|
On March 27 2013 01:11 adwodon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 22:28 TimENT wrote:On March 26 2013 20:44 adwodon wrote:On March 26 2013 14:34 TimENT wrote:On March 26 2013 14:26 Aerisky wrote:
Whoa, so many positive comments! :D Alright, definitely going to get it. The review especially, the clips of the game it showed were just jaw-droppingly gorgeous. And we're not talking photorealism or what have you, the game environment just looks...spectacular. The atmosphere as well is just beyond my diction to describe. :OO The trailers and review don't even do it justice. Yes, the atmosphere is potentially the greatest ever created in a fictional world (books, movies, games), and yes, the combat is probably the most enjoyable complete package I have ever encountered, and yes, the characters are simply outstanding, and yes, the music is incredibly captivating... But, beyond all of this lies one of the greatest and most beautiful stories ever written. Simply breathtaking, life-changing, and mind-numbing. Once again Ken Levine proves that video games have the potential to match and potentially surpass even the greatest of fictional novels. Hyperbole much? Games have a long way to go before they can even hope to come close to literature in terms of story telling. Film is still miles ahead of games but still trails behind literature, and thats not because I believe books to be fundamentally better, they've just been around for centuries and are a more singular cohesive and personal vision. Even then if it were the 'greatest and most beautiful story ever written' you wouldn't know and you wouldn't be able to judge that in a few hours / days of experiencing it. It takes decades, centuries even, for the full effect of something to be fully understood. Seriously, you think that this can compete with Paradise Lost or The Divine Comedy? Books which heavily influenced, and continue to influence billions of people and hundreds of years of culture. Does it come close to a film like Brazil or Blade Runner, which for all their brilliance are still flawed, showing just how far film still has to go before it can stand toe-to-toe with literatures greats? What and how does it do things different from games to date which, in comparison to film and literature are laughable in terms of story and characterization? It would also be somewhat depressing to think that games had reached that level, they are still way in their infancy, only a decade ago it was all teenage power fantasy and space marines, we still (hopefully) have hundreds of years to build and improve the medium and I'm quite keen to enjoy the ride, movies took decades to really begin appealing to broad culture and they are far easier to make compared to a game, so I don't think we'll be seeing games challenge film or books for a long time on their own merits, there's still too many limitations and problems associated with the medium which are going to take decades to overcome. I don't wish to put the game down and I get people are excited, but a bit of restraint and proper critical thinking perhaps? Something can be great, and very enjoyable without being 'OMFG BEST THIANG EVAR', especially something with such a budget where story and characters were undoubtedly influenced on some level by market appeal. Although I will say I'm glad people are looking at the story, but still most reviews have stayed away from actually criticising it, games won't truly be on par with film and literature until we actually start seriously criticising and dissecting story and characters and if this game pushes that further, especially by people discussing and criticising this games flaws, the better the medium will be in the future. I haven't gone into this game with much expectation but considering peoples reactions I think I am going to have to investigate further, put on my critic hat and get to grips with this game, and I suspect I will be pleasantly surprised as I go deeper and I hope that I find a game that can truly be held up as a game, but the key words are as a game, and I will certainly try to take my time. Wow, talk about buzz-killing. While I'm over here having the time of my life, you're just over analyzing an obvious exaggeration. It's posts like these that make me question if some people know how to let go and just enjoy themselves. Who cares if one person says omfg best thing ever while most would just say it's great? Who are you to decide how I feel about this game. I hope you learn to let go. I also hope you decide to never critique anything again because I can't even imagine what you'd say to something you've actually played. I can just imagine, 'while it is great, the hype around this game is obviously not deserved. To say it's one of the greatest games ever is depressing because we are only at the beginning of the powerful game generation. 6/10' And to the guy who agreed with him about my hyperbole and the proceeded to attempt to guess my age based on my excitement over a game- uhhhh 1. I'm 20 and I've read an extremely large amount of books. 