Jimquisition: Jimquisition Awards 2013 - BioShock Infinite

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
3,257
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
581
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.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
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".
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
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

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
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.
 

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.