Zero Punctuation: BioShock: Infinite
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, I nearly forgot. One of my my favorite things about this game is that when you launch it on a PS3, the first thing you see is a warning about the hazards of the Playstation Move, and how annoying it is to set up. It's essentially an anti-advertisement, saying "Whatever you do, don't buy a Playstation Move!"
I really don't know what your problem is? Yes Google ?times-out? all the time hence the 5 minutes now I may have neglected to say that I have to hit the "f5" key a couple of times. But that is like saying you have to chew your food. Obviously the connection is good at times but most of the time I am lucky if I get to log in without a time out.Aardvaarkman said:
Sorry, let me clarify that. In Bioshock the plasmids are dangerous substances with negative side effects (turning people into splicers). Now most modern economies go for a free market approach (to widely vary degrees of course), but just because its a free market doesn't mean there are some limits, I can't for example go into a store and buy a nuke for what should be fairly obvious reasons.DjinnFor said:
Now in a regular (non extremist objectivist) society plasmids, with their negative side effects, would be a controlled substance. But in Bioshock because Ryan is so determined to keep the government from interfering with trade he refuses to do so. As a result, short sightedness in the population causes an arms race as people splice more and more to keep ahead (as I recall because of the rioting and civil war). Thus leading to most of the population descending into splicers and Ryan eventually needing to release the gas that lets him control them, thus reinforcing the central irony. That in his quest to be totally Objectivist he became a dictator.
So your right, short sightedness is a problem in any society, but one of the ideas the game explores is that an objectivist society that embraces the philosophy to an extreme will see that problem come to the forefront.
Not saying the game is right one way or the other, just explaining what the game was going for IMO and just praising it for tying a central game mechanic to its story.
I personally really like this interpretation, because a.) it doesn't have a bunch of loose ends like "What about the other elizabeth?" and "How is it that songbird is still hunting you?", b.) It doesn't feel like you left the universe you started out in 3 universes back and never went back(of course, at the end it doesn't really mater) and finally, c.) it fits in a lot more with the whole "why elizabeth was kept in a tower" thing, because a reality warper who can create a new universe because she wants to is pretty fucking dangerous.Robot Number V said:
To paraphrase Cath from The Last Express, Just because they have a sympathetic cause doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. In real life, a lot of groups that were fighting oppression ended up committing a lot of the same kind of sins once they managed to overthrow their oppressors.boradis said:
One of my favorite examples of this was Max Robespierre, from the French Revolution. The man was a lawyer for basic human rights before the revolution, only to be one of those most responsible for the Reign of Terror, where pretty much anyone who had formerly had any kind of power(the church and the landed) ended up getting their heads cut off(regardless if they had committed any actual crimes againest the poor).
The revolution will not be civilized, indeed.
I think a lot of hyping this game comes from people who like to think of themselves as clever for understanding the plot twist, and the hate similarily comes from people who like to think of themselves as even more clever for pointing out obvious nitpicks.
Yes, the game's interpretation of the multiple universe theory is shaky, there are certainly plotholes, but I for one did not care while playing it. Sure, after the fact you can sit here and write up a list of inconsistencies, but thats besides the point. The question is do the inconsistencies hurt suspension of disbelief while playing it, and for the overwhelming majority of people, the answer is no.
The whole vigor thing was poorly implemented into the storyline, but then again did it need to? Bioshock 1 build it's storyline around the plasmids, but it wasn't a game about the dangers of biotechnology specifically. The connection between gameplay and story wasn't integral to the game, and neither is the disconnection between the two in Infinite a major problem.
I also don't get why the weapons would have to be anything flashy. Does it matter whether the machine gun shoots wasps or bullets? What matters is that the guns don't all feel the same and allow as many gameplay styles as possible. I think the more important issue is that, due to the shield, long range cover based combat is strictly superior, which renders many of the mid-range weapons (like the standard machine gun) pretty pointless.
The real issue I have with the game is how the combat hurts the pacing of the story. Especially towards the end, where the story picks up a lot of speed, but the battles slow down quite a bit due to the sheer numbers of enemies and appearance of multiple patriots or a Handyman. The worst offender was the battle against Lady Comstock, doing the exact same thing three times in a row. In a game where death has next to no adverse effects, there really is no point in drawing fights out for so long. I assume the developers felt that the playtime really was kind of short for a full price game, and tried to pad it out a bit.
