There's little out about this game except for a website and a trailer, but so far its looking to have as interesting a premise as the first two games. The new website for their game
The difference is that, obviously, this game will be taking place in the sky. The big daddies look a bit different too (possibly that purple blob is the energy source to keep the city in the sky). However, the same dystopia seems to be repeating itself as people are already getting killed by the Big Daddies.
I wish they had done a prequel... It's what I've been really wanting too...
Also.. get the silly diaries... and stop and look at every room... EVERYTHING has a story behind it, it's crazy... so many little things that I didn't pick up on the first play through, they really know how to bring their worlds to life.
Bioshock was one of my favourite games of all time, I hope this has the same feel to it. Bioshock 2 was ok, but felt like just another sequel. Don't let me down Ken Levine
On August 16 2010 05:34 Catch]22 wrote: Its more of the same, just like BS2?
Bioshock 2 really only felt like more (worse) Bioshock
Its the same developers as the first Bioshock and the concept has many more original ideas. The problem with Bioshock 2 was that it promised you could be a big daddy but still left you about as powerful as in the first game, albeit with a few new toys.
Am I the only one that was disappointed with Bioshock? Like it started off great, then it went to mediocrity after the first two areas, to make it worse, the plot kind of stagnated in what should have been the crescendo. I love the back story behind it and all that jazz but as a game it was quite disappointing.
On August 16 2010 07:20 myopia wrote: I don't want subpar Bioshocks, I want my System Shock 3
On August 16 2010 07:20 Judicator wrote: Am I the only one that was disappointed with Bioshock? Like it started off great, then it went to mediocrity after the first two areas, to make it worse, the plot kind of stagnated in what should have been the crescendo. I love the back story behind it and all that jazz but as a game it was quite disappointing.
On August 16 2010 02:54 YoureFired wrote: The bonus is that the makers of the original Bioshock (Irrational Games) are also going to be making this.
Just for the record, Irrational games made all three games, it's just that in 2006 Irrational games was acquired by 2k games and renamed "2k Boston." It's just this year they decided to return to their original name "Irrational games" for whatever reason, though they are still affiliated with 2k games.
I really really enjoyed playing through the first one, but for Bioshock 2, I couldn't really get into it and just kind of stopped playing a few hours in. Hopefully this one will deliver. (thankfully it's a completely different setting with new characters, so I don't have to go through 2 - - )
hmm i feel as though they're just milking the franchise now.
i liked bioshock 2 because of the way it completely contrasted the story with that of bioshock 1. instead of an every man for himself objectivist society of bioshock 1, it was an everything for the people socialist society. it gave a sense of all the idealists and utopians that came to rapture to see their dreams realized.
i really don't know what they're going to do now. the time it takes place and the obvious american flags strung up everywhere seems to point to the explosion in capitalism in the states, so i'm interested to see what they do with that.
Going back to my first post, the small things made Bioshock enjoyable to go through (although not necessarily to play through). I remember one particular line from a recorder diary that was very poignant; when building a utopia of the finest/successful minds in the world, "someone's gotta clean the toilets". The game went downhill for me after that until I met Ryan, then after that everything felt like the fucking alien levels of Half-Life.
I was biased against this, thinking it would be terrible after how bland and boring bioshock 2 was, but seriously I was blown away. Looks fantastic, hoping the game lives up to this gameplay consistently.
Oh man, the part where he was using the rail system made me pretty nauseous lol. Looking pretty interesting so far though, can't wait to see what else they have planned.
I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
Bioshock is an FPS with standard mouse+keyboard controls. I've played many games with mediocre PC controls but Bioshock was standard to my recollection.
Similarly, I would imagine Bioshock 3 would have very similar controls. If you didn't like the controls in the other two, I doubt you'll like 3 any better.
the demo was pretty cool, but looks INSANELY scripted. The developers were definitely hyping it up like it's a lot more dynamic, so I'll be really interested to see just how un-scripted the game actually plays out, because those 10 minutes seemed more scripted than almost any other game I've seen lol.
On September 22 2010 12:56 Ideas wrote: the demo was pretty cool, but looks INSANELY scripted. The developers were definitely hyping it up like it's a lot more dynamic, so I'll be really interested to see just how un-scripted the game actually plays out, because those 10 minutes seemed more scripted than almost any other game I've seen lol.
Exactly, I rolled my eyes when I saw the comments on the youtube video.This is simply scripted to the death, and I really doubt they add the manpower the script this much for a whole average game length.
On September 22 2010 12:56 Ideas wrote: the demo was pretty cool, but looks INSANELY scripted. The developers were definitely hyping it up like it's a lot more dynamic, so I'll be really interested to see just how un-scripted the game actually plays out, because those 10 minutes seemed more scripted than almost any other game I've seen lol.
Exactly, I rolled my eyes when I saw the comments on the youtube video.This is simply scripted to the death, and I really doubt they add the manpower the script this much for a whole average game length.
Well the great thing is how LONG they have given themselves to develop this. Normally developers (yes, im looking at you, EA) release this kind of footage when the game is almost ready to ship, generally a few months out.
But this has a release date set for 2012, so I'm definitely going to be ready to play this when it comes out, hopefully with a lot of polish on it.
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
what that's the worse excuse for not playing it ever
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
what that's the worse excuse for not playing it ever
I played it, it just felt like shit. It's a slow game with a clunky UI and forced acceleration, because the controls and everything else are designed for the console and direct ported over. It's also monumentally easy because of that, but being arbitrarily handicapped like that is not fun when you're used to serious shooters. It's like playing basketball with an underinflated ball.
I don't understand how people can get excited about anything that scripted, but then again people do like the campaigns in the CoD games while they make me yawn. What I like about games is interaction, actually playing the games, not this stupid movie/game mashup thing where they want you to have an extremely predefined experience.
The relationship between the protagonist and Elizabeth looks interesting, almost like a Freeman/Alyx kind of thing where the guy's mouth isn't sewn shut. I also like the fact that her magic visibly takes a toll on her constitution, details like this lead me to believe that by 2012 this will be very polished game indeed.
All I remember from the first Bioshock was some dude keeps on talking and talking through the radio... FFUUUUUUUU... So i'm glad there's less talking (maybe) in infinite
On September 22 2010 22:00 chongu wrote: All I remember from the first Bioshock was some dude keeps on talking and talking through the radio... FFUUUUUUUU... So i'm glad there's less talking (maybe) in infinite
On September 22 2010 22:00 chongu wrote: All I remember from the first Bioshock was some dude keeps on talking and talking through the radio... FFUUUUUUUU... So i'm glad there's less talking (maybe) in infinite
I honestly cannot agree. The 'facial reconstruction via golf club' scene still resonates with me as one of the most incredible scripted events in gaming.
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
what that's the worse excuse for not playing it ever
I played it, it just felt like shit. It's a slow game with a clunky UI and forced acceleration, because the controls and everything else are designed for the console and direct ported over. It's also monumentally easy because of that, but being arbitrarily handicapped like that is not fun when you're used to serious shooters. It's like playing basketball with an underinflated ball.
Exactly. I really enjoyed Bioshock 1's story but the gameplay was really uninspiring. Play some CS and then go play some Bioshock and tell me that the controls don't feel clunky and slow and inaccurate.
On August 16 2010 02:54 YoureFired wrote: The bonus is that the makers of the original Bioshock (Irrational Games) are also going to be making this.
Just for the record, Irrational games made all three games, it's just that in 2006 Irrational games was acquired by 2k games and renamed "2k Boston." It's just this year they decided to return to their original name "Irrational games" for whatever reason, though they are still affiliated with 2k games.
Just thought i would put that out there.
except it's (partly) incorrect. Bioshock 2 was made by 2K Marin, a different team
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
what that's the worse excuse for not playing it ever
I played it, it just felt like shit. It's a slow game with a clunky UI and forced acceleration, because the controls and everything else are designed for the console and direct ported over. It's also monumentally easy because of that, but being arbitrarily handicapped like that is not fun when you're used to serious shooters. It's like playing basketball with an underinflated ball.
Exactly. I really enjoyed Bioshock 1's story but the gameplay was really uninspiring. Play some CS and then go play some Bioshock and tell me that the controls don't feel clunky and slow and inaccurate.
Yeah. It doesn't need to be fast paced, it just needs to feel like I'm moving 1:1. Deadspace is like that too. I loved listening to the tapes and everything in Bioshock 1. I took in the environment as much as I could.
On September 22 2010 11:25 Jibba wrote: I could never get drawn into the games because of the controls and the interface. The gameplay in that video does look impressive, but until I see decent PC controls, it's no go for me. :|
what that's the worse excuse for not playing it ever
I played it, it just felt like shit. It's a slow game with a clunky UI and forced acceleration, because the controls and everything else are designed for the console and direct ported over. It's also monumentally easy because of that, but being arbitrarily handicapped like that is not fun when you're used to serious shooters. It's like playing basketball with an underinflated ball.
Exactly. I really enjoyed Bioshock 1's story but the gameplay was really uninspiring. Play some CS and then go play some Bioshock and tell me that the controls don't feel clunky and slow and inaccurate.
Yeah. It doesn't need to be fast paced, it just needs to feel like I'm moving 1:1. Deadspace is like that too. I loved listening to the tapes and everything in Bioshock 1. I took in the environment as much as I could.
Who shot in Bioshock anyway? All you need is the wrench and the shotgun for the big daddys.
It's the looking around part. You could have a weapon with a huge ass crosshair and achieve the same effect on accuracy, but I'd still prefer that over the acceleration + small crosshair. It's weird to think about it this way, but looking around is tied directly to your hand, so your hand almost becomes your neck. I want it done with 1:1 movements, or else it feels a bit like being drunk.
I know exactly what you mean; I've played FPS competitively. I even had to find out how to turn off mouse acceleration in win7 even though I don't play FPS much anymore.
However, I think it's a little extreme to not enjoy a great game for that reason. Bioshock is fun and has a great story. I don't get concerned over small control problems because even the hardest difficulty doesn't take much FPS skill. I think you should be more concerned about games that actually have bad controls or are terrible console ports.
On September 23 2010 02:32 Durak wrote: I know exactly what you mean; I've played FPS competitively. I even had to find out how to turn off mouse acceleration in win7 even though I don't play FPS much anymore.
However, I think it's a little extreme to not enjoy a great game for that reason. Bioshock is fun and has a great story. I don't get concerned over small control problems because even the hardest difficulty doesn't take much FPS skill. I think you should be more concerned about games that actually have bad controls or are terrible console ports.
Well, so should I judge the game for graphics and environment rather than difficulty and controls? o.o
On September 23 2010 02:32 Durak wrote: I know exactly what you mean; I've played FPS competitively. I even had to find out how to turn off mouse acceleration in win7 even though I don't play FPS much anymore.
However, I think it's a little extreme to not enjoy a great game for that reason. Bioshock is fun and has a great story. I don't get concerned over small control problems because even the hardest difficulty doesn't take much FPS skill. I think you should be more concerned about games that actually have bad controls or are terrible console ports.
Well, so should I judge the game for graphics and environment rather than difficulty and controls? o.o
Depends what you're playing the game for. The Bioshock series is especially good with it's story and engrossing environment. If you want an FPS that's challenging and more realistic, play CS or MW2. Don't simply judge a game by it's genre but more for what it's supposed to play like.
On September 23 2010 02:32 Durak wrote: I know exactly what you mean; I've played FPS competitively. I even had to find out how to turn off mouse acceleration in win7 even though I don't play FPS much anymore.
However, I think it's a little extreme to not enjoy a great game for that reason. Bioshock is fun and has a great story. I don't get concerned over small control problems because even the hardest difficulty doesn't take much FPS skill. I think you should be more concerned about games that actually have bad controls or are terrible console ports.
Well, so should I judge the game for graphics and environment rather than difficulty and controls? o.o
Depends what you're playing the game for. The Bioshock series is especially good with it's story and engrossing environment. If you want an FPS that's challenging and more realistic, play CS or MW2. Don't simply judge a game by it's genre but more for what it's supposed to play like.
I won't disagree, Bioshock's high point is its story and unique environment but the extreeeeeemely clunky controls are very distracting. If they had just spent the time to get the mouse look smooth it would have been a much better experience.
On September 23 2010 02:32 Durak wrote: I know exactly what you mean; I've played FPS competitively. I even had to find out how to turn off mouse acceleration in win7 even though I don't play FPS much anymore.
However, I think it's a little extreme to not enjoy a great game for that reason. Bioshock is fun and has a great story. I don't get concerned over small control problems because even the hardest difficulty doesn't take much FPS skill. I think you should be more concerned about games that actually have bad controls or are terrible console ports.
