Zero Punctuation: Top 5 Games of 2013

Piecewise

New member
Apr 18, 2008
706
0
0
Alarien said:
Piecewise said:
But...bioshock infinite is a terrible half finished mess of generic shooting, shit characters and more plot holes then a novel made of Swiss Cheese. It eschews all the good parts of the first game for bland call of duty shooting, copy pasted plasmids and even less challenge. Not to mention every single e3 preview they had was full of lies and broken promises. Seriously, go look at those previews and then think back to the game you played. It is a profound disappointment.
Is that what you thought or actually regurgitated from so many other people complaining about the game, because I'm fairly certain I've seen almost this exact commentary before.

It's ok to dislike or hate Bioshock Infinite, but the comments you make are mostly ill-informed.

Call or Duty shooting and "Generic" shooting are not the same thing. Bioshock Infinite follows an older "generic" FPS style that complete ignores cover based mechanics. It allows free movement around the existing arena/corridor. It would have been called a corridor FPS back in the day. Call of Duty is the exact opposite. It is a cover based rails shooter of a style that it and Medal of Honor have pushed since 1999. Bioshock Infinite may have generic shooting, but it is most certainly not "call of duty shooting."

"Copy pasted plasmids." Yes, it's part of the story. It is the same multiverse. It's like complaining that Bioshock 2, a far worse game, was worse because it specifically re-used the plasmids of Rapture while still in Rapture. Personally, I found the vigors/plasmids to be useful enough and this is still, I believe, a Bioshock game. Why would you expect there to be a different game play element?

Plot holes. The words that we often throw around just to throw them around. Specifically, those plot holes are... which, exactly? I'm not saying that the game doesn't have any, just that it was not "swiss cheese." In fact, most of its story lines were tied up and most of its mechanics at least attempted an explanation. Without pointing specifically to plot holes that were, in fact, plot holes and not just a lack of attention to the presented dialogue, then it's not a fair comment.

I agree on the E3 comment. The game from the E3 trailers was a much different game, in many respect. Are the changes and final product bad? Well, I'm not particularly unhappy that I didn't get to walk into a bar and shotgun someone in the face, fight with Saltonstall, or have Elizabeth be more of a sorceress (without explanation) than a child effected by her own physical existence simultaneously in two different realities. I think the final product worked fine. I failed to miss the E3 stuff.

The hyperbole in your post just makes your comments suspect. It sounds like regurgitation, sour grapes or some combination of both.
It is call of duty style shooting. It's got aim assist, sluggish movement, a bog standard set of Pistol, shotgun, rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, lets you carry two weapons at a time and has a fucking recharging shield. Actually, no, you're right, it's not call of duty, it's a reskinned Halo.

Also, thats a pretty freaking weak justification for a lack of imagination. Plus it doesn't even make sense. I don't remember fucking crows or ram in Bioshock. So they didn't even stay constant in order to make it fit within that "It's in the same multi-verse!" justification of yours. Which is right up there with the delusional crap of "Indoctrination theory", another desperate attempt to stave off buyers remorse. Face it, they didn't give us new stuff because they couldn't think of anything or didn't want to.

As per plot holes
http://imgur.com/Z2ajG3L

Lists a few. Beyond that, there are a few, but a lot of it comes down more to plot inconsistencies and...well, stupidity. Characters that act nonsensically or inconsistently or story choices that are stupid or meaningless or just plain clearly not as fleshed out as they were originally intended. Remember ghost mom and how liz's powers can now suddenly produce ghosts because...why not? Or why this utopia of uptight white people would be totally on board with injecting drugs that gave them the power to summon deadly birds? Actually thats a double weirdness, because they present it as though it was common, but there's all of like 2 enemies that actually use them, so I guess they weren't common? Blah.

