian fellar, Elizabeth opens up the portal and tears it open completely so that she and Booker go to the other universe. One where they believe the asian fellar is still alive because he's not sitting in that chair. From the wiki ". Understanding that Elizabeth's powers are not strong enough to allow them reverse passage, they enter a reality where Chen Lin is still alive and married to the sister of Fink's Head of Security, which saved him from the fate he experienced in the other reality. They find this Chen Lin to be disoriented, a side effect of his death in the opposite reality, and decide that retrieving his tools might help."
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
daxterx2005 said:
I wonder if Jim is going to give that Alien game a raspberry award :p
I'm looking forward to next week when he does his top ten shit games of 2013 (assuming he does repeats what he did last year). That was probably my favorite part of the his award show. :D But if he does bring that game up at all, that'll likely be where we see it... along with Final Fantasy: All the Bravest.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
A full episode on BI and not even one mention on the actual (average) gameplay?
As a game, Infinite retains many familiar elements of BioShock, though it's an altogether faster, more action-based experience. The densely populated, brightly lit world of Columbia is no place to evoke the creeping tension of the first game, so Infinite instead focuses on chaotic combat and heavy duty weaponry. In some ways, this leads to a game with less creativity than BioShock. Booker's guns and special abilities are geared far more consistently toward the direct offensive approach, and enemies are brutally efficient enough to where one never gets to really "play around" with them like one previously could. This is not to say, however, that combat is more straightforward and dull. On the contrary, it works harder to achieve a sense of dynamism, an effort that largely pays off.

As well as taking on Comstock's soldiers with a range of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other traditional arms, DeWitt gets dripfed a line of superhuman powers in the form of Vigors. These Vigors work very much the same way as BioShock's Plasmids, arming the player with deadly genetic weapons that can be instantly launched from the hand between bullets. Such abilities include the power to send a murder of crows to damage and antagonize opponents, paralyzing lightning blasts, and a shield that soaks up incoming fire. My personal favorite is Undertow -- a most hilarious toy which sends foes flying with a blast of water, or drawing them in with oceanic tentacles. Each Vigor has two modes of fire; simply pressing the launch button will send out a ranged attack, while holding it down first lays a trap version of the ability on the floor. Wise use of both modes can create anarchic battles that, while not as diverse as BioShock's, are no less sadistically delightful.

There, the man's thoughts on the combat, though those liking Bioshock infinite so much will highlight what made the game different (namely worldbuilding and narrative) over whatever other qualities. For whatever is worth, I am no fan of First Person Shooters of almost any kind, and find both Bioshocks superb. Infinite had a step back regarding its approach to levels, but it's certainly no worse than any other shooters out there, and I found the game closer in design to last gen shooters than the Halo crowd. Which can only be a good thing.

Full Metal Bolshevik said:
People can like BI all they want, but they have to recognize the seriously gameplay flaws
Are you trying to win "most unintentionally ironic consonance between avatar and statements" with that sort of "think like I do or you're wrong" kind of "logic"?
 

the_retro_gamer

New member
Apr 8, 2013
51
0
0
The first hour of bioshock infinite was fantastic and set up the world very nicely however the game for me went down hill from there. I did not find the plot to as gripping as most people said it was, and I found the plot was very unfocused. Though in my opinion, half way in I found that the plot was completely dropped and only came back at the end of the game. I really tried to love bioshock infinite but only left me feeling it was just another mediocre experience.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D
No, you're not the only one by a long shot. You just missed the memo that states you must retroactively hate a game in 6 months time. Probably because you were busy having fun with Infinite still, like most other reasonable folk.
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
I am well documented for disliking Bioshock Infinite the first week it was out. I bought it on day one... I preordered it way early. Thst is why I have to disagree with your "obligatory popular game backlash" thing. I think everyone was blinded by the shiney from when it was new and your "obligatory popular game backlash" was just being being able to finally clear their heads.

Sure, there were always going to be people who liked it... but there were far too many for what kind of story it was, how it was presented and, of course, the bland Halo-esque gameplay.

When I wrote a small review for it (not on the Escapist so I won't plug the link) I brought up that I really liked the riding on a rail thing. But everything else bugged me: the two weapon limit; the copy-paste guns; the sniper rifle was unbalanced. Even the powers are all designed with gunning in mind when the first two bioshocks let you focus on plasmids as an alternative.

As for the story, it's balls. There was a clear case of an M. Night Shyamalan type of setup, with simplistic concepts presented in the most convoluted way. There was even that "what a twist!" moment. And it was presented in that exact way. One of the worst examples of story-telling I've ever seen in a game outside of JRPGs. THEY HAVE YOU WALK THROUGH HALF AN HOUR OF EXPOSITION! No gameplay, no puzzle solving, just you and a physical manifestation of "explaining shit". They, in fact, leave a lot of the information you get throughout the gameplay completely on the ambiguous side to make the non-game part more poignant.

And the story isn't even that good. Buckaroo Bonzai and the Convolution from the Fifth Dimension! The whole thing centers around a Deus Ex Machina pair of siblings causing the whole thing to happen to no reason in the first place. A small spoiler, but they COULD'VE tried to explain why Miss Lutece felt she had to get so involved and all they did was demonstrate how dedicated she was to the meddling.

Sure, you can say that it's the best narrative-driven FPS in 2013... but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot.

And yeah, there's no Ludonarrative Dissonance... I just think that people are trying to define why they didn't like this game. What'd I'd like to see is Jim STOP obsessing on the people who are obviously wrong and START addressing the actually relevant complaints about the game.

---

Basically, I don't think the game got ENOUGH hate when it first came out. Everyone is overreacting to the hate it's now getting because they saw too much love at first.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Legion said:
My only problem with Bioshock Infinite was that the combat was actually kind of boring. The weapons were your standard affair of pistol, machine gun, shotgun, rocket launcher and sniper rifle, and they took away all the fun mods that existed in the previous games. The Vigor's were cool in theory, but the way they worked in game also felt kind of dull. If they'd kept the combo traps from Bioshock 2, then they may have been more fun.

The combat wasn't terrible, but it felt significantly weaker than the rest of it. Making preparations to fight Big Daddies was great fun in the previous two, and setting up a defensive area in Bioshock 2 was also a joy. In Infinite it felt like a standard shooter.
I'd more or less agree with this, with my biggest annoyance being the whole only holding 2 weapons at a time thing, especially considering how random and scarce various types of ammo were. Just irritating.

Visually it's pretty stellar, the voice acting is excellent, pretty much everything to do with its overall aesthetic is great.

Story-wise...well. I suppose I should probably spoiler this bit even if I'm not going to get really specific.

Two things, one minor, one not as minor. The minor thing: a little less than half an hour into my first playthrough, I mentioned to some folks in an online hangout I frequent something to the effect of, "If he turns out to be her father I'm going to be pissed." Welp. Not that that's necessarily bad writing, but when key points of your ending are that predictable that early into the story...it's not ideal.

The not as minor thing: the ending. I'm not going to say it's the worst ending in the history of video games or demand it be changed or blah blah blah Mass Effect 3 nerdrage, but from a writing standpoint, it just felt wrong. As in poorly executed. It was left hanging at a poorly chosen point. It wasn't just the lack of immediate resolution, it was the combination of both a lack of any kind of concrete resolution and the way in which it implies that, really, nothing you did through most of the game mattered anyway. Not going to get into the whole rant here, suffice it to say I found it to be far below par compared with most of what had led up to it. It was so close to being excellent and they just sort of fumbled things right at the end where even a small addition could have made it whole. Was extremely disappointing in the way it somewhat soured the rest of the experience.

This is just the analytical writer side of me getting bothered; I doubt it was as offputting to most people, and it's certainly still a good game. I don't think I'd go as far as game of the year, though. Probably not even in my top 5, but I'd have to look back at my list to check on which games were actually released this year. It's not something I tend to track.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
I'm talking about PC. Who cares about the inferior consoles?

Pc has no aim assits and the games I mentioned do have lean.

And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
It's the feeling you get from using them, or shooting on an FPS. BI simply sucks at it.
So you're a PC master race elitist then. I don't find playing playing shooters on a PC fun because it's so easy to aim and shoot with a mouse, it's takes the fun out of it. Nailing that perfect shot on a controller is so much better feeling. I played Metal Gear Online, which is a game that required headshots to kill and the best players (including me) could headshot you across the map in less than a second after just seeing you. I get accused of using an aimbot in every shooter I play and it's not even possible to have an aimbot on PS3. Plus, I hate using a keyboard, it was designed for typing not playing a game, and it only has digital inputs. I'm playing Dishonored now and while its powers are cooler in some respects, they are really overpowered, Blink alone is ridiculously overpowered, then you have time stop and the vision that lets you see through walls (which I will not get or use because seeing enemies through walls defeats the purpose of playing a stealth game).
...what? Seriously what?

Console have aim assist. PCs don't.

Killing on console is like killing with an aimbot. Its cheap, and you aren't really playing. Aim assist isn't actual skill.

So yes, you are using an aimbot because that's what aim assist is. Its how you can shoot at long range. Its in every single console game since the 90s.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Infinite certainly earned a place on my top 5 of 2013 list, although it probably would be on the lower end. Fingers crossed that Papers Please wins an award.

*Looks up* seriously? Flame wars? ALREADY!? Come on people!
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Thanatos2k said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Also, I gotta ask to people who liked BI story since I never finished.

Is it that good? How does it compare to 999 ?
999 is better. BI gets a little paradoxical at the end, much more so than 999 - which can actually make sense if you think through the situation and build a set of rules for their "situation." BI never really makes sense. BI also goes for more metaphorical crap than direct event-driven stuff like 999 has.
Really?
Then I really don't feel like finishing BI.

But I really liked 999, so much that I'm afraid Zero Escape won't feel as good.
BI's plot and ending make plenty of sense, you just got to spend more than 2 seconds thinking about it. People who whining about BI's plot not making sense are just so used to playing games with a spoon fed plot that's blatantly obvious that they lack the patience for games with a plot with any depth whatsoever.

109 said:
I seriously hope that anybody calling the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite bad doesn't simultainiously mean to imply that the subpar, loose, clunky gameplay in the original Bioshock or anything in that piece of trash Bioshock 2 is deeper and more fun than Bioshock Infinite. The game easily outclasses every other first-person shooter released in its generation, not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors, but even as a game of just running around and shooting, dicking around with vigors and flying around on skylines.

The game is slick, tight, difficult, rewards experimentation and unique playstiles, oh and lest we forget that tears are the best innovation in the genre, hell, in the entire field of action games, since Bulletstorm's energy leash at least! Maybe even the gravity gun!

(Not to mention Bioshock Infinite has Elisabeth, the pinnacle of a companion character (okay, Ellie can count as well) instead of the half-baked, ultimately failed mechanic of the Little Sisters.)

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
Agreed. Whenever I hear people complaining that BI's combat is boring, I always think "compared to what?" Shooters VERY rarely have anywhere near as hectic and varied combat as they do in Bioshock Infinite, and most of those are in the same series. I had quite a bit of fun switching around powers and shooting and so forth to take out enemies in hilarious and often sadistic ways. Sure, it starts to get repetitive after awhile but there's only so many ways to cause death that a game developer can give us.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
Ehhh, World at War was the only CoD I've ever played and I found the experience sub par from what I want from an FPS. There are several different feels to FPSs I've found exist. My preference is on the floaty, unrealistic side of things like Borderlands 2 or Unreal Tournament. I find games like CoD:WaW to feel very heavy and restricted by comparison.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that gameplay is not really a linear graph from bad to good. For a better comparison, do you think Bioshock Infinite was going for the same gameplay feel as CoD where both tried to do the same thing but one did it better? I have not played Infinite but from the gameplay that I've seen, they do not look like comparable material(granted, I'm basing this on promotional material which is not really reflective of the product. I may very well be wrong in my assumptions).
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
Ehhh, World at War was the only CoD I've ever played and I found the experience sub par from what I want from an FPS. There are several different feels to FPSs I've found exist. My preference is on the floaty, unrealistic side of things like Borderlands 2 or Unreal Tournament. I find games like CoD:WaW to feel very heavy and restricted by comparison.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that gameplay is not really a linear graph from bad to good. For a better comparison, do you think Bioshock Infinite was going for the same gameplay feel as CoD where both tried to do the same thing but one did it better? I have not played Infinite but from the gameplay that I've seen, they do not look like comparable material(granted, I'm basing this on promotional material which is not really reflective of the product. I may very well be wrong in my assumptions).
I'm not a fan of UT actually, but even that was miles better than BI, just shows how bad it is.

But I get what you're saying.
 

Grace_Omega

New member
Dec 7, 2013
120
0
0
I think there are legitimate reasons to criticize Infinite's plot (the way the game bends over backward to paint the Vox Populi as just as bad as the Founders for no real reason, for example) but to this day I still don't understand why people had such a problem with the game's violence.