Well, so should I judge the game for graphics and environment rather than difficulty and controls? o.o
Depends what you're playing the game for. The Bioshock series is especially good with it's story and engrossing environment. If you want an FPS that's challenging and more realistic, play CS or MW2. Don't simply judge a game by it's genre but more for what it's supposed to play like.
I won't disagree, Bioshock's high point is its story and unique environment but the extreeeeeemely clunky controls are very distracting. If they had just spent the time to get the mouse look smooth it would have been a much better experience.
I agree. However, I'd still rather read a good book that has some smudges and torn pages than skip it completely. There are much worse, practically unplayable, console ports that are worth skipping but I wouldn't skip Bioshock. (Unless you just decide to watch videos of people playing instead. Whatever floats your boat )
On September 23 2010 04:48 N3rV[Green] wrote: Why not just play it...on the 360? Thats what I would think would make it the best experience.
I disagree.. I'd say a nice graphics card on a computer with a good monitor is going to be awesome. Plus you get the control from a keyboard that you just can't get on a 360 controller. I'm sure they'll fix the mouse difficulties with this one..
I really really really loved Bioshock 1. It really felt completely fresh and new, the style of the graphics were really unique and the story was just absolutely awesome.
But I was super bored out of Bioshock 2.
Caution: Semi-review of Bioshock 2 incoming. I'd love to hear your opinion on my points and see if I'm not alone with my feelings about B2 here since it too (along with DAO) was really overhyped game in my opinion. + Show Spoiler +
I just finished it because I bought the game and didn't want to put it on the shelves knowing that I'd just wasted a lot of money. Bioshock 2 felt to me like a subpar continuation in every way possible. Inferior story (inferior characters + the endings sucked big time imo), inferior atmosphere (the fact that you're a big daddy and the fact that said fact was constantly brought to the players attention with the constant loud noises you made with your boots and the fact that you had a big fucking drill on your arm basically made it impossible for me to be scared or thrilled in this game, which was a big part of the atmosphere in game 1 for me), inferior gameplay (I absolutely hated the "protecting little sister" stuff etc. It was soooo repetetive. Also somehow the Big Sisters weren't creepy at all. The Big Daddies impressed me much more, with their low,deep growl and bulky look etc.), inferior urge to explore the levels, it also seemed to be a LOT less difficult and that means it was way too easy for me. Plus, this time the graphics just looked shitty and outdated to me. The unique look it once was had lost its flair to super low res textures that were attempted to be overshadowed with lots of shiny shaders.
The random freezes/crashes also put me off a lot, that stuff didn't happen to me at all in Bioshock 1, while 2 was constantly crashing when I was saving games.
Infinite is really a new hope for me in that regard, as I expected so much more from Bioshock 2. The graphical design once again totally blows me away (like really, I had like thiiiiiiiiiis big eyes O_O during the 9min gameplay trailer) and it looks like the gameplay is going to get some more good quirks added (a useful companion and most important of all WTF ACTUALLY USEFUL TELEKINESIS? I hated that all you could throw around in bioshock 1/2 were crates or some other little item that was lying around. like wtf man I wanna go yoda and throw a building at people. throwing a huge pile of rubble on the street is a good start).
The setting also seems very interesting. The way the barkeeper (or whoever that dude was) reacted when he saw you "wtf man get out of here!" really makes me feel like you're really going to feel like an outsider in this game. and man the new "big daddy"s looked awesome.
If the actual game is anything close to the kind of cinematic experience the trailer offers, it's probably going to blow me away just as Bioshock 1 did.
I am trying to decide if I should start playing the Bioshock series.
Do you think if I do I should skip BS2 and go straight to infinite after bs 1? Is it enough if I read the story happenings of BS2 and skip the mediocre game? Here a lot of you said it sucked.
On September 29 2010 08:34 freelander wrote: I am trying to decide if I should start playing the Bioshock series.
Do you think if I do I should skip BS2 and go straight to infinite after bs 1? Is it enough if I read the story happenings of BS2 and skip the mediocre game? Here a lot of you said it sucked.
thx
The real question is: have you played System Shock 2
On September 29 2010 08:34 freelander wrote: I am trying to decide if I should start playing the Bioshock series.
Do you think if I do I should skip BS2 and go straight to infinite after bs 1? Is it enough if I read the story happenings of BS2 and skip the mediocre game? Here a lot of you said it sucked.
thx
The real question is: have you played System Shock 2
On September 29 2010 08:34 freelander wrote: I am trying to decide if I should start playing the Bioshock series.
Do you think if I do I should skip BS2 and go straight to infinite after bs 1? Is it enough if I read the story happenings of BS2 and skip the mediocre game? Here a lot of you said it sucked.
thx
I dunno if i agree with the play 1 and skip 2 thing if you read the story. cuz why read when you could play? reading would be less fun imo, cuz the story is worse than the first but the gameplay is kinda cute.
On September 29 2010 08:34 freelander wrote: I am trying to decide if I should start playing the Bioshock series.
Do you think if I do I should skip BS2 and go straight to infinite after bs 1? Is it enough if I read the story happenings of BS2 and skip the mediocre game? Here a lot of you said it sucked.
thx
I dunno if i agree with the play 1 and skip 2 thing if you read the story. cuz why read when you could play? reading would be less fun imo, cuz the story is worse than the first but the gameplay is kinda cute.
honestly i think the bioshock gameplay is JUST not shallow enough to be enjoyable for the span of 1 game. you will get really fucking bored of bioshock 2 like 2 hours in.
Bioshock 1 was pretty good for the first 2-3 hours then it got super stale and repetitive. I didn't bother getting Bioshock 2 and heard it was a repeat. Gonna watch the trailer for 3 anyway.
Didn't Bioshock just rip off System Shock 2? I've been trying to get ahold of that game for a bit as I love horror type games.
On September 29 2010 15:54 blitzkrieger wrote: Bioshock 1 was pretty good for the first 2-3 hours then it got super stale and repetitive. I didn't bother getting Bioshock 2 and heard it was a repeat. Gonna watch the trailer for 3 anyway.
Didn't Bioshock just rip off System Shock 2? I've been trying to get ahold of that game for a bit as I love horror type games.
Well it didn't exactly "rip off" of System Shock 2, after all practically the same guys who developed SS2 made Bioshock. They always called it a "spiritual successor" to SS2.
On September 29 2010 15:54 blitzkrieger wrote: Bioshock 1 was pretty good for the first 2-3 hours then it got super stale and repetitive. I didn't bother getting Bioshock 2 and heard it was a repeat. Gonna watch the trailer for 3 anyway.
Didn't Bioshock just rip off System Shock 2? I've been trying to get ahold of that game for a bit as I love horror type games.
Well it didn't exactly "rip off" of System Shock 2, after all practically the same guys who developed SS2 made Bioshock. They always called it a "spiritual successor" to SS2.
I heard the story and twists and everything about it were exactly the same except that the setting was in space with an AI instead of the underwater city with another man. I also heard that BOTH stories were based on a short story written by someone else.
----------------- I just watched the gameplay trailer, I advise everyone to watch that. The graphics and sound are impressive and they made a very good atmosphere. However gameplay wise it looks very railed, no pun intended. I hope its only small parts that are like this and not so much like a guided movie with some interaction. Watch it and you'll notice it immediately. Its not bad if its limited but if this is too dominant it will ruin the game, it kills immersion.
The thing I don't like is the game might be social commentary about immigration and other issues. They have signs which are basically "they took your jobs" and anti-2nd amendment and anti-Christianity (even if its a distorted view). I wouldn't buy it solely for those reasons. I may be reading too much into it but thats the impression I got from the 10min gameplay trailer.
LOL there is NO creativity since the beginning of the series, looks like the trend continues with this addition.
Save money, play System Shock 2. It's like you played ev'ry Bioshock made and any Bioshock that'll come in the future. If you want a story, there are alot of books with far superior writing, and you skip the boring, repetetive game mechanics and mindnumbingly unchallenging gameplay.
A bit more depth of the story, some of their characters, etc. :3 Enjoy. Reminds me a bit of Prince of Persia. The odd one where you had a female companion who helped you out a lot.
On June 16 2011 17:58 Manit0u wrote: I'll have to agree with previous posters and ask why the hell are they making another Bioshock title instead of resurrecting the System Shock series?
It's just a title with a large name recognition, they kept it because the game will sell more if Bioshock is in the title. From what they have shown, there is no more connection to Bioshock then there is to System Shock in terms of setting or characters.
Edit: Also, I don't think that Irrational Games even has the rights to the System Shock name. So they couldn't use it if they wanted to.
On June 17 2011 02:33 Torte de Lini wrote: I still haven't played the Bioshock series, I'm waiting for it to go on sale.
I still have the first one installed but could never get myself to play it. No idea why.
Do yourselves a favor and just playthrough the original game of the series. A quick play should only take you a good 15-20 hours or so and it's just a really good game. Also, I'd encourage you not to read strat. guides or watch playthroughs online because the story is really great.
My favorite part is the first 5 seconds of the trailer when you see George Washington holding the Liberty Bell and the Ten Commandments. Everything about it is beautiful, from the olive branches to the hilariously racist portrayals of all the 'foreigners.'
I knew right then this would be the first single player game I'd pick up in about five years.
First one pretty fun. Like System Shock 2. A WHOLE LOT like system shock 2. Second one, more like an expansion than a sequel. Third one.. I don't even want to know. I'm waiting to be pleasantly surprised or forget it came out.
On June 17 2011 04:34 Probe1 wrote: Yes. Actually, yes. The whole game (series) is rigidly scripted.
a lot of bioshock 1 wasnt actually too scripted, at least compared to most shooters. for instance many levels would just give the player the objective of collecting adam from little sisters, and it's up to them to explore it and find them and make sure they have enough supplies to take down big daddy.
Not exactly related to the game but it's cool nonetheless so I thought I would share it : a guy just did his own Rapture... in Lego! http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/275012|Mocpages That's quite impressive!
A bit more depth of the story, some of their characters, etc. :3 Enjoy. Reminds me a bit of Prince of Persia. The odd one where you had a female companion who helped you out a lot.
The area where there were rails looked much more open-ended than I expected, I'm sure the story is still fairly linear but that battle looks like it has more than a few possibilities for combat, like Mass Effect. Adding it to the OP
-The relationship with Elizabeth feels too forced? It's like a love story ripped from a generic Disney movie with a princess and an unlikely hero. -The rail way seems... gimmicky. I expected more out of it other than quick-time events. Hopefully there will be more in the final release, but it feels like such a waste of a creative system. -I don't like regenerating health, but that's just me. -The ability to only carry two weapons at once and the fact that whenever you ran out of ammo the game would simply give you another gun.
-The relationship with Elizabeth feels too forced? It's like a love story ripped from a generic Disney movie with a princess and an unlikely hero. -The rail way seems... gimmicky. I expected more out of it other than quick-time events. Hopefully there will be more in the final release, but it feels like such a waste of a creative system. -I don't like regenerating health, but that's just me. -The ability to only carry two weapons at once and the fact that whenever you ran out of ammo the game would simply give you another gun.
lol where did you guys see regenerating health at all? he was playing with god mode on. you can ever see the health bar go all the way down and then he plays the last 5 minutes with no health. how was the sky-line quick-time events at all? that was all dynamic.
On July 09 2011 04:57 Fruscainte wrote: Limited to two weapons and regenerating health.
Not even going to pirate.
Seriously...
They must have learned from how well Duke Nukem did...
OH WAIT!
the demo didnt have regenerating health lol. also what is with the hate on 2-weapon limit? in some games it makes a lot of sense and can be a fun. or is TL just at the point where anytime FPSs are talked about everyone complains about every aspect of the game that isnt like quake 3?
On July 09 2011 04:57 Fruscainte wrote: Limited to two weapons and regenerating health.
Not even going to pirate.
Seriously...
They must have learned from how well Duke Nukem did...
OH WAIT!
the demo didnt have regenerating health lol. also what is with the hate on 2-weapon limit? in some games it makes a lot of sense and can be a fun. or is TL just at the point where anytime FPSs are talked about everyone complains about every aspect of the game that isnt like quake 3?
Its not so much the two weapon limit as its about the new weapon once you run out of ammo.
Thats one thing I really liked about amnesia...your supplies felt precious.
On July 09 2011 12:52 Kojak21 wrote: im really not liking where the new generation of games always seem to be going with making things limited and dumbed down
It's odd because I have yet to run into someone who does like the direction games are going..yet still this is the direction they choose. The new tribes game nearly made me cry when I saw how they are destroying what made tribes 2 so legendary.
