Did not expect Bioshock to be his number one. Of the games I played this year that actually came out this year, it was probably my favorite though. I also was surprised to see Beyond Two Souls on the worst list. Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was great (though I did really enjoy it), but I didn't think it was particularly bad either. I've never quite understood why David Cage games get so much more hate than Telltale games. I felt Beyond Two Souls had considerably more interaction than The Walking Dead, and found it more entertaining. And that's from someone who hates QTE
Damnit I thought the days of disliking something popular just to be mysterious were over. Nope, Bioshock doesn't rate anywhere near my top 5. Well, come to think of it it might because it had decent gameplay and nothing came out this year. The story though rates piss-poor in my book. Oh well, I'm sure no one wants to lend me a soap box to extol my displeasure.
I guess just looking at my steam list State of Decay might be my top game for 2013.
Well to be honest, he isn't a fan of American's nationalism. Even though Ghosts is as far from that. Showing a desperate struggle by the US against a large threat
Sometimes I feel like the only person on the planet who's played Shadow Warrior. An obvious choice for the game of the year. You all know it if you've played it.
HOLY SHIZ! Someone other than myself mentioned it on this forum. Same as you, I'm bewildered by how few people know of it. Especially Yahtzee since its made by the same guys who worked on Hard Reset & Painkiller. I got a feeling they took notes from Yahtzee's review of Hard Reset.
HOLY SHIZ! Someone other than myself mentioned it on this forum. Same as you, I'm bewildered by how few people know of it. Especially Yahtzee since its made by the same guys who worked on Hard Reset & Painkiller. I got a feeling they took notes from Yahtzee's review of Hard Reset.
I think they did. The Hard Reset review included the line "I want to know cleaning up after the massacre will need a mop, not a broom", and Shadow Warrior includes a Viscera Cleanup Detail tie-in.
I own BioShock Infinite and STILL haven't played it dammit. What's wrong with me? For once in my life I buy a game on the same year it's released and it turns out to be GOTY material and I haven't even played it yet.
Hah, don't feel too bad, that's par for the course for most of us. I have yet to play half of what I've bought.
On the other hand, I must be one of those weirdos who only liked Bioshock Infinite a reasonable amount. I found it a fun enough and competent game.
However, I am not in the camp of people who still thinks about the game, or found it some profound entry that remolds the landscape of videogaming.
Perhaps I feel this way b/c the buildup to its release raised a different series of expectations in me. Either way, still a competent game. And on the bright side, perhaps both DLC's will be out by the time to get to play it.
I was not thinking of Metal Gear until now, but now am interested. Ride to Hell: Retribution was a new one for me as I only hear extremely bad things about. I also have to get to Bioshock infinite, but caps I can only get to 5-10 games a month, tiny games.
Alright before I go into a general response here I'll give you the ending in a nutshell in the spoiler space below
SPOILER WARNING (in case it doesn't work)
The basic "gist" of "Bioshock: Infinite" is that there are limitless numbers of worlds where the conflict involving Columbia is raging, leading to things where it destroys the US or whatever. Succeeding or failing in any given world is more or less irrelevant since the problems continue in all the other worlds. Thus the struggle through the entire game is meaningless and the only real "solution" is to effectively kill off Booker during the crucial moment that potentially turns him into Comstock, ending the entire conflict. Of course doing this in ONE reality wouldn't matter so you basically have all Elizabeths everywhere in all realities everywhere strangling all Bookers everywhere. The Booker you play (where this realization is reached) heroically sacrifices himself towards that end, though I suppose the same couldn't be said for the other realities. It should be noted that as a result of this Elizabeth herself will arguably die, at least as we know her, or at least create one hell of a paradox (which the game seems to float around).
Of course there is *some* question as to whether this worked or not as at the very end we have a sort of flashback scene showing an altered timeline where Booker hears Anna (Elizabeth) crying, apparently surprised, leading one to believe she re-appeared after he supposedly sold her. Booker and Elizabeth thus apparently live on in at least one timeline. It remains to be seen if "Burial At Sea" will eventually resolve or further explain the ramifications
inherent in the "extra scene". At any rate that's the basics.
As I said from pretty much day #1 it was a cop out ending, they basically wanted to do something "profound" so they decided to go with a trippy "everything you did arguably does not matter" reality warper, which might have been cool if variations on it hadn't been done so many times before. I consider it a very, very, bad ending attached to an otherwise decent game.
