On March 30 2013 19:19 PrinceXizor wrote: I've never read anything more wrong in my life than what avs posted. 1999 mode is significantly harder than hard mode. claiming infinite ammo is a joke (unless you use pistol + machine gun, as they are the most common ammo), saying salts is better than everything by a mile is also false, health is more effective for shotgun/melee/pistol users while shields are better artillery styles, and salts for mid range. His gun choice explantion is definitely wrong as well. The difference between the repeater and the machine gun is actually pretty big. yeah they both fire bullets quickly, but they do different amounts of damage at different ranges with different spread recoil and upgrades. the healer can light oil does additional damage to mechanical and has a circle shapes spread, the shotgun cannot those things and has a fan shapes spread.
all the guns are very much different. and saying sniper + explosive is pretty wrong. since abusing the weak point of an enemy is always the best way, sniper for helmets, mid range for the non helmeted heads, shotguns for the explosive wielders, explosives work best against the airships, and guns like burst gun/carbine work best against patriots and handymen. you can't lump guns like you did. its just wrong.
Then the vigors, shock is the easiest to use, but not the strongest, bronco does the stun portion better than shock, devils kiss does the damage better (and the aoe better) crows controls a group better than any of them, Charge allows for the best mobility, which is something that is very useful in handyman fights as well as any fights dealing with explosives or airships. Undertow is probably the most powerful vigor, as it can kill groups in a single cast when positioned well. Return to sender is the best anti vigor user weapon in the game as well. possession becomes useless in fights with mobile enemies or long range ones with cover, its also useless vs patriots.
Gear changes so much of how the game can be played. a single cast of crows can keep a group tied up longer than expending your whole salts meter can when you get the traps gear and the upgrade.
He's not very wrong. If you want to powergame you will be going 50/50 shield / mana and leave health alone. There's no point to upgrading health because it doesn't regen, there's no vigor that lets you abuse excessive health nor does it scale with any of the health gear you can get.
The weapons presented in the game are shallow, and outside of the sniper rifle there is very little use for ironsights. The vox based weapons just behave like tweaked vanilla weaponry -- the enemy design is lacking in challenge nor is there much variety when it comes to how you can approach any given scenario presented your way, and the level design is much like the story. Extremely linear. Maybe i've been spoiled on Dishonoured amongst other games, but Bioshock infinite is simply not delivering on the combat front.
Not even on the "dreaded 1999 mode" has much to give for me in therms of combat. So far I'm trekking towards Slade in the hall of heroes and theres just nothing to it. Are there any new mechanics introduced? If so I haven't found any yet. What exactly was all the hype about this mode about?
More like I'm correct. The game has no real need or use for most of its weapons (which are spins on itself: Volley gun vs Hail gun for example). Sure they do slightly different things (you'd be surprised on how many variables you can tweak for a generic firearm), but the bottom line is that there is little "place" for them in this game. I can go through the entire game with a sniper rifle at short range to long range with 2 vigors and rarely run out of ammo.
1999 mode has again the following difference for "average players" - Bioshock developer: (compared to hard)
Reduced player respawn points (no difference since skilled players on hard barely die) Reduced ammo (not really an issue since you headshot most things/play efficiently) Enemies inflict greater damage (by greater they mean slightly more since you already get 2-4 shotted) Player has reduced and faster-depleting health (makes no difference since you have shields that regen) Respawn cost increases to $100, and the player will be sent back to the main menu if they don't have enough money. (biggest difference) Navigation Arrow is removed completely. (you already beat the game and dont need this)
Gear changes: Like I said if you cared to read about my original post...the gear comes too late to make a big impact. You cant "play" the style from the beginning because you have to "find the gear". I am surprised they didnt make a NG+ mode where you carried over everything into a harder game that required you to utilize gear combination and style + carryover upgrades to get through the combat. See what's missing from this game now?
I have no problem with players liking the weapon chose. I'm just pointing out why the OTHER guy said combat was shallow: Which it is...if you've not only played many shooters like I have but also analyze them so you understand what could have been better and what was done well.
Shit. I had hoped for more vigour users to fight. There's simply not enough of them around. as for the respawn cost. You can just reload the last checkpoint / safescrum to avoid loosing any money.:<
Just finished the game. I thought it was a great game. But it wasn't a great Bioshock game. IMO besides the interface and the vigors, they're was nothing that common with the other 2 Bioshock games.
What I mean to say is, I was disappointed by the lack of good and evil decisions the game had for you. I remember at one point Elizabeth was defending Fitzroy saying how she was doing all this good, and DeWitt was comparing her to Comstock. I remember thinking it was going to be a choice of whether to kill her or not. But there were no choices in the game which affected other parts of the game. That's what I found appealing in the previous games, and that's what I found lacking in this one. Still a fantastic game, but not much of a Bioshock game I found.