On July 09 2011 13:11 Kezzer wrote: Pretty excited for this. I just finished BS2 from the $5 steam deal and I LOVED it. I wasn't too much of a fan of the first BS, but BS2 blew me away.
really, i found it quite the opposite, 2 seemed to short, and nothing stood out for me, but i almost remember every part of bs1
On July 09 2011 13:11 Kezzer wrote: Pretty excited for this. I just finished BS2 from the $5 steam deal and I LOVED it. I wasn't too much of a fan of the first BS, but BS2 blew me away.
really, i found it quite the opposite, 2 seemed to short, and nothing stood out for me, but i almost remember every part of bs1
edit: not saying 2 was bad, just wasnt as good
Gameplay-wise Bioshock 2 was a huge step up from the first, to be honest. Way more intense.
New viral video, social media marketing video. It's one of those 70s/80s educational vids. I love hte marketing campagin for this game and can't wait. replaying 1 at this time.
Some of the devs talking about the AI behind the Elizabeth character, its actually kind of disappointing knowing that alot of people will just skip by this sort of thing and not take notice
So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
On March 19 2013 21:58 Yacobs wrote: So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
What a huge disappointment.
That would be incredibly sad if this is true (not that im doubting you). Who would think that it would be a good idea? Seriously.
Its ridiculous. This Bioshock is even worse than Bioshock 2. Way too much action. They just want the Call of Duty Kiddies with that. Wave of enemies after wave of enemies... just ridiculous!
This is what I was afraid of...lets hope the atmosphere and story makes up for the COD-generation game play, which is why I love Bioshock in the first place.
On March 19 2013 23:34 Roggay wrote: That would be incredibly sad if this is true (not that im doubting you). Who would think that it would be a good idea? Seriously.
This is how it was during the time I was watching. The guy was playing on Medium difficulty so I suppose there's the potential that Elizabeth doesn't do all this stuff on Hard or whatever it's called. I also suppose Elizabeth could lose these "powers" as you progress through the game but this guy definitely didn't JUST start the game... not sure how many hours in he was, for sure, though.
On March 20 2013 07:44 nortorius wrote: All the pre-order bonuses are unlocked for Bioshock: Infinite if anyone's interested! The most notable bonus being a free copy of the new X-COM
You also get XCOM when you Pre-Order the Game on GMG and its cheaper. BUT DON'T! Only retards Pre-Order games! Especially ones that are likely to suck!
On March 19 2013 21:58 Yacobs wrote: So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
What a huge disappointment.
Lol, sounds like the same problem as in BioShock 1, did they learn nothing? A game can't be hard or challenging if you remove the aspect of punishment. Same problem with Prince Of Persia 360, meaningless game. No matter how hard you make the game, if you get revived instantly, it's not hard, it's just boring and a waste of time.
Thank god for old games where you had infinite continues but at least had to replay big parts until you learned them, which was the whole part. Going from being a n00b to replaying it until you knew it well.
Yeah i like to think of bioshocks as a system shock 3 and 4 (cause of its similarities and authors) and each is easier than the on before. At least make us pay for a revive, in Adam or in cash, doesnmatter. There have to be some punishment. I remember i had some moments in system shock 3 (bioshock 1) some moment when it was more profitable to die than to us first aid...come on...
The game is pretty damn fun... But I can't say for sure how it shaped up near the end of development. I worked on this game for a bit at 2K, but haven't personally been a part of the development for the past 6 months. There had been some issues with feature/content creep/alterations far past when they should have been done, so hopefully it wrapped up nicely.
On March 19 2013 21:58 Yacobs wrote: So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
What a huge disappointment.
Man you have no idea how much I pray that this is all wrong info T.T I have such high hopes for this game. Was able to even convince two friends to buy into this considering how much I loved Bioshock 1/2 to get this game.
On March 21 2013 04:58 Mikilatov wrote: The game is pretty damn fun... But I can't say for sure how it shaped up near the end of development. I worked on this game for a bit at 2K, but haven't personally been a part of the development for the past 6 months. There had been some issues with feature/content creep/alterations far past when they should have been done, so hopefully it wrapped up nicely.
Any comments on Elizabeth ultra-babysitting the player?
On March 19 2013 21:58 Yacobs wrote: So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
What a huge disappointment.
Lol, sounds like the same problem as in BioShock 1, did they learn nothing? A game can't be hard or challenging if you remove the aspect of punishment. Same problem with Prince Of Persia 360, meaningless game. No matter how hard you make the game, if you get revived instantly, it's not hard, it's just boring and a waste of time.
Thank god for old games where you had infinite continues but at least had to replay big parts until you learned them, which was the whole part. Going from being a n00b to replaying it until you knew it well.
There was plenty of punishment in bioshock 1 for dying. Maybe if you didn't play the hardest mode it didn't matter but ammo/energy was an issue if you died a lot. There's plenty of games that have had a revive esque type system where you dont have to redo the whole level and have been successful. As for Elizabeth being godmode well....every series is seeing a horrible death lately so this wouldn't surprise me in the least.
On March 21 2013 04:58 Mikilatov wrote: The game is pretty damn fun... But I can't say for sure how it shaped up near the end of development. I worked on this game for a bit at 2K, but haven't personally been a part of the development for the past 6 months. There had been some issues with feature/content creep/alterations far past when they should have been done, so hopefully it wrapped up nicely.
Any comments on Elizabeth ultra-babysitting the player?
Can't really comment too much on it, as her specific tuning wasn't really completed when I was working on it. I will say that the focus was very much on Elizabeth not being a hinderance/annoyance to the player (See Resident Evil 4), so this is likely the cause of her 'babysitting' behavior you're referring to. If lack of difficulty is the issue, difficulties/1999 mode is always there. That being said, I don't know what the final tuning of that was like, either.
Well, just bought the game. Am downloading Bioshock 1 as well, never played any of the series before this, though the videos I've seen of the games have always intrigued me. The atmosphere always attracted me more than anything. I especially love the sky thing they've got going with Infinite, it looks beautiful.
On March 21 2013 05:56 Firebolt145 wrote: Well, just bought the game. Am downloading Bioshock 1 as well, never played any of the series before this, though the videos I've seen of the games have always intrigued me. The atmosphere always attracted me more than anything. I especially love the sky thing they've got going with Infinite, it looks beautiful.
When playing 1, you should play on hardest and instead of reviving in vitachambers when you die, just load the game. Enjoyed the game 10 times more after those self-restrictions.
I actually found the Vita Chambers to be more of a hindrance in BioShock 1. If I died, I was already on the point of no return. Low eve, low ammo, low med kits, etc.
On March 21 2013 06:35 wUndertUnge wrote: I actually found the Vita Chambers to be more of a hindrance in BioShock 1. If I died, I was already on the point of no return. Low eve, low ammo, low med kits, etc.
So? Enemies do not respawn, nor regen. Kill them with melee, vita chamber revives are unlimited.
In most games you respawn when you die. In most games you have sort of endless amount of ammo. Mana is also usually infinite, as it replenishes itself, oft times hurried with potions. Most games are God Mode.
Games not focused on looking for ammo, health, etc, is because the focus lies somewhere else in the gameplay, where such things could be considered distractions, or too frustrating for the experience the creator had in mind. If the focus is elsewhere, then there is good reason to think that you need all the help you can get.
On March 21 2013 07:18 Dracolich70 wrote: In most games you respawn when you die. In most games you have sort of endless amount of ammo. Mana is also usually infinite, as it replenishes itself, oft times hurried with potions. Most games are God Mode.
Games not focused on looking for ammo, health, etc, is because the focus lies somewhere else in the gameplay, where such things could be considered distractions, or too frustrating for the experience the creator had in mind. If the focus is elsewhere, then there is good reason to think that you need all the help you can get.
It's not about "looking for ammo, health, etc." It's about getting those resources instantly and for free in the middle of a battle with no effort expended by the player. In other words, the game appears to have cheat mode on by default.
On March 21 2013 07:18 Dracolich70 wrote: In most games you respawn when you die. In most games you have sort of endless amount of ammo. Mana is also usually infinite, as it replenishes itself, oft times hurried with potions. Most games are God Mode.
Games not focused on looking for ammo, health, etc, is because the focus lies somewhere else in the gameplay, where such things could be considered distractions, or too frustrating for the experience the creator had in mind. If the focus is elsewhere, then there is good reason to think that you need all the help you can get.
It's not about "looking for ammo, health, etc." It's about getting those resources instantly and for free in the middle of a battle with no effort expended by the player. In other words, the game appears to have cheat mode on by default.
Yes, but then it is about looking for ammo, health, since you feel it is cheating not to. As I tried to clarify, when the focus lies elsewhere than in locating resources, but rather being granted unlimited, then it is because the focus of the gameplay is elsewhere, and would most likely be a distractor or even impossible. When a player needs to reserve/economize with resources, it is because this is what it is part of the difficulty within the gameplay. When it does not, the difficulties lies elsewhere
I see this option as a kind of streamlined option also, rather than a dumbed down. However, I think the main reason lies in what difficulties you face otherwise. The whole finding medi-kits, ammo lying around everywhere is a rather tired solution in my book, to get the sense of you are against the wall, and ultimately not one that actually requires skill or much effort, just tedious, although meaningful tasks. I think you see where I am going with this. If ammo, medi-kits etc wasn't lying scattered around, or something similar, like very limited ammo, health, then your other trials cannot be too harsh. If you do not have to concern yourself with these things, then the obstacles are something else.
Of course if the game fails to deliver difficulty, then it fails. It can still be entertaining and immersive - even when granted powers of a God. There are trials for Gods as well.
Edit: PS, in short there is a difference in a game designed to have this "cheat", and gaining a cheat in a game where it wasn't within game design(Read: trainers), where of course the game themselves would be incredibly dull with such god modes.
PPS Your complaints about being respawned by Elizabeth when jumping off a cliff to your death, seems a bit odd in gaming sense, since it is incredibly common to respawn after you fail. Or reload from a saved option - again when you failed. If the game does not have these, then the difficulties lies therein and cannot provide you with tasks that are of mammoth proportions, else the game fails as well, as it gets too frustrating. Saving/respawning/medikits/ are somewhat God Mode in some sense, yes?
On March 21 2013 08:54 Dracolich70 wrote: PPS Your complaints about being respawned by Elizabeth when jumping off a cliff to your death, seems a bit odd in gaming sense, since it is incredibly common to respawn after you fail. Or reload from a saved option - again when you failed. If the game does not have these, then the difficulties lies therein and cannot provide you with tasks that are of mammoth proportions, else the game fails as well, as it gets too frustrating. Saving/respawning/medikits/ are somewhat God Mode in some sense, yes?
Dying in games should cost time and/or resources. I guarantee dying in Infinite will not cost meaningful resources (since they never bother to balance money in these games to be meaningfully scarce), so that means the only resource you can lose by dying is time. If the game respawns you right where you died, dying doesn't cost any time either. Which means there is no consequence whatsoever of dying.
Since you seem to be a fan of streamlining, why didn't they just remove dying entirely from the game?
I miss the days where there were no difficulty options. I just want to beat a game as its designed to be played. I dont want to play where they buff the enemies to 300% health, 200% damage and perfect accuracy. I dont want to have to decide how rediculous the designers made hard mode. Like zelda, sonic or SMB I just want to load the game up and play.
I also dislike how incredibly soft dieing is punished. Old games were probably slightly easier than hard mode games of today but dieing had more consequence. Am I the only person that feels this wah about choosing difficulties?
On March 21 2013 08:54 Dracolich70 wrote: PPS Your complaints about being respawned by Elizabeth when jumping off a cliff to your death, seems a bit odd in gaming sense, since it is incredibly common to respawn after you fail. Or reload from a saved option - again when you failed. If the game does not have these, then the difficulties lies therein and cannot provide you with tasks that are of mammoth proportions, else the game fails as well, as it gets too frustrating. Saving/respawning/medikits/ are somewhat God Mode in some sense, yes?
Dying in games should cost time and/or resources. I guarantee dying in Infinite will not cost meaningful resources (since they never bother to balance money in these games to be meaningfully scarce), so that means the only resource you can lose by dying is time. If the game respawns you right where you died, dying doesn't cost any time either. Which means there is no consequence whatsoever of dying.
Since you seem to be a fan of streamlining, why didn't they just remove dying entirely from the game?
Do you value DT as something of worthwhile investments to a game? DT is the meaningless part of a punishment. Sometimes it can even become frustrating, if a game has few checkpoints, no save options etc. I see those as detractors from most games, and only in few fit right in with the agenda of the game, rather than poor design judgments.