I also didn't like how you basically became a one-man army towards the end, slaughtering enemies left and right. It made me feel a slight disconnect to the combat, and it really did not fit the story all too well. At least in Bioschock 1, you are a genetically engineered superhuman, but in Infinite, you are just a generic soldier. It would have been more believable to have the Vox uprising (it's already a very convenient Rebellion, why not expand on that) do the heavy lifting while you fight key engagements.
So the game had me frustrated at points, the difficulty curve isn't quite perfect, but overall it was just great fun playing it. Engaging story, interesting ideas, good combat. No game is ever perfect, but Infinite is about as good a game as you can ever expect. Everyone feeling disappointed needs to seriously adjust their expectations.
Yes, the game's interpretation of the multiple universe theory is shaky, there are certainly plotholes, but I for one did not care while playing it. Sure, after the fact you can sit here and write up a list of inconsistencies, but thats besides the point. The question is do the inconsistencies hurt suspension of disbelief while playing it, and for the overwhelming majority of people, the answer is no.
The whole vigor thing was poorly implemented into the storyline, but then again did it need to? Bioshock 1 build it's storyline around the plasmids, but it wasn't a game about the dangers of biotechnology specifically. The connection between gameplay and story wasn't integral to the game, and neither is the disconnection between the two in Infinite a major problem.
I also don't get why the weapons would have to be anything flashy. Does it matter whether the machine gun shoots wasps or bullets? What matters is that the guns don't all feel the same and allow as many gameplay styles as possible. I think the more important issue is that, due to the shield, long range cover based combat is strictly superior, which renders many of the mid-range weapons (like the standard machine gun) pretty pointless.
The real issue I have with the game is how the combat hurts the pacing of the story. Especially towards the end, where the story picks up a lot of speed, but the battles slow down quite a bit due to the sheer numbers of enemies and appearance of multiple patriots or a Handyman. The worst offender was the battle against Lady Comstock, doing the exact same thing three times in a row. In a game where death has next to no adverse effects, there really is no point in drawing fights out for so long. I assume the developers felt that the playtime really was kind of short for a full price game, and tried to pad it out a bit.
I also didn't like how you basically became a one-man army towards the end, slaughtering enemies left and right. It made me feel a slight disconnect to the combat, and it really did not fit the story all too well. At least in Bioschock 1, you are a genetically engineered superhuman, but in Infinite, you are just a generic soldier. It would have been more believable to have the Vox uprising (it's already a very convenient Rebellion, why not expand on that) do the heavy lifting while you fight key engagements.
So the game had me frustrated at points, the difficulty curve isn't quite perfect, but overall it was just great fun playing it. Engaging story, interesting ideas, good combat. No game is ever perfect, but Infinite is about as good a game as you can ever expect. Everyone feeling disappointed needs to seriously adjust their expectations.
The problem is that you said it takes 5 minutes to load. That's not what's happening - you appear to be having intermittent connection problems, Loading time doesn't seem to be the main problem. Each time you hit "reload" - the timer starts again. So, while you may have waited 5 minutes to eventually load the page, that doesn't mean it took 5 minutes to load.1rock said:
Hm, maybe it's about cleverness and plot twists, probably it is true for some, but i'd actually point out the second argument of yours, expectations and to that game design.Stephen Sossna said:
Because those are pretty much the actual topics why i'm saying i like the game "overall", but am nit-picking about it so much. The expectations on this one aren't coming out of nowhere! As of Mass Effect (and in special ME3) as a comparison: Mass Effect 3 wasn't "bad", not at all and if it would have stood there not being a sequel and so "hyped", noone would've probably raged about it to begin with, because of that horribly bad and generic designed ending, the developers hyped in advance themselves! But they did and they completely failed to deliver what they were telling us (a complex ending based on all the actions you would have done so far throughout the series), but made a generic "you want the blue, the green, or the red explosion?".