2. You act like being excited about something is immature or negative. I'd say the second you stop getting excited about the little things in life that you've enjoyed, you've lost one of the best parts of your life, childish wonder. So while you two are miserably critiquing every aspect of the world, I'm going to enjoy what I enjoy, and ignore what I don't enjoy. It was this statement I disagree with, because its a simple but very bold statement. Show nested quote +But, beyond all of this lies one of the greatest and most beautiful stories ever written. Simply breathtaking, life-changing, and mind-numbing. I didn't say anything about the hype, its a deep topic, but hyping this as the best game ever made wouldn't have merited my criticism and could well be true, I wouldn't argue that. I simply pointed out that statement is gross hyperbole when you talk about story telling beyond gaming, which you explicitly did. I also don't intend to kill peoples buzz, but you're posting something glowing on a public forum, something which could influence someone's decision to purchase something and as a result I felt the need to call it out, it wasn't directed at you per se, rather someone who might take your statement a little too seriously, as even though you say its an obvious overstatement, your wording doesn't exactly give that impression, you came across like you honestly felt that and you weren't exaggerating. As for the ad hominem, I enjoy plenty of things, Bit Trip Runner had me grinning ear to ear just the other day (highly recommend it btw, its just pure fun). I suspect that you've somewhat missed what I'm trying to say though, which is fair, I can't really summarize this easily. I in no way would suggest that '6/10 games can do better', that is entirely not the point of anything I wrote. What I mean is that games are an entirely different medium to film and literature and to start comparing on the same stage they need to come into their own on an artistic level, which they have not done yet as noones really figured out how yet, and its no surprise either when considering the complexity of development, factoring in things like the uncanny valley makes it an almost impossible task on some levels, its going to take an insane amount of innovation to reach those heights. That is certainly not to suggest that any game made now is worthless or fundamentally flawed, even though it may sound that way. What I mean is that games are still games, they can be judged aside other games in terms of gameplay and story etc but they are not ready to put on a platform besides the greats, not yet, and not for a while. One of my hobbies is developing games and part of my personality has always involved being critical, but something people often misinterpret is my intent, I am not intending to be mean or harsh, quite the opposite, I can probably criticize my favourite games more than ones I hated, to me that's part of the enjoyment of video games, and many things beyond, they can be taken apart and looked at and the more you do it the deeper things become and you realize all the things that go into making these things and in turn furthers your enjoyment. If I were foolish enough to go into this game expecting something to rival the greats I probably would be disappointed, but I'm not, my attitude going into this game is one of intrigue, I have some shallow questions like are guns worth it in this game or are they an almost after-thought, and I have some deeper questions like whether this game has conquered the ludonarrative dissonance that plagued Bioshock but these questions won't make me enjoy the game less, I might not be filled to brim with excitement at every turn but that's not really the sort of person I am, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy things. I'll leave it at this post though, I don't want this to devolve too quickly, but I did want to clarify a bit of what I said. Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:52 sc4k wrote:
Edited out most of this post, not worth it.
It's possible that your excitement was justified but I'll wait and see. Perhaps if some other members of TL turn up who I know love Deus Ex and express their admiration then I might be fully excited. If Boblion turns up and says he loves it I might have to get it. I'll try to get a blog post up at some point next week with a good critical assessment, seems like a reasonable way to spend my 4 day weekend, I want to play this game without reading too much opinion before though, although my opinion probably doesn't mean a whole lot to you at the moment I'll give you a heads up if you're interested. I probably wouldn't have purchased this game full price, at least not based on first week hype, but gmg's £24 + 3 games deal and the RPS review clinched it for me, felt hard to say no when it was so cheap on day one.
Can you just follow his advice and drop it... Relax, live life, have fun, share other people's joys
|
Btw i just wanna mention that the passages where you don't run around shooting at everything that moves are excellent and there should've been way more of them. I know it's a shooter and all but i think with less focus on combat the game could've been alot better and maybe even warranted the praise. But i personally got tired of the combat pretty quickly especially since it basically lenghtens the duration of the game needlessly on alot of points in the game. Exactly like in the first two Bioshocks where i hated this as well .
It's more of what Bioshock and Bioshock 2 had been and thats fine but it's not one of the best games ever made not even close.
|
On March 27 2013 02:24 MilesTeg wrote:
The game currently costs 24 pounds at Green Man Gaming. 24 pounds. How the hell is that expensive? What planet do you guys live on? Games are cheaper than they've ever been. The biggest resource they take is time. Which is why it's much better to have a game with a good pace, than a bloated game, even if it's a bit short.
Eh, that's masses according to my finances lol. I consider the true value of most games to be equal to 10-14 pounds. Some games warrant £20. I have spent £30 on a few games but I consider that to be a fair value for a top game, maybe a 9/10 or more. Many games I have bought, if I could have the money I spent given back and erase the memories of the game then hell yes I would! And yes I consider that any game with a singleplayer below 20 hours is a disappointment personally. Comparing Fallout to Metro 2033 for example. Metro 2033 had a lot going for it but was horrifically short and therefore not worth more than £8.