Menial tasks are also detractors from a good gaming experience - well, unless it really caters to this aspect of the gaming experience. However, FPS is not really such a category. FPS is about action. You having non-stop action while in battle means you are constantly held to adrenaline and the action, while punishment with DT of varied length, removes you from this action, and in actuality the main aspect of the game. This could turn out to be a good choice by the creators. A loss in resources can be good, if the game is built around resources, or if it is part of game choice. If it is not, then of course this is not part of a punishment. I do not think the punishments should be the main focus of game design. Resource gathering is not really the forte of FPS, at least not most. And is definitively not a be all, end all formula of game design for the genre. I do not think I have experienced a FPS where you lost something valuable in resources by dying, so in essence, all you lose is time of varied lengths - away from where you want to be. Being short on ammo, when you face a boss fight, can be an irritating factor, but of course can be part of the charm.
A game is about presenting an experience, where a gamer is entertained and tested, this can be done is a number of ways. You're trying to fit it into a certain criteria, to which the FPS gaming world has done the most, when they were planted there in the first place to give more survivability to the gamer so they could add this in to the obstacles of the difficulty, while everything is pretty Godlike as compared to the real world. Nonetheless, you do respawn in all FPS games.
I am pretty old-school gamer, that has gamed for 30 years, so I am conservative in some aspects, but have also learned that some streamlining is actually pretty good, while dumbing down, is hurtful to those who like depth in gameplay. I used to draw maps by hand as there were no map when pressing "M", love games with multitude of stats presented in numbers, rather than graphic interpretations. I have seen the world of gaming evolve, devolve, transform, adapt, and what not. You may not realize that many of the things you value today, in itself are streamlined things, trying to cut DT from the actual game experience, where DT rarely fit well in games, or in reality trying to cater to a wider audience. I have played on machines 30 years ago, where there was no DT at all, only indication of loss of life indicator, and where a game over meant you needed to put in more coins into the slot.
Tasks like finding medikits, ammo, dying to be respawned somewhere further back, save options have been done so many times, that new focus or some elimination of these things can be progress, while others think they like the old system better.
I have played Eve-online where death can be pretty tough, and that is part of the charm. It is part of game design. I have played WoW, where death means just DT. Some DT is worse than others, some are downright so detrimental to the gaming experience that the gameplay suffers too greatly from it. For Eve-online it was part of the charm.
I assume that removing this part of resource gathering, means more focus and challenges somewhere else. Maybe in time you will too, if the game succeeds in doing well with these game design decisions. Maybe it will be part of the charm of Bio-Shock, and something that will be copied, since medikits/ammo looting/DT is really not all that great ideas. You think?
I am not sure if not dying at all, would be a good streamlining. There needs to be some indicator of failure, when you do. However, I do not think DT is a good measure of consequence for not winning a battle. Not winning is the main punishment.
On March 19 2013 21:58 Yacobs wrote: So, the console versions have leaked already and, thanks to that, there are some people that have been streaming the game (at least until they get shut down).
After watching for a while, I can say that the game looks worse than I could ever have imagined. This Elizabeth character is basically equivalent to mandatory God Mode. During gunfights, whenever you need anything, she just throws it to you from an infinite supply (is that why this game is called Infinite?). She'll give you infinite amounts of health, mana, and ammunition. To make matters worse, if you're so bad at the game that you still manage to die with infinite resources, Elizabeth instantly revives you right then and there. Even if you jump off a ledge into the abyss, she will just revive you at the edge of the platform like nothing happened. You quite literally CANNOT DIE in this game.
Now I know why there's this "1999 Mode" in the game -- because apparently Ken Levine believes that 1999 was the last era when video gamers could possibly stand the thought of not winning a game with no effort. Also, this 1999 Mode requires you to beat the entire game once before you're even allowed to access it. This shows you how dumb Levine believes his consumer-base to be -- he's so afraid someone will accidentally activate it, it's tucked away as deep into the game as you can imagine.
Further evidence the game believes you are clinically retarded. There are several scenes where things like this happen. You come upon a ledge and Elizabeth says "THIS IS A GOOD SNIPING AREA!" and she just tosses you a sniper rifle, conjuring it out of thin air, and it replaces whatever weapon you were holding at the time.
What a huge disappointment.
After all the hype this game got, if it does turn out to be like this, then I'm giving it a skip for sure. Seems like most "big titles" these days fall under this category of having amazing hype with mediocre deliverance.
I loved Bioshock because of the setting and story, not the difficulty. I don't see how this changes in Infinite. Infinite is looking grim because of that post? Give me a break.
On March 21 2013 08:54 Dracolich70 wrote: PPS Your complaints about being respawned by Elizabeth when jumping off a cliff to your death, seems a bit odd in gaming sense, since it is incredibly common to respawn after you fail. Or reload from a saved option - again when you failed. If the game does not have these, then the difficulties lies therein and cannot provide you with tasks that are of mammoth proportions, else the game fails as well, as it gets too frustrating. Saving/respawning/medikits/ are somewhat God Mode in some sense, yes?
Dying in games should cost time and/or resources. I guarantee dying in Infinite will not cost meaningful resources (since they never bother to balance money in these games to be meaningfully scarce), so that means the only resource you can lose by dying is time. If the game respawns you right where you died, dying doesn't cost any time either. Which means there is no consequence whatsoever of dying.
Since you seem to be a fan of streamlining, why didn't they just remove dying entirely from the game?
So wait...you think a game that takes place in a completely wide-open sky with no handrails anywhere and a lot of emphasis on midair rail movement should punish you severely for falling off a cliff? That's probably the stupidest idea anyone could come up with. You'd either have everyone bitching about how an FPS is a platformer with bottomless pits everywhere, or you have most players avoiding anything near ledges.
On March 21 2013 11:34 Dracolich70 wrote: lots of stuff
Nice post, I agree. My first reaction to reading Yacobs' post was "god damn it, another cool franchise sacrificed at the altar of casual gamers' wallets", but after reading your take on it I think you're right. The point of a game like Bioshock is to (1) immerse you in the world the art directors created and (2) make that experience fun. This isn't Dark Souls where the point of the game is to learn from your mistakes and improve your skills. Difficultly in a game is good when it directly contributes to the atmosphere, as in Dark Souls, or when it provides a competitive environment, like Starcraft. Nobody's going to be competing in Bioshock; nobody cares how good you are at a single player FPS. All a single player FPS is designed to do is make you enjoy hitting some buttons and watching the pretty pictures on your screen.
Being resurrected immediately on death reminded me of the recent(ish?) Prince of Persia game, where if you fell off a cliff, Elika would pull you back to safety, costing you maybe 5 seconds of playtime. Was the game trivially easy? Absolutely, but I still like the game quite a bit because it's not trying to be a difficult platformer that tests your reflexes, it's just trying to toss you into a beautifully designed world and let you enjoy exploring it. If anything, that sort of "forced god-mode" is preferable to frequent saves/checkpoints because it doesn't break the immersion the way a loading screen would. Anyway, yeah. Not all games need to challenge you to be fun.
If this game were a movie, it would be a summer blockbuster that looked awesome in trailers, turned out to be pretty shallow but was fun enough that you don't regret buying a ticket, even though you probably wouldn't bother watching it a second time. It's not going to be winning any film festivals, sure, but it's not trying to and that's fine.
I think you got most of my points, while emphasizing others, particularly with the immersion part. Very good.
However, I see no correlation between game difficulty and length of DT from a singular failure. There simply is none. That you need to rekill/redo what you had already done, is not difficulty per se. Respawning with all the ammo you had left in your failure can of course provide great difficulty, but I have not seen a FPS that does that, but rather gives you full ammo, once again, so in some cases death can even be preferred to restock.
I did not try to project that removing the resource gathering, equals a game is easier, rather that such help with unlimited resources usually means the difficulty is cranked up significantly somewhere else providing other challenges. So I am sure you will be challenged in Bioshock Infinite. That is usually how it goes. As an analogy, if you are able to use the textbooks during an exam, then the test itself is harder, since they are aware you have this help. If you are not allowed to use the textbooks, then the test itself is easier, as they know all you have is your memory to cling onto.
Of course, all you said could be true, when it comes to Bioshock Infinite, that difficulty was sacrificed for immersion. But I try to project that it doesn't mean that it is in itself by those design decisions. They are actually just removing all the useless things about death, I think. Removing the need for massive F5 saves, loads of running back, perhaps redoing what you had already done once oft times feel inflexible, and odd game decisions, and never a part I have liked. Checkpoints is just horrid. Just like I never have liked rewriting something that I had already written, it getting erased so I had to redo it to get to the point where I was. Unfun parts, not difficult.
"Ultra-babysitter Elizabeth" is ok, but only if the ultra-babysitting can be turned off somehow. Via difficulty settings or game-modes that don't have to be unlocked.
Iranon and Dracolich70, you both seem to have slid so far down the slippery slope that you'll probably never return...
It's kind of mind-boggling that you're attempting to convince me that a FPS can have challenge without death. An FPS game is not a point-and-click adventure game. It's not a puzzle game. The point of an FPS is to shoot people while avoiding getting shot yourself. If getting shot yourself is meaningless then ALL COMBAT in the game is meaningless, which means that the entire GAME portion of the "game" is meaningless. There's no such thing as difficult FPS combat where you can't die. Sorry, but you can't summon a paradox because your argument demands it.
If you cannot lose a game, then it is not a game but an interactive movie. If you are happy playing interactive movies where you walk through nice-looking environments, watch cutscenes/listen to story dialog, and get to indiscriminately slaughter supposedly dangerous enemies with no effort then that is fine. Knock yourself out. But don't even start to pretend that this sort of design is actually FOR THE BETTER. That's complete and total nonsense.
So wait...you think a game that takes place in a completely wide-open sky with no handrails anywhere and a lot of emphasis on midair rail movement should punish you severely for falling off a cliff? That's probably the stupidest idea anyone could come up with.
Yes, god forbid you actually have to look where you're going while playing a video game. It's much too much effort to actually use your eyes and brain between those moments where you're jamming the trigger to watch all the enemies disintegrate with ease.
Even beyond the silliness of a game with no game, if there is literally ZERO consequence of falling to your death off of a ledge -- why do they even let you fall off in the first place? It seems pretty obvious that they should just put invisible walls around all the platforms. Apparently inconveniencing the player's drive to "experience" the storyline as quickly as possible is the ultimate no-no, so why not save those two seconds of insta-respawn entirely?
I wish they would add some sort of punishment if you fell off from the ledge or rail. I remember the unlimited resurrection in the last few games kinda ruined the fun for me at some parts. It just feels weird and out of the place where you can just keep coming out and die again and again lol
Not being able to lose is not the definition of an interactive movie... Also not being able to die is not the same as not being able to lose, but hey. You have some points but please don't call their argument delusional while presenting hyperbolic statements yourself.
I agree with what Yacobs is saying for the most part. but remember that death in Bioshock 1 only cost you very little as well (sometimes you could get in a real jam if you ran out of ammo, medkits, and money). But I agree that making death "painless" removes a great deal of the challenge and makes it closer to a movie then a challenging game. and im not gonna drop $60 for a game that doesnt pose a challenge or makes me beat the game on 10 y/o mode just to access the difficulty I want to play.
I also totally agree that games these days (especially shooters) are just too easy. death should either have some consequences, or it should just make you restart the level from a savepoint with all enemies/ammo/everything reset.
On March 21 2013 11:34 Dracolich70 wrote: I assume that removing this part of resource gathering, means more focus and challenges somewhere else. Maybe in time you will too, if the game succeeds in doing well with these game design decisions. Maybe it will be part of the charm of Bio-Shock, and something that will be copied, since medikits/ammo looting/DT is really not all that great ideas. You think?
I am not sure if not dying at all, would be a good streamlining. There needs to be some indicator of failure, when you do. However, I do not think DT is a good measure of consequence for not winning a battle. Not winning is the main punishment.
Just want to say this is a pretty interesting view, its difficult to conceive of a game that removes resource gathering, and has instant respawn, but which is still fun to play. It would be nice to see some good examples of this, but at least so far, I think Bioshock: Infinite is probably an example of a game that didn't successfully implement this idea, just because the difficulty didn't scale proportionately.
And in some sense it is impossible for difficulty to ever scale proportionately with a vita chamber, or instant respawn while the enemies you killed before you died are still dead. In that case, even if the game were more difficult, it would just become a very tedious process of dying and killing, with no real challenge. The only way to save the player from this is through artificial restrictions (i.e. loading your game, not using vita chambers or equivalent resurrection mechanisms), in which case you run into the same problem as before.
Combined with the fact that you lose a lot of realism, and thus immersion, from respawning after you die (while your enemies are still dead, and with a new clip in your gun), it may be that the old method still works best.
On March 21 2013 22:21 Yacobs wrote: Iranon and Dracolich70, you both seem to have slid so far down the slippery slope that you'll probably never return...
It's kind of mind-boggling that you're attempting to convince me that a FPS can have challenge without death. An FPS game is not a point-and-click adventure game. It's not a puzzle game. The point of an FPS is to shoot people while avoiding getting shot yourself. If getting shot yourself is meaningless then ALL COMBAT in the game is meaningless, which means that the entire GAME portion of the "game" is meaningless. There's no such thing as difficult FPS combat where you can't die. Sorry, but you can't summon a paradox because your argument demands it.