Over-reliance on violence in games in general is to be sure a valid argument to be made, but I don't get why everyone decided that *this* game in particular shouldn't have been as violent or should have had an option to play through without killing anyone, particularly when the previous two games were also stuffed full of gore. It's like a handful of people had this irrational idea that it was going to be some completely different kind of game and then got pissed when they saw the finished product, than a pretty big swathe of the community just ran with that.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
So you want me to play on a PC with a controller to only end up being at a disadvantage against other players? PC is only objectively better with regards to graphics, which are the least important part of a game. I'm playing Dishonored now, which isn't very good looking but it's a bunch of fun, it can't be much of a looker even with max settings on a PC.
Then what is the problem of using a M+K? Since your opponents are using it, it would not be easier combat then on a console...

And is not really gonna be a good argument for BI on PC, its a PC game.
 

Vanbael

Arctic fox and BACON lover
Jun 13, 2009
626
0
0
Bioshock infinite is the best shooter of the year in my eyes. You have to figure in playing it at a harder difficulty. Hard and 1999 mode both tested everything you can think of and it makes each little battle a lot more satisfying to survive and move on though. Each battle you take on brings a serious host of options, make Elizabeth bring in a rift, with a certain gun and certain vigor active. Its a lot of fast paced strategy. And I personally like the story just as much from beginning to end. It gave me the drive to go though the entire thing. A lot of good twists, with a very good narrative, I completed it only a few times and I swear I still think I missed stuff.
 

chozo_hybrid

Jund 'Em Out!
Jul 15, 2009
3,456
0
0
I wish I could play this game, but my PC can't run it past min specs and I want to experience this in the best possible way.
 

Kittyhawk

New member
Aug 2, 2012
248
0
0
Loved it, still do. Great game that sits nicely next to my other great Bioshock games.

The post playing critique of it I feel is just some trying to be abstract and objectionable for the sake of it. Stick to your guns, instead of changing your mind after the fact.
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
I don?t think that the (arguably wrong) discobiscuit is a major problem with BS Infinite for most people criticizing the game.
From my PoV the gameplay seems to be what most people later on think as rather mediocre. Especially the lackluster powers which ultimately made you choose two and stick with them most of the game is what stick out the most.
Overall I really enjoyed BS Infinite. That said I too am one of those that think the actual gameplay was rather mediocre.
 

Vkmies

New member
Oct 8, 2009
941
0
0
Evonisia said:
Vkmies said:
Goliath100 said:
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.
It was explained that the "blueprints" (or the idea, whatever you wanna call them) for the salts were stolen by Fink and the Lutesces from Rapture through a portal. The same machine that they used to steal Elizabeth. Can't remember if it was explained how Adam can exist there, but I imagine the Lutesces worked out a man-made elixir to replace it that they implemented in the actual salts. What other critisisms have there been about salts? I haven't been following too closely about the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing some more. :)
The fact that the salts don't cause any mental issues which the plasmids did. The plasmids were a major part of BioShock 1's story and yet nobody thought to take the salts from Columbia? Rapture fell 40 years after Infinite, why did nobody think of this? You could have avoided the whole disaster Ryan... oh wait, they (the writers) don't care and gave a very crap explanation.
Well, the way I see it, salts aren't really plasmids. I mean, the idea for salts (and probably the basic chemistry) came for plasmids, but I imagine the Lutesces managed to morph them very much to their liking, since people don't need Adam for it. Not sure if it's explained like that, but I don't mind if it wasn't, personally. I do, however, understand why some might get annoyed that no concrete explanation is provided (if there really was no explanation).

I think the reason why Rapture never stole salts from Columbia is fairly obvious. As you can see from the mockumentary-trailers, the existence of Columbia is largely a mystery to the surface-world. People know a town flew into the skies at one point, but within a generation or two it became sort of a legend after nothing was heard from them in years. Once in awhile they found a skyhook or something that dropped out of the sky, but there was never contact between the surface and Columbia in a way that would let the scientists in Rapture find salts.

Also remember that these are just one timeline. There are timelines where salts were stolen by Rapture, there are timelines for everything. Everything has happened, everything will happen.

There are some problems with the actual town of Columbia like the water pouring down from it (nobody on the surface notices? Do they get all their water from rain? That's a lot of rain.) and if it doesn't move, why nobody flew a plane and found it hovering around the same place it was first seen disappear. If it does move, how do they get their energy? Well, even if they don't move, that city would use so much energy.

But these are all things I am willing to forget and I am happy to use my suspension of disbelief. I just think Salts were fairly well explained if you found the voxophones. And I think the stuff that wasn't explained is easy to just figure out or come up with a little something. I can see why people call that lazy game writing, but I always liked a little mystery in my game world. We don't know how Links ocarina works, but we can speculate that it's made from the stone that appears in Skyward Sword. Even then, we don't know how that stone works. But we don't necessarily have to. I like when a game lets fans speculate a bit, but I understand the disagreeing opinions as well. :D
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Personally i thought the plot and world of Bioshock infinite were astonishingly good. One of the best crafted stories and worlds i think I've seen in any medium.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Falseprophet said:
The best explanation for "Why does everyone hate Bioshock Infinite now?" came from Campstar on Reddit [http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/]). His response is lengthy so I'll hide it behind a spoiler tag:

Really I think there are two factors at play when talking about how games seem to have these sorts of severe dropoffs in popularity or popular consensus about their reception.

The first is hardly controversial: The hype train for games tends to naturally result in this pattern. Game marketing is designed to build hype and anticipation up to the day of release. The most important thing the PR team for a game can do is make sure that everyone is talking about/excited for a game the very day of its launch. After that who cares? The majority of sales are made in the first few weeks after release.

So the goal of games marketers is to hype everyone up as much as they possibly can going up to the release, giving people who haven't had access to the game yet the impression that it's going to be the most fan-dabby-babulous title they've ever played. We've seen this a lot this year, especially with Bioshock Infinite and GTAV both getting really gross (borderline pornographic, really) pieces in IGN that are designed to entice potential consumers into boarding the hype train and getting excited sight unseen.

Then the game comes out and (even if it's a darned good game) the reality never reflects the hype. GTAV wasn't the second coming (especially its online components), and while people enjoyed it and its massive scope it's not some flawless work that brings a tear to the eye simply for experiencing it. It becomes Just Another Game - maybe a game you have fond memories of or a game you pull out for years to come, but still just another disk in your collection rather than this intangible idea of perfection. So yeah, general consensus fades because the hype train is designed to build up to the game's release and then immediately cool off.

But the second reason this tends to happen, I think, is the rather stark contrast between reviewers in major publications and genuine critics who aren't usually beholden to all the pressures that a traditional review entails.

We can talk about the grey area between "critic" and "reviewer" and how all reviewers are critics, but let's get real here: Reviewers for publications like IGN or GameSpot or JoyStiq are, like it or not, held to certain standards that more self-appointed critics are not. Stuff like the need to be quote-unquote "objective," the idea that most games should score between a 7.5 and an 8.5, that sort of thing. Generally speaking there's public pressure to stay within bounds of consensus - too far negative and neckbeardy internet trolls insist you're linkbaiting, too far positive and they turn around and insist you're a moneyhat. It's a lose/lose situation the gamers themselves enforce that results in game reviews generally being super milquetoast and usually quite overly flattering to highly anticipated titles.

Add to that: Those flattering reviews from major publications come out first. Those big IGN 10.0 jerkoff reviews for Bioshock Infinite and GTAV? Those happened with big countdowns and week-long promotions and fanfare before anyone else had gotten their hands on the game. So early consensus is always that these games are absolutely amazing because the only people who have seen the game at that point are tied to that system of high expectations.

Independent critics then come by after buying the games themselves and spending time playing it. They post articles as they finish, and a more reasonable consensus forms. "The game is beautiful in this way." "The game is broken in these ways." "The game does harmful or ugly things here and here." It's a more open and honest discussion than in the confines of an 8.5 to 10.0 score these things normally get, and the result (especially for these big shooty games) tends to be far less glowing than the IGNs of the world originally report. And slowly a block of more serious games writing emerges where two or three weeks after the release there's a body of writing where the merits of the game are really espoused and its flaws examined. These ideas then slowly trickle down from erudite game critics to the general public (already slowly realizing the game isn't the Nirvana they'd been promised) and add to the overall feeling that the game was much worse than those initial reviews made it seem.

TL/DR:

1) The hype machine and marketing behind new releases is obviously going to proclaim any game it can as the Second Coming, and often the audience gets swept up in the hype.
2) The initial reviewers from the mainstream, consumer-oriented publications aren't going to deviate too far from the expectations generated by the hype machine, to avoid being labelled link-baity trolls or corporate shills.
3) When the game is released, no matter how good it is, it can't possibly live up to the hype, and eventually becomes Just Another Game in your collection.
4) Weeks or months later, more self-appointed game critics are able to contemplate and investigate the game long after the hype and rush of release have faded, and are better able to articulate its shortcomings.
This quote here is important, but not my main reason for not liking it.

I will say it the way it is for me, and I consider my opinion somewhat informed, though if you like the game/love it, do know I don't want that to change, at most maybe acknowledge my reasoning or just accept its a true opinion as well.
*I played Infinite day 1 and was VERY excited, thanks to reviews and trailers. Not overhyped, but I expected a very good game*

I don't like Infinite, because I felt nothing in it, bar the aesthetics(A+ material) and to a certain point the graphics, voice acting and intro sequence (which is VERY imperfect, though impressive), worked well.
The combat in Infinite is not BAD because its gory. I have no problems with Gore. Its not a problem to the story. Its bad because it is basically an arena shooter. Its an arena shooter, with HOARDS of enemies, absolutely insane amount of bullet spoongy, bad AI enemies. WAVES of them at times. Its basically moving from corridor to corridor, arena to arena with an ammo/medkit dispenser attached to you that at times feels like a ghost (Comstock's soldiers not attacking? That is logical. The Vox Populi not even COMMENTING/noticing her... no...that is not).
Its like a worse version of Serious Sam or Painkiller. And as for its own gameplay draws? Well, the skyrails are used rarely. The Powers are relatively limited in amount of ways to be used and functions. The tear system is underdeveloped and not really all that exciting...
I mean, why not just have Elizabeth tear to a Spetznaz squad (for some REAL chaos) or a dinosaur or a modern day tank. Ultimate excuse to put badass stuff in , and they don't use it... And yes, she can, she made a train pass through the world in order to slow down Booker.

This insanity of gameplay is what made me not like some parts of the storyline. Not only is it at one point tedious to fight yet another arena battle, not only is it disappointing in how safe it plays with its own gameplay quirks, but it really bugs me...
It does not fit the game. These waves of pathetic enemies dont fit the game. I cant feel any emotion nor empathy to what equates to an Imp from DOOM (and almost as stupid). That aint violence. I did not feel as if I was doing anything substantially damaging. The enemies from RTCW were MUCH more engaging, and despite being Nazis of all things, were usually more human then these mooks.

*next point is less important*
How can a city, at the height of its power, send waves of its soldiers/elite guards by the dozens at once against one man and fail AND expect to win against the NUCLEAR superpower that is the US in 1984? Columbia, after the shock of basically magic-quantum teleporting into New York and dealing some damage and chaos, will get is ass handed to it so badly, so brutally, so obscenely badly...
Booker should have just waited to see how badly Columbia would get stomped and call it a done deal...

It is also little things, like how ... museum-like the world feels. Also things like the shanty-shop (unfinished content?) or the stealing mechanic.

TLDR : Infinite is an above average game. 6/10.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Oh THANK GOD this had nothing to do with Mighty No.9

...I guess we'll hit that beehive later :D
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I never got an opportunity to play it. I figure I'll pick it up during the upcoming XMas/Winter Steam sale. It's how I bought and played the previous ones.

This game did have a whole lot of press with the back and forth. I don't know if it deserved some of the perfect scores it got, I bought into the 8's and 9's, but not the 10's. I'm sure I'll enjoy it very much.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Bioshock Infinate does have some problems, alot of Columbia seems to operate on Rapture rules despite being a living, breathing city, Booker seems like quite a step away from Comstock (granted the stories focused on Elizabeth so it's understandable) and the fact Songbird was scripted events only seems like a MISSED opportunity.

However, it was full of character and little details which I loved so I couldn't agree more with it being one of the years best.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Ronack said:
Euh ... not exactly.