On April 03 2013 23:08 Fumanchu wrote: Just finished the game. I thought it was a great game. But it wasn't a great Bioshock game. IMO besides the interface and the vigors, they're was nothing that common with the other 2 Bioshock games.
What I mean to say is, I was disappointed by the lack of good and evil decisions the game had for you. I remember at one point Elizabeth was defending Fitzroy saying how she was doing all this good, and DeWitt was comparing her to Comstock. I remember thinking it was going to be a choice of whether to kill her or not. But there were no choices in the game which affected other parts of the game. That's what I found appealing in the previous games, and that's what I found lacking in this one. Still a fantastic game, but not much of a Bioshock game I found.
If your good/evil choices had any real effect in the other 2 games I might agree with you, but let's be honest: they changed a 30 second long ending and in 1, it was strictly better to just save everyone since the free gifts you got >>> the tiny amount of extra ADAM.
so I guess the 122 times it turns up heads (at the raffle) is all the previous times Booker has tried to save Elizabeth? Or alternatively they visited 121 worlds prior to that one?
Also 122 happens to be the same pattern as you ring the bells at the lighthouse. That Booker/Bathysphere theory is really blowing my mind!!
I mean it's a really good game and stuff. But it doesn't even come close to Bioshock 1. It's maby just a little better then bioshock 2 and the only reason for that, is because it has a new setting.
There were so many mistakes in detail. The story is 2 hours long, rest of it is basicly arena fighting where enemy's keep spawning. You almost never use your hook. Or at least in a usefull way. Graphical glitches, bullet spongie enemey's. Boring weapons. Boring cloths. Enemy's auto detect you when aiming. Useless rift summons. Boring salts.
What actually was pretty good, was Elizabeth. The story is subjective, I liked it, how it connected Bioshock 1 in it.
Looking at the total package from afar it's a solid game, but I was so disappointed by the lack of detail, I would expect here.
This is all my oppinion ofcourse these are not facts.
As someone who never played the first Bioshock (although it did come free with the copy of Infinite I purchased) I really, really enjoyed this game. It reminded me a lot of the Half-Life series in how the developers created this whole other world that I was able to immerse myself in. The story blew my mind just on the surface area, let alone all the speculating one can do in regards to just what exactly the creators were trying to say with this story. Its some really profound shit in my book.
One of the best FPS experiences I've had in my life bar none.
I don't think it was that overrated - I think people are willing to overlook the combat flaws because they are more focused on Elizabeth and the relationship with her. I think the creators did a great job of making the game deceptively linear...not sure that's what word I am meaning to use, but they distract you from the fact that there's a lot more that could have been done with the game through the interactions with the world and Elizabeth.
I would say it's a game worthy of a 10/10 but feels like it should be a 9/10. Whenever I think about the actual gameplay portion, it's pretty bland and non-interesting, but the game as a whole from top to bottom feels like a 10/10 game. It's really odd, and not sure if it was intended to be that way or not. There was so, so much more that could have been integrated into the story, and it was just left as fluff - I mean...Columbia was pretty much irrelevant once you made it past the first scenes. That sort of thing.
100% of the games ever released will have people that like and dislike the story, and even if someone disliked the story they probably would admit that they (at some point) found themselves caring about what happened to yourself and Elizabeth.
Other than Alyx from Halflife, I don't think there's been a game that has done an AI Companion and your relationship with them so well. At least none that I've played, or remember!
On April 04 2013 00:47 Torenhire wrote: I don't think it was that overrated - I think people are willing to overlook the combat flaws because they are more focused on Elizabeth and the relationship with her. I think the creators did a great job of making the game deceptively linear...not sure that's what word I am meaning to use, but they distract you from the fact that there's a lot more that could have been done with the game through the interactions with the world and Elizabeth.
I would say it's a game worthy of a 10/10 but feels like it should be a 9/10. Whenever I think about the actual gameplay portion, it's pretty bland and non-interesting, but the game as a whole from top to bottom feels like a 10/10 game. It's really odd, and not sure if it was intended to be that way or not. There was so, so much more that could have been integrated into the story, and it was just left as fluff - I mean...Columbia was pretty much irrelevant once you made it past the first scenes. That sort of thing.
100% of the games ever released will have people that like and dislike the story, and even if someone disliked the story they probably would admit that they (at some point) found themselves caring about what happened to yourself and Elizabeth.
Other than Alyx from Halflife, I don't think there's been a game that has done an AI Companion and your relationship with them so well. At least none that I've played, or remember!