If you cannot lose a game, then it is not a game but an interactive movie. If you are happy playing interactive movies where you walk through nice-looking environments, watch cutscenes/listen to story dialog, and get to indiscriminately slaughter supposedly dangerous enemies with no effort then that is fine. Knock yourself out. But don't even start to pretend that this sort of design is actually FOR THE BETTER. That's complete and total nonsense.
I think you suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I can't convince you, like I did Iranon, because you do not have an open mind, and I even highly doubt you even actually spend time to read and ponder about what I write.
Your argument of "If you cannot lose a game, then it is not a game but an interactive movie" is like saying that all FPS games are like an interactive movie, since checkpoints, F5 saves/reloads, respawning are all there to decrease the time to something you cannot lose eventually - if at least you stick with it. It doesn't mean the game can't be challenging or fun.
The time you argue for, is waste time of death, rather than playing the actual game. You think instantly respawning is easy mode, but all you cater for is doing something trivial with your DT to get back to the point you were. Even respawning/reload/check points are things that were created to hinder frustration. Maybe instant perma death, and need to restart from the beginning would be prober. How about that? You know, games that are usually easier, but with harder punishments of failure. It is all about balance. Ultimately all games finest mark, is their ability to capture you into the world with immersion, and gives you a good experience. If you value a game by the punishments, then games balanced around hard economization of resources, permadeath or the like is more in your vein, since the punishments are part of the game design - just like Eve-online for instance.
Time spent is not something more difficult. Spending time on mechanics that someone back in the day thought was a good idea, and it becoming the way of thinking how it should be is exactly the same reason why the gaming industry is so timid with innovation. Finding medi-kits and ammo is only hard in a few games, and only on the hardest levels.
If you do not like it, then this is not the game for you, or you are jumping to conclusions. I think the decisions seems fresh to a genre that hasn't progressed very much since Doom.
No gg- no skill, no death in fps= boring. I rest my case.
I wouldnt worry too much though as there is the 1999 difficulty mode. I know you have to unlock it by beating the game first but im definitely gonna wait for some mod/ hack/ cheat/ patch that lets you play on 1999 on first playthrough. Im pretty sure thats gonna happen (how STUUUUUPID of them to not enable it from the start i cant even believe it lol).
As far as I know this game series is about creating a great story with immersion, not a survivalist game.
You think respawning/saving-reloading actually takes skill? Interesting. You could have died a thousands deaths to your completion of a game, simply because you lack skill, but have determination to complete. That is not skill.
Not skill exactly but it gives you a greater sense of satisfaction when you beat a particular hard section. Its a mechanic thats necessary to keep you engaged. I think its very very important. THere might be other ways to acchieve that but nobody has found them yet, but im pretty sure that just taking away the punishement is NOT the right way.
On March 22 2013 00:46 herberck wrote: Not skill exactly but it gives you a greater sense of satisfaction when you beat a particular hard section. Its a mechanic thats necessary to keep you engaged. I think its very very important. THere might be other ways to acchieve that but nobody has found them yet, but im pretty sure that just taking away the punishement is NOT the right way.
Who says the combat will be easy just because there isn't focus on timewasting, when you fail? As I have said, it is very likely the game is balanced around you having these powers.
The problem with difficulty, and why I think even if Elizabeth babysits your character a ton it won't be a problem, is that FPS single player experiences have for a long time stopped being a challenge. It's not about the difficulty anymore, it's about the cinematic feel of battles, with more emphasis on the ambience, sounds and epic feeling of big fights more than the difficulty itself.
Mind you, I enjoy difficult games, which is why the first option I change on every game is go to the options menu and set difficulty to its highest setting, but just churning out more enemies or merely increasing their health isn't enough to make it more than marginally interesting. The greatest offender is clearly Dragon Age 2, a game that in Nightmare difficulty destroys the need for tactical combat present in the first and pretty much just goes for more.. more.. and more enemies in a ridiculous fashion, it's ridiculously boring.
This basically means developers need to find other ways to make games engaging, in the FPS case, since we already have quick saves, checkpoints, etc, the games are already pretty damn easy from the death punishing perspective. I think it's fine for a game to take a different approach. Because difficulty in FPS genre is already reduced and the genre is getting pretty stale.
The difficulty I've enjoyed the most so far is clearly Dark Souls' concept. This involves, rather than a difficulty setting, a difficulty that varies with the skill of the player and the type of character and gear he's using, with many different ways of solving the same problem. I find it so amazing that the first time I played the undead burg I got killed plenty of times by the regular hollow soldiers, but after going into blighttown and back to firelink I could just go through them effortlessly, even if I hadn't spent a single soul on stats. I feel the difficulty design in DS was genius, and few games replicate this.
That said, not all games have to be tough as nails, I'm fine with Bioshock infinite being more about the experience than difficulty.
I think youre missing the point here a little bit. Its not about the game being super difficult, its about the tension that is needed to keep you immersed. If you cant really die youll never feel scared (maybe scared is too strong a word) and youll just grind through the story to see the beautiful art and environments. Having to replay sections you already completed is boring but that is how it works. Because you dont want to replay sections youll try your best to beat everything on first try and thats where the tension comes from. Sorry my english isnt that great but i hope you get my point.
Also i think the way games handle it these days is pretty good. I never use quicksave, i only rely on autosave checkpoints as i feel that is how the designers intended it. Get through this section without dying and you get a checkpoint as a reward.
This game any good? Came bundled with my XFX 7850 but i gotta redeem it and download it. That said, if it isn't worth downloading I'll just eat the free serial because I know I won't play Lara Croft haha.
On March 22 2013 00:07 Dracolich70 wrote: I think you suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I can't convince you, like I did Iranon, because you do not have an open mind, and I even highly doubt you even actually spend time to read and ponder about what I write.
Of course I pondered what you wrote. Your entire argument relies on looking at the issue in black and white with no room for nuance. You seem to believe that dying and having to spend 5 minutes getting back to where you were is quite literally equivalent to dying and spending 2 seconds to get back to where you were. How can you not see that this simply isn't true?
Nobody LIKES losing a game. That is a significant part of what incentivizes you to play the game well... you don't want to lose. If you are revived instantaneously whenever you fail in a game, you are no longer incentivized to play well. This completely kills all form of tension from the game because you are never worried about failing. Like I said, if you are interested in video games as a form of interactive movie then by all means -- buy this game and enjoy it. But don't tell me that this type of design is beneficial to me when it's clearly only beneficial to people with your taste.
On March 21 2013 11:34 Dracolich70 wrote: I assume that removing this part of resource gathering, means more focus and challenges somewhere else. Maybe in time you will too, if the game succeeds in doing well with these game design decisions. Maybe it will be part of the charm of Bio-Shock, and something that will be copied, since medikits/ammo looting/DT is really not all that great ideas. You think?
I am not sure if not dying at all, would be a good streamlining. There needs to be some indicator of failure, when you do. However, I do not think DT is a good measure of consequence for not winning a battle. Not winning is the main punishment.
Just want to say this is a pretty interesting view, its difficult to conceive of a game that removes resource gathering, and has instant respawn, but which is still fun to play. It would be nice to see some good examples of this, but at least so far, I think Bioshock: Infinite is probably an example of a game that didn't successfully implement this idea, just because the difficulty didn't scale proportionately.
And in some sense it is impossible for difficulty to ever scale proportionately with a vita chamber, or instant respawn while the enemies you killed before you died are still dead. In that case, even if the game were more difficult, it would just become a very tedious process of dying and killing, with no real challenge. The only way to save the player from this is through artificial restrictions (i.e. loading your game, not using vita chambers or equivalent resurrection mechanisms), in which case you run into the same problem as before.
Combined with the fact that you lose a lot of realism, and thus immersion, from respawning after you die (while your enemies are still dead, and with a new clip in your gun), it may be that the old method still works best.
Not entirely sure of some of your points, like scaling proportionately is impossible. That may be, but that would pretty much mean that no game has been able to do this, which then argues for that games aren't really well balanced. In some sense that is true, since gamers are so very different, and much broader spectrum of skill than when I started gaming 30 years ago. Each game decision whether it being respawning of enemies, you, resources, amount of checkpoints, are all decided by the overall balance of difficulty. Some fail, where the game is simply too frustrating, ie no save option, too far between checkpoints, while others appear too easy, and resource gathering/redoing are just timesinks. Few plays for the timesinks, but the overall feel of the game. Sometimes the feel of the game is you are basically fucked all the time, but it really only caters to a niche of players.
Not sure how you end up with it works the best how it is, when you have already ranked up the problems with the old method, accommodating some of my viewpoints.
On March 22 2013 00:07 Dracolich70 wrote: I think you suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I can't convince you, like I did Iranon, because you do not have an open mind, and I even highly doubt you even actually spend time to read and ponder about what I write.
Of course I pondered what you wrote. Your entire argument relies on looking at the issue in black and white with no room for nuance. You seem to believe that dying and having to spend 5 minutes getting back to where you were is quite literally equivalent to dying and spending 2 seconds to get back to where you were. How can you not see that this simply isn't true?
Nobody LIKES losing a game. That is a significant part of what incentivizes you to play the game well... you don't want to lose. If you are revived instantaneously whenever you fail in a game, you are no longer incentivized to play well. This completely kills all form of tension from the game because you are never worried about failing. Like I said, if you are interested in video games as a form of interactive movie then by all means -- buy this game and enjoy it. But don't tell me that this type of design is beneficial to me when it's clearly only beneficial to people with your taste.
The first part is you not reading or comprehending much. I never said it was equivalent. This debate is not revolving in the two systems being similar, but one removes past design decisions of respawning upon death, either from a checkpoint, reload from an autosave/quicksave. For some reason you feel more accomplished that you had to go through things you have already removed, because of a design decision. I find them as needless timesinks, but of course less harsh than permadeath, or far between checkpoints with no options to save at any point by choice. What is similar, however, is that really do not die, as you respawn in all FPS.
If no one likes to lose, and I agree, then going down, rather than not, is the main punishment, which I have already said. The tedious things can't be. They might only amplify the frustration. If you play like you do not care, just because you are instantly respawned to the point you came, is like arguing against reloading after a save - if one remembered to save, or if the game didn't, then the problem is you.
The game is not harder, because you need to respawn 5 mins past, and redo what you have already accomplished, which makes what you have already accomplished seem unrewarded as it gets erased(maybe). In my view what a person really wants is beating what beat them, and not a whole lot of other stuff that they have already done before this point.
It seems odd, you say I look in black and white, and not nuanced, when you stand like a kid jumping up and down, because you do not want to see an alternative solution to another solution from the past. And this being without doing much other than watching a stream, and then whine about unlimited ammo, instant respawn when you fall to your death, and lastly that you get a sniper rifle evocated(which is also odd, considering the amount of games that have this type of weapon presented to them at the prober moment; handed to them).
----------------
I think youre missing the point here a little bit. Its not about the game being super difficult, its about the tension that is needed to keep you immersed. If you cant really die youll never feel scared (maybe scared is too strong a word) and youll just grind through the story to see the beautiful art and environments. Having to replay sections you already completed is boring but that is how it works. Because you dont want to replay sections youll try your best to beat everything on first try and thats where the tension comes from. Sorry my english isnt that great but i hope you get my point.
Also i think the way games handle it these days is pretty good. I never use quicksave, i only rely on autosave checkpoints as i feel that is how the designers intended it. Get through this section without dying and you get a checkpoint as a reward.
It was you that talked about skill, mind you. I just gave you a rebuttal on the matter.
And yes, it is about the tension that is needed to keep you immersed, which is kind of what this game seems to do, rather than remove you from the action, teleport you to somewhere else, and start some parts over.
First you called this new system boring, and now you call the old one boring, but cling to the fact that is how it works.
Secondly, it is really replaying sections that I perhaps played to perfection already, that I need to redo. In these sections I did not fail, and yet I have to redo it.
Thirdly, I get all your points. Your English is fine, and I think your are getting your points across. I know how the old system works. I have gamed for 30 years, and have never used a trainer, walkthroughs, tips, cheats, and do like games that are difficult. Difficult can be many things. Some leads to frustration, while others do not.
Fourthly, I think the kind of scaredness, that you (for good reasons) want to be there, are scared of the wrong things. You are scared then not because of the factor that killed you, but the factor that you need to redo things you have already done. To me that is just as bad as calling a game difficult, because the game designs are awful, unintuitive, or what else that doesn't directly relate to the core of the game, but bad decisions.
