true, the guns sounded great but i usually don't count this as a gameplay aspect and more as part of the "look" of the game. What bugged me later on so much was that normal enemies soak up so much gunfire unless you go for headshots that the guns felt too weak. And yes, the skyhooks were great and fighting the handymen was fun because they were the only enemies that posed an actual threat but they were few and far between.shrekfan246 said:Well, on the PC at least, the sound assets for the guns were absolutely phenomenal, making even the pathetic little starting pistols feel like they had a hell of an impact to them. Compare to the first Bioshock or many other pseudo-realistic shooters, where the guns feel like they might as well be shooting wads of paper. I also loved the skyhook, and the larger areas that had you jumping to and from the skylines to various different sections of the arena for better vantage points or to escape Handymen.
Really, apart from level design, I can't think of a single technical aspect of Infinite that was worse than Bioshock. The first Bioshock has the worst gameplay in the franchise so far.
yeah ludocreative discodance is the flavor of the year. It never bugged me that you fight your way through the city, I just would have hoped for something more creative than shooting through hordes of enemies with a huge array of guns and superpowers. I always have to compare the game to system shock 2, where the gameplay worked so perfectly to enforce the atmosphere and setting. And yes, i am totally holding that game to a higher standard than i would other games.Nope.and didn't it bother you that scavenging for resources and murdering everybody you meet make no sense if the game world is in ruins and/or overrun by zombie monsters? or that the tonics don't make a lot of sense except that it's what people expected from a Bioshock game.
I could leave it at that, but this is The Escapist, where apparently "ludonarrative dissonance" and the actual creator's vision for canon are cause for outrage among the consumers, so I'll attempt to clarify.
It's a game. Not only is it a game, it's a game that takes place in a city floating in the sky. I can suspend my disbelief about the introduction of tonics to said city when there was no reason for them to exist, or for running around collecting money and bits and bobs for health or ammo. Especially since they're usually the player's choice. And you don't murder everyone you meet, which in my mind was a marked improvement over the first Bioshock. I absolutely adored the juxtaposition between shoot-fests and suddenly being in a crowded market and arcade next to a pleasant beach. Or the bar where you can go downstairs to play the guitar while Elizabeth sings, where the people only become aggressive if you've been aggressive first, or 'trespass' on their little sections for the sake of item collection.
sure infinite allowed for more movement than your average shooter these days but i kinda grew up when rocket jumping was a legitimate form of movement and you were running at ridiculous speeds so that kinda doesn't do it for me.It had a freedom of movement that I don't generally find from "bunny-hopping" games or "brown is so real" games, combined with a regenerating shield that was a buffer between the need to gather health packs and a weapon and ammo limitation that often meant needing to race around the arenas in the middle of a firefight to find another weapon with ammo so you didn't die (or racing to a vendor if you had enough money). Mix in the gun + tonic dual-wield from Bioshock 2 for smoother combat with some truly wonderful tonics like Bucking Bronco, and yeah, to me it did feel like something fairly special.i get that the gameplay is enjoyable, i liked about the first half before it got tedious but i if you say you loved the gameplay i guess it must have had something special.
I'll freely acknowledge that other people may not share the same opinions or have even gotten the same impression of the game as I did, but the Bioshock series has always felt like a great compromise between "old-school" and "new-school" shooter designs to me, and as such I enjoy it far more than the likes of Doom, Serious Sam, Quake, or Wolfenstein and the likes of Call of Duty, Killzone, Gears of War, or Crysis.
Yeah, something about this thread is almost therapeutic. I love playing games back in the day but in hindsight I simply can't tolerate some of the shortcomings of gaming that I thought was fine back then.Raggedstar said:I was waiting for a thread like this.
Expansions Packs?! really that's one think I want to make a return. I who take them over microtransactions and costume DLCIhateregistering1 said:-Expansion packs (this is what we had to rely on before DLC).
-In RTS games, putting limits on the number of units you could select at once. Also, not being able to queue units at a production facility.
-For some reason, in old school shooters, climbing down ladders was often incredibly difficult, and half the time when you tried to use them you'd just fall off.
Well, what I meant is how you used to have to go out and actually buy the whole damn expansion pack on a separate disc, as opposed to now, where you can simply download it. And I like how DLC can either be something small (a new suit of armor, a few weapons) or huge (a whole new campaign).Ml33tninja said:Expansions Packs?! really that's one think I want to make a return. I who take them over microtransactions and costume DLCIhateregistering1 said:-Expansion packs (this is what we had to rely on before DLC).
-In RTS games, putting limits on the number of units you could select at once. Also, not being able to queue units at a production facility.
-For some reason, in old school shooters, climbing down ladders was often incredibly difficult, and half the time when you tried to use them you'd just fall off.