I also consider the value of movies to be £3-4, and £5-6 in the cinema, based on how much enjoyment you get out of them combined with how much they take to produce. Just because games used to be even bigger rip offs doesn't mean the status quo of value is fair and reasonable. For the amount of work that goes into a CoD or a Madden I consider the fair value to be £5. For a game like this, depending on reviews, I think I'd be able to open up about £16-20.
Torrenting is a powerful equaliser against companies that would like to drive the cost of games up and up. If it eventually is eradicated, I will be sad to see it go to a certain extent for that reason. It brought the end of £20 music albums and it has been fighting against £35+ games for ages. I have to admit that quite a few times I have see games that I couldn't actually believe the company had the gall to attempt to rob people of £30 for them. For example, Aliens Colonial Marines lol. That was pretty much a watershed moment imo.
Please excuse the arbitrary numbers.
|
I just finished it after around 12 hours of gameplay time.
It's a beautiful game, both from a visual perspective and narrative perspective. There is tons of history and mystery surrounding the city of Colombia, and it's all just so interesting that you find yourself scavenging around looking to uncover it all. I felt myself at a loss of time while playing it, simply because I was too engaged in the narrative and character interaction between Booker and Elizabeth. Gameplay is hands down an improvement over the first BioShock but it's still not the game's biggest strength. The fluidity of the Skyline system however, is quite unlike anything I've seen in a video game before and it really adds to the authenticity of the city's verticality.
The ending was sensational. So many emotions and thoughts rushing through my head in the game's final moments. Some people might not like it due it's ambiguous nature, but to me it was an amazing way to tie up such a wonderfully crafted experience.
I don't have time to write a full on review for the game, so those were just my quick thoughts on it.
In short, you should definitely check it out!
|
+ Show Spoiler +What's the name of the song I just heard coming from the red tear in Finkterton? Sounded like Rolling Stones or something, I definately know, it but I just can't tell eactly from the few seconds I heard.... otherwise I'd just google the lyrics
|
Bioshock Infinite and Dishonoured were very similar games for me, does anyone else feel the same?
|
On March 27 2013 07:40 FliedLice wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What's the name of the song I just heard coming from the red tear in Finkterton? Sounded like Rolling Stones or something, I definately know, it but I just can't tell eactly from the few seconds I heard.... otherwise I'd just google the lyrics
+ Show Spoiler +You are probably referring to "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival"
|
On March 27 2013 07:52 aloT wrote:
Bioshock Infinite and Dishonoured were very similar games for me, does anyone else feel the same?
Well both have a steampunk worlds so i guess so. But Dishonored story was quite a bit weaker and overall a worse game but it gave you more options on how to play. I finished the game without killing anyone at all throughout the game. Thats not possible in Bioshock :o
|
On March 27 2013 07:53 saksy2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 07:40 FliedLice wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What's the name of the song I just heard coming from the red tear in Finkterton? Sounded like Rolling Stones or something, I definately know, it but I just can't tell eactly from the few seconds I heard.... otherwise I'd just google the lyrics + Show Spoiler +You are probably referring to "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival"
Ah right, that's it.
|
Just finished it! my second Imo 10/10 game I've ever played, first one being baldurs gate 2. I have played a lot of games in my days  So i spent some time thinking about what i didn't like about this game and... Bloom is annoying as fuck I'm sure you can turn that off somehow but i was too busy playing the game to find out how. Also the ending plot twist wasn't as good as bioshocks (but this time i specifically was expecting one so that might influence it)
|
On March 26 2013 21:57 Firebolt145 wrote:Anyway here is my current understanding of the whole story, including the ending. Pretty long. MASSIVE spoilers obviously. Do not read unless you have completed the whole thing. + Show Spoiler [My interpretation] +In some worlds, Booker was baptised into Comstock, who then created Columbia. The prophecy he was given states that Columbia will last as long as his bloodline stays on the throne. However, Comstock became infertile for some reason (exposure to some machinery somewhere, IIRC), so he asked the Lutele siblings to stepover into an alternate universe where Booker was never baptised into Comstock to ask for Booker's daughter in return for clearing Booker's gambling debts. Booker accepts. During the handover into Comstock's world, Booker changes his mind and grabs at Anna, resulting in the missing fingertip, but she passes into Comstock's world anyway. She is then locked into the tower where Comstock keeps a watchful eye on her. All her special talents regarding crossing over worlds is theorised by the Lutele siblings to be due to part of her body (her fingertip) being stuck in her original world.