And yeah, I guess it's sour grapes to be ticked off that a company showed me videos and said "This is what you're gonna get" and then gave me something that only shallowly resembles the product they promised. It's not to say it's a horrible game or anything, but it's completely average. The characters aren't anywhere near as good as the ones in other games, the gameplay isn't as good as other shooters that came out the same year, the graphics are pretty meh (especially some of them. I mean, fruit in baskets thats a 2d jpg in 2013? Really?) and the soundtrack didn't have anything stand out about it. It's just not that great of a game.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Generic FPS's built around multiplayer made 3 out of the 5 worst games of the year. Get out the Crayolas and colour me shocked.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
dakkster said:
I'm sorry, but I just can't take anyone who calls Infinite's story/writing "excellent" seriously. Watch smudboy's videos. When you later realize that you can't refute his points, ask yourself why you still hold the game's story/writing in such high regard. That's all I'm going to say.
Because the story was affecting.

It's always hilarious when people try to out-logic an emotional response, but it's getting really old and it's in danger of not being funny anymore.
 

schrodinger

New member
Jul 19, 2013
342
0
0
seditary said:
Is there some kind of band that joined together to try and shout down everyone who likes and praises Bioshock Infinite? Literally everywhere I go there's some extremely overbearing people calling people stupid for liking it, linking videos to demonstrate how wrong people are for liking it and calling everything and everyone related to its creation bad in some way.
Oh don't worry, hon. It's merely people going for the hype and coming out disappointed. Like all hyped game backlash it eventually dies down when the next hyped game comes out. Besides, if you like the game then that's ok; people tell me papers, please is a boring sim, but to me it's one of the best games of 2013.
*cough* it felt more like a game than TLOU*cough* :p
 

Xangi

New member
Mar 4, 2009
136
0
0
Alarien said:
Upset that someone's shitting in his pancakes
Simple rules of writing. Show, don't tell. Make characters act realistically. Make characters act logically. Keep everything consistent, especially regarding interpersonal relationships. B:I does none of these things. I don't really feel the need to explain how, but if pressed I might.

As for some good literature, Try something by Arthur C. Clarke, Richard K. Morgan's alright too. That's pretty good stuff right there, also in my preferred genre, but by no means the only options.

Azahul said:
more quote compression
"The constants and variables idea" is a giant copout that can be used to make anything happen. Giving a character a "resolve plothole" button is not good writing. The constants and variables also contradict the game's own assertions about infinite worlds, as any constants would not really lead to an infinity of worlds at all. Basically Ken Levine doesn't know shit about the many worlds theory.

I've played it through twice, The first time in a marathon at a party with friends and the second on my own. It's shit, and you're literally not going to find anything good about it that isn't either provably incorrect or minor. Oh and to the spoiler, you really really don't understand how the grandfather paradox works. Even if it DID work like that, fine, that's called SHITTY WRITING.
lacktheknack said:
Because the story was affecting.

It's always hilarious when people try to out-logic an emotional response, but it's getting really old and it's in danger of not being funny anymore.
This is pretty much the truth. If you can't take a step back and be objective about something, of course a piece of media like B:I is going to look great. It's DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE YOU EMOTIONALLY into thinking it's good.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
I have read my share of Arthur C. Clarke. Not bad, not overly engaging reads either. I wouldn't really go out on a limb and point him out as a literary giant. I'd counter with H.P. Lovecraft, whose wordsmithing skills are almost unparalleled in modern English writing.

I would still ask for the objective data.

This is pretty much the truth. If you can't take a step back and be objective about something, of course a piece of media like B:I is going to look great. It's DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE YOU EMOTIONALLY into thinking it's good.
Here's where you entire argument breaks down. The writing manipulates you into thinking the games good? Actually, the gameplay was fun, a lot more fun than a lot of other recent shooters, for me. That's what made me think the game was good. The fact that I enjoyed the plot, minor holes and paradoxes and all, is beside the point.

Xangi, you are really trying very hard to declare something "is." This suggests a fact. It is not a fact that even Ride to Hell: Redemption is a bad game. It is very much a universal opinion that it has poor gameplay, poor development, poor story, poor anything, so sub-par as to be laughably horrid. That does not make it a fact. One plus one equals two is a fact. I'm sure you know this, but I cannot fathom why you feel that it is remotely valid to try to pin facts on what is literally the definition of opinion.