Elisabeth can open up tears so that Booker can use whatever is on the other side, like ammo caches and the like. However, like that first time with the asian fellar, Elizabeth opens up the portal and tears it open completely so that she and Booker go to the other universe. One where they believe the asian fellar is still alive because he's not sitting in that chair. From the wiki ". Understanding that Elizabeth's powers are not strong enough to allow them reverse passage, they enter a reality where Chen Lin is still alive and married to the sister of Fink's Head of Security, which saved him from the fate he experienced in the other reality. They find this Chen Lin to be disoriented, a side effect of his death in the opposite reality, and decide that retrieving his tools might help."
That's what the wiki says, that doesn't mean that's right. Just because the characters think they "leaped" doesn't mean they did. If there's an explanation that makes the plot work, why wouldn't you choose to go with that explanation? The plot works perfectly if you look at it from the perspective that they weren't "leaping". Even Elizabeth says she's not sure of what she is actually doing a few times during the game.

Ultratwinkie said:
...what? Seriously what?

Console have aim assist. PCs don't.

Killing on console is like killing with an aimbot. Its cheap, and you aren't really playing. Aim assist isn't actual skill.

So yes, you are using an aimbot because that's what aim assist is. Its how you can shoot at long range. Its in every single console game since the 90s.
Not all console shooters have aim-assist. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metal Gear Online have absolutely no aim-assist and the game required headshots to kill other players (watch videos of matches if you want frame-by-frame, there's no aim-assist and players can kill each across the map with headshots just fine). That's how good aiming with a controller can be. Most shooters' aim-assist on a console aren't like COD where it's an aimbot. MoH Warfighter has subtle aim-assist to help stay on enemies running to your right or left. Ghost Recon Future Soldier has the most subtle aim-assist that does what Warfighter does but about 90% less compared to Warfighter to the point where there's basically no aim-assist. Very few shooters' aim-assist has that "snap" to enemy assist that is basically an aimbot. I don't play online shooters with horrible aim-assist like COD and BF. Lastly, it's the developers fault for implementing aim-assist, console players don't need any aim-assist and it actually messes up my shot more than it helps like with Mass Effect, I wish I could turn that shit off.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Then what is the problem of using a M+K? Since your opponents are using it, it would not be easier combat then on a console...

And is not really gonna be a good argument for BI on PC, its a PC game.
I hate using a keyboard, it's made for typing, not gaming. It's digital instead of analog as well. Easier doesn't make it better. For example, Wii Bowling is a better representation of bowling even though you can make bowling in a game easier.
 

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
My problems with Bioshock can be summed up as follows:

1) I got bored of the combat. The hit scan shooting combined with low health and regen + the respawn with little to no loss on death is not satisfying. I hated the vitachambers in Bioshock and I hate the mechanic here.
3) I saw the "twist" of
you being Comstock
about half way into the narrative.
4) The ending is batshit pseudo physics wank with
time travel dynamics
that make NO sense.
5) The heavy handed themes in the first half of the game are dropped in favour of focusing on this batshit ending.
6) One save slot? Fuck you Levine. What if I want to return to an area? Or maybe I want to play the game without your crappy respawn mechanic?
7) The ghost boss lady is deep fried bullshit.
8) Fucking 2 gun limit..... Oh wait, all the guns are the same.....



It is very pretty. I liked Elizabeth. But more interaction with people in the less combaty scenes would have been nice.


On the "Ludonarrative Dissonance" thing: I could never believe that mere humans would fight with the fanaticism that the armies of Comstock and the rebel lady do. Splicers were driven mad with addiction/experimentation so I could believe their single minded aggression against the player character. But Comstocks cops and soldiers? Even the SS surrendered occasionally.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Yay...
I mean I don't love Bioshock Infinite, but even though that's the case I still can't think of 5 better games.
It's a good game, which shouldn't be enough to qualify for game of the year... but that's the industry's fault

BSI is a fine choice for 1/5 of the GOTY's. I can't complain considering I only think 1 game is worthy of the title for 2013, and that's Surgeon Simulator Paper's Please
 

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Ugh. Bioshock shooting mechanics.

Too much undodgeable hitscan, too low health leading to a reliance on the godawful respawn with little to no penalty mechanic. It feels way too much like save scumming to me.




The reason the HL2 combat stands up is that health is a resource you have to manage. Enough is provided to you at the start of every major combat and if you die you go back to the start of the autosave. OR... You can save scum... If you want.

Oh and 10 carriable weapons versus a 2 weapon limit.

And Dishonored magical powers shit all over Bioshocks magical powers.


Bioshock is pretty, and it has a decentish story for the first 3 quarters (before it disappears into quantum leap nonsense). But I wish it had deemphasized combat which is of middling enjoyability with more exploration and perhaps some interaction with more NPCs.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
I honestly could not care about Bioshock Infinite getting a GOTY from Jim.

Not when my mind is still overclocking it's gears wondering why in the hell somebody sent Jim a Rottweiler plushie that was solely created to have a warm meat sausage inserted into it's fuzzy adorable underside.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
I love how Jim has managed to kick off a massive argument about FPS mechanics when he didn't actually say anything about the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite itself.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Grach said:
RJ 17 said:
Other than that, the typical "bullet sponge" complaint about most of the enemies beyond the standard dime-a-dozen soldiers. I'm not asking for CoD-style "one to three shots will kill any enemy" style combat, but good lord...you shouldn't have to unload 5 clips of ammo into some guy to bring him down.
I loved the game, because it actually engaged me in way other than shooting through russians. But I completely agree with you, especially on the case of the Handymen. I had to actually tone down the difficulty from hard to normal because I couldn't get past the second (or third? the one before you meet Daisy) handyman. That's frankly a first time for me.
And that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. And don't even get me started on the damn ghost fight...I called bull shit on that pretty much from the time it started to the time I finally killed the bastard.

2: I still say that the ending to the story doesn't work, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. By that, I'm specifically referring to the plan to completely get rid of Comstock, permanently. To wipe him completely away from all of existence so that there's no way any of the madness he caused could happen again. For starters, if every choice you make spawns a universe in which the opposite of that choice is made, I don't think you can wipe out a choice by killing yourself before that choice is made. Why? Because you're making a choice to kill yourself, so that would create a universe in which you refused to make that sacrifice. "But...but...but the choice to kill Booker was made out in that Limbo area where all the lighthouses are! Therefor it doesn't really count!" Oh go fuck yourself with that explanation. That was never, not once, established during the ending that "any choices made in this area don't spawn a new universe" and beyond that it's highly debateable when the choice was actually made. If somehow killing himself in that ethereal baptism pond somehow has consequences on the universe, then that implies that any choice in that pond would have consequences. Such as, I don't know, allowing Elizabeth to hold you under and drown you? As opposed to flipping the fuck out, pushing all the hers off of you and trying to run away. I'd say THAT'S certainly a possible outcome of that situation, no matter how slim the chances are. Thus a new universe is spawned in which Booker refuses the suicidal sacrifice.

Beyond that, doesn't the very existence of Burial At Sea prove that the ending didn't work? Granted, I haven't played it yet, but if all the wrongs were righted by Booker's sacrifice, then Trans Universal Elizabeth shouldn't exist anymore if Comstock doesn't exist anymore. So what the fuck?
The problem with the ending is something that Yahtzee touched upon on his review of Infinite. It ends with Booker killing himself because it's suppoused to signify that by killing the player, it also kills the other side of player. The one that keeps causing misery in the world of Bioshock, since the player himself continues to play the game and continues the franchise for the sake of entertainment. That's what Yahtzee referred to as the point of maximum wanky metanarrative.

As for burial at sea, I just gather it's the story of another Booker whatsoever, one who was simply born into the world of the original Bioshock. Besides, "trasnuniversal Elizabeth" applies to more than one Elizabeth.
The thing is that I didn't even interpret the ending as Elizabeth wanting to end ALL the madness in the BS universe, but rather just specifically trying to end the madness that Comstock (and Booker, for that matter) caused. She wanted to prevent Columbia from going on to destroy the world. As such, Comstock had to go. Getting rid of Comstock/Booker would have absolutely no affect on Andrew Ryan and Rapture, in fact the way I see things Rapture can only exist in universes in which Columbia doesn't exist, so universes in which Booker refused the baptism.

As such, there'd be nothing wrong with making another BS game since, at least as far as I could tell, the drowning was supposed to simply ensure that Comstock and Columbia never exist.

Which brings me to my point about Burial At Sea: apparently it takes place in a universe in which Booker somehow ends up down in Rapture. Then Elizabeth just pops up out of nowhere (I actually have played it a bit, just not all the way through...I rage-quit after Elizabeth literally trapped me in a closet and I had no way to get out and I just haven't gotten back to it) with all this knowledge about Booker's supposedly dead-daughter, and she keeps making comments about how her father did this or taught her that, implying that it's actually the same Elizabeth from the main game. And what I'm saying is that her very existence completely negates the notion that every Comstock in all possible universes has been wiped out. Because if there's no Comstock in any of the universes, there's no Columbia. If there's no Columbia, then there's no TransUniversal Elizabeth to begin with...since there wouldn't be a Comstock to try and pull her through a wall and get her pinkie nipped off. That's why I say the very existence of Burial At Sea implies that indeed they can never fully get rid of Comstock or Columbia, and as such the ending to the original game doesn't work.

My prediction for Burial At Sea: By the end of this story (however many episodes there are), Elizabeth is going to help find this Booker's little girl and deliver her to the crib of Regular Booker (the one you wake up as at the very, very end of the original story and run to your daughter's room because you hear a baby crying). As I recall, Elizabeth says "I'm doing this to repay a debt" early on in Burial At Sea, that's what I'm basing my hunch off of.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
5 days of Jim in a row? Yay! But Bioshock Infinite's main criticism for me was it looked like the kind of game that called you (the player) out for using violence as the way to resolve conflict, but that was the only way to go.
 

chthonical

New member
Apr 8, 2010
1
0
0
The inherent irony is that the footage Jim used for BioShock Infinite was from a version of the game that NEVER EXISTED. It looks like a version of the game that could've been interesting and enjoyable. So we see either hypocrisy, or satire on Jim's part. Especially after the Aliens: Colonial Marines fiasco.

You have people fanning and Irrational rubbing one out, so I think it's been thoroughly missed.
 

LackofCertainty

New member
Apr 14, 2009
61
0
0
My biggest problem with bioshock infinite is that it was too similar to the previous titles. If infinite was your first rodeo, I'm sure it's fantastic. For me, I was already getting bored of bioshock's combat by the end of bioshock 1. Bioshock 2 briefly reinvigorated it for me, but I was very done with the combat by it's end. Infinite I didn't even bother finishing. I had some fun jumping around the rails, but it was mostly more of the same.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
I'm a little late to the Bioshock party. I rented Infinite then kept it when I realized that it also came with the first Bioshock and it would only cost me $5. I'm not too far into it but I like it. I feel like these guys are heavily inspired by Terry Gilliam movies.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
I feel like you need a finger wag and a stern talking to.
And then I remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But then I remember that this is the internet, and this image came to mind.


So fuck common sense! Let's talk about this internet style!

I seriously hope that anybody calling the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite bad doesn't simultainiously mean to imply that the subpar, loose, clunky gameplay in the original Bioshock or anything in that piece of trash Bioshock 2 is deeper and more fun than Bioshock Infinite. The game easily outclasses every other first-person shooter released in its generation, not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors, but even as a game of just running around and shooting, dicking around with vigors and flying around on skylines.
The combat isn't bad, but cluttered and disorganized is a good way to put it.
Infinite's inventory system is trash I mean it's completely at odds with the structure of the weapon system. Money in Infinite is scarce (Which would be a good thing in any other game) In BSI that leads to the very real possibility that you'll blow all your cash upgrading a weapon you'll never see again Because you're limited to two weapons at a time.
(The thing I did was spend all my money upgrading the Pattywacker Hand Cannon (Because I fucking love that gun) and then I ended up carrying around a gun with no bullets for 2/3 of the game)
Then the problem gets exacerbated around the half way point when when they pile on a bunch of extraneous gun types for no reason.

The two slot limit adds another massive problem because Infinite is designed the same way as the first Bioshock (I mean situational terrain that forces you to modify your play style on the fly) So sometimes you'll want long range weapons, sometimes you'll want to be up close and personal, sometimes you'll want explosives. And in the first Bioshock that worked really well because you could hold all your guns at once. Keep your rockets on reserve for when you need them, use your cross bow at long range, machine gun at mid range, shotgun and wrench at close range.
In infinite you need to be holding the right weapons long before you get to where you need to use them. That's a problem even completely setting aside the upgrade shenanigans.

Then there are the Vigors (And to be honest I didn't notice this until Campster pointed it out but half the vigors are redundant.
Possession, Return to Sender, Charge, and Undertow are all unique
but Crows, Bronco, Devil's Kiss and Shock all serve the same purpose.

Plus with upgrades Murder of Crows is way OP... In the first Bioshock Shock Jock was way OP. Not really a complaint just an observation.
With Crows and Possession (And Charge to help you Cheese your way through the Siren fights(Oh god the Siren fights...) Your biggest threat is running out of salt)

Then you don't get to carry around a supply of Medkits or Salts with you. So if you're in a pickle you're completely at the mercy of a random number generator in a blue dress.