-
I don't have a lot of time, but to answer a few questions about things like "How "Ghosts" could score so highly despite being panned here" understand that politics enters into it. Yahtzee, and other reviewers that pan "Ghost" do so largely for political reasons. You'll notice they go on endlessly about pro-Americanism, and how it's always the white Americans who are heroes, and how "paranoid" it is to present other nations as an aggressive military threat (even as real world tensions are building) and so on. Very little is generally said about the gameplay, not to mention that such reviews tend to overlook the other 50% of the population (perhaps more) that happens to disagree with the statements being made. I mean even now we have tons of tensions with Mexico and South America, immigration enforcement problems, saber rattling over trying to "re-conquer Texas" (long story, it's so far a fringe thing) and other issues. "Ghost" was pretty much the end of say "Machete" in reverse, where the Mexicans/South Americans "invading" the US are portrayed as being the bad guys, and rather than in an over the top "exploitation" movie it's done with a Tom Clancy/James Bond type flair involving control of a US created super weapon (which vaguely reminds me of "Goldeneye") which is used on the US,
and then used on South America when control of it is regained as a way of ending the war. In short of you lean towards the left wing "peace at any price" movement, and particularly if you combine it with demanding legalization of illegal immigrants as opposed to deportion (and probably cheered for the political aspects of something like "Machete") your going to find "Ghost" a problem since it represents pretty much the opposite of everything you want to believe. The observant will also notice the whole comment about hating Chinese people Yahtzee inserted, but again that comes down to conflicts with China's robber economy, it's military build up, and increasing belligerence which has lead to them recently contesting US territory (Japan's territory is basically US territory given that we largely use Japan as our major foothold into the eastern world). Basically any kind of Pro-American game involving anything remotely connected to the real world tends to get attacked... including by left wingers into the US... and also a lot of the reviewers knocking this kind of stuff (like Yahtzee) aren't American to begin with.
Whether you agree with me on a lot of the specifics, understand it's not about quality or the type of game it is (personally I don't care for FPS shooters) it's entirely about the premise, and honestly most reviews tend to be pretty straightforward about it. Yahtzee seems to be fairly clear on that point in particular. The basic impression I get from assorted reviews is that if you want a decent FPS game and like the "Call Of Duty" gameplay style and formula, this is a decent game, it doesn't do anything radical, but polishes up and inserts some balance revisions into a classic formula. If your politically on the left, or tend to be at least moderately anti-American you'll hate the single player campaign, in part because it's not rehashing the same points made in previous games in terms of left wing War/Nukes are bad. Rather it's balancing the scales by showing things from the other direction for a change.
As far as "Road To Hell: Retribution" goes, I think it fairly deserves the flak it's getting. The problem is that the game fundamentally does not work, it's a broken, clunky, poorly designed mess. When it comes to the content that's probably less of a factor because the target audience seemed to be fans of things like "Sons Of Anarchy" with you stepping into the role of a villain more than a politically correct "lone wolf" you have to expect it to be pretty offensive on a basic level. The trick to something like that is to get you to like the bad guys despite being terrible, terrible, people and want to see them succeed anyway, it's very difficult to do, and they apparently failed here. Case in point for example in "Sons of Anarchy" there was a big thing where one of the "Sons" was temporarily ratting on them because the cops found out one of his grandparents (I think it was) wasn't white. While the sons were not a strictly "Aryan" gang they were "Whites only" and this information could in theory get him killed, or at least exiled as a traitor (and one "traitor" they dealt with had his tats forcibly removed with a blowtorch when he refused to remove them himself, albeit it wasn't the same kind of situation... but you can see why he'd be worried). This was resolved later when it was mentioned by I think Tig (Sergeant At Arms, basically 3rd in command) that it wasn't a big deal because if he was "white enough to list yourself that way on paperwork, your white enough for us" or something to that effect.... the backlash over this story arc/subplot was minimal, and kind of says something about the audience for crime drama when you expect the bad guys to be well... not good. The point here being that I don't think the content of this game was as big a deal as some said, if they had managed to make a good game out of it, it probably would have succeeded for a niche audience.... but they didn't, and really "Deep Silver" should by all accounts be ashamed of the quality of the game itself.