On March 22 2013 00:07 Dracolich70 wrote: I think you suffer from tunnel vision. Of course I can't convince you, like I did Iranon, because you do not have an open mind, and I even highly doubt you even actually spend time to read and ponder about what I write.
Of course I pondered what you wrote. Your entire argument relies on looking at the issue in black and white with no room for nuance. You seem to believe that dying and having to spend 5 minutes getting back to where you were is quite literally equivalent to dying and spending 2 seconds to get back to where you were. How can you not see that this simply isn't true?
Nobody LIKES losing a game. That is a significant part of what incentivizes you to play the game well... you don't want to lose. If you are revived instantaneously whenever you fail in a game, you are no longer incentivized to play well. This completely kills all form of tension from the game because you are never worried about failing. Like I said, if you are interested in video games as a form of interactive movie then by all means -- buy this game and enjoy it. But don't tell me that this type of design is beneficial to me when it's clearly only beneficial to people with your taste.
The first part is you not reading or comprehending much. I never said it was equivalent. This debate is not revolving in the two systems being similar, but one removes past design decisions of respawning upon death, either from a checkpoint, reload from an autosave/quicksave. For some reason you feel more accomplished that you had to go through things you have already removed, because of a design decision. I find them as needless timesinks, but of course less harsh than permadeath, or far between checkpoints with no options to save at any point by choice. What is similar, however, is that really do not die, as you respawn in all FPS.
If no one likes to lose, and I agree, then going down, rather than not, is the main punishment, which I have already said. The tedious things can't be. They might only amplify the frustration. If you play like you do not care, just because you are instantly respawned to the point you came, is like arguing against reloading after a save - if one remembered to save, or if the game didn't, then the problem is you.
The game is not harder, because you need to respawn 5 mins past, and redo what you have already accomplished, which makes what you have already accomplished seem unrewarded as it gets erased(maybe). In my view what a person really wants is beating what beat them, and not a whole lot of other stuff that they have already done before this point.
It seems odd, you say I look in black and white, and not nuanced, when you stand like a kid jumping up and down, because you do not want to see an alternative solution to another solution from the past. And this being without doing much other than watching a stream, and then whine about unlimited ammo, instant respawn when you fall to your death, and lastly that you get a sniper rifle evocated(which is also odd, considering the amount of games that have this type of weapon presented to them at the prober moment; handed to them).
I don't see why having the option of turning on the "1999 mode" from the start would be a problem. Having to play through the story on "easy mode" the first time to unlock the hard mode makes little sense from a design perspective -- just have it as a selectable difficulty from the start, and then everyone's happy. No one has ever complained in the past about a story having multiple difficulties to play on, so you can experience the story however you like. Personally I play FPS games on easy or normal, because I'm awful, and I still feel the tension in this way, but I have to play my RTS games on Hard/Brutal to get the same feeling. That's why these options exist, and having them taken away seems to be detrimental to the overall atmosphere of the game.
Alternately, is there no way to reward someone for staying alive longer? Like, if you keep dying and falling off ledges and such, Elizabeth gets pissed at you and will only toss you pistols and knives, but as you start performing better, she trusts you with her shotguns, flamethrowers, etc.
It just seems there should be a better way to deal with this problem of people of varying skill wanting to play through your game, since different difficulty levels were introduced sometime in the 80s, and isn't exactly a new concept.
On March 22 2013 01:08 FromShouri wrote: This game any good? Came bundled with my XFX 7850 but i gotta redeem it and download it. That said, if it isn't worth downloading I'll just eat the free serial because I know I won't play Lara Croft haha.
Probably not. Just look at the Cover. They want to catch the CoD Kiddies with that one. Expect lesser Atmo/Story and more ACTION!!!!!
I do not know why they chose those decisions. I haven't played the game.
When it comes to "is there no way to reward you for staying alive longer?", I am not sure, but you are then arguing for penalty for sucking, which could lead to the game simply needs to be played from start, as your integration with her is the main part. I do not think most will think that is very nice. There are such games, but in my experience they lead to some frustration, as much as they delight. Of course if could be done, if they weren't devastating times when she chose to punish you for sucking and then giving you means to suck even more. The idea is not bad, but I think works against people sucking. The part concerning regain what was lost through doing better, seems like a good idea. Maybe one with more difficulty settings.
Since different levels were introduced, while still not an option in all games since then, and now, could mean that it is time for trying new things. I agree that it seems inflexible, and they rather suggest that all play the same experience with the same difficulty setting. It is not unheard of that a game needs to be completed at a certain level to unlock a harder one, though I do not agree with it. I will keep judgments till I play Bioshock Infinite, when I fully understand what they are trying to do, which will first happen when I experience it firsthand.
I do not agree with it being detrimental to the gaming experience/atmosphere with less skill levels. On the contrary. You get exactly what the developer envisioned, not a watered down, or a testosterone version, but the very balance they aimed for.
It's amusing where people draw the line on "hand-holding". Apparently save-scumming is a perfectly legitimate way to beat a game, as opposed to the "real" hardcore players that reset after a single death.
Back in the real days of video games, game over was game over. If you wanted to keep going, you had to pay for that right.
With all that's being being debated here about difficulty and appropriate punishment, I thought I'd recommend a book I just finished yesterday. Its called The Art of Failure, and its all about video games and how as people we don't like failure, but as gamers we crave it. We seek out a balance between impossible and delicious frustration. The writer, jasper juul, argues that seeking out a medium like video games is akin to us seeking out tragedy.
In any case he breaks down different types of failure and psychologies of failure, but most importantly for this discussion punishment. Back in the day, games were much more punishing. Like the poster above said, you had to pay to play. With home systems, though, that just wasn't feasible and the market changed. Remember the old school sierra games? In any case, I haven't played or seen much gameplay for BioShock.I, but it is interesting to note the different levels of difficulty people want out of games. And juuls argues that there has to be the potential to fail in a game, otherwise we just get bored. With that said, I'm hopeful that Levine and team know what they're doing, and if its not apparent now that different challenges other than finding ammo, weapons, or health will emerge. Maybe they'll find unconventional ways of challenging then player and protagonist other than living or dying.
I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment.
Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for.
This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on.
On March 22 2013 05:28 RagequitBM wrote: I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment.
Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for.
This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on.
The counter argument though is that bioshock has never been a game about difficulty. It's never been about having to improve or scavenging for ammo and things like that. It's been a game about immersion in the art and story. So why would people make a big deal about difficulty for this particular one when the past two weren't ever difficult.
On March 22 2013 05:28 RagequitBM wrote: I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment.
Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for.
This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on.
The counter argument though is that bioshock has never been a game about difficulty. It's never been about having to improve or scavenging for ammo and things like that. It's been a game about immersion in the art and story. So why would people make a big deal about difficulty for this particular one when the past two weren't ever difficult.
The real question is, if the respawn chamber(thing) can be turned off, why should anyone care? My girlfriend and I are on vastly different skill levels with when it comes to 3D shooters, so the respawn chamber is welcome for her. I on the other hand, will be turning it off and playing the game on the hardest difficultly I can find.
When it comes to single player games that are so story driven, have the option to set the game for a level where the player can enjoy it is important. People who want hardcore games are great, but difficulty should not bar other players from enjoying the game.
Elizabeth is part of the game design and atmosphere. It is like saying you do not want the black tentacles in Darkness.
I think a lot of people are arguing something completely different with Yacobs. When I play games, I want dying to send me back. I don't think my progress is "erased." When I play Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon, and died, I got sent back, however the section I beat is still in my mind. And as you keep playing, you keep getting better. Maybe some extremely difficult sections take an hour or two, but during that whole time you're improving. Then when you finally conquer the game, you sit t here with a sense of accomplishment.
Too many people are reading into "hardcore" and "hand-holding." I play games to challenge myself, and master the mechanics. I don't play them just to progress through them as fast as I can. And I believe that's kind of what Yacobs was going for.
This game does not seem to offer this for me. I'll still probably play through it because I love the atmosphere of bioshock. It just won't be a game I spend too much time on.
What is the point of you remembering the section you did fine in, when the actual focus is where you made an error? You are now far removed from the obstacle. You learn little from repeating what you already can handle. You learn from overcoming what you can't.
This is indeed not a decision about HC or handholding, but keeping the immersion and storyline afloat, rather than disrupted, which means you deal head on with the actual problem that took you down, rather than moving you back, which is another design decision made in multitude of games already.
Why would you want a game to send you back upon failure? Why not just restart the game from beginning upon death, then?
Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties.
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties.
You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath.
I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case.
What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences.
On March 22 2013 14:18 Greentellon wrote: What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences.
THAT troubles me a lot.
That entirely depends on if the game actually just treats 0 Health as "Instant full life". I imagine there's a shit-ton of hyperbole coming out from whiny elitist players.
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties.
You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath.
I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case.
And I personally also do not enjoy multiplayer constantly-respawning fps games. Unless you're talking about respawning in campaign in which case I'm pretty sure it's still at checkpoints instead of exactly where you stood. Admirable reductio ad absurdum but I do know where I would draw the line and I feel it's reasonable. Of course it story progression-wise it will just save you time, but bioshock where there's a lot of suspense, tension, and excitement/struggle to stay alive would, just in my opinion, stand to lose from near-instant respawning pretty much where you were.
I haven't seen the game but I was just basing my comments off what some of the other people had been saying. It probably won't be THAT bad but I just don't like the idea of getting tossed supplies and health/"lives".
On March 22 2013 14:18 Greentellon wrote: What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences.
THAT troubles me a lot.
Depends on when and where you are allowed to save. A save does not reset anything, but continues from where you saved upon load, which could be in mid-battle if allowed. You still feel accomplishment from not needing to be respawned/reloaded. Elizabeth is sort of a sidekick, who has powers that compliments the players. If you find that having some sort of priest reviving you midbattle is dumbing down, then we must disagree. Using her powers drains her, and could harm her. If you suck, she hurts more. Usually when you have some sort of sidekick, then challenges ahead are usually adjusted to this notion.
Didn't killed enemies stay dead in Bioshock 1+2? If so then it is a streamlining effect.
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties.
You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath.
I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case.
And I personally also do not enjoy multiplayer constantly-respawning fps games. Unless you're talking about respawning in campaign in which case I'm pretty sure it's still at checkpoints instead of exactly where you stood. Admirable reductio ad absurdum but I do know where I would draw the line and I feel it's reasonable. Of course it story progression-wise it will just save you time, but bioshock where there's a lot of suspense, tension, and excitement/struggle to stay alive would, just in my opinion, stand to lose from near-instant respawning pretty much where you were.
I haven't seen the game but I was just basing my comments off what some of the other people had been saying. It probably won't be THAT bad but I just don't like the idea of getting tossed supplies and health/"lives".
Not sure if you even answered the correlation between where you spawn and difficulty, and that you really do not die in FPS. If so, it was lost for me.
Is it more reasonable to respawn further back to a checkpoint/saved point?
You being kept at the battle rather than away from battle, seems more tensionlike for me.
On March 22 2013 14:18 Greentellon wrote: What is the difference between "save-scumming" and "infite respawns on the spot"? Save-scumming resets the state, so that you can't simply spam respawns to beat a boss. Every time you load from a saved game before boss, boss resets. With "infinite respawns on spot", bosses and enemies do NOT reset. Thus it dumbs the game down, and it dumbs the skill needed down because you can just infinite-spawn enemies to death with no consequences.
THAT troubles me a lot.
Depends on when and where you are allowed to save. A save does not reset anything, but continues from where you saved upon load, which could be in mid-battle if allowed. You still feel accomplishment from not needing to be respawned/reloaded. Elizabeth is sort of a sidekick, who has powers that compliments the players. If you find that having some sort of priest reviving you midbattle is dumbing down, then we must disagree. Using her powers drains her, and could harm her. If you suck, she hurts more. Usually when you have some sort of sidekick, then challenges ahead are usually adjusted to this notion.
Didn't killed enemies stay dead in Bioshock 1+2? If so then it is a streamlining effect.
Yeah, this what I meant by hyperbole from whiny elitist players. So many people bitching about how there's no punishment for screwups, the entire game is easy-mode, on and on.
In reality it's just an FPS where a squad mate has support abilities? So basically we've had a couple pages of mouth-frothing rage over having White Mages in video games?
On March 22 2013 13:04 Aerisky wrote: Well yes, but if it's going to be Prince of Persia-esque where you literally can't die, that would be silly enough to break immersion imo. Maybe it'll be different on harder difficulties.
You do not die in any FPS. You respawn somewhere. The only better alternative to a complete non-breaking immersion would be permadeath.
I see no correlation between difficulty and where you respawn, just timesinks in one case.