Now looking at Infinite, the problem isn't really the ending that much, partially because Levine promoted it differently and said in advance "it will be special, but i don't know how it will effect the players, if they'll like it or not" (or something like that). I have mixed feelings about the ending, pretty much because all this multidimension-stuff looks kind of messy to me to begin with, but they designed the ending rather well, as narration (even if it suuucks gameplay-wise, considering for about 20mins you have nothing to do but walk after Elisapeth, but whatever).
No, it actually is about ALL the rest of the game! The expectations obviously came from BioShock (and BS2 and for some even from the first titles of the Shock-series) and from what the developers already promoted.
And what is/was all this? Well BioShock already was an awesome game, coming from a studio which was pretty much unknown until then and had produced nothing by themselves so far (though they had allignment with a bigger studio, namely "2K Games"), which made it all the more exciting and i would say comparable to the success of so many indy games: They aren't perfect as well, but they are often made with love, much thought and since they are "fresh", you don't expect anything. So BioShock rocked, because it had great narrative, some of the most amazing characters and icons ever, and some polished shooter/superpower gameplay, though this was neither new, nor really good...
And then (while BS2 was thrown out somewhat "hasty", but i'll just avoid to further include it in this now), they have more experience, more money, more time and more support to produce another game to the series they call "Infinite"!
No wonder expectations had to boom to an immense hype, which the studio obviously used and even incited with trailers of amazingly complex gameplay-design and a deep character relation comparable to just a few titles in games.
And then what?
Most of the exciting stuff in the trailers is gone, the narrative is simply worse designed than those of the former Shock titles, with lots of holes and even some more created by some fan-service they probably saw the need to implement, less deep content, characters and relationships, gone from "here's a mighty, but shady political head figure, threatening/ trying to use a woman with complex powers (close to the later Elizabeth, but with the drawback of endangering her body whenever she would use them) and a man who is torn between using these powers to get out alive and protecting her" to "i'm a religious & racist zealot, everyone understands i'm evil! i'm a depressed, traumatized veteran, trying to 'wipe away some mysterious debt'; and i'm a naive girl who goes from frightened to happy to misstrusting to trusting within minutes, because that's what girls do" (though this is only pointing out the "badly" designed parts of those characters, while i still love many parts about them and think that Elizabeth is one of the best female characters created in gaming so far, though the bar isn't the highest anyways). And while fucking up all these points, which were so well created in the former BioShock, they still managed to keep most of the parts which were already bad and even made some worse! Combat simply is tideous and often unexciting, when you aren't near a skyline and have to pump legions of enemies and some bigger bullet sponges with whatever happens to be arround you, just to get to the next awesome plot point. And that gear! Oh that gear - i won't go on about it again...
This simply makes Infinite worse than BioShock and for what? For creating a more generic shooter, which could appeal to more people who probably haven't played the former Shock-titles and to make easy money that way (interestingly enough this was already pointed out by SystemShock fans about the creation of BioShock)! I was skeptical when Levine already stated, that they would try to be more "appealing", when the "controversy" about the cover-art arose, but i still hoped it would only be to better hook those who wouldn't have played the former titles, but still bring what those who had played them would be expecting.
And no, it doesn't and that's why i'm liking it, but still nit-picking so hard about it and constantly stating, that it doesn't deserve the "love" most critics give it, because they are rewarding bad/lazy design, compared to what they could/ should have provided!
Edit: And player/consumer unfriendly ways of marketing, but hey, what else is new?
Dude you are welcome to think whatever you want. Fact is you cannot tell me what I experienced. Is it a browser problem a connection problem or a virus. I don't know... But this is what I do know.Aardvaarkman said:
Have a look at Posting Guidelines. Actually have a look at the TOP ONE:
Don't Be a Jerk
This rule trumps any other. Any loophole you think you've found in any other rule is covered by this one. If you make our forums a less pleasant place to be, we don't want you here and we have no problem revoking your account. Here are a couple of the things you should stay away from:
I thought he was just hammering home the pretentious point. It's a good book, but it does at times get a bit too enamored with itself. The entire endingKris D said:
Pemulis being effectively killed off in an endnote, the entire DMZ subplot never being resolved, not having a climax at the Whataburger and ending the novel in a flashback(that seemed to mean something that I never figured out)
Kind of like what Yahtzee was saying about Bioshock Infinite.