You cannot also continue to argue that a game's story or plot is bad simply because it doesn't adhere to an existing theory of multiverse. That's tantamount to arguing that a game that creates its own deity pantheon is bad because it doesn't ascribe to your personal accepted religious belief system. If Ken Levine wants to create a world where a choice is only made once and a parallel universe is created, with infinite branches being created at later points of each branch, who's to say he can't? I'm pretty sure we have yet to definitively prove the existence of dimensions or parallel universes/multiverse, much less can define the actual laws of such.

You may not like the idea. Good for you. I didn't let it ruin a game for me, just like I rarely let silliness ruin good gameplay. If I did, there would be precious few truly good games to play. I always expect to go into any game or any sci-fi or fantasy story with a certain required amount of suspension of disbelief.

You also seem to be somewhat upset.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
Xangi said:
Simple rules of writing. Show, don't tell. Make characters act realistically. Make characters act logically. Keep everything consistent, especially regarding interpersonal relationships. B:I does none of these things. I don't really feel the need to explain how, but if pressed I might.

As for some good literature, Try something by Arthur C. Clarke, Richard K. Morgan's alright too. That's pretty good stuff right there, also in my preferred genre, but by no means the only options.
Is there a reason you keep suggesting authors and games to read/play? I'm reasonably well versed when it comes to literature and games, particularly the well-known (and in some cases venerable) ones you pick. I am aware of what good writing looks like. I just happen to think Bioshock Infinite does it well.

Xangi said:
"The constants and variables idea" is a giant copout that can be used to make anything happen. Giving a character a "resolve plothole" button is not good writing. The constants and variables also contradict the game's own assertions about infinite worlds, as any constants would not really lead to an infinity of worlds at all. Basically Ken Levine doesn't know shit about the many worlds theory.
Maybe, and this is just going out on a limb here, maybe the game isn't meant to be about the many worlds theory? It's a fictional setting, after all, and they can have their physics work however they want them to. It's not like they're even basing it all on a theory that's current and has any real evidence to support it. Most of the physics in the game is supposed to be based on how people thought the world worked in 1912, if I remember right.
Xangi said:
I've played it through twice, The first time in a marathon at a party with friends and the second on my own. It's shit, and you're literally not going to find anything good about it that isn't either provably incorrect or minor. Oh and to the spoiler, you really really don't understand how the grandfather paradox works. Even if it DID work like that, fine, that's called SHITTY WRITING.
Similar to above. It's their universe. An umpteen number of sci-fi stories bend and break physics to make their universes possible. Most fantasy has a little something called "magic" that they use to get their plots to work. Other genres have super powers or psychic abilities or vampires or some other fictional thing that makes their world different from the way the universe really works. Genre fiction is soaked in this stuff. I dunno why Bioshock Infinite should be forced to operate according to any real theories or paradoxes in the world. Particularly when they explain in-game how it all works in their specific universe.

It sounds like you're getting a bit worked up over this. I'm afraid that no matter how much the game may have disappointed you, you just can't prove that it's objectively anything. It's playable with a story that many people consider well-written and thoughtful. That puts it well above a lot of games, and as this topic has proven, onto many peoples' top lists for the year. Trying to educate us about how wrong we are is a futile effort. Every argument you have that you think "proves" the game is bad has a counter-argument, and ultimately it all comes down to nothing but opinion. I recommend trying to accept that.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
I tried to play previous versions, with the same result. Are these games supposed to somehow get a lot better deeper into the game?
No.

Well, let me rephrase that. Kind of, but probably not in a way that will matter to you.

Saints Rows 3 and 4 both suffer from "extended tutorial syndrome" and get better as time goes on in the sense that you get more options and more freedom, but a lot of the theme of the game is more or less set. If the physics drive you crazy, though, you're probably not going to enjoy it much.

