|
Just got done playing the game.
+ Show Spoiler +So with the "time paradox" of Booker = Comstock being resolved and the other Elizabeth's disappearing, does that mean that there's only 1 Elizabeth/Anna left (the one left standing in the water after the others disappear) and she is now free to go to wherever - and whenever - she pleases?
I don't suppose there's any way of knowing short of 'Word of God' telling us what happens... But for me, I want to follow her around now, like what does she do, where does she go (assuming she continues to exist)?
|
In general I really loved this game. The pacing of the fights as well as the usefulness of each gun and vigor felt solid. The accessibility of resources seemed fair and settings provided multiple options for how to fight without it looking forced. In all of these ways Bioshock: Infinite is way beyond the Rapture games.
+ Show Spoiler +This all said, the original is still my favorite because, at least in my mind, it had something to say. The Ayn Randian philosophies of Rapture exist in the real world and were experiencing a resurgence in American politics around the time Bioshock was released. By exploring the possibilities in an overtly fictional environment it avoids the countless anecdotes that muddy the waters of real world discussion. Sure there was a narrative apart from all this but until the very last frame we felt the gravity of Andrew Ryan's vision.
Bioshock: Infinite sets the stage with its religious extremism and American exceptionalism but does nothing with it. In fact any attempt to do anything with the narrative is self defeating since every possibility plays itself out independently regardless of what an individual may decide. Even before you know this, the story is just a series of isolated exceptions that don't reference an underlying logic.
This is an entirely valid method of storytelling, It just lacks the depth that takes a game from 9/10 to "one of my favorite games of all time".
|
On March 31 2013 19:06 Velocirapture wrote:In general I really loved this game. The pacing of the fights as well as the usefulness of each gun and vigor felt solid. The accessibility of resources seemed fair and settings provided multiple options for how to fight without it looking forced. In all of these ways Bioshock: Infinite is way beyond the Rapture games. + Show Spoiler +This all said, the original is still my favorite because, at least in my mind, it had something to say. The Ayn Randian philosophies of Rapture exist in the real world and were experiencing a resurgence in American politics around the time Bioshock was released. By exploring the possibilities in an overtly fictional environment it avoids the countless anecdotes that muddy the waters of real world discussion. Sure there was a narrative apart from all this but until the very last frame we felt the gravity of Andrew Ryan's vision.
Bioshock: Infinite sets the stage with its religious extremism and American exceptionalism but does nothing with it. In fact any attempt to do anything with the narrative is self defeating since every possibility plays itself out independently regardless of what an individual may decide. Even before you know this, the story is just a series of isolated exceptions that don't reference an underlying logic.
This is an entirely valid method of storytelling, It just lacks the depth that takes a game from 9/10 to "one of my favorite games of all time".
+ Show Spoiler +This is what I found so captivating about this game. During the first few hours they make you think it's going to be another bioshock game about a certain political ideology, but then the game gradually switches to a completely different theme. Quite brilliant if you ask me.
|
The game left me wanting to play through again, got it in the mail this morning, and finished a short while ago, to see all of the story play out, and I will hopefully be able to pick up on some more details and foreshadowing etc. I couldn't ask for any more from it, I don't think i would call it perfect, but what is.
If anyone is on the border about getting it, then I would say yes. Do it.
Also, the combat did get slightly dull over time for me personally, but anything that involves shooting AI all day bores me. I'm just not much of a single player gamer.
|
On March 31 2013 10:19 CrazyBirdman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 08:29 Random() wrote:
I haven't finished it yet, but honestly I don't get all those perfect reviews. The setting is cool and all, but this is easily one of the worst designed shooters I have played. Kite, kite, kite is all there is to it. Those 'special' enemies with ridiculous amount of hit points are not even challenging, just super boring and repetitive. Yep, I really like the game so far but it is not the perfect game or anything close so far. The setting is brilliant and the gameplay for the most part fun but all in all it has all the same strenghts and weaknesses of BioShock 1. Obviously saying the game is just as good as BioShock isn't really a negative. Although I also never quite got the massive acclaim BioShock got. It was extremly good but I never felt it was the high point of video games as many thought of it. I am still very looking forward to continue the story and Columbia alone is worth playing the game
This. The gameplay is quite subpar and there's no real challenge outside of 1999 mode. The story, atmosphere and surroundings are amazing though. Basically the same opinion I had with regards to Bioshock 1.