(Not to mention Bioshock Infinite has Elisabeth, the pinnacle of a companion character (okay, Ellie can count as well) instead of the half-baked, ultimately failed mechanic of the Little Sisters.)
oh... yeah...Ellie? seriously? Oh well back to Liz.
I don't know about other people, but I never thought the little sisters were well implemented. But Elizabeth isn't better (Mechanically. Narratively she's wonderful)
Liz wasn't optimized for the way Infinite works. In theory, supplies are scarce so she'll throw you ammo, health or Salts. Which she "probably" pulls through tares. But she's finicky and unreliable. (In my playthrough she never once threw me ammo for my Hand Cannon even though I had it for 2/3 of the game. Several times I had a sliver of health or Salt left and had to do a little dance for her amusement before she'd give me anything. (Jump up and down a few times, run around in circles, take a ride on the rails, obnoxious stuff like that. To make matters worse it hardly ever worked)

This was more of a problem during Clash in the Clouds but she'd often throw me the wrong thing. I'd have full health and she'd yell "Booker! Health!" "Okay? What am I supposed to do with it?"

The game is slick, tight, difficult, rewards experimentation and unique playstiles, oh and lest we forget that tears are the best innovation in the genre, hell, in the entire field of action games, since Bulletstorm's energy leash at least! Maybe even the gravity gun!
I wouldn't gush over tears so much. You realize that mechanically they are nothing more than pushing a "use" button to activate an environmental hazard. Which is hardly innovative at all. The most innovative part of the tear system is that you can activate them from the safety of cover or while moving around far away from them.

not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors
You mean all other FPS games this year... not all other narrative focused games this year right?
It's not perfect and it pales in comparison to the original Bioshock. The story's good, if a little silly at the end
Infinite universes means infinite possibilities right? Drowning Booker in one universe doesn't solve anybody's problems. It just kills that one Booker. I think they realized that in Burial at Sea though... I think. They didn't address it.

All that said I had fun with the game (In spite of all the stupid fucking design choices, the game is still fun)
But perspective, being "best" only by virtue of "nothing [sub](hardly anything. Paper's Please FTW!)[/sub]else was better" isn't really deserving of an award, is it?
 

jpoon

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,995
0
0
I greatly enjoyed the game. It looked amazing on PC, the story was a trip and I was moved by it. Good vid Jim, it was a quality game in my book!
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Falseprophet said:
The best explanation for "Why does everyone hate Bioshock Infinite now?" came from Campstar on Reddit [http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/]). His response is lengthy so I'll hide it behind a spoiler tag:

Really I think there are two factors at play when talking about how games seem to have these sorts of severe dropoffs in popularity or popular consensus about their reception.

The first is hardly controversial: The hype train for games tends to naturally result in this pattern. Game marketing is designed to build hype and anticipation up to the day of release. The most important thing the PR team for a game can do is make sure that everyone is talking about/excited for a game the very day of its launch. After that who cares? The majority of sales are made in the first few weeks after release.

So the goal of games marketers is to hype everyone up as much as they possibly can going up to the release, giving people who haven't had access to the game yet the impression that it's going to be the most fan-dabby-babulous title they've ever played. We've seen this a lot this year, especially with Bioshock Infinite and GTAV both getting really gross (borderline pornographic, really) pieces in IGN that are designed to entice potential consumers into boarding the hype train and getting excited sight unseen.

Then the game comes out and (even if it's a darned good game) the reality never reflects the hype. GTAV wasn't the second coming (especially its online components), and while people enjoyed it and its massive scope it's not some flawless work that brings a tear to the eye simply for experiencing it. It becomes Just Another Game - maybe a game you have fond memories of or a game you pull out for years to come, but still just another disk in your collection rather than this intangible idea of perfection. So yeah, general consensus fades because the hype train is designed to build up to the game's release and then immediately cool off.

But the second reason this tends to happen, I think, is the rather stark contrast between reviewers in major publications and genuine critics who aren't usually beholden to all the pressures that a traditional review entails.

We can talk about the grey area between "critic" and "reviewer" and how all reviewers are critics, but let's get real here: Reviewers for publications like IGN or GameSpot or JoyStiq are, like it or not, held to certain standards that more self-appointed critics are not. Stuff like the need to be quote-unquote "objective," the idea that most games should score between a 7.5 and an 8.5, that sort of thing. Generally speaking there's public pressure to stay within bounds of consensus - too far negative and neckbeardy internet trolls insist you're linkbaiting, too far positive and they turn around and insist you're a moneyhat. It's a lose/lose situation the gamers themselves enforce that results in game reviews generally being super milquetoast and usually quite overly flattering to highly anticipated titles.

Add to that: Those flattering reviews from major publications come out first. Those big IGN 10.0 jerkoff reviews for Bioshock Infinite and GTAV? Those happened with big countdowns and week-long promotions and fanfare before anyone else had gotten their hands on the game. So early consensus is always that these games are absolutely amazing because the only people who have seen the game at that point are tied to that system of high expectations.

Independent critics then come by after buying the games themselves and spending time playing it. They post articles as they finish, and a more reasonable consensus forms. "The game is beautiful in this way." "The game is broken in these ways." "The game does harmful or ugly things here and here." It's a more open and honest discussion than in the confines of an 8.5 to 10.0 score these things normally get, and the result (especially for these big shooty games) tends to be far less glowing than the IGNs of the world originally report. And slowly a block of more serious games writing emerges where two or three weeks after the release there's a body of writing where the merits of the game are really espoused and its flaws examined. These ideas then slowly trickle down from erudite game critics to the general public (already slowly realizing the game isn't the Nirvana they'd been promised) and add to the overall feeling that the game was much worse than those initial reviews made it seem.

TL/DR:

1) The hype machine and marketing behind new releases is obviously going to proclaim any game it can as the Second Coming, and often the audience gets swept up in the hype.
2) The initial reviewers from the mainstream, consumer-oriented publications aren't going to deviate too far from the expectations generated by the hype machine, to avoid being labelled link-baity trolls or corporate shills.
3) When the game is released, no matter how good it is, it can't possibly live up to the hype, and eventually becomes Just Another Game in your collection.
4) Weeks or months later, more self-appointed game critics are able to contemplate and investigate the game long after the hype and rush of release have faded, and are better able to articulate its shortcomings.
I think Matthewmatosis's video on the subject is better

Campster accuses the game of "ludududududududududu" a lot and I side with Jim of that point.
I think the level of violence is appropriate for the context, and cutting down the amount would only really serve to shorten the game.

And Matthew picks the mechanics and narrative apart a lot better. IMO anyway.
Plus his accent rocks.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
I liked the boring combat. It gave the player more time to think about the narrative and story and characters and all that good stuff.

Same with Spec Ops: The Line really, and people don't give that game nearly as much shit for it's mediocre combat. Hate on what's popular I guess.
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
It's funny that you picked Bioshock Infinite as a game of the year, Jim. I'm not calling you out for this decision, because I agree. If there was any one game to personify just how I felt about 2013, it would be that one, because it shows how shallow the medium has truly become.

Why do I feel this way? Well where do I start...
As far as gameplay goes, it's shallow and uninteresting. Enemies are nothing but bullet sponges on higher difficulties and shooting is boring. There's little variety in guns, and the 2 weapon limit makes finding ammo incredibly hard. The upgrade system is useless because of this limit, since it's highly likely you'll run out of ammo for any one gun you have and will be forced to pick up a new on instead. The levels are painfully linear with nothing but shooting galleries along the way, which is an awful shame when compared to the original Bioshock's environments, and kills any sense of exploration the games used to have. Removing the player's ability to hack or find medkits is a painfully shallow attempt to make Elizabeth seem like a helpful companion, especially since she does absolutely nothing else in the entire game. You don't even need to protect her from the people attempting to get her back for some reason, almost as if she doesn't even exist in the game world.
But hey, at least the story is good, right? Not really. Elizabeth didn't make sense as a character. For someone who had spent almost all her life locked away, she has the bright and vibrant personality of a Disney Princess. The motivation for main characters is completely lost half-way through the story once you make the first jump between dimensions, making most of the story from then on out contrived and pointless. Songbird was a disappointment. Booker is bland and uninteresting. The themes about ideology and morality that were being built upon early on in the game take a backseat to timey-wimey-dimension hoping shenanigans later on. And the ending? Jesus Christ that ending.

It makes no sense. No, I understand it, but it makes no sense within the universe. How does killing Booker in ONE timeline stop ALL other versions of Comstock? If there are an infinite amount of dimensions, then there is going to be one where Booker survives the baptism and becomes Comstock. There's probably a universe where none of the events in the game happen too. And there's also one where he might have become Comstock without the Baptism. If anything, killing the Booker of that ONE dimension just prevents Comstock from appearing in that particular dimension.
With all of games flaws and faults, I can only say this: it's damn good at looking good. From the outside, the story looks interesting, the visuals are beautiful, and the gameplay works. Apparently that's enough to sell a game these days, because people lapped it up. I bought this game on release and I was disappointed. But the media couldn't stop going on about it. About how it was a game for "smart people", when truthfully it's just as smart as Inception: appears complex on the outside, but when you actually think about it, it's pretty damn simple, and also riddled with plot holes. Not to mention that gameplay is boring and tedious, nothing smart or challenging about that either.

It's a Blockbuster of a videogame, but for 2013, it's damn near perfect. It exemplifies how shallow the industry has become. When a game with just a somewhat interesting but deeply flawed plot and some mediocre gameplay can get perfect scores across the board and when any criticism (be it valid or otherwise) of said game is met with hate and backlash, it's an obvious sign that this sign that this industry has gone to shit and our standards have been lowered that much.
CardinalPiggles said:
I liked the boring combat. It gave the player more time to think about the narrative and story and characters and all that good stuff.
Oh my God it's worse than I thought.
 

Drummodino

Can't Stop the Bop
Jan 2, 2011
2,862
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D
I loved the gameplay too! Apparently that means I have terrible standards. I just loved how chaotic and frantic things could get. Nothing is as much fun as pulling someone up with the octopus or bucking bronco plasmids and shotgunning them in the face.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
I've got a few: Borderlands 2, Bulletstorm, Crysis 2, Far Cry 3, FEARs 1 and 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2 (crikey, that's a lot of twos.)

If we use the title of First Person Action Adventure, we can add Dishonored to the list.

BI has stiff competition.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
I love how Jim has managed to kick off a massive argument about FPS mechanics when he didn't actually say anything about the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite itself.
That's the beauty of it; by not mentioning the mechanics, it implies things about the mechanics. Things that may or may not be true.

Instant recipe for flame war.
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
There wasn't so much of a backlash as there was people that went back after their hype had died down and looked at the game from a critical perspective. They noticed a game that was obviously incomplete and a story full of loopholes and plot-holes. Something that Jim appears to be purposefully ignoring because he thought the game was fun.

Which is fine, if all you're after is a fun game. But some folks wanted more than a standard shooter with a standard story dressed up to be more than it really was. It was also a victim of misleading trailer syndrome, so some people felt a bit cheated in that regard.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Meh. I thought it was too slow and boring and I had beef with the ass-pull near the end(not the one everyone thinks), but I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone who liked it. Besides, Elizabeth is one of the better video game characters lately.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
Trishbot said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
109 said:
Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.
'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?
You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?
I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.
I've got a few: Borderlands 2, Bulletstorm, Crysis 2, Far Cry 3, FEARs 1 and 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2 (crikey, that's a lot of twos.)

If we use the title of First Person Action Adventure, we can add Dishonored to the list.

BI has stiff competition.

Opinions: Everyone has one and they're all subjective.


For me personally:
- CoD4 and WaW = Every CoD game feels clunky as hell as far as I'm concerned. Compared with how crisp and clean aiming and shooting feels in source games. Its playable but that's about all you can say. I play CoD for the spectacle more than anything else now (and I get them when they're cheaper).

- Halo CE is one of my favourite multiplayer FPS games ever. But its very, very dated now and newer games are far smoother. Hell, even at the time I wasn't much of a shooter; my style was more driving a Warthog like an absolute demon, with a guy manning the turret on the back and a guy in the passenger seat clinging onto the vehicle with one hand and the other team's flag in the other. Whilst under attack from Scorpions and Banshees. I could drive like a madman but aiming with that engine wasn't my strongpoint.

- Goldeneye and Doom have both been addressed above.

- Borderlands I find to be one of the most overhyped franchises around. Guns feel awful. Aiming feels awful. Movement feels awful. Combat in general feels awful. I really flat out don't see what people like in it. I tried to force myself to play it for the story but its so weak it can't carry what I find to be virtually unplayable combat.

- Bulletstorm. Honestly haven't played it so don't want to comment.

- Crysis 2. Feels kinda floaty and imprecise. Even more so than the first one so I dunno whats with that.