Or maybe it was Hamlet.
How was I being a jerk? I was just speaking factually. I never called you names or did anything personal, I was just discussing technical issues.1rock said:
This has to be the most backhanded and uncertain compliment to a game I have ever seen, and I absolutely love it. Praise without gushing, and criticism without polarization. Fantastic.
20 Minutes? Not quite. I think you are exaggerating quite a bit here. And the question is how else could it have been done? The ending required a lot of exposition, and that couldn't exactly be handed to you while you were fighting. As far as ending sequences go, it was actually refreshingly interactive, requiring you do actually do the actions, which increased your identification with the character and hence the emotional impact.Soak said:
There is a difference between "hype" and false advertising. A hype is something mainly generated by the playerbase (though it can be fanned by the publishers) and the developers are probably the people who have the least to do with it. Hyping up a game is always bad. You can never fulfill hyped up expectations. That is why if you, as a gamer, allow yourself to get hyped up for a game, you are making a mistake that will likely sour your enjoyment of the game. We know advertisements and trailers make things look more awesome than they probably are. We know that for all the advertisement, the game will likely have at least a few significant flaws. However, insofar as you are accusing the game of flat out false advertisement:Soak said:
That is simply factually false. The Trailers did not spoil actual scenes from the game, that is true. But all the elements were there. The Trailers showcased no feature that wasn't actually in the game. The only thing different is the sequence of events, and that was perfectly fine, as it actually meant the devs did do the extra work to create realistic trailers without spoiling any actual story.Soak said:
That is all highly subjective. As I said, the plot certainly has holes, but none of them in any way affect the impact of the story as you play it. The plot and characters are certainly not on the level of good Literature, but they are still a fair bit ahead of the crowd. This goes back to "if you expect the game to be the best of everything ever made, you are going to be disappointed".Soak said:
Also I can't find a single point about the combat that the first Bioshock did better than infinite. You do remember how tedious the big daddy fights could be, or how not having the right ammunition at hand could screw you up, of how all enemies where basically the same? There is a lot of selective perception going on in regards to Bioshock 1.
The weapon limit was functionally the same in Bioshock. Sure you could carry all the weapons, but you needed ammo for them, and you could only upgrade 2 to 3 weapons fully, which meant that, in practice, you were pretty much restricted to those. Neither do the vigors have less functionality than the plasmids, the functionality is just differently integrated. The only thing clearly missing is rage, but that always was an inferior possession anyways. Saying the combat in Infinite isn't perfect is fine, but I feel the people heavily criticising it tend to leave out all the interesting ideas that the game at least tried: Sky rail combat, switching between tears, heavy emphasis on positioning and traps.
I get how people who expected the game to be more like system shock are disappointed. But who are you to judge what the developers should have provided? I find that argument terribly pretentious. I have watched that video review people have posted here, and it's main point is, similarily to yours, how the author thinks the game should have been done:Soak said:
- It should have elaborated on the founders/vox conflict and its implications more. Why? What could the game possibly have said that wouldn't come over as trite? That conflict is so old, there really isn't anything to say about it. No game is obligated to make political statements in regard to every conflict that is part of the story
- There should have been more inventory management and puzzles. Why? Inventory management in Bioshock didn't provide much for the gameplay, and it was actually criticized quite a bit for it's puzzles, which quickly got very, very boring. Now that these puzzles are gone people suddenly complain, as if they had forgotten that everyone thought the puzzles were stupid.
I think that if you honestly go back to Bioshock 1 and make a list of all the pros and cons of this game, the list of cons wouldn't be shorter than in Infinite. And if the game is up there with one of the best FPS/RPGs ever made, then why, really, would anyone be disappointed? Even if you expected the game to be "much better" than the original Bioshock, "pretty much as good as" would still be 9/10, would it not?
He didn't like the ending of the first Bioshock?
He must have gotten the "evil" ending, because the "good" ending stuck with me like few other endings have and almost moved me to tears.
He must have gotten the "evil" ending, because the "good" ending stuck with me like few other endings have and almost moved me to tears.