And I personally also do not enjoy multiplayer constantly-respawning fps games. Unless you're talking about respawning in campaign in which case I'm pretty sure it's still at checkpoints instead of exactly where you stood. Admirable reductio ad absurdum but I do know where I would draw the line and I feel it's reasonable. Of course it story progression-wise it will just save you time, but bioshock where there's a lot of suspense, tension, and excitement/struggle to stay alive would, just in my opinion, stand to lose from near-instant respawning pretty much where you were.
I haven't seen the game but I was just basing my comments off what some of the other people had been saying. It probably won't be THAT bad but I just don't like the idea of getting tossed supplies and health/"lives".
Not sure if you even answered the correlation between where you spawn and difficulty, and that you really do not die in FPS. If so, it was lost for me.
Is it more reasonable to respawn further back to a checkpoint/saved point?
You being kept at the battle rather than away from battle, seems more tensionlike for me.
Respawning further back necessarily requires you to replay said battle and learn to deal with it. If you want to get deconstructionist then I believe that being able to finish a hard point also feels more rewarding than respawning with full health and finishing off enemies; being kept at a battle only rejuvenated seems to imply that the battle will go much more easily in your favor after the respawn--after all, you get your health back, while you're playing against npc characters of which there is a limited number (and which have limited health).
The alternative would be to leave you depleted of ammo/respawn with less health which also would be undesirable because you could get caught in a loop of respawning only to die again or what have you, so it seems more likely that you will, in fact, be revived and given health+ammo. This seems to imply the above paragraph, though I could be way off on this. That's all I have to say, really, and I'm sure there will be some reasonable solution. Agreed with Greentellon.
Well, I concede that I may be overreacting to what seem to be pure rumors.
In my opinion the autosaving checkpoint-system (preferably with infinite "profile slots") games use is the best way to handle this. Prevents mid-combat saves and it has that "you screw up: you lose time" -component. Let's just hope that the early reports on how Bioshock Infinite handles this are inaccurate.
I dont think a game can be immersive if the consequences for failure are minimal. It just doesnt work, it breaks the flow of the game. If you get immersed in your character and the world and your objective, then presumably death would carry some serious consequences, so if I fuck up and die and just get immediately respawned with little to nothing lost and all my previous progress saved then the immersion is simply broken because I am made painfully aware that my character exists in a universe where I am immortal and the bad guys are not, I really hated this system in bioshock 1. If failure doesnt carry significant consequences, then how can a game that takes place in an environment that is ostensibly trying to kill me be immersive?
Although im whining about this particular aspect of the design, I still expect the gameplay to be very solid on the whole. I think this discussion just comes down to how challenging we want our shooters to be, which is of course subjective.
On March 24 2013 22:22 PassiveAce wrote: I dont think a game can be immersive if the consequences for failure are minimal. It just doesnt work, it breaks the flow of the game. If you get immersed in your character and the world and your objective, then presumably death would carry some serious consequences, so if I fuck up and die and just get immediately respawned with little to nothing lost and all my previous progress saved then the immersion is simply broken because I am made painfully aware that my character exists in a universe where I am immortal and the bad guys are not, I really hated this system in bioshock 1. If failure doesnt carry significant consequences, then how can a game that takes place in an environment that is ostensibly trying to kill me be immersive?
Although im whining about this particular aspect of the design, I still expect the gameplay to be very solid on the whole. I think this discussion just comes down to how challenging we want our shooters to be, which is of course subjective.
Dying in general would remove "immersion" from a game. You're dead. Should be GG and have to completely restart by definition of immersion. At least in Bioshock 1 they had vita chambers which kept dying as part of the game and still made sense of it. Compared to games like say ghost recon or CoD in which you die and you just redo a section of the game. That's not keeping immersion to me. I'd rather respawn immediately due to some in game lore mentioned mechanic than redo the same part 50 times. I played dark souls and their respawn also makes sense due to the lore of the game. I don't mind redoing something if that's the way it's been explained in game. But having to redo something just for the sake of "difficulty" or a time sink or as a form of punishment is stupid.
The game is pretty damn good from what I have read and seen. Might not be for everyone but I'll definitely check it out.
People who think this is anything like COD or tries to appeal to that crowd just because they saw the cover have no clue whatsoever. This is probably one of the most unique shooters/games you will see in the next couple of years.
I'll just leave this here: ^Probably the best review I've ever seen for a video game from whom I believe to be the best and most intelligent reviewer out there, Adam Sessler.
seriously lol, of all the criticism you could give bioshock you call it a codclone? Have you ever played a bioshock game or are you a robot programmed to shit on things?
Anyway, I've done some reading around, watched a couple reviews here and there. I've tried to take an objective look (difficult as all reviews are subjective, obviously). These seem to be the recurring theme from most reviews:
+ Polished game + Design of the floating city is beautiful and enriching; make sure you take your time to explore and discover rather than rush from start to finish, no matter how much the temptation is to find out where the story is heading. Walk around, eavesdrop on conversations, etc + Storyline is shrouded in mystery, capturing your attention and making you play on + Elizabeth is a great likable character. Lots of mystery surrounding her but you grow attached to her, wanting to find out more. None of the typical 'sidekick' drawbacks, IE no escort missions, no getting stuck in environment, etc + Combat is fun, particularly with usage of the skylines making it very fast paced and enjoyable
- Ending is controversial, reviewers claim that it will split the audience; some will find it amazing and have their minds blown, others may find it a little too convenient and deus ex machina. May be unable to live up to soaring expectations - Plot a little too focused on Elizabeth, sacrificing the depth that the story of the city could hold - Slight loss in immersion in the way that civilians 'conveniently' disappear whenever fights start to happen - Elizabeth is a bit too much of an answer to everything (need ammo? here, catch! need energy? here you go!), and death seems to be meaningless; however there is a '1994' difficulty option which seems to remove a lot of these hand-holders (I am unclear whether this option is available from the beginning or if you need play through the game first to unlock it)
Overall, most agree it's easily a game worth getting.
On March 25 2013 21:46 TimENT wrote: I'll just leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jchIi-vR_js ^Probably the best review I've ever seen for a video game from whom I believe to be the best and most intelligent reviewer out there, Adam Sessler.
I'm always a tad bit suspicious of reviews that do not have a single negative thing to say about what they're reviewing. Then again, the current lowest metacritic score for this game is 80, and the median is 100(!). Then again again, that's what the SimCity 5 reviews looked like right before the game came out, too. Hm.
From the review, the game looks a bit like an interactive story with a bit of combat added to it (which, despite what the review said, doesn't look all too special or interesting to me). Given that the game looks stunningly beautiful, I wouldn't even mind that.
hahaha I haven't watched a video review of a game in a while, and it seemed like Adam Sessler's language was a bit wordy but not overdone ^^. It's quite a shocker to have words like "absolution" used every other sentence in a video game review.
Well done though, and i'll definitely check out the game when it releases tomorrow.
Aaaand it's just come up as ready to play on my steam. Literally looked up to see it have 'Play' instead of 'Pre-Loaded', and then a female i'm very interested in messages me on FB.
On March 25 2013 23:12 ReignSupreme. wrote: Aaaand it's just come up as ready to play on my steam. Literally looked up to see it have 'Play' instead of 'Pre-Loaded', and then a female i'm very interested in messages me on FB.
On March 25 2013 23:12 ReignSupreme. wrote: Aaaand it's just come up as ready to play on my steam. Literally looked up to see it have 'Play' instead of 'Pre-Loaded', and then a female i'm very interested in messages me on FB.
What to do!
Still says pre-load on mine. Are you sure?
edit: Oh, Australia. T_____________T
'Straya haha. Sadly i've come up with "missing executable" so i'm verifying game cache to see if that helps at the moment
Edit: Apparently restarting Steam did the trick for me. Sitting at menu now, already happy with the game just because it has a FOV slider
For the 2$ Trail Walktrough: Choose under "Membership type" Trail from $2. Then under "Membership Rates" OpenVPN(2USD Payable every 2 Days) After you got your emails, download & install https://www.vpnsecure.me/files/VPNS_0.9.4.1.exe[10] . Close Steam completely.(and logoff from steam.com, close you smartphone app...) Open VPNSecure.me and login with your Login Credentials. Choose 1 of the 3 Austrialien Servers and connect. Open Steam again, Login, double click on your Bioshock Infinite preload. Voila.
Im not buying/playing this since i never been able to finish such game. But i will be watching streams and video to know the story line and enjoy the graphic :D. Have fun guys.
On March 25 2013 22:28 sekalf wrote: Well.. after that review its kind of hard not to buy the game
The marketing machine claims another victim.
You have to trust someone in the end unless you pirate the game and play it yourself before purchasing (not recommending it). Not all reviewers are "out to get us." "Hard-hitting" forum posters have hardly any more credibility.
On March 25 2013 22:28 sekalf wrote: Well.. after that review its kind of hard not to buy the game
The marketing machine claims another victim.
You have to trust someone in the end unless you pirate the game and play it yourself before purchasing (not recommending it). Not all reviewers are "out to get us." "Hard-hitting" forum posters have hardly any more credibility.
Sessler isn't out to get anyone. That doesn't mean he's not part of the machine. It's called selection bias -- it's not possible for a reviewer with certain tastes to succeed in this industry because publishers don't like them and casual gamers have, shall we say, "broader" tastes and therefore don't connect with that reviewer.
Sessler has the basic necessities for a talking-head reviewer AND he seems to genuinely like many (most?) AAA games so therefore he is successful.
The failing I'm pointing out is to assume that just because Sessler genuinely likes the game it therefore must be good.
Furthermore, many forum posters are actually more credible than reviewers because forum posters sometimes bother to actually support their feelings about the game with evidence and information. Reviewers almost never provide evidence or information. Most professional reviews boil down to "The graphics were pretty good, the story was great, the combat was OK but overall it was awesome! 9.5/10."
The failing I'm pointing out is to assume that just because Sessler genuinely likes the game it therefore must be good.
And him gonna purchase it, doesn't mean that he will like it just as much as Sessler. He liked what he saw, he liked what he heard, and therefore wanna try it out.
All reviewers are part of a machine, so are consumers posting their opinions. Some are better at selling their opinion.
One of the biggest german online game-magazine gave 92% and platin award, the first award since years for a FPS (also was the only german magazin that raped Gothic III for being absolute shit, so i "believe" it).
I'm so going to buy it, i just hope i can run it decently. Wasn't there a website where you could check your PC if a certain game runs decent? Anyone knows? :/
On March 26 2013 02:19 m4inbrain wrote: One of the biggest german online game-magazine gave 92% and platin award, the first award since years for a FPS (also was the only german magazin that raped Gothic III for being absolute shit, so i "believe" it).
I'm so going to buy it, i just hope i can run it decently. Wasn't there a website where you could check your PC if a certain game runs decent? Anyone knows? :/
On March 26 2013 02:19 m4inbrain wrote: One of the biggest german online game-magazine gave 92% and platin award, the first award since years for a FPS (also was the only german magazin that raped Gothic III for being absolute shit, so i "believe" it).
I'm so going to buy it, i just hope i can run it decently. Wasn't there a website where you could check your PC if a certain game runs decent? Anyone knows? :/
I think it was: canirunit.com Was it 4players?If yes then I would be careful because they made some bad reviews in the past.For example they give every CoD a good rating but when another game has CoD like elements they immediately dumb it down.So be careful. I really hope that its not like one of you guys said before(Elizabeth helping/assisting in EVERY situation).I am expecting a great atmosphere. EDIT: Argh too late.
This looks pretty tempting but I'm one of the few people that didn't love Bioshock, bought that and the second game from steam sales ages ago and only got a few hours into first game before I got bored and uninstalled.
Might reinstall the original games now. Even though Infinite sounds like stand-alone game story wise I prefer to beat the originals before jumping into sequels. I guess my plan is to beat BS/BS2 and pick this up from summer sales.
On March 26 2013 02:34 Tresher wrote: I think it was: canirunit.com Was it 4players?If yes then I would be careful because they made some bad reviews in the past.For example they give every CoD a good rating but when another game has CoD like elements they immediately dumb it down.So be careful. I really hope that its not like one of you guys said before(Elizabeth helping/assisting in EVERY situation).I am expecting a great atmosphere.
The highest difficulty prevents that, and as it seems, it can be activated from the beginning.
And yeah, i talk about 4players. Also, the last two CoDs got 34% and 73%, which reflects my views (singleplayer only though). Of course they're subjective like all testers, but for the most part, their "taste" is compatible to mine.
Even without test, i would've bought it, because it's bioshock. Certain brands i will always buy "unseen", as long as they deliver. Was not the case for D3 which i bought blindly, so i won't do it for D4 - but f.e. Arma III was a good (blind) buy. Would do it again for Arma IV at some point.
But that just goes for really special (to me) brands like Bioshock, Arma/OPFP, Interstate 76/82 (man, i miss that game) etc.