- Far Cry 3. Magnificent. I'd put it on par with BI.

- FEAR. Its alright I guess. Dunno if I'd hold it up as a shining example of good mechanics.

- L4D2 and TF2. I mentioned earlier I tend to like games on the source engine since its one of the few FPS engines that actually feel "right" to me. That is to say I feel actually in control of my movements and where I'm aiming rather than just waving it around vaguely and dancing about drunkenly. TF2 is actually my favourite multiplayer FPS of all time because of this. I'd put Infinite mechanics on the same level of quality.


My point? All the people going "stop liking this, guys, it has bad mechanics" are simply passing their subjective opinions of what feels right to them off as factual. It doesn't have what you're looking for in an FPS? That doesn't make it a bad FPS, its simply not for you.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
B:I was a fun and exciting ride for me but I ran out of excuses for it pretty soon. The game constantly tells you to think about it (look at these moments and these choices you can make, aren't I deep and meaningful and isn't Elizabeth just so lovely?) and when I finally turned my brain on, I realized the characters aren't believable, their actions don't make sense and happen only to create emotion in the player, your choices have no impact on the outcome and the plot is interesting at first but goes to terrible pretty fast. All I can see are impressive ideas executed poorly, a blown potential, leaving a pretentious shooter.
 

ACman

New member
Apr 21, 2011
629
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
I've got a few: Borderlands 2, Bulletstorm, Crysis 2, Far Cry 3, FEARs 1 and 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2 (crikey, that's a lot of twos.)

If we use the title of First Person Action Adventure, we can add Dishonored to the list.

BI has stiff competition.
Painkiller, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Metro

I personally think from a tightly directed linear FPSs from this year perspective, Metro: Last Light shits all over Bioshock in every way aside from the uniqueness of aesthetic. Last Light suffers when people compare it to Metro 2033 but compared to Bioshock it outclasses it in every respect... Except for the fact that you are not in a fantastical beautiful hyper-stylized city in the clouds accompanied by a beautiful, raven haired girl in a blue dress.
 

Pyrokinesis

New member
Dec 3, 2007
185
0
0
Couldn't you have started off with a less controversial award winner? Now im not sure If I should really believe any of the others that follow this one. From a personal standpoint (opinions incoming) Bioshock infinite was a glued together story that clearly wreaked to death of 2 entirely seperate development cycles being glued together with almost an audible clunk the very moment you "think its over and your on an airship lets make the final decision of where to go" but then the game clunks on over into the dark gritty boring narrative poor/short portion of the game that clearly looks to have been made blind from the entire first half of the development. Almost as if the first half was made after the second half and they were crudely glued together by the falcon strike of plot devices. Elizabeth is the only likeable character who is short sided by the gameplay which basically demeans her and per potential to a vending machine/portal gun that has this insipid habit of throwing change at you after you could have needed it. All to easily going from what should have been a tragic moment for her then suddenly with the utmost of joy "Here you should have this". Booker is so devoid of character almost nothing short of a slave to the plot and the tag along to Elizabeth's story and yet she is still considered the secondary character. His backstory is poorly executed due to his "dimension amnesia", so even he is obvious to who he is making him even less of a character with an arc. Moral choice or even the illusion of choice is comically absent with nothing more that 2 cosmetic changes to show for it. And yet somehow this is whats being held up as the greatest of first person shooter narrative? I hope it was only due to lack of competitors this year.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
Euh ... not exactly.

Elisabeth can open up tears so that Booker can use whatever is on the other side, like ammo caches and the like. However, like that first time with the asian fellar, Elizabeth opens up the portal and tears it open completely so that she and Booker go to the other universe. One where they believe the asian fellar is still alive because he's not sitting in that chair. From the wiki ". Understanding that Elizabeth's powers are not strong enough to allow them reverse passage, they enter a reality where Chen Lin is still alive and married to the sister of Fink's Head of Security, which saved him from the fate he experienced in the other reality. They find this Chen Lin to be disoriented, a side effect of his death in the opposite reality, and decide that retrieving his tools might help."
That's what the wiki says, that doesn't mean that's right. Just because the characters think they "leaped" doesn't mean they did. If there's an explanation that makes the plot work, why wouldn't you choose to go with that explanation? The plot works perfectly if you look at it from the perspective that they weren't "leaping". Even Elizabeth says she's not sure of what she is actually doing a few times during the game.

Ultratwinkie said:
...what? Seriously what?

Console have aim assist. PCs don't.

Killing on console is like killing with an aimbot. Its cheap, and you aren't really playing. Aim assist isn't actual skill.

So yes, you are using an aimbot because that's what aim assist is. Its how you can shoot at long range. Its in every single console game since the 90s.
Not all console shooters have aim-assist. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metal Gear Online have absolutely no aim-assist and the game required headshots to kill other players (watch videos of matches if you want frame-by-frame, there's no aim-assist and players can kill each across the map with headshots just fine). That's how good aiming with a controller can be. Most shooters' aim-assist on a console aren't like COD where it's an aimbot. MoH Warfighter has subtle aim-assist to help stay on enemies running to your right or left. Ghost Recon Future Soldier has the most subtle aim-assist that does what Warfighter does but about 90% less compared to Warfighter to the point where there's basically no aim-assist. Very few shooters' aim-assist has that "snap" to enemy assist that is basically an aimbot. I don't play online shooters with horrible aim-assist like COD and BF. Lastly, it's the developers fault for implementing aim-assist, console players don't need any aim-assist and it actually messes up my shot more than it helps like with Mass Effect, I wish I could turn that shit off.
Oh really? It has NO aim assist?

Then how the hell is there an auto aim option in the options menu? So even MGS4 and MGO have aim assist.

So unless you play ONE game exclusively, you play a game with aim assist. Its endemic on consoles.

And it isn't developers at fault. Its the fact controllers were never meant for precise movement. Their beginnings are traced back to when fighters and simpler games like pacman or space shooters were a staple. Precise aiming wasn't necessary.

360 no scopes were unheard of in that time. It would require a radical redesign of traditional layouts like the steam controller is trying, And companies aren't going to dump that much money or time into a controller. Hell, it works for every other genre on consoles . So it makes no sense to mess with that dynamic just for shooters when aim assist is an option.
 

Extra-Ordinary

New member
Mar 17, 2010
2,065
0
0
Yep, Bioshock Infinite (right next to The Last Of Us) is my absolute Game Of The Year.
I pretty much agree with everything Jim said with one difference: I'm not apologizing. I'm really not going to be sorry for loving a game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Charcharo said:
Then what is the problem of using a M+K? Since your opponents are using it, it would not be easier combat then on a console...

And is not really gonna be a good argument for BI on PC, its a PC game.
I hate using a keyboard, it's made for typing, not gaming. It's digital instead of analog as well. Easier doesn't make it better. For example, Wii Bowling is a better representation of bowling even though you can make bowling in a game easier.
Dont see how it being made for something else is bad really :p .

On the second point though... I dont get it :( . If it was about "better" and more closer to life, then why is CoD more popular then STALKER (BTW STALKER >>>>>>>> Infinite on pretty much all relevant points, even graphics) or ARMA.

Ohh, and I dont get how Infinite does not have competition. Metro: Last Light was a better shooter, with a better story and gameplay.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
i enjoyed this game a lot. i played more then TR and i even payed for the season pass. i played it more then 3 times which i cant say for TR or other games that have some out this year. well, at least on pc.
 

nuttshell

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
Oh, I remember something, I want to add:
About half way through the game, when "nothing makes any sense" really started to get to me, I had the idea, that Booker was crazy and I am experiencing the adventures of a delusional mind. I thought, that would explain the positive reviews that complimented the story and the characters.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Ronack said:
Euh ... not exactly.

Elisabeth can open up tears so that Booker can use whatever is on the other side, like ammo caches and the like. However, like that first time with the asian fellar, Elizabeth opens up the portal and tears it open completely so that she and Booker go to the other universe. One where they believe the asian fellar is still alive because he's not sitting in that chair. From the wiki ". Understanding that Elizabeth's powers are not strong enough to allow them reverse passage, they enter a reality where Chen Lin is still alive and married to the sister of Fink's Head of Security, which saved him from the fate he experienced in the other reality. They find this Chen Lin to be disoriented, a side effect of his death in the opposite reality, and decide that retrieving his tools might help."
That's what the wiki says, that doesn't mean that's right. Just because the characters think they "leaped" doesn't mean they did. If there's an explanation that makes the plot work, why wouldn't you choose to go with that explanation? The plot works perfectly if you look at it from the perspective that they weren't "leaping". Even Elizabeth says she's not sure of what she is actually doing a few times during the game.
But then you still have the issue of the entire city changing because of what she did. Like after that one jump where the entire city is at war with the Vox Populi and Daisy is a psychopath all of a sudden. Or in a more simple matter ... the supplies they were supposed to get. In the other universe, they weren't there anymore. So she pulled an empty room in to their universe? How would she even know that this would automatically transport the supplies to the Vox? Just as easily, there wouldn't even have been supplies in the first place, meaning she screwed over their entire operation.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Thanatos2k said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Full Metal Bolshevik said:
Pc is objectivly superior. Besides, you can use a 360 controller if you dislike the keyboard that much.

I agree that Dishonored powers were overpower, but that's a different issue, it was fun to play and it felt better good.
So you want me to play on a PC with a controller to only end up being at a disadvantage against other players? PC is only objectively better with regards to graphics, which are the least important part of a game. I'm playing Dishonored now, which isn't very good looking but it's a bunch of fun, it can't be much of a looker even with max settings on a PC.
The fact that you admit you have a disadvantage is exactly why it's objectively superior. The point of an FPS game is to point, move, and shoot. Mouse keyboard is the best way to do this in the fastest and most accurate manner. Circle strafing while maintaining aim on a controller is laughable.

Do you play football with one hand tied behind your hand and call it superior? I'm sure you could play football that way, and the players would "get used to it" and even eventually get good at it, but don't pretend it's a better game that way. (Edit: And NO, I'm not talking about soccer!)
Aiming and shooting a real gun is much more difficult than even using a controller.
Um, what.

Playing a shooter on a PC is much easier than using a controller so a shooter is just too easy on a PC. Shooting a gun in PC shooter is further away from shooting an actual gun than using a controller to shoot a gun.
"Easier"? Of course it's easier, that's the whole point of the superior controls! It makes doing what you want (point, shoot) as easy as possible, so your skill determines the outcome! That's the entire basis of multiplayer shooters!

Are you seriously suggesting this is somehow a flaw? What? The whole point of good controls is to make input EASY!

And are you seriously, no joke, suggesting that a console controller is closer to "shooting an actual gun" than using a keyboard and mouse, and this is somehow the INTENDED PURPOSE OF AN FPS VIDEO GAME? I don't even know how to respond to this. Go join the army, it seems that's what you really want.

What about the controller's analog buttons that allowing leaning to not be purely a digital input. A console shooter is objectively better in that regard.
Leaning is a pretty worthless mechanic all told. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Plus it's not a digital input because it's not a binary state. You lean farther the longer you hold down the key on PC, but it's so fast it really doesn't matter, does it? You lean, you sneak a peak or shoot real quick, and then you start moving, because moving is far more important than leaning. If you're leaning, you're not moving, and if you're not moving, you die.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
The combat isn't bad, but cluttered and disorganized is a good way to put it.
Infinite's inventory system is trash I mean it's completely at odds with the structure of the weapon system. Money in Infinite is scarce (Which would be a good thing in any other game) In BSI that leads to the very real possibility that you'll blow all your cash upgrading a weapon you'll never see again Because you're limited to two weapons at a time.
(The thing I did was spend all my money upgrading the Pattywacker Hand Cannon (Because I fucking love that gun) and then I ended up carrying around a gun with no bullets for 2/3 of the game)
Then the problem gets exacerbated around the half way point when when they pile on a bunch of extraneous gun types for no reason.
That's just it: the game forces you to make serious, difficult decisions. If you decide to upgrade a weapon, you need to be good at using it. The truckload of diferrent weapons gives the game variety.


The game expects you to be good, is what I'm saying.

Mikeyfell said:
The two slot limit adds another massive problem because Infinite is designed the same way as the first Bioshock (I mean situational terrain that forces you to modify your play style on the fly) So sometimes you'll want long range weapons, sometimes you'll want to be up close and personal, sometimes you'll want explosives. And in the first Bioshock that worked really well because you could hold all your guns at once. Keep your rockets on reserve for when you need them, use your cross bow at long range, machine gun at mid range, shotgun and wrench at close range.
In infinite you need to be holding the right weapons long before you get to where you need to use them. That's a problem even completely setting aside the upgrade shenanigans.
It's called strategic gameplay. Being able to hold every weapon on you would make the game too easy. By forcing you to make careful preparations before going into every battle, Bioshock Infinite gains almost roguelike complexity. The game constantly forces you to make split-second decision of what weapon you should use based on what youa re fighting and where you are at any given moment.