Elizabeth was surely well done but in the end she felt to me like an animation for the F-key when it came to actual gameplay. Besides that she stood in corners and looked dreamy or shocked outside of cutscenes. This may sound harsh but that's just how I felt playing the game. Obviously the game has still better writing than 99% of current games so the relationship still forced a bit of emotion to me as the player but it wasn't levels about stuff that already was done in other games. Maybe the fact that I played The Walking Dead recently in which the game also evolves around the realtionship between the player and a to him unknown girl. Only that in The Walking Dead the relationship was much more meaningful and better written. Both games even cover similar themes through those relationships. I just felt The Walking Dead did a better job in that regard. The comparision is of course strictly restricted to writing and story, you obviously can't compare the gameplay of the two games.
i liked the game, for a fps game it was like the best single player experience since hl/2 but it still lacks something, maybe shooter themselves are the problem ~ after 1999 now i just deinstalled it, i got every recording etc and dont see any value in playing it again. skyrim so far the only game besides sc2 which is not deinstalled after playing thou ~
so I guess the 122 times it turns up heads (at the raffle) is all the previous times Booker has tried to save Elizabeth? Or alternatively they visited 121 worlds prior to that one?
Also 122 happens to be the same pattern as you ring the bells at the lighthouse. That Booker/Bathysphere theory is really blowing my mind!!
I don't think this game is Game of the Generation or greatest game of all time, but it did a LOT of things really really well especially with the characters, their relationships, and the dialog. Each interaction you have with the major characters in the game has significance on both a surface and deep level. Playing it over once you know the ending is almost an entirely new experience because you see all these little subtleties that hint toward a greater ending. Its just so well thought out in that regard that makes it a really amazing game in my opinion.
The gameplay was fun, I enjoy a shooting gallery, but I agree it didn't break any barriers. If the game was an point and click adventure or something like Amensia I think it would have gotten the story across just as well. The most interesting parts were when you weren't shooting and killing and had the time to explore, I hope Irrational games tackles that kind of game in the future.
So in my opinion, its a must play game if you haven't been spoiled by everything. If you already know the ending, you've sort of missed out of half the gameplay experience. sorry.
That video clearly comforts me in my feeling that there isn't a 100% clear and logical explanation of everything. And probably, imo, not even the writer had an answer to everything. It's a bit like Terminator and Looper, its cool and it makes a good story with interesting plot twists but you shouldn't try to really go deep and explain 100%. (or you end up making your own explanation to make it all fit, but isn't necessarily even thought by the writers)
Btw, not sure what is people problem with the end fight. Took me only one fail to beat it on hard without having to do crazy stuff.
On April 05 2013 08:01 rezoacken wrote: That video clearly comforts me in my feeling that there isn't a 100% clear and logical explanation of everything. And probably, imo, not even the writer had an answer to everything. It's a bit like Terminator and Looper, its cool and it makes a good story with interesting plot twists but you shouldn't try to really go deep and explain 100%. (or you end up making your own explanation to make it all fit, but isn't necessarily even thought by the writers)
Btw, not sure what is people problem with the end fight. Took me only one try to beat it on hard without having to do crazy stuff.
Same here. I think they probably thought of it a bit tedious and wanted to just get through it to get to the end of the game and advance the story.
On April 04 2013 00:47 Torenhire wrote: I don't think it was that overrated - I think people are willing to overlook the combat flaws because they are more focused on Elizabeth and the relationship with her. I think the creators did a great job of making the game deceptively linear...not sure that's what word I am meaning to use, but they distract you from the fact that there's a lot more that could have been done with the game through the interactions with the world and Elizabeth.
I would say it's a game worthy of a 10/10 but feels like it should be a 9/10. Whenever I think about the actual gameplay portion, it's pretty bland and non-interesting, but the game as a whole from top to bottom feels like a 10/10 game. It's really odd, and not sure if it was intended to be that way or not. There was so, so much more that could have been integrated into the story, and it was just left as fluff - I mean...Columbia was pretty much irrelevant once you made it past the first scenes. That sort of thing.
100% of the games ever released will have people that like and dislike the story, and even if someone disliked the story they probably would admit that they (at some point) found themselves caring about what happened to yourself and Elizabeth.
Other than Alyx from Halflife, I don't think there's been a game that has done an AI Companion and your relationship with them so well. At least none that I've played, or remember!
I don't get the whole fascination with Elizabeth. The only reason she's not annoying is because she's not really there. They could just as well have made her invisible outside of cutscenes. Honestly, I don't feel she adds anything to the game, it's not like you can ACTUALLY interact with her. It's as if people playing this game has never even heard of an RPG, so they think this Elizabeth AI is somehow engaging and deep, when it's just a dumb NPC with barely anything to add outside of cutscenes.
Shes a good character and the story of the game is nice, but I don't get how her presence is in anyway considered a gameplay element. The gameplay is crappy and it's not impacted by Elizabeth at all.