To destroy any evidence that Elizabeth is not Comstock's true daughter, he has his wife and the Lutele siblings killed. The Lutele siblings do not completely die, but are instead scattered across time and space due to their exposure during their work.
Years later, the Lutele siblings offer Booker the chance to cross worlds to meet Anna/Elizabeth again. When crossing over into Comstock's world, his mind gets addled in the process. He forgets about his past (the daughter) and mixes his new objective with his earlier bargain of getting the girl to clear his debts.
At the end of the game, the tower is destroyed and all the restrictions on Elizabeth's power are lifted. She is finally able to peer into ALL the alternate worlds, crossing them at will. She then realises that Booker = Comstock, and although Comstock is dead in this world, the events are still proceeding as normal in many other alternate universes. She tells Booker that Comstock is still alive, asking if Booker is completely committed to ending the chain by killing Comstock at his 'birth'. Booker still has not realised that Comstock is just himself reborn, and commits to it. He walks into the scene of Wounded Knee, where he had just previously refused baptism (and forgiveness for his past sins). He finally realises the truth, at which point several other Elizabeths appear, showing just how many of them have suffered due to his transition into Comstock. They smother him in the water and he dies without resisting; the chain is broken and the other Elizabeths disappear.
Things I'm still not clear about or do not fit with this theory:
- What happened at the lighthouse at the beginning? Who set up the sign/dead guy inside?
- Exactly how does Booker pre-baptism in just one world kill ALL the Comstocks in all the worlds?
+ Show Spoiler +I fucking hate when games starts messing around with timetravel, they never ever make sense 
edit:whops sorry bout the double post
|
This game is awesome. The atmosphere, graphics, voice acting, ambience, Elizabeth AI, you name it, are just so good. It feels like you're playing in an animation movie. The gameplay is good too, everything is crisp and fun.
About the difficulty controversy, I'm playing it on medium because I don't play single player games to die and struggle, and it's indeed easy, but it seems that in hard mode (let alone the super hard mode you unlock once you finish the game) you die fast and need to use Elizabeth's abilities well, so it isn't the cakewalk people were talking about either.
Definitely worth playing anyway, I really rate it as one of the best single player games I've played so far.
|
so good. so good. so good. so good. so good. so good.
|
On March 27 2013 03:45 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:
I don't understand time-criticisms.
It's like judging a movie based on its length.
Surely, a movie being an hour-and-a-half long can't be better than a four-hour movie!!?? I'll use this to justify stealing it over the internet. I don't think a length comparison for movies and games is very fair, they are different beasts. Gamers tend have an expectation towards game length for SP only games being around ~25 hours.(anecdotal) Stealing is bad.
They're not very different beasts at all -- especially with a game like the Bioshock series. There are an extraordinary number of similarities between games like Bioshock and major motion pictures -- both in the actual products and in how they are made.
But criticizing the length of time or size of anything that is artistic -- as both movies and video games are -- is ignorant. Things should have the freedom to be as large, small, short, or long as they need to be.
Most games don't take longer than 12 hours, except for the RPG genre. A playthrough in most single-player games are rarely ever 25 hours, as you say gamers expect -- and most of them shouldn't be, either. Complaining simply about the length of time is arbitrary . A lot of shooters I've played are maybe ten hours long (nowhere near 25) and there is really no reason for them to be longer.
Four-hour movies can be tedious. Some aren't. It depends. When people say a movie is "too short", they usually mean there were plot holes and loose-ends. A movie being "too long" usually means it had too many tangents or unneeded scenes, and was generally boring. Critiquing the actual length of the movie is just meaningless.
Likewise, complaining about a game being too short is itself meaningless. What did it fail to do that made it too short? Maybe 12 hours is too short for a game like Bioshock, if the player feels like something is missing.
Having played Bioshock Infinite for a couple hours, I don't find myself thinking anything has been cut short. The levels feel natural to the location and to the plot. What is the game going to accomplish in 24 hours that it isn't accomplishing in 12?
|
I was worried for a moment that combat would continue being too easy but it seemed to ramp up pretty well in the Hall of Heroes, I'm excited to play again on 1999 mode. The wrench pretty much broke Bioshock for me, I hope there isn't one weapon that becomes the clear best in this game especially considering the 2 gun system.
|
On March 27 2013 10:38 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I was worried for a moment that combat would continue being too easy but it seemed to ramp up pretty well in the Hall of Heroes, I'm excited to play again on 1999 mode. The wrench pretty much broke Bioshock for me, I hope there isn't one weapon that becomes the clear best in this game especially considering the 2 gun system.