Mikeyfell said:
Then there are the Vigors (And to be honest I didn't notice this until Campster pointed it out but half the vigors are redundant.
Possession, Return to Sender, Charge, and Undertow are all unique
but Crows, Bronco, Devil's Kiss and Shock all serve the same purpose.
Only if you don't know the game's systems well enough. All these vigors have their own unique purpose, and knowing which one to use at the right time makes all the difference in the world.

Mikeyfell said:
Then you don't get to carry around a supply of Medkits or Salts with you. So if you're in a pickle you're completely at the mercy of a random number generator in a blue dress.
Of course, this only adds difficulty. One of the biggest problems with the original Bioshock was that the game was simply way too easy. Infinite on the other hand is very difficult.

Mikeyfell said:
I don't know about other people, but I never thought the little sisters were well implemented. But Elizabeth isn't better (Mechanically. Narratively she's wonderful)
Liz wasn't optimized for the way Infinite works. In theory, supplies are scarce so she'll throw you ammo, health or Salts. Which she "probably" pulls through tares. But she's finicky and unreliable. (In my playthrough she never once threw me ammo for my Hand Cannon even though I had it for 2/3 of the game. Several times I had a sliver of health or Salt left and had to do a little dance for her amusement before she'd give me anything. (Jump up and down a few times, run around in circles, take a ride on the rails, obnoxious stuff like that. To make matters worse it hardly ever worked)
Well then you were obviously playing the game wrong. You're not supposed to wait around for elisabeth to start feeling sorry for your ass, you are supposed to use your damn skill as a player to conquer the challenges ahead of you. Purposefully waiting around for Elisabeth to give you ammo is akin to outright exploiting the game.

When the game is played correctly, Elisabeth throwing you supplies is unbelievably uplifting experience, and gives you a sense of what a real team the two of you are.

Mikeyfell said:
I wouldn't gush over tears so much. You realize that mechanically they are nothing more than pushing a "use" button to activate an environmental hazard. Which is hardly innovative at all. The most innovative part of the tear system is that you can activate them from the safety of cover or while moving around far away from them.
How are they not innovative? You are freely able to change the very battlefield you fight in in so many ways in an order that best suits your current situation! And the fact that only a single tear may be active at any given time gives a genius risk/reward spin to the mechanic!

You could make an entire video games based on nothing but that!

Mikeyfell said:
You mean all other FPS games this year... not all other narrative focused games this year right?
Hah, good one. What game tells a better story than Bioshock Infinite?
Mikeyfell said:
It's not perfect and it pales in comparison to the original Bioshock. The story's good, if a little silly at the end
This is preposterous, Infinite's story towers over that of the original Bioshock, and is flawless in every way.

Mikeyfell said:
All that said I had fun with the game (In spite of all the stupid fucking design choices, the game is still fun)
But perspective, being "best" only by virtue of "nothing [sub](hardly anything. Paper's Please FTW!)[/sub]else was better" isn't really deserving of an award, is it?
Of course nothing else was better, it will take years until there will be a bettter game than Bioshock Infinite!

Even in competition as strong as the one this year has, it STILL towers over each and every single one of its competitors!

It truly is one of the greatest video games ever made.
 

OldFogeyGamer

New member
Jan 17, 2013
20
0
0
I never paid attention to the pre-release hype of Infinite, so I wasn't let down while playing it (waiting for it to go on sale also helped) and I did enjoy it; I liked Elizabeth's character, loved the distinct lack of DRAMATIC BROWN PALETTE that seems to plague so many other games, and it had an interesting plot... well, until the ending squandered it with a scene that either a) contradicts everything Elizabeth explained about the nature of the alternate universes and creates a paradox or b) doesn't contradict it and means there are an infinite number of alternate realities out there where a decision not to carry out the act is made, thus makes the ending scene completely invalid.

So our reward for playing through is an ending that's either non-nonsensical or irrelevant. Still a better ending than Mass Effect 3 though, so I'll give it that.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
Was looking forward to this awards from you Jim.

It will be glooooooooooooorious! That's a fact!

Bioshock Infinite is one of my favorite games of the year. Definitely in my top 3.
 

FireAza

New member
Aug 16, 2011
584
0
0
While I think Infinite's biggest "dissidence" is the fact you're murdering thousands of police who are just trying to defend Colombia, at least the game kinda attempts to justify it with the "Booker is trying to become a peaceful man, but if often forced to use violence" plot.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
I have to admit that after I read the first few hit-pieces when Bioshock Inf came out, that I did find my view of the game deminish...

But after playing it, and especially after thinking about it, then I very much have to agree with Jim now.

Booker says a certain something at one point in the game. That he is the sort of violent man that our blue-clad female hero needs to be protected from - or something to that effect. It really struck me as telling of them game.

If anything, then there IMO wasn't enough race-violence shown in the game. I mean, the only time I recall seeing white people violently abuse a black person is at that 'wedding' thing with the baseball choice. I honestly think there could have been a few more scripted events of discrimination, not necessarily violent ones, but like a black man or woman being denied access to a shop when you walk by - or similarly with the irish or whatever.

Sure, the game isn't perfect - but my main complaint there is the tonics. They aren't explained, they don't really seem to be used all that much by the people up in the cloud city, so why even have them? Well, because the other bioshock games had them. That's not a good enough explanation.

Also I would have loved to have seen the whole "The city was built by crimping bits of tech from other timelines/dimensions" thing much earlier, since that would have been a very neat thing to work off more.
 

Starker

New member
Mar 17, 2011
47
0
0
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ludonarrative Dissonance & Game Vocabulary Criticism: http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=543
 

wAriot

New member
Jan 18, 2013
174
0
0
I still can't see why people think B:I's story was good.
Protip: it was as bad as the gameplay.

Edit:
109 said:
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
wAriot said:
I still can't see why people think B:I's story was good.
Protip: it was as bad as the gameplay.

Edit:
109 said:
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
Art is inherently subjective, so people will always like things other people can't see the attraction for. Personally, I really enjoyed the story. It's rare that video games manage to achieve anything approaching emotional investment in their characters for me, so the level of desperation I felt when Elizabeth is taken (not to mention how sick I felt at the line "It wasn't the torture that broke me") was something I found to be quite impressive.

Then there's the fact that I was actually quite interested in the parallel universe mechanics, and thought they managed to tie it all up into an ending that was pretty clever and made sense according to the established rules for the setting. The more meta stuff that I've come to expect from the Bioshock series didn't hurt either. And I liked that it didn't explicitly explain the ending, requiring you to have understood enough from the game to put it together yourself. My favourite film (and one of my favourite books) is Cloud Atlas, so I guess I have a thing for stuff like that.

Also, the Leuteces were damned awesome.

I do agree with Jim on this one. Bioshock Infinite was my pick of the year, and one of the more interesting attempts at intelligent storytelling in video games.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Beating the dead horse there Jim. ( or maybe holding your hands against your ears going lalalala ).

I liked Bioshock Infinite, but it IS in fact riddled with ludo-narrative dissonance. Not just because it is "violent"... Get it through that beautifully thick skull of yours!

It's because the narrative and the gameplay contradict and work against each other in many levels!

Sure some of it is the violence, but there is also the Vigors, the weapons (both of which in the context of columbia make little sense), the unexpected contextual reaction of npcs, the rather pointless pseudo side quests and the flow breaking collectibles. But there are also many tonal conflicts, and narrative problems. An amazing amount of padding with a story that goes nowhere just to pick up in the last 30 minutes and then flip sideways into the "I'm super meaningful and smart now" realm (without realising that the implications presented render a lot of the narrative pointless) etc, etc...

As you say there are problems with the game, but recognising it's issues doesn't make it worse... Ludo-Narrative dissonance is almost impossible to avoid on some levels when you are making a game... but the flaws on a great game don't make it bad, they make it distinctive... you of all people should know that, being a game critic and all.

For example, with all it's flaws, I still consider it one of the best and most ambitious of 2013. So that, good going.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
It was a very good game. Solidly written with a vibrant world with a dark underbelly. Good choice.

Though, several of the trailers I see don't exist in the game. I wonder what that's all about.
 

Sutter Cane

New member
Jun 27, 2010
534
0
0
What I find interesting is that a lot of the criticisms I've seen regarding bioshock infinite, were actually basically my thoughts on the first bioshock game. I really wanted to get into that game, but I ended up finding the combat to be really clunky, and felt that the critique of objectivism was incredibly shallow at best, if not barely existent at times. Rapture never really felt to me like it was a world gone mad because of it's objectivism, but rather more like a world gone mad that just happened to be objectivist.
 

wAriot

New member
Jan 18, 2013
174
0
0
Azahul said:
Art is inherently subjective, so people will always like things other people can't see the attraction for. Personally, I really enjoyed the story. It's rare that video games manage to achieve anything approaching emotional investment in their characters for me, so the level of desperation I felt when Elizabeth is taken (not to mention how sick I felt at the line "It wasn't the torture that broke me") was something I found to be quite impressive.

Then there's the fact that I was actually quite interested in the parallel universe mechanics, and thought they managed to tie it all up into an ending that was pretty clever and made sense according to the established rules for the setting. The more meta stuff that I've come to expect from the Bioshock series didn't hurt either. And I liked that it didn't explicitly explain the ending, requiring you to have understood enough from the game to put it together yourself. My favourite film (and one of my favourite books) is Cloud Atlas, so I guess I have a thing for stuff like that.
I have literally read dozens of parallel universes/time travelling stories that (in my and many others opinions) are way better than B:I's, several of them in video games. Plus (and this has already been discussed hundreds of times pretty much everywhere in the internet) B:I's story is far far from perfect. As others have already said here, it has tons of loopholes and plotholes. It's not that the ending isn't explicitly explained, it's that it doesn't make sense (not going to discuss this here, again, because I already did that enough in other places).

Not to mention the fact that, for you, "It's rare that video games manage to achieve anything approaching emotional investment in their characters". Different people, different opinions, but for me Infinite didn't even come close to make me feel as disheartened, or depressed, or happy, or angry, as many other games did.

If this game is the best example the industry has to offer, and is lauded as "the Citizen Kane of video games" by so many people, it's no wonder that no outsider considers this hobby a serious one.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
Even if you avoided GTA V's spoilers, you couldn't avoid GTA IS THE BEST THING EVARR!!

I'm sorry, but asking me to 'not look at those threads' would be impossible unless I just didn't go on most gaming websites on the internet for two months. Even in threads which don't involve the best game ever get intruded by mentions of the best game ever.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
wAriot said:
Azahul said:
Art is inherently subjective, so people will always like things other people can't see the attraction for. Personally, I really enjoyed the story. It's rare that video games manage to achieve anything approaching emotional investment in their characters for me, so the level of desperation I felt when Elizabeth is taken (not to mention how sick I felt at the line "It wasn't the torture that broke me") was something I found to be quite impressive.

Then there's the fact that I was actually quite interested in the parallel universe mechanics, and thought they managed to tie it all up into an ending that was pretty clever and made sense according to the established rules for the setting. The more meta stuff that I've come to expect from the Bioshock series didn't hurt either. And I liked that it didn't explicitly explain the ending, requiring you to have understood enough from the game to put it together yourself. My favourite film (and one of my favourite books) is Cloud Atlas, so I guess I have a thing for stuff like that.
I have literally read dozens of parallel universes/time travelling stories that (in my and many others opinions) are way better than B:I's, several of them in video games. Plus (and this has already been discussed hundreds of times pretty much everywhere in the internet) B:I's story is far far from perfect. As others have already said here, it has tons of loopholes and plotholes. It's not that the ending isn't explicitly explained, it's that it doesn't make sense (not going to discuss this here, again, because I already did that enough in other places).

Not to mention the fact that, for you, "It's rare that video games manage to achieve anything approaching emotional investment in their characters". Different people, different opinions, but for me Infinite didn't even come close to make me feel as disheartened, or depressed, or happy, or angry, as many other games did.

If this game is the best example the industry has to offer, and is lauded as "the Citizen Kane of video games" by so many people, it's no wonder that no outsider considers this hobby a serious one.
That part you quoted ended in the words "for me". Everything I said was just my opinion. I like it, and I disagree with the assertion that it has anything like major plot holes. Still, the overall message of what I said was that it boils down to personal like or dislike. I have friends that think Citizen Kane is a load of twaddle. I happen to like it. Different things appeal to different people, even the best things don't appeal to everyone, which is something I feel you are missing with the way you dismiss the game in your final paragraph.
 