Worth playing by all means, enjoyable. Definitely overrated when it comes to review scores though IMO.
|
Just finished the game and, I'm kinda regretting spending $60 on it. The setting was great, but I personally preferred Rapture over Columbia. The sub-plots were sub-par. The vigors weren't as fun to use as the plasmids in Rapture were. I don't like the addition of the shield instead of keeping just health/mana and giving us ability to keep health kits/salts to replenish. The thing I liked least about the game though, were the guns. They were soooo bland and boring compared to Rapture's arsenal. You could also only carry 2 guns at a time, which was a major letdown. No choice for special types of ammo (like anti-personnel or machine etc.) Combat vs the ai was dull and repetitive. Bioshock 1 and 2 had a wider variety of enemies to fight (remember spider splicers and houdinis?) but just about everyone in Columbia had a gun. The only "special" enemies noteworthy of anything were handymen and flamers, but I found them quite boring in comparison as well.
I may differ from TL here, but I very much enjoyed the combat in Bioshock 1 and 2, and never saw a real problem with it. All three games have a very fluid combat system but Infinite had the same combat over and over that it got repetitive pretty fast.
6.5/10 for me
|
I wish we could move away from relying on combat to define the worth of a video game.
Ken expressed that from the outset his main success criteria was whether or not the player developed any relationship with Elizabeth, however brief. The reason he wanted to do this was because he believes that video games are very good at getting players to have relationships with systems or combat or what have you, but unlike other art forms, very poor at asking for personal investment in characters.
He felt that was the next big evolution for video games. Knowing this, I'm still amazed at how much I loved Liz in this game. Perhaps its my fascination with Disney universes, but her character went places that I haven't quite felt from an AI before. Even something like Heavy Rain which was overtly supposed to trigger emotion didn't hit the same notes this game did.
I'm the guy who is still in love with Mass Effect 1 though, and gives strange looks to people who prefer ME2 because the combat system improved.
|
On April 01 2013 01:15 Epishade wrote:
Just finished the game and, I'm kinda regretting spending $60 on it. The setting was great, but I personally preferred Rapture over Columbia. The sub-plots were sub-par. The vigors weren't as fun to use as the plasmids in Rapture were. I don't like the addition of the shield instead of keeping just health/mana and giving us ability to keep health kits/salts to replenish. The thing I liked least about the game though, were the guns. They were soooo bland and boring compared to Rapture's arsenal. You could also only carry 2 guns at a time, which was a major letdown. No choice for special types of ammo (like anti-personnel or machine etc.) Combat vs the ai was dull and repetitive. Bioshock 1 and 2 had a wider variety of enemies to fight (remember spider splicers and houdinis?) but just about everyone in Columbia had a gun. The only "special" enemies noteworthy of anything were handymen and flamers, but I found them quite boring in comparison as well.
I may differ from TL here, but I very much enjoyed the combat in Bioshock 1 and 2, and never saw a real problem with it. All three games have a very fluid combat system but Infinite had the same combat over and over that it got repetitive pretty fast.
6.5/10 for me
Not much different from what I felt, but I think it's the over saturation of bad that makes infinite stand out as 10/10. Because it is the highest production value game in a long time. Compared with shovelware such as dragonage 2 getting a 8-10. It just breaks the scale, and I would love to see it earn critical acclaim. Simply because it's competitors are shit by comparison.
On April 01 2013 01:37 Fzero wrote:
I wish we could move away from relying on combat to define the worth of a video game.
Ken expressed that from the outset his main success criteria was whether or not the player developed any relationship with Elizabeth, however brief. The reason he wanted to do this was because he believes that video games are very good at getting players to have relationships with systems or combat or what have you, but unlike other art forms, very poor at asking for personal investment in characters.