2 has some wonderful black humour, and it was really good at the time. I'm honestly not sure how well it aged, but the question is whether or not that really matters to you in the first place. In most aspects, it's the best of the SR games.

When I call Saints Row IV lazy, however, I'm mostly talking about the way it comes off as a Saints Row 3 add-on. And in part, it always was. A lot of the idea came from the canceled SRTT DLC titled "Enter the Dominatrix." And for what the game offers, it should have stayed fifteen dollar DLC rather than a 60 dollar standalone title. And while SRTT wasn't bad, it wasn't all that praiseworthy.

I sort of wish I could defend it more, but....

Azahul said:
With a couple of years of literary theory behind me, I honestly cannot tell what is broken in Bioshock's story. Not to mention the fact that there's a fairly large body of literary theory that states that objectivity is a myth and that all experiences are subjective, making it pretty hard to state "Nope. Not subjective," in one breath, and then "It's pretty obvious you've never read any literary theory" in the next. Care to expand on that?
Ah, this brings me back to all those years of people telling me I needed to take music theory when it was actually what I went to college for. It even sounds like the same argument, though I don't have a literary theory background so I can't be sure.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Xangi said:
Alarien said:
Upset that someone's shitting in his pancakes
Is it really necessary to attack people in this way? What Alarien actually wrote is definitely not being upset that somebody is "shitting in his pancakes." And it also implies that you are deliberately "shitting in his pancakes."

Why be so disrespectful towards others?

Xangi said:
Simple rules of writing. Show, don't tell. Make characters act realistically. Make characters act logically. Keep everything consistent, especially regarding interpersonal relationships.
Apart from "show, don't tell," that's a recipe for some really boring writing. I don't know if you've ever happened to spend time around humans, but they often don't act logically or consistently. It sounds like your rules are for writing robots.

In any case, good writing doesn't usually happen by following a set of rules.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
008Zulu said:
Generic FPS's built around multiplayer made 3 out of the 5 worst games of the year. Get out the Crayolas and colour me shocked.
In Yahtzee's defense, they're about 602% of the market right now.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
Xangi said:
Snip for ease of reference.
One of the only actual facts that can be culled from this discussion is the fact that we disagree. We clearly disagree on what is "good" writing, which is not surprising. Every living being has a different understanding of what "good" means. The word "good" has no inherent value, no formula that allows every human to know how every other human understands the meaning of that term. We all have different senses, after all. We all see, hear, feel, taste, and smell to varying degrees. And that's just the basic, mechanical stuff. How we understand emotions, the degree to which we judge something mild or extreme, these are all inherently subjective things. I'm pulling pretty hard from the works of Nietzsche here, but you get what I mean, right? I could pick up a rock and judge it "hard", but that is dependent on my personal understanding of the term and my sense of touch. It is entirely possible that what I understand as hard is another person's idea of soft, particularly if we're not talking (from a more objective standpoint) about a rock that has all that much in the way of structural integrity compared to other rocks. Words like good, hard, tough, and their opposites, are just commonly accepted adjectives devoid of real meaning outside of how they relate to us as individuals. This is something the scientific community has problems with. Something all scientists have to take on faith is the idea that the methods with which they are perceiving the results of their experiments are not misleading them.

With all of this, how can you ever expect to cull an experience like a video game, an experience that draws on multiple senses (feel, sight, and hearing), and one that discusses complex ideas through the use of metaphor, into a term like "good" or "bad" and expect that opinion to be objective? The idea is laughable, making your insistence that you are right all the more hilarious. Everything you say, everything you feel and experience in your life, comes marked with the qualifier "from my point of view". To believe otherwise is to lie to yourself.
 

coop2

New member
Jan 16, 2013
1
0
0
sad to see luigi's mansion didnt make top 5 but i suppose the absolute repeat of a story was offensive enough of an idea, still won't stop me from playing it ^^ good game is good
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
Of course I noticed the UMAD. I am capable of reading. What I am very much interested in your theory on how 1+1=2 is not, in fact, a fact. Facts do exist. They are far more rare then the average person seems capable of understanding, but they are not a myth.