Elizabeth is perfect as an ai partner for the exact reasons you listed tobberoth, your interaction with her in gameplay is limited to QTEs and besides that she just stays the fuck out of your way. Female ai partners have finally learned their place, hiding behind shit while I do the work. And I like it that way, most ai partners that try to participate in a more overt way usually become more of an annoyance then an engaging partner in gameplay.
I actually think they did her well even though shes not actually that engaging just because she doesnt give you the usual headaches of an uncontrolled ai partner.
This Game is the most over-hyped in a long time! Every Reviewer that gave it more than a 9/10 is retarded. The story and atmo is great, but the Gameplay is just solid at most. The Gameplay feels just terrible, the Spells are pretty much useless or have way too high costs to make them useful. And If you consider that the Game is done after ~11-15hrs you can never ever give it a 9/10 or even more. TB had a good rant about how IGN got paid to hype this Game on his last podcast.
Overall: Solid Game but you can get more Value for 30€.
On April 07 2013 08:19 Julianos wrote: This Game is the most over-hyped in a long time! Every Reviewer that gave it more than a 9/10 is retarded. The story and atmo is great, but the Gameplay is just solid at most. The Gameplay feels just terrible, the Spells are pretty much useless or have way too high costs to make them useful. And If you consider that the Game is done after ~11-15hrs you can never ever give it a 9/10 or even more. TB had a good rant about how IGN got paid to hype this Game on his last podcast.
Overall: Solid Game but you can get more Value for 30€.
You do realize that a review is by definition biased, and that most people found this game to be one of the best games to come out the last 10 years? Of course most reviewers are going to give it a high score! You need to be able to see the difference between you not liking something, and it actually being good (its no shame, I don't like a lot of things I can honestly say is really good).
The atmosphere is absolutely amazing, the story is complex and interesting enough to keep you on your toes and make you guess what is going to happen next (not to mention give you long pause at the end to figure out just what exactly happened, and how the whole game was leading up to it without you noticing). The combat could have been done slightly better, but its varied and exciting enough to keep you going, and the ai is pretty good. Elizabeth is also probably the best female companion in any game created yet (including alex), and she knows not to get in your way in combat where you just want to go all out and blast enemies, and not have to worry about her.
And game length is never a good factor. You can't say a game isn't amazing if your only complaint about it is "I need more of it". When did games get this magical rule that stated they needed to be 30 hours or longer to be valid?!
I also can't fathom the amount of bullshit people spew every time a critic gives a score they don't expect, whetever its higher or lower. Either he's not doing his job, or he's being paid off by the publisher who made the game. Seriously, you can't stop to think for a SECOND that he might simply have a different opinion than you?
On April 07 2013 08:19 Julianos wrote: This Game is the most over-hyped in a long time! Every Reviewer that gave it more than a 9/10 is retarded. The story and atmo is great, but the Gameplay is just solid at most. The Gameplay feels just terrible, the Spells are pretty much useless or have way too high costs to make them useful. And If you consider that the Game is done after ~11-15hrs you can never ever give it a 9/10 or even more. TB had a good rant about how IGN got paid to hype this Game on his last podcast.
Overall: Solid Game but you can get more Value for 30€.
I am going to go out on a limb here and just say that you should probably just stop making accounts on TL after getting banned for being an asshole. Lets see how long it takes this time.....last time you got to over 70 posts which was quite suprising to be true.
Also to people wondering if thats actually the same guy....."Julianos" was created 1 day after "Dibella" was banned. The posts are pretty similar and both the account names are gods from the Elder scrolls universe. Both have Germany as location aswell. Idk if that qualifies as enough evidence to ban him again but it wouldnt really matter anyway since he would just make a new account.
On April 07 2013 08:19 Julianos wrote: This Game is the most over-hyped in a long time! Every Reviewer that gave it more than a 9/10 is retarded. The story and atmo is great, but the Gameplay is just solid at most. The Gameplay feels just terrible, the Spells are pretty much useless or have way too high costs to make them useful. And If you consider that the Game is done after ~11-15hrs you can never ever give it a 9/10 or even more. TB had a good rant about how IGN got paid to hype this Game on his last podcast.
Overall: Solid Game but you can get more Value for 30€.
I am going to go out on a limb here and just say that you should probably just stop making accounts on TL after getting banned for being an asshole. Lets see how long it takes this time.....last time you got to over 70 posts which was quite suprising to be true.
Also to people wondering if thats actually the same guy....."Julianos" was created 1 day after "Dibella" was banned. The posts are pretty similar and both the account names are gods from the Elder scrolls universe. Both have Germany as location aswell. Idk if that qualifies as enough evidence to ban him again but it wouldnt really matter anyway since he would just make a new account.
Edit: Mhhh i guess that was enough evidence
You need to change your nick to Sherlock Holmes.. Although the mods are capable of comparing IP addresses, making the whole thing unneeded, that was an amazing piece of information gathering.
EPT