Alright before I go into a general response here I'll give you the ending in a nutshell in the spoiler space below
SPOILER WARNING (in case it doesn't work)
The basic "gist" of "Bioshock: Infinite" is that there are limitless numbers of worlds where the conflict involving Columbia is raging, leading to things where it destroys the US or whatever. Succeeding or failing in any given world is more or less irrelevant since the problems continue in all the other worlds. Thus the struggle through the entire game is meaningless and the only real "solution" is to effectively kill off Booker during the crucial moment that potentially turns him into Comstock, ending the entire conflict. Of course doing this in ONE reality wouldn't matter so you basically have all Elizabeths everywhere in all realities everywhere strangling all Bookers everywhere. The Booker you play (where this realization is reached) heroically sacrifices himself towards that end, though I suppose the same couldn't be said for the other realities. It should be noted that as a result of this Elizabeth herself will arguably die, at least as we know her, or at least create one hell of a paradox (which the game seems to float around).
Of course there is *some* question as to whether this worked or not as at the very end we have a sort of flashback scene showing an altered timeline where Booker hears Anna (Elizabeth) crying, apparently surprised, leading one to believe she re-appeared after he supposedly sold her. Booker and Elizabeth thus apparently live on in at least one timeline. It remains to be seen if "Burial At Sea" will eventually resolve or further explain the ramifications
inherent in the "extra scene". At any rate that's the basics.
As I said from pretty much day #1 it was a cop out ending, they basically wanted to do something "profound" so they decided to go with a trippy "everything you did arguably does not matter" reality warper, which might have been cool if variations on it hadn't been done so many times before. I consider it a very, very, bad ending attached to an otherwise decent game.
Yeah, ok, however the game skilfully avoids explaining how, not only is there reality shifting, but also time travel involved. And one thing that bugs me is how Booker figures he can solve all his problems by just shifting to another reality where the problem is already solved. Also I'm rather unclear as to how people in one reality would feel the deaths of their counterparts in another reality. That doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, ok, however the game skilfully avoids explaining how, not only is there reality shifting, but also time travel involved. And one thing that bugs me is how Booker figures he can solve all his problems by just shifting to another reality where the problem is already solved. Also I'm rather unclear as to how people in one reality would feel the deaths of their counterparts in another reality. That doesn't make sense to me.
Time travel: Universes could be out of temporal sync with one another. Time travel could be observed as the result of moving to a reality that started its calendar and technological advances sooner or later than others.
Booker: He's not a good person. Booker is violent, angry and he tends to act before thinking, which is why he assumes he can solve all his problems in another reality. And it has a tendency to not work out for him because of it.
Including when he becomes Comstock.
Universe connections: Same way that the coin always comes up heads: That's just how Infinite's multiverse theory works.
There's an alternate reality where the Vox killed almost all the Columbia guards. How come all the guards in the universe we start the game in are perfectly healthy until Booker takes care of them?
I own BioShock Infinite and STILL haven't played it dammit. What's wrong with me? For once in my life I buy a game on the same year it's released and it turns out to be GOTY material and I haven't even played it yet.
If you found yourself liking Elizabeth as much as I did, you'll never hear Pachelbell's Canon without shivering in empathic anger. I won't spoil it any further for you.
I own BioShock Infinite and STILL haven't played it dammit. What's wrong with me? For once in my life I buy a game on the same year it's released and it turns out to be GOTY material and I haven't even played it yet.
If you found yourself liking Elizabeth as much as I did, you'll never hear Pachelbell's Canon without shivering in empathic anger. I won't spoil it any further for you.
I'm getting a lot of mixed emotions in this thread but I think I'll like it. I arrived pretty late at the 7th gen party so there're higher chances of me getting phazed by graphics and such. And I did play through Infinite until around my arrival to Columbia, to test the game, and looked very promising thus far. I don't mind plot holes or soi disant pretentiousness so long as the gameplay is fun.
I enjoyed Bioshock Infinite quite a lot. It felt like a fresh take on shooters altogether, with a strong story to back it up. It just invoked a strange feeling of a universe thrown off-balance, being created, torn down and re-created as you went along with it, and it worked quite well.
And there will always be people who don't enjoy certain games or movies etc, and we all have our reasons. I don't like Neon Genesis Evangelion. One of my friends doesn't like Silent Hill 2. Everyone has a say in it, I suppose.
But yes, I had a great time with Infinite. I'd say it's probably my game of the year as well.
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.
Sorry but that's not the point. The candidates were handpicked by the Escapist staff. During the voting, barely no one from the community actually voted for that horrible game.
I wonder if they just got lazy on their selection or put it there as a joke. Either way, it's a shame an actual good game didn't get the slot.