He felt that was the next big evolution for video games. Knowing this, I'm still amazed at how much I loved Liz in this game. Perhaps its my fascination with Disney universes, but her character went places that I haven't quite felt from an AI before. Even something like Heavy Rain which was overtly supposed to trigger emotion didn't hit the same notes this game did.
I'm the guy who is still in love with Mass Effect 1 though, and gives strange looks to people who prefer ME2 because the combat system improved.
It wasn't much of an improvement. They would have had a much more dynamic game if they had itterated on the heat mechanic and just improved the Me1 system.
|
On April 01 2013 01:37 Fzero wrote:
Ken expressed that from the outset his main success criteria was whether or not the player developed any relationship with Elizabeth, however brief. The reason he wanted to do this was because he believes that video games are very good at getting players to have relationships with systems or combat or what have you, but unlike other art forms, very poor at asking for personal investment in characters.
He felt that was the next big evolution for video games. Knowing this, I'm still amazed at how much I loved Liz in this game. Perhaps its my fascination with Disney universes, but her character went places that I haven't quite felt from an AI before. Even something like Heavy Rain which was overtly supposed to trigger emotion didn't hit the same notes this game did.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/366dfc93b404396612a2c4e01843d3fd/tumblr_mkdm92z7UW1r8iz23o3_250.gif) What could be better than this? Paris. DeWitt you little bastard look at how happy she is just go to Paris with her. If this game doesn't end with you two in Paris I am going to be so mad. Also, TL; the bird, or the cage? I'd be shocked if anyone picked the cage.
I'd agree with most that the gameplay leaves something to be desired. I recommend playing it through on Normal; the fights on Hard just tend to drag on a little and the Siren towards the end is just a tiresome fight.
The narrative was top notch however, loved the atmosphere, the colour, the pacing of the story, and Elizabeth was just... pleasant. Never felt tired of her or bored of her and was actually emotionally invested in a few points. Not many games can pull that off.
|
On April 01 2013 01:37 Fzero wrote:
I wish we could move away from relying on combat to define the worth of a video game.
Ken expressed that from the outset his main success criteria was whether or not the player developed any relationship with Elizabeth, however brief. The reason he wanted to do this was because he believes that video games are very good at getting players to have relationships with systems or combat or what have you, but unlike other art forms, very poor at asking for personal investment in characters.
He felt that was the next big evolution for video games. Knowing this, I'm still amazed at how much I loved Liz in this game. Perhaps its my fascination with Disney universes, but her character went places that I haven't quite felt from an AI before. Even something like Heavy Rain which was overtly supposed to trigger emotion didn't hit the same notes this game did.
I'm the guy who is still in love with Mass Effect 1 though, and gives strange looks to people who prefer ME2 because the combat system improved.
Apart from the combat the game is completely linear, there are no decisions that influence the story at all. So take the combat away and its not a game anymore, but a 10h+ movie. You cant just neglect the part of it what makes it a game.
|
My steam game said I played it for 8.8 hours and I beat the game on Normal. I didn't even rush it either, I went to buildings along the way to open chests etc. Was this similar time to you guys too?
|
I played on hard the first time and I clocked about 11 to 12 hours.
|
Priced a little high at 60, however what I've played so far (about 3 hours) has been oh-so-worth it.
This should be a guaranteed buy if it ever goes on steam sale for those who didn't pick it up for 60. Even if it's only on sale for 40 bucks.
|
Again, I don't know if this has been stated in this particular thread or not, but a major part of the commentary of the game is about GAMES.
It's like the movie Inception - which at first appears to be a movie about convoluted timelines and all that, but is really a movie about moviemaking.
All the choices in the game are not choices at all. That's the point. It's always heads at the coin flip on the chalkboard, didn't you notice? You're the 122nd Dewitt they've run through this little experiment. Bird or the cage? C-A-G-E, the song to call the bird. No choice at all.
The reason you pick the choices you pick is supposed to be thought provoking, but they don't amount to significant on their own. The game is examining the journey, not the individual moment. It all ends where it began, etc etc.
|
On April 01 2013 01:59 grush57 wrote:
My steam game said I played it for 8 hours and I beat the game on Normal. I didn't even rush it either, I went to buildings along the way to open chests etc. Was this similar time to you guys too?