Simple Bluff

New member
Dec 30, 2009
582
0
0
I thought the mechanics were pretty good, for the most part. The sky rail gimmick was kinda fun and fit into the world nicely, even if the novelty wore off relatively quick. I still didn't like the combat though because of how horribly paced it was. It was just one fight after another after another after another - which probably wouldn't be such a terrible thing if the enemies weren't such effective bullet sponges. I really don't know why the game felt that every. Single. Fucking. Plot point had to be separated by two or three shooting arenas. As I said, I liked the mechanics but it was over saturated.
The problem is especially evident near the end of the game when you have to fight a boss on three separate occasions, getting more unreasonably bullet spongy each time you do it, while also fighting off a horde of mooks. I have no bloody idea why they decided to do that either, the fact that the boss was annoyably unkillable wasn't relative to the plot as far as I remember.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
Even if you avoided GTA V's spoilers, you couldn't avoid GTA IS THE BEST THING EVARR!!

I'm sorry, but asking me to 'not look at those threads' would be impossible unless I just didn't go on most gaming websites on the internet for two months. Even in threads which don't involve the best game ever get intruded by mentions of the best game ever.
I guess I dont see what the big deal is. I didnt likr Dark Souls, but I didnt try to ruin it for everyone who did, or make them feel bad about it.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
Even if you avoided GTA V's spoilers, you couldn't avoid GTA IS THE BEST THING EVARR!!

I'm sorry, but asking me to 'not look at those threads' would be impossible unless I just didn't go on most gaming websites on the internet for two months. Even in threads which don't involve the best game ever get intruded by mentions of the best game ever.
I guess I dont see what the big deal is. I didnt likr Dark Souls, but I didnt try to ruin it for everyone who did, or make them feel bad about it.
People are crueller than you are, then. Hearing "best thing ever" only to play it and realise that it's not the best thing ever pretty much justifies spouting your opinion rather than being forced to swallow all the perfect scores, rave reviews and what not. If people are fine with somebody saying "best thing ever" then those same people should be fine with "it's actually pretty shit".
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
Even if you avoided GTA V's spoilers, you couldn't avoid GTA IS THE BEST THING EVARR!!

I'm sorry, but asking me to 'not look at those threads' would be impossible unless I just didn't go on most gaming websites on the internet for two months. Even in threads which don't involve the best game ever get intruded by mentions of the best game ever.
I guess I dont see what the big deal is. I didnt likr Dark Souls, but I didnt try to ruin it for everyone who did, or make them feel bad about it.
People are crueller than you are, then. Hearing "best thing ever" only to play it and realise that it's not the best thing ever pretty much justifies spouting your opinion rather than being forced to swallow all the perfect scores, rave reviews and what not. If people are fine with somebody saying "best thing ever" then those same people should be fine with "it's actually pretty shit".
If you say so. Most of it seems a bit hyperbolic though, from what I've seen. Like they're trying to get their disdain to match other people's enthusiasm. I just don't see the point. Like, why bother? A discussion about the pros and cons of the game is one thing, and a perfectly valid place to air your grievances, but if it's just people gushing about the game, you just kind of look like an ass. You're not going to change their mind, so you're only going in there to kill their high, you know?
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Evonisia said:
Mcoffey said:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.
Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).
Why not just not read those threads or news stories? I'm still avoiding Spoilers for GTA V since I haven't played it yet, and I've found it easy enough.

It just kind of sounds like those people are just raining on everyone else's parade.
Even if you avoided GTA V's spoilers, you couldn't avoid GTA IS THE BEST THING EVARR!!

I'm sorry, but asking me to 'not look at those threads' would be impossible unless I just didn't go on most gaming websites on the internet for two months. Even in threads which don't involve the best game ever get intruded by mentions of the best game ever.
I guess I dont see what the big deal is. I didnt likr Dark Souls, but I didnt try to ruin it for everyone who did, or make them feel bad about it.
People are crueller than you are, then. Hearing "best thing ever" only to play it and realise that it's not the best thing ever pretty much justifies spouting your opinion rather than being forced to swallow all the perfect scores, rave reviews and what not. If people are fine with somebody saying "best thing ever" then those same people should be fine with "it's actually pretty shit".
If you say so. Most of it seems a bit hyperbolic though, from what I've seen. Like they're trying to get their disdain to match other people's enthusiasm. I just don't see the point. Like, why bother? A discussion about the pros and cons of the game is one thing, and a perfectly valid place to air your grievances, but if it's just people gushing about the game, you just kind of look like an ass. You're not going to change their mind, so you're only going in there to kill their high, you know?
Right, it might also be to tell them that they're wrong about Point A, B or C (like for example somebody saying that BioShock: Infinite has no plot holes and therefore it's story is good/well put together).

It's frankly immature and I don't exactly say that I don't partake in it. When their high is obnoxious and dumb, killing it almost seems to appease some instinct inside you that tells you to stop the nearby annoyance from being annoying.
 

Advancedcaveman

New member
Feb 9, 2011
13
0
0
Here's the deal; I can't play Bioshock Infinite for more than about 15 minutes at a time, whereas System Shock 2 and Bioshock 1 I can't stop playing for hours at a time.

Bioshock Infinite is horribly tedious to play. It has awful linear modern level design where you're basically just walking down a pipe. You get into bigger arenas than most modern shooters, but the fact of the matter is you're still being locked in stupid little combat arenas where you have to kill every enemy and finish every wave until you are given special permission to move on. The movement speed is irritatingly slow, I have to keep pressing the sprint button EVERY SINGLE time I start moving. Why do we need this extra step added to a simple action? Why can't I just run around quickly all the time without having to press an extra button? The weapons are all boring standard issue guns that all basically have the same level of effectiveness and the same goes for the vigors. It doesn't matter what I use because nothing is specialized and the combat is so constrained and choreographed that it doesn't really matter either way.

Bioshock 1 and System Shock 2 have non linear level design, especially SS2. You can be in a room and there will be 3 paths leading off to separate interconnected parts of the level. There's no corralling; you just organically encounter enemies in levels. You can retreat and double back around through the non linear space of the environment to fight enemies. You can avoid enemies entirely. You can approach them from different locations and set up traps. Enemies behave dynamically; they will retreat from you, they can heal themselves at health stations. You aren't forced to tediously shoot waves of attackers in a little combat corral. The combat is actually fun and varied on a moment to moment basis. The weapons are fun and diverse; they aren't just bog standard snooze-fest guns. There's more specificity and individualization to the weapons and powers, so choosing to use one over the other makes a tangible impact.

Jim Sterling's thoughts on Bioshock Infinite have nothing to do with the actual game. I like story and I care about presentation, but these are video games. I have to play them; I don't idly watch them like movies. Or am I supposed to just watch games on twitch now? Everyone has being going on and on endlessly about livestreaming and let's plays for the past 3 months so is that where we're at now?
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
109 said:
That's just it: the game forces you to make serious, difficult decisions. If you decide to upgrade a weapon, you need to be good at using it. The truckload of diferrent weapons gives the game variety.


The game expects you to be good, is what I'm saying.
It forces you to make uninformed decisions. (Which are very difficult, at least on your first run) And checkpoint saves make this all the worse, when you realize you screwed up and have to look for better guns.
The extra weapon types don't add any variety to the game because most of them are completely interchangeable with their counterpart.
Like the burst gun and the carbine, there's no reason to use one over the other
same with the heater and the shotgun, the Vox weapons only serve to clutter the upgrade pool. (Which does make the game harder...)

If you decide to upgrade a weapon, you need to be good at using it.
then you said this which confuses the crap out of me.
They just stop giving you ammo for certain guns during some points in the game. It doesn't matter how good you are, if your gun is empty you're not doing damage.

It's called strategic gameplay. Being able to hold every weapon on you would make the game too easy. By forcing you to make careful preparations before going into every battle, Bioshock Infinite gains almost roguelike complexity. The game constantly forces you to make split-second decision of what weapon you should use based on what youa re fighting and where you are at any given moment.
Again it's called uninformed decision making. If they gave you some arcade style flyover of the level before making you choose which weapons you wanted then it would be strategic.
Or if they placed enough different types of weapons around the map so you could modify your strategy on the fly.
for example, did you ever waste an inventory slot on a rocket launcher? Did you ever need a rocket launcher immediately after finding one?
Did you ever get stuck fighting a handyman with an empty hand cannon and a sniper rifle?

Bioshock isn't a Rougelike your checkpoints reload with the same equipment you had when you saved. If you don't have the right gear for the challenge (and it's not lying around on the battlefield) you're kind of fucked.
I know that makes the game hard, but it's hard for the wrong reasons.
There's a difference between challenging and frustrating
Dark Souls is the hardest game I've ever played but it's never frustrating because the game is designed so well.
Bioshock Infinite is hard, but only because they don't give you any time to prepare, and only limited opportunity to change your tactics mid battle.

Only if you don't know the game's systems well enough. All these vigors have their own unique purpose, and knowing which one to use at the right time makes all the difference in the world.
It would be nice if you'd explain the difference instead of just insinuating that I don't understand.
Crows, Shock and Bronco all stun
Crows Shock and Devil's kiss all stun and do DOT
Crows Bronco and Devil's Kiss all chain effects
All 4 of them can be used to set traps
Crows has the largest AOE and the longest stun duration
Devil's Kiss does the most DOT
Bronco + Charge offers a great 1 hit Kill for most enemies
Unless there's a special combo vigor you like to use there's no reason to use anything but Crows

Of course, this only adds difficulty. One of the biggest problems with the original Bioshock was that the game was simply way too easy. Infinite on the other hand is very difficult.
Yes, bad design adds difficulty. (I'm beginning to see where you're coming from on this)
You're allowed to like it for being hard because of design issues, but calling it "good" isn't productive.
The game would be really hard if there was a glitch that made the enemies immortal for random intervals of time.
It would be harder if Elizabeth stood in front of you constantly blocking your field of view
It would be harder if the draw distance was only 6 feet.
These things don't make the game "better"

Well then you were obviously playing the game wrong. You're not supposed to wait around for elisabeth to start feeling sorry for your ass, you are supposed to use your damn skill as a player to conquer the challenges ahead of you. Purposefully waiting around for Elisabeth to give you ammo is akin to outright exploiting the game.

When the game is played correctly, Elisabeth throwing you supplies is unbelievably uplifting experience, and gives you a sense of what a real team the two of you are.
That's fair, but the game already so finicky about giving you supplies.
A good way to compensate for that would have been to drop the weapon upgrades from the game. That way it would seem like you were supposed to be constantly switching out weapons for ones with more ammo (Like Halo Reach!)
Luck is not a good mechanic to base a game around, especially when there's no reliable way to avoid damage. (Yes I brought up the Hitscan thing)
(You're not really a team, because there's no way to tell her what to do. If you could call her up to give you health or ammo (With like a cool down meeter on her) That would be a good use for her)

How are they not innovative? You are freely able to change the very battlefield you fight in in so many ways in an order that best suits your current situation! And the fact that only a single tear may be active at any given time gives a genius risk/reward spin to the mechanic!

You could make an entire video games based on nothing but that!
You're arguing that environmental hazards are innovative?
You can also use tears to get health, but that's still just pushing a use button to drop health packs.
Sorry, but you're just wrong about this one.

This is preposterous, Infinite's story towers over that of the original Bioshock, and is flawless in every way.
Did you not even read the thing I spoiler tagged?
Well, Last of Us for one. (That was the best story of the year.
Tales of Xillia
Wolf Among Us
Walking Dead 400 days
Walking Dead season 2 just came out
Most likely several of those Indy Horror games Jim gushes over so much like Amnesia A Machine for Pigs.

BSI isn't perfect. It's quite silly (Well presented sillyness, but still silly.

Of course nothing else was better, it will take years until there will be a bettter game than Bioshock Infinite!

Even in competition as strong as the one this year has, it STILL towers over each and every single one of its competitors!

It truly is one of the greatest video games ever made.
Feel free to think that...
 

jomipira

New member
Nov 29, 2013
1
0
0
The problem with Bioshock Infinite is not ludo narrative bablebuffleguz, it's that is a world set behind a window, a carousel that let's you look at the figurines for too long, until you realize that they are made of wood. It's a turn off to mingle with the crowd and have them look at you with that blank stare. And that ending is absolute bullshit. No spoilers, so I won't dig into it too long...
 

Sande45

New member
Mar 28, 2011
120
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Really don't see what others hate in the combat...
Typical combat scenario in Infinite:
You enter an area that is clearly designed as a combat arena and not, you know, part of an actual city. After you step over an invisible barrier, shitloads of enemies star pouring in and the only thing left to do is just kill them all. Thats it.

Typical combat scenario in Bioshock 1:
You have a section to move through. There are some enemies wandering around. Thanks to the ample tools handed to you in form of your weaponry, gene tonics, level design and AI you can approach the situation in an abundance of ways. Sneaking through undetected, killing a Big Daddy in an instant without firing a single shot, hacking the security to turn the tables in your favor... It all feels like the player has a say in how things play out and a chance to plan their approach.