Alright before I go into a general response here I'll give you the ending in a nutshell in the spoiler space below
SPOILER WARNING (in case it doesn't work)
The basic "gist" of "Bioshock: Infinite" is that there are limitless numbers of worlds where the conflict involving Columbia is raging, leading to things where it destroys the US or whatever. Succeeding or failing in any given world is more or less irrelevant since the problems continue in all the other worlds. Thus the struggle through the entire game is meaningless and the only real "solution" is to effectively kill off Booker during the crucial moment that potentially turns him into Comstock, ending the entire conflict. Of course doing this in ONE reality wouldn't matter so you basically have all Elizabeths everywhere in all realities everywhere strangling all Bookers everywhere. The Booker you play (where this realization is reached) heroically sacrifices himself towards that end, though I suppose the same couldn't be said for the other realities. It should be noted that as a result of this Elizabeth herself will arguably die, at least as we know her, or at least create one hell of a paradox (which the game seems to float around).
Of course there is *some* question as to whether this worked or not as at the very end we have a sort of flashback scene showing an altered timeline where Booker hears Anna (Elizabeth) crying, apparently surprised, leading one to believe she re-appeared after he supposedly sold her. Booker and Elizabeth thus apparently live on in at least one timeline. It remains to be seen if "Burial At Sea" will eventually resolve or further explain the ramifications
inherent in the "extra scene". At any rate that's the basics.
As I said from pretty much day #1 it was a cop out ending, they basically wanted to do something "profound" so they decided to go with a trippy "everything you did arguably does not matter" reality warper, which might have been cool if variations on it hadn't been done so many times before. I consider it a very, very, bad ending attached to an otherwise decent game.
Yeah, ok, however the game skilfully avoids explaining how, not only is there reality shifting, but also time travel involved. And one thing that bugs me is how Booker figures he can solve all his problems by just shifting to another reality where the problem is already solved. Also I'm rather unclear as to how people in one reality would feel the deaths of their counterparts in another reality. That doesn't make sense to me.
Well, their way of writing around this seems to be that Elizabeth actually makes most of the decisions and does the driving. I don't think time travel was ever really involved, so much as visiting different realities where different things had happened or where time had moved along at a different pace.
To begin with it's fairly straightforward where the plan is to simply visit a parallel dimension where a bunch of guns were constructed and bring them through to arm a revolution. However Booker winds up getting caught up in the events of that alternate world as opposed to the simple act of finding and bringing through some gun crates. This is where the game starts to really fall apart in terms of it's narrative, since really everything happening at that point is out of context of the beginning of the game, and any character you meet can be argued to be potentially very different from the ones Booker was dealing with to begin with. Basically the longer the game goes on, the less anything you do potentially matters because your no longer even working with the world you started with.
The "Future Elizabeth" meeting is one where she more or less pulled *A* Booker through, but half the point is that it's basically impossible to say if it's your Elizabeth, if your her Booker, and if it's simply a case where a couple of specific events match up. Something made clear when you see tons of alternative Elizabeths and Bookers during the finale.
Pretty much things wind up mattering so little your basic objective is "let's go to Paris" which makes sense because how do you even meet up with the people you think hired you when they are in a totally separate reality. The whole ending after the big skyship battle is pretty much a giant "Stop, okay this is just kind of pointless" moment because really the Comstock you whacked isn't even the guy from your original dimension, and really I was kind of wondering briefly if as a surprise it was going to turn out there wasn't a Paris in the dimension you were in (and say fly over empty ocean when you hit the coordinates) but it didn't go that far.
At the end of the day it seems like Booker is being kind of guided into the "solution" though he makes the decision to sacrifice himself. Presumably Elizabeth hatched the plan you see with other Elizabeths since you had them all converging at once.
Overall yeah... it's a mess, it makes a degree of sense, but it was a cop out "infinite paradox" ending. I get the impression that the developers made this game, couldn't think of a profound ending for it, so just basically squeezed out one of the most stereotypical "artsy" sci-fi resolutions.
Perhaps some of the DLC will wrap it up better, but I doubt it. Before you get into the "Anna crying" scene the basic gist of the thing is that nothing that happened during the game happened anywhere, and what's more as the "twins" point out even Booker's own recollections (what you think happened) could be considered spotty. Booker/Comstock and Elizabeth cease to exist, there is never a Columbia and apparently "real world history" happens as a result.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