Your mechanics argument is a running complaint about a style you dislike. I wonder mostly if you played this on a console, as there was nothing floaty about PC based M+K. I found the precision to be pretty well spot-on.

Some of the things you complained about are actually pluses. Elizabeth being an escort with no risk is a huge improvement for me over most escort mission or, as I would typically describe them: "Good lord, please not again, I hate escort missions." What she really serves is as a moving plot device. You are welcome to complain about it, but its a complaint that is not shared universally, or even by a majority.

Vigors are functionally identical? Yes, some are. To an extent. Much of the difference exist only insofar as they can manipulate pre-placed/existing "environmental hazards." Blah. I found that aspect of the entire Bioshock series to be rather bland. On the other hand, some of the vigors stand out as useful and different, particularly charge and undertow. I found those fun. They are not specifically different than plasmids that have come before, but they do not need to be. They are fun to use and effective in the context of an open FPS.

It then follows that the characters are factually poor.
When you present a fact for this, an actual fact, we can continue to discuss character interpretation.

Also, let's get back to theories, since you base most of your opinion on the game's relation to existing "theories." First, the pantheon vs. theory argument is perfectly valid in this case, as the many worlds theory is not based on any facts or science. It is, very much, a faith argument. A scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity (I'm assuming that you're familiar with this one), is based on something that can be demonstrated. I can theorize that a <heaven-realm> exists with no more or less scientific basis than the many worlds theory. To argue that such is "scientific" is amusingly consistent with application of creation science.

Second, you interpret the game in context of one of the theories that the game makes no effort, suggestion, or even vague notion that it intends to follow. It may have functional or theoretical similarities, but in no way does it ever claim an intent to interpret or follow it. Your conclusion that it is a poor interpretation of such is entirely reliant on a fallacious starting assumption. If you claim to understand scientific theory, I would assume you understand scientific method as well.

Pointing out good writers isn't peen waving, though you seem to think so. I just countered your comment on a great writer with one who think is not only a better writer, but easily as influential. You just, again, demanded that people who don't agree with your logic path don't read enough literature (or the "right" literature, as you define it). The point is that I would wager that most of The Escapist have read most of the same works you have. Most of us wouldn't be a part of this community, toxic though it can be, if we weren't already interested in these same things. Insulting everyone's intelligence about reading starts, again, from a fallacious assumption.
 

Bastard King

New member
Oct 15, 2013
12
0
0
Arabs are white, the Turks are white, the North Africans are white, the Persians are white, and the Afghani are white. Read a census sometime.

Call of Duty sucks, but white secularists from America killing white shithead fundamentalists from the white Muslim world's nothing to be bothered by.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Ovrad said:
Daniel Lowery said:
Yeah, Ghosts was so bad that I couldn't even bare to finish it, and certainly deserves to be the worst of the year, while Ride to Hell deserves worst of all time.
And yet somehow Ghosts made it to the Escapist's "Reader's Choice Game of the Year", while a ton of great games didn't...
It's the same problem with democracy: we let idiots vote.
 

Silly Hats

New member
Dec 26, 2012
188
0
0
Piecewise said:
Also, thats a pretty freaking weak justification for a lack of imagination. Plus it doesn't even make sense. I don't remember fucking crows or ram in Bioshock. So they didn't even stay constant in order to make it fit within that "It's in the same multi-verse!" justification of yours. Which is right up there with the delusional crap of "Indoctrination theory", another desperate attempt to stave off buyers remorse. Face it, they didn't give us new stuff because they couldn't think of anything or didn't want to.

As per plot holes
http://imgur.com/Z2ajG3L
You need to understand that the Rules of the Bioshock isn't the same as real world, you can eat and drink without going to the bathroom. That isn't a plot hole, it is irrelevant information, it doesn't discredit anything. If magnets can be that strong in a (world of floating cities), then the magnets are strong enough.