I wouldn't say there's a clear cut best but there are a bunch of extremely useless weapon imho. I used one weapon basically the whole time + Show Spoiler + and for me it was the best weapon in the game by far . Once it became available i never dropped it and rotated between 2-3 for the second gun when low on my first.
|
(@Leperello) Damn I couldn't disagree more with everything you say ^
I can't believe here is someone who actually likes shorter games. Crazy, it blows my mind. Games are for me, primarily about experiencing the escapism and immersion of a different world (well, singleplayer games). Not just developing and following a story. It's about the continued feeling of adventure and escapism, and the journey.
And talking about FPSs, any of the modern CoDs barring perhaps 4 are infinitely inferior to CoD 2 specifically because of the length disparity. Are you going to tell me that a game like Metro 2033 with less than 10 hours of play time is more fun and better than Fallout 3 or New Vegas? It may be better told and basically a better, more atmospheric story but the game is just pathetically short and feels like a demo.
|
On March 27 2013 10:49 sc4k wrote:
(@Leperello) Damn I couldn't disagree more with everything you say ^
I can't believe here is someone who actually likes shorter games. Crazy, it blows my mind. Games are for me, primarily about experiencing the escapism and immersion of a different world (well, singleplayer games). Not just developing and following a story. It's about the continued feeling of adventure and escapism, and the journey.
And talking about FPSs, any of the modern CoDs barring perhaps 4 are infinitely inferior to CoD 2 specifically because of the length disparity. Are you going to tell me that a game like Metro 2033 with less than 10 hours of play time is more fun and better than Fallout 3 or New Vegas? It may be better told and basically a better, more atmospheric story but the game is just pathetically short and feels like a demo.
"I couldn't disagree more with everything you say, so I'm going to immediately argue against something you never even said."
I never said I like shorter games. At all. I don't like longer games, or shorter games. You mention Fallout, and compare those to Metro and CoD based on their length -- which is exactly the thing I was saying people shouldn't do. There are more meaningful differences.
For example: Fallout is an open-world RPG. CoD and Metro are linear story-driven shooters. That is a more meaningful difference, than "one is longer than the other".
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that they're different. Part of their difference in gameplay and in their narrative means Fallout will be longer. It's a sandbox, it's got sidequests. You can't put sidequests in games like CoD and Metro. They're different games, comparing their length is one of the more meaningless comparisons you can make.
You say you enjoy games because of their immersion, but what does that have to do with length? If the game is trying to immerse you into a plot that is intriguing and tense, then the game is best off sticking to that plot, even if it makes for a shorter game. Fallout was fun, but I spent a lot more time collecting bottlecaps and shooting bandits in the desert wasteland than I did actually moving the plot-line. That doesn't work for all games.
So besides something I never said, what else do you disagree with me on?
|
Yeah but you agree that Metro 2033 was pathetically short and really could have done with a shit load more, right? Right??
And if you have played CoD 2 and the recent CoD games you will know what I am talking about. CoD 2 with 3 different campaigns, each one as long as any of the modern CoD games.
This isn't about the distinction between FPS and RPG (which is blurred very often btw, case in point Bioshock...), it's about lazy game studios making short games and phoning them in, and the public lapping it up. Gone are the days of Max Payne and Deus Ex unfortunately.
|
On March 27 2013 11:08 sc4k wrote:
Yeah but you agree that Metro 2033 was pathetically short and really could have done with a shit load more, right? Right??
And if you have played CoD 2 and the recent CoD games you will know what I am talking about. CoD 2 with 3 different campaigns, each one as long as any of the modern CoD games.
This isn't about the distinction between FPS and RPG (which is blurred very often btw, case in point Bioshock...), it's about lazy game studios making short games and phoning them in, and the public lapping it up. Gone are the days of Max Payne and Deus Ex unfortunately.
Haven't played Metro 2033, so I couldn't say. But I do agree with lazy studios phoning in games, especially in regards to obligatory sequels. Bioshock 2, for example, was very unimpressive. Just a very phoned-in game.
But Infinite deserves a lot more credit than that, I think. There are a lot of wonderful ideas in this game, and just an overall quality in production that is more deserving of discussion than the game's length. The level design, the atmosphere, the voice-acting, the music, the cinematic sequences, the companion AI, is all pretty remarkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