It's not that Infinite's combat was dull per se (definitely not compared to COD and the like), but as a sequel to Bioshock, it just feels lacking in so many ways.
 

Xdeser2

New member
Aug 11, 2012
465
0
0
Jesus Jim, don't you know your not allowed to like Bioshock Infinite on the internet because Totalbiscuit said it sucked, and its not enough like a 90's PC shooter? Gawd....

Ok, honestly, I loved Bioshock Infinite

I had no problems with the gameplay, even though I agree thats definitely not the standout part of the game. I really enjoyed the story, characters, writing and atmosphere, and it personally bugs me to hear people say "Oh those don't count" when they're just as much a part of the game as the gunplay is.

I have to agree with Jim here, this is typical elietist backlash because of the release blitz of good publicity. it's a bunch of people thinking they're smart because they bleet the refrain "Modern shooters suck" and nitpick the shit out of this game for things that are common in others.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
109 said:
And really, of these hipsters claiming with their non-points that there is even a single flaw in Bioshock Infinite, it's all just patently absurd, ridiculous and laughable to anyone with taste and a true love for the medium of gaming.

Is there a single first-person shooter released this generation that is more fun to play than Bioshock Infinite?

Is there a single game, of any kind, released this generation, or heck, EVER, that tells a more intelligent, complex and compelling story, heck, has there ever even been a game simply more intelligent, than Bioshock Infinite?

Is there a single game released this year that deserves the title of Game of the Year more than Bioshock Infinite?

Is there a single game that deserves universal praise any more than Bioshock Infinite?

Of course not.

Jim, if you are reading this, do not give these troglodytes the time of day. You and I, and everyone who adores this game, we are the ones who are right.

History will forget these scum, and all that they have to say.

Meanwhile, Bioshock Infinite will go down in history as one of the shining examples of what the medium of video games can accomplish.
I accept your love of Infinite, though not the attitude.
As for the games...
Better (IMO) FPS this year : Metro Last Light. By a wide margin. Best FPS this year.
Better storyline : The Stanley Parable. Many other games too.
Best in generation: STALKER.
GOTY: Metro: Last Light, The Stanley Parable :p . A few others as well, but those were my own GOTY choices.
And no. Neither you nor I say what deserves the recognition it gets. Nothing is perfect, and Infinite is not even close (though nothing EVER is). Love it? That is great, especially if you can form it into an argument and an analysis on why you love it. Hate it? That too is fine, though hating a game is kinda absurd :D .
So chill out and vote Metro for GOTY :) :D .
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
But Jim, didn't you realize? THIS GAME IS RAAAAAAACIIIIISSSST and you're part of the patriarchy for putting it on your liiist!

http://designislaw.tumblr.com/post/70292634713/the-allegiance-of-whiteness-the-games-village-of
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Oh really? It has NO aim assist?

Then how the hell is there an auto aim option in the options menu? So even MGS4 and MGO have aim assist.

So unless you play ONE game exclusively, you play a game with aim assist. Its endemic on consoles.

And it isn't developers at fault. Its the fact controllers were never meant for precise movement. Their beginnings are traced back to when fighters and simpler games like pacman or space shooters were a staple. Precise aiming wasn't necessary.

360 no scopes were unheard of in that time. It would require a radical redesign of traditional layouts like the steam controller is trying, And companies aren't going to dump that much money or time into a controller. Hell, it works for every other genre on consoles . So it makes no sense to mess with that dynamic just for shooters when aim assist is an option.
Auto-aim is different than aim-assist, auto-aim is a lock-on that only would lock-on to enemies about 5m away (varied based on your gun but most ARs were about 5m). Auto-aim would not get you headshots, it was only body shots so any headshot kills were aimed and most kills in any match were via the headshot. Also, you could make your own room and turn off auto-aim if you wanted so no one could use it, which most people did.

I literally played MGO for 4 years straight, every fucking week. Most of my online gaming time spent this gen (last gen I guess) was spent playing a shooter with no aim-assist on a console. You can get extremely good at aiming with a controller, I can turn around and headshot someone shooting at my back in less than a second. It is developers' fault for putting aim-assist into their games because console players don't need it (check out my Youtube for Ghost Recon matches, I got like 100 of them up, I don't have any issue aiming with a controller). In fact, aim-assist fucks me up more than it helps because I know immediately if my aim is off so I'm correcting myself along with the aim-assist correcting me so double correction results in not helping but hurting. Most online shooters don't have aim-assist like COD of BF, most shooters are a lot more subtle and don't "snap to" an enemy at all so it's nothing like an aimbot.

Charcharo said:
Phoenixmgs said:
I hate using a keyboard, it's made for typing, not gaming. It's digital instead of analog as well. Easier doesn't make it better. For example, Wii Bowling is a better representation of bowling even though you can make bowling in a game easier.
Dont see how it being made for something else is bad really :p .

On the second point though... I dont get it :( . If it was about "better" and more closer to life, then why is CoD more popular then STALKER (BTW STALKER >>>>>>>> Infinite on pretty much all relevant points, even graphics) or ARMA.

Ohh, and I dont get how Infinite does not have competition. Metro: Last Light was a better shooter, with a better story and gameplay.
Analog buttons are better than digital buttons for gaming, thus a keyboard's keys are worse than the PS controller's buttons, even the d-pad is analog. Plus an analog stick for movement is great, you don't need to use over 4 buttons just for movement. You can map everything to the analog stick including running and slow walking, I very much hate sprint buttons in any game, it's useless and a waste of a button.

I was just saying the controller makes shooting have at least some difficulty to it whereas the mouse is too easy. I'd rather play a racing game with a good steering wheel than an analog stick even if the analog stick is easier to drive with.

When did I say Infinite doesn't have competition? I recall saying Infinite stands out from MOST FPSs and shooters due to having powers, gear, and to a lesser extent the skyrails. Saying Infinite is just another FPS is kinda stupid since it's not a modern military shooter like MOST shooters.

Ronack said:
But then you still have the issue of the entire city changing because of what she did. Like after that one jump where the entire city is at war with the Vox Populi and Daisy is a psychopath all of a sudden. Or in a more simple matter ... the supplies they were supposed to get. In the other universe, they weren't there anymore. So she pulled an empty room in to their universe? How would she even know that this would automatically transport the supplies to the Vox? Just as easily, there wouldn't even have been supplies in the first place, meaning she screwed over their entire operation.
She is able to pull over whatever she needs to. If you look at it as them moving into different universes, nothing makes sense. Once going through the 1st tear, their deal with Daisy is off because the new Daisy has no clue about any deal with Booker. Plus, Comstock would have his own Elizabeth so why would he be hunting down Booker and Elizabeth if he had an Elizabeth?

---

Thanatos2k said:
"Easier"? Of course it's easier, that's the whole point of the superior controls! It makes doing what you want (point, shoot) as easy as possible, so your skill determines the outcome! That's the entire basis of multiplayer shooters!

Are you seriously suggesting this is somehow a flaw? What? The whole point of good controls is to make input EASY!

And are you seriously, no joke, suggesting that a console controller is closer to "shooting an actual gun" than using a keyboard and mouse, and this is somehow the INTENDED PURPOSE OF AN FPS VIDEO GAME? I don't even know how to respond to this. Go join the army, it seems that's what you really want.

What about the controller's analog buttons that allowing leaning to not be purely a digital input. A console shooter is objectively better in that regard.
Leaning is a pretty worthless mechanic all told. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Plus it's not a digital input because it's not a binary state. You lean farther the longer you hold down the key on PC, but it's so fast it really doesn't matter, does it? You lean, you sneak a peak or shoot real quick, and then you start moving, because moving is far more important than leaning. If you're leaning, you're not moving, and if you're not moving, you die.
There's a point where controls can make it too easy. I find no challenge in playing a shooter on a PC. I'd rather play a racing game with a steering wheel even if using a controller is easier. I love bowling but I barely play any bowling games because they are just too easy where you can set the exact angle and power so you can roll the same ball over and over again, it's not fun. Wii Bowling was actually pretty good in that regard of not being that easy, but it was still a bit too easy since you do set the angle instead of your arm's swing.

Leaning is awesome, I constantly lean on Warfighter and I consistently win gunfights because of it. The best player in the game said he hated playing against me the most because I'm always leaning and sliding. And, by the way, I don't really use the lean to lean around walls, I lean in the open to adjust my aim and to dodge enemy shots. With leaning I don't get the added recoil that actual moving and shooting causes, and I use the highest recoil gun in the game. What if I want to lean the max leaning distance right away? I can do that on a controller but not a keyboard.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Auto-aim is different than aim-assist, auto-aim is a lock-on that only would lock-on to enemies about 5m away (varied based on your gun but most ARs were about 5m). Auto-aim would not get you headshots, it was only body shots so any headshot kills were aimed and most kills in any match were via the headshot. Also, you could make your own room and turn off auto-aim if you wanted so no one could use it, which most people did.

I literally played MGO for 4 years straight, every fucking week. Most of my online gaming time spent this gen (last gen I guess) was spent playing a shooter with no aim-assist on a console. You can get extremely good at aiming with a controller, I can turn around and headshot someone shooting at my back in less than a second. It is developers' fault for putting aim-assist into their games because console players don't need it (check out my Youtube for Ghost Recon matches, I got like 100 of them up, I don't have any issue aiming with a controller). In fact, aim-assist fucks me up more than it helps because I know immediately if my aim is off so I'm correcting myself along with the aim-assist correcting me so double correction results in not helping but hurting. Most online shooters don't have aim-assist like COD of BF, most shooters are a lot more subtle and don't "snap to" an enemy at all so it's nothing like an aimbot.

Analog buttons are better than digital buttons for gaming, thus a keyboard's keys are worse than the PS controller's buttons, even the d-pad is analog. Plus an analog stick for movement is great, you don't need to use over 4 buttons just for movement. You can map everything to the analog stick including running and slow walking, I very much hate sprint buttons in any game, it's useless and a waste of a button.

I was just saying the controller makes shooting have at least some difficulty to it whereas the mouse is too easy. I'd rather play a racing game with a good steering wheel than an analog stick even if the analog stick is easier to drive with.

When did I say Infinite doesn't have competition? I recall saying Infinite stands out from MOST FPSs and shooters due to having powers, gear, and to a lesser extent the skyrails. Saying Infinite is just another FPS is kinda stupid since it's not a modern military shooter like MOST shooters.

Ronack said:
But then you still have the issue of the entire city changing because of what she did. Like after that one jump where the entire city is at war with the Vox Populi and Daisy is a psychopath all of a sudden. Or in a more simple matter ... the supplies they were supposed to get. In the other universe, they weren't there anymore. So she pulled an empty room in to their universe? How would she even know that this would automatically transport the supplies to the Vox? Just as easily, there wouldn't even have been supplies in the first place, meaning she screwed over their entire operation.
She is able to pull over whatever she needs to. If you look at it as them moving into different universes, nothing makes sense. Once going through the 1st tear, their deal with Daisy is off because the new Daisy has no clue about any deal with Booker. Plus, Comstock would have his own Elizabeth so why would he be hunting down Booker and Elizabeth if he had an Elizabeth?

---

Thanatos2k said:
"Easier"? Of course it's easier, that's the whole point of the superior controls! It makes doing what you want (point, shoot) as easy as possible, so your skill determines the outcome! That's the entire basis of multiplayer shooters!

Are you seriously suggesting this is somehow a flaw? What? The whole point of good controls is to make input EASY!

And are you seriously, no joke, suggesting that a console controller is closer to "shooting an actual gun" than using a keyboard and mouse, and this is somehow the INTENDED PURPOSE OF AN FPS VIDEO GAME? I don't even know how to respond to this. Go join the army, it seems that's what you really want.

What about the controller's analog buttons that allowing leaning to not be purely a digital input. A console shooter is objectively better in that regard.
Leaning is a pretty worthless mechanic all told. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Plus it's not a digital input because it's not a binary state. You lean farther the longer you hold down the key on PC, but it's so fast it really doesn't matter, does it? You lean, you sneak a peak or shoot real quick, and then you start moving, because moving is far more important than leaning. If you're leaning, you're not moving, and if you're not moving, you die.
Ohh these control arguments always confuse me, I just do fine no matter what I have to use. Manly, deal with it way :D .
Only hate being limited. Ergo : being able to use both => better in my eyes.

Still, I dont get your problem, because if its a single player game, you WONT have a problem using the controler. If it is a multiplayer game, and you believe the controler is going to handycap you, why not use the Mouse and Keyboard. It wont be easier, since most of your opponents will use it and again skill is what will matter, not controls.

Also, I use a Xbox 360 controler for my PC, did not notice a problem with movement on it or the keyboard :( . Both seem to work about the same effectively.

As for Infinite's own gameplay quirks... both the gear and powers and skyrails are good ideas (though not revolutionary) but they were underused/underdeveloped. Which is a damn shame. Not as much as the uninspired tears though...