Also, did you fail to notice the guards chase you after the Raffle. Then again the guards prevented civilans to leave after the tower fell. Then again when Comstock taunts you and throws enemies at you. I think that they tried to lock down the city considering that you don't even see civilians after 30 minutes of gameplay.

You've also annoyed me by saying that IDT is "another desperate attempt to stave off buyers remorse". No, you're wrong. Fan Theories have existed for Decades. If you appreciate literature and creative writing then it's enjoyable to share you're interpretations or plausible ideas. It doesn't make them right or wrong, they are fun to think about.

In regards to that link you provided, those aren't plot holes. You don't need to know why Elizabeth is in NYC, the point is that circumstance upon circumstance lead to wildly different outcomes. If Booker succeeded in bringing Elizabeth to Paris, then the story would end. It doesn't.

It took Bioshock a while to grow on me, I found the implications of the ending really depressing. But that's the point.

I also thought that Metro:Last Light was immensely better than Last Of Us. Atleast with Booker, a morally ambiguous character has a purpose without being a hardarse.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
while i agree he generally does a good job of scathing witticisms, the last couple of articles and videos have edged on depressed self loathing. It's a subtle change but noticeable.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Xangi said:
lacktheknack said:
Because the story was affecting.

It's always hilarious when people try to out-logic an emotional response, but it's getting really old and it's in danger of not being funny anymore.
This is pretty much the truth. If you can't take a step back and be objective about something, of course a piece of media like B:I is going to look great. It's DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE YOU EMOTIONALLY into thinking it's good.
Well, isn't that the game succeeding at being good? People liked it because of how it was designed. That's called "being good"

As you said yourself, you're shitting in peoples' pancakes. Quit it.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
You know, Infinite is a great game, it's visually impressive, it has a very engaging atmosphere, the combat is at least satisfying when you don't play it on hard difficulty, the sound design is top notch, the characters are more or less well written and they interact well, but, it would have been a better game if they had given certain things more work and more depth.

The biggest deficiency I see in Infinite is that the story begins to wobble a little in the middle and that gets amplified towards the end.
"There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city."

There's always elements that create stories in video games, every choice in video games is always preprogrammed, every ending is scripted and people named Ken Levine make video games about lighthouses and cities and the men who destroy them. Yes, games that are named "Bioshock:" have these elements. What does that mean? Does it even matter they all have those same elements in common or that they are connected by portals?

"There's always a Jeep with rocket launchers, a British guy, an American, a Russian and some Europeon city" Call of Duty 1&2
"There's always a safe-house, four people and zombies" Left 4 Dead 1&2

It was a direct sequel that didn't reveal it was a direct sequel until the end, is that worthwhile? It was certainly a twist, but was it just a twist for twist's sake? What was accomplished? It's like watching Halloween 3 and then finding out the villain was Michael Meyers, somehow, again, in the last two minutes, you spend the whole movie building up to this one point and the explanation is a twist that throws away everything else.

This extends into the reasoning of: "Why are there plasmids in Columbia?"(Besides the fact that plasmids are a central mechanic of Bioshock games and they couldn't really do one without them) The whole game centers around this twist, it depends on the first Bioshock but what does Bioshock have to do with the central story of Booker and Comstock and Elizabeth? How does Bioshock enhance that story-line besides attempting to blow your mind because they could? They could have just left that whole part out.
I really wanted them to use:
the tears better than they did. What they used them for was more or less just a mario style power up block. You have the option of getting life, salts, a wall hook or a weapon most of the time. You can tear holes....in the UNIVERSE, the WHOLE thing! In TIME to get plasmids and pop songs! Why not a tyrannosaurus rex? Why no vacuum of space, why not even a tear that turns the floor into what you would see underneath a 747 while it's in flight, why not open a tear to a navel battle from the 1700s and let mortar and cannon fire destroy the whole room; why not even just open that portal to Paris and get that car to run somebody over, They had so many opportunities to use it creatively, so many, so many fights in so many places! They use it once at the end to give you a twist. That's it, it's such a HUGE waste of a mechanic. I would say criminally underused.