Took me 13 hours on hard, tried to explore as much as possible.
|
Yea it seems like this game was pretty short then. It was great and worth the $60 because of the story, but as a single player only game it was too short.
|
On April 01 2013 02:20 grush57 wrote:
Yea it seems like this game was pretty short then. It was great and worth the $60 because of the story, but as a single player only game it was too short.
I'm really glad they didn't tack on a bad multiplayer just for the sake of having one, which detracts money and time that could be spent on the singleplayer experience, for something that no one is going to like anyways.
|
Many don't seem to like the gameplay. Perhaps there is some truth in that, but I was too busy being FLOORED by the story and atmosphere in the game, just amazing. In my opinion Irrational Games raised the bar when it comes to storytelling in a computer game. I'm now on my second playthrough, on 1999 mode this time. There are so many slight but important details related to the story that only really surface once you play the game a second time.
|
On March 29 2013 03:36 CobaltBlu wrote:
A lot of love went into making this game and I think it really stands out. You can tell they really spent time picking the music for each scenario and I think the art direction is wonderful. I hope game developers take note that it stands out when care is taken with the details.
the song being played during the game intro screen has meaning
spoiler: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bioshock/comments/1bclkq/spoiler_my_god_i_am_so_stupid_lacrimosa_and/
|
On April 01 2013 01:58 Warri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 01:37 Fzero wrote:
I wish we could move away from relying on combat to define the worth of a video game.
Ken expressed that from the outset his main success criteria was whether or not the player developed any relationship with Elizabeth, however brief. The reason he wanted to do this was because he believes that video games are very good at getting players to have relationships with systems or combat or what have you, but unlike other art forms, very poor at asking for personal investment in characters.
He felt that was the next big evolution for video games. Knowing this, I'm still amazed at how much I loved Liz in this game. Perhaps its my fascination with Disney universes, but her character went places that I haven't quite felt from an AI before. Even something like Heavy Rain which was overtly supposed to trigger emotion didn't hit the same notes this game did.
I'm the guy who is still in love with Mass Effect 1 though, and gives strange looks to people who prefer ME2 because the combat system improved. Apart from the combat the game is completely linear, there are no decisions that influence the story at all. So take the combat away and its not a game anymore, but a 10h+ movie. You cant just neglect the part of it what makes it a game.
What makes a game? It's so strange to me that people think of the entire concept of a game as such a uniform model, where you have to excel in every different aspect to get a good general review or excel in people favorite aspects to get certain praise. Even if I were to discount the gameplay and combat of the game as subpar, it would still rank a 9 or 10/10 for me on its other elements.
Not every game needs to have an innovative and one-of-a-kind combat system just like not every book needs to have descriptive and creative illustrations. Not every game needs to contain a plethora of choices to affect or guide the story, nor is there any reason to suggest such a system is uniformly better than a linear game. They are just different games, it's like comparing apples and oranges to suggest one is better because it's not like the other.
You say this could have just been a 10h+ movie because of it's linearity and story-driven nature, but it most certainly could not, certainly not in the way we experienced it as a game. This story may have been loosely adaptable, but it would not have had the same effect. The game could only have produced this experience AS A GAME, because of the many benefits the medium has for story-telling. In a game, you are your own director, you decide your own pacing and what shots to focus on and which ones to ignore or skip entirely. Games also have the benefit of length, where 10+ contiguous hours may be short for the general gaming audience, it is anything but for the other visual story-telling mediums. Lastly, games just have a more intangible interactive element that you simply cannot get from a movie, using free flowing first person perspective, actual combat and puzzles to draw you in, and other techniques to keep you moving.
So when people tear apart a game on just one of the many factors that can (but not must) go into a game as if there is only one way to make a game, it's a disservice to the industry. Genres aren't enough, every game can be as unique and innovative in it's exposition as well as it's consumption as it's developers are capable of, and in a way other stricter mediums cannot. Not all games are alike, and they should not all be judged in the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