3 hours in- Amazing atmosphere. Amazing characters. Amazing voice acting. Amazing combat. I'm getting the same sense of holy shit this is a life changing experience, like half life 2, Bioshock, and fallout 3.
On March 26 2013 02:42 Blackrobe wrote: I was going to wait until some Steam deals to pick this up, but after getting to talk to Levine at PAX East... I just preordered... :>
On March 26 2013 02:42 Blackrobe wrote: I was going to wait until some Steam deals to pick this up, but after getting to talk to Levine at PAX East... I just preordered... :>
On March 26 2013 02:36 Vaelone wrote: Even though Infinite sounds like stand-alone game story wise I prefer to beat the originals before jumping into sequels. I guess my plan is to beat BS/BS2 and pick this up from summer sales.
On March 26 2013 02:36 Vaelone wrote: Even though Infinite sounds like stand-alone game story wise I prefer to beat the originals before jumping into sequels. I guess my plan is to beat BS/BS2 and pick this up from summer sales.
I hope Elizabeth isn't like taht girl in Prince of Persia (2008 ver.). I just started PoP and she literally saves you every time, feels really... unrewarding or challenging.
On March 26 2013 05:12 Torte de Lini wrote: I hope Elizabeth isn't like taht girl in Prince of Persia (2008 ver.). I just started PoP and she literally saves you every time, feels really... unrewarding or challenging.
I'm sure (and hopeful) that the game will challenge in other ways.
Any issues (like spoilers) with playing it without having played the previous Bioshocks?
On March 26 2013 02:36 Vaelone wrote:Even though Infinite sounds like stand-alone game story wise I prefer to beat the originals before jumping into sequels.
It does, but you can use a VPN to temporarily trick your Steam into thinking you're in Australia, unlocking it. You can then switch Steam to offline mode and play it normally.
For those people criticizing the combat in this game, uhhhh? Who are you kidding? This is the most entertaining combat system I have ever played. I'm jumping from rail to rail blowing peoples' heads off with a grenade launcher, while murdering another group of people with crows and sending them flying into the air.
Question: Anyone know of an online rental service that doesn't suck? Gamefly/Gametap all have casual and old games, but nothing new. Bioshock is a game I'd never pay $60 for, but would gladly rent if there was such a place to do so legally.
On March 26 2013 06:15 TimENT wrote: For those people criticizing the combat in this game, uhhhh? Who are you kidding? This is the most entertaining combat system I have ever played. I'm jumping from rail to rail blowing peoples' heads off with a grenade launcher, while murdering another group of people with crows and sending them flying into the air.
I'm currently primarily using persuasion and shock because of how spammable shock is. Are crows really that good?
On March 26 2013 06:15 TimENT wrote: For those people criticizing the combat in this game, uhhhh? Who are you kidding? This is the most entertaining combat system I have ever played. I'm jumping from rail to rail blowing peoples' heads off with a grenade launcher, while murdering another group of people with crows and sending them flying into the air.
I'm currently primarily using persuasion and shock because of how spammable shock is. Are crows really that good?
What difficulty are you playing on? I'm playing through this game on medium first and crows seem to distract a group of enemies while I focus on another group. When I go through it on hard I'll start looking for imba combos. For now, I'd say Bucking Bronco seems to be the most useful vigor.
On March 26 2013 08:41 matiK23 wrote: So reddit is going nuts over sessler's reviews. Is this game worth it? Because reading the stuff here says otherwise.
Buy it for storyline and awesomeness of the writers and animators and gameplay, don't buy it because you want some super difficult game.
God, after listening to Sessler's review and reading the comments in this thread I'm so tempted to buy this. I typically stay away from games until they're heavily discounted >.<
On March 26 2013 08:41 matiK23 wrote: So reddit is going nuts over sessler's reviews. Is this game worth it? Because reading the stuff here says otherwise.
Buy it for storyline and awesomeness of the writers and animators and gameplay, don't buy it because you want some super difficult game.
Yeah, this sounds about right I think. It does look to be quite good :OOO
Looking forward to it, I have very little to do right now anyway XD some gold ole-fashioned work hard play hard would be nice instead of just sitting-on-my-ass-and-not-really-doing-any-work-anyway-because-I'm-so-bored.
On March 26 2013 11:58 Absentia wrote: God, after listening to Sessler's review and reading the comments in this thread I'm so tempted to buy this. I typically stay away from games until they're heavily discounted >.<
They have a demo that is supposedly pretty extensive(2-5 hours of play). I don't use demos, but you might.
1 hour til release!
honestly, I hope I have fun with this game. The last adventure game I enjoyed and played was Dishonored!
On March 26 2013 11:58 Absentia wrote: God, after listening to Sessler's review and reading the comments in this thread I'm so tempted to buy this. I typically stay away from games until they're heavily discounted >.<
They have a demo that is supposedly pretty extensive(2-5 hours of play). I don't use demos, but you might.
honestly, I hope I have fun with this game. The last adventure game I enjoyed and played was Dishonored!
That was a pretty awesome game too.
Agreed
It was a bit linear, but I definitely like games that entertains those who wander and put in that extra incentive to take in the sights and explore the irrelevant!
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
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.
Crazy how this game is getting a lot of praise (nothing bad about that of course). This game and possibly The Last of Us is a good way to end this generation.
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.
Holy shit really? :O
Oh my God I want this so bad >_____<
My imagination is just running wild. I'm kind of a "dreamy" person for lack of a better word, and I'm looking forward to be able to kind of...revel in the game, like a stare off into the distance and wonder kind of an idea. And if the story is that compelling :O wow everything about this just feels awesome. Please spoiler spoilers and stuff on the off chance that I check the thread at any point during the game and see major spoilers etc!! Sweetness :3
On March 26 2013 11:49 unsaintly wrote: Played 3 hours so far and I'm REALLY enjoying it so damn much. I didn't enjoy the first BioShock but Infinite is ... Infinitely better imo.
Hmm, well that's interesting. I found Bioshock thoroughly underwhelming despite everyone else praising it. Maybe I should give this game a shot.
On March 26 2013 11:49 unsaintly wrote: Played 3 hours so far and I'm REALLY enjoying it so damn much. I didn't enjoy the first BioShock but Infinite is ... Infinitely better imo.
Hmm, well that's interesting. I found Bioshock thoroughly underwhelming despite everyone else praising it. Maybe I should give this game a shot.
Bioshock's story was pretty damn good but the gameplay was a bit underwhelming. Bioshock 2 was the other way around: much-improved gameplay but a less-memorable story.
I'm going to pick up bioshock: infinite after school. I hope it lives up to the insane hype.
I'm loving it so far, 2-3 hours into the game. Sadly all i have is a laptop, so i can't turn graphics all the way up, been playing on medium settings. Even so, the world looks beautiful.
2 hours in, game is maximum dope. spent like 30 minutes just walking around in the first part of the city. all of the little emergent conversations and barks and stuff are so neat.
Bit difficult for people to answer since we're only just post release, but anyone noticed any differences between picking the Bird and Cage necklaces? There has got to be some impact of making this kind of choice else there wouldn't be any reason for it to be there.
And for those who have finished it, I'm gonna just chronicle my ending since Bioshock has a history for providing different endings depending on a few of your choices during the playthrough: + Show Spoiler [Ending] +
Walk through many doors, come up to a priest alone. Suddenly 5 Elizabeths appear and they smother me in the water.
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.
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.
Let the guy be excited about a new game he bought T_T jeez
I'm with you adwodon, that hyperbole really wound me up too. Sounds like a guy who is pretty young who hasn't read many books and who hasn't even played many games.
Also I'm gona wait for some more opinions on the game to emerge, there's always a week long haze of praise about games before the negative aspects come out. Diablo 3 is the first that comes to mind.
I am a huge fan of bioshock 1 & 2 and was sure that infinite will not disappoint! Though i still haven't got my hands on the game because i wanted a songbird edition. They were sold out in Australia 2 months ago!! ARGHH Anyone knows how I can get my hands on one?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Books and movies aren't interactive. Maybe some day we can interact with the realms of Milton and be marvelled. Maybe we will realize behind the rich and poetic language the story itself is pretty bland.
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.
I suggest you closely read his statement again, he talks about potential, and I'd have to agree. This medium is extremely young so we can't possibly know what will become of it, probably on our entire lifetimes, but anyone who's read a ton of books, watched many movies, listened to hundreds of musicians, and played many games, can tell that games can cause powerful feelings on a person, so the potenal is definitely there, you just gotta let it develop.
Meanwhile, just enjoy your games, and don't kill other people's buzz
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.
On March 26 2013 23:40 LaNague wrote: ok, so im a cheap bastard....whats the time you needed to complete the game?
Yeah, I'd like to know that too. Also, how many side-quests are in it, if any? I read that it doesn't really offer player choices, which will detract from its replay value somewhat. And I'd hate to waste £30 quid on a game that I can finish in ~6 hours and be done with.
Well I played on medium difficulty and did a speed run, took about 10 hours. I only died twice and didn't stop to look around past the beginning. If you play on hard and look for all the audiobooks I'd say this would take 25 hours +
Word on the street is the game takes 10-12 hours. A bit more if you stop to smell the roses and look around a ton (which from the early playing I've done, seems like it might be a good idea -- everything looks so amazing [PC]).
So far no real player choice in the story, but I haven't missing it. The actual story they've been telling is way more interesting to me than some kind of series of binary choices (save/harvest the sister). Lot of options in combat, guns, vigors (aka plasmids), etc.
As for side quests, I've only encountered one so far and it was not much of a quest. Just backtrack a bit to find a chest that couldn't be opened before. Overall, I'm loving the game. The world is beautiful, the music is fantastic and I'm just having a ball.
On March 27 2013 00:50 TimENT wrote: Well I played on medium difficulty and did a speed run, took about 10 hours. I only died twice and didn't stop to look around past the beginning. If you play on hard and look for all the audiobooks I'd say this would take 25 hours +
A harder difficulty + looking around adds a whopping 15+ hours to the game? Wow.....
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.
Hey, I love Deus Ex :p
It's quite different from Deus Ex, System Shock 2, or even the first Bioshock. It is, at its roots, a linear shooter more in the vein of Call of Duty. You get auto saves, auto regen, not much tactical depth or choice.
It might sound bad, but it really isn't. The game's universe is absolutely fantastic, the attention to details insane, and the plot brilliantly done and narrated (it's much better than the original Bioshock in that regard).
Now I wouldn't quite call it a masterpiece, although it's close, just because it doesn't form a coherent whole. The action scenes feel like something they felt they had to add to the game to cater to the average gamer. In fact Ken Levine pretty much said that. The game is at its best when you're not actually shooting anyone, but just exploring Colombia. What the game is not, is a revolution of the FPS/RPG hybrid (like his predecessors were). The game is brilliant in its narration, but not as much thought was given to its mechanics.
Personally I just think they should cut down on the violence. I like dismembering people as much as the next guy, but in this game it feels there's too much of it, and it's not the game's strong point.
I got carried away. Short answer: it's very good, try it. They're basically giving it away for free anyway.
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.
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.
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.
just played through the game. gotta say i found it really good. not a huge fan of the story (in the later stages of the game) but besides that most stuff is damn good.
nice start in the year with tomb raider and bioshock being 2 great games
its a fair criticism because $60 is a lot of money to most of us, so if a game provides "only" 10 hours of entertainment then it may very well just not be worth it. It isnt actually a comment on the quality of the game.
been watching my roommate play and he is having a blast.
I've finished and it's a pretty good game . But the big 10/10's and other superhigh scores i don't quite see it. I didn't think it was THAT special just like the first Bioshock wasn't imho. The overall story arc was also weaker than in the first imho other than a way better ending . I also didn't see any big suprising developments in the story that i didn't see coming alot of reviewers hinted at because the game hinted at alot of stuff before it was revealed.
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.
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.
well, thats your opinion. I personally like really long games, because i get invested in them. When a game ends after 10 hours, i basically just warmed up with the game and then im sad.
anyways, i was just curious anyways, im not that fond of shooters.
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.
well, thats your opinion. I personally like really long games, because i get invested in them. When a game ends after 10 hours, i basically just warmed up with the game and then im sad.
anyways, i was just curious anyways, im not that fond of shooters.
It also doesn't have any real replayability other than collecting all vox-boxes and finding all tunics . The story is very linear and the gameplay is exactly like Bioshock was just a staigh up shooter with powers which both don't exactly motivate me to ever replay the game. I played both Bioshocks before exactly one time as well.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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 +
the carbine
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.
Booker and Comstock are the same person, however, each developed through a different path of choices.
Booker is born by not going through the baptism.
Comstock is born though accepting the baptism.
Comstock's wife found a way to travel through universes (worlds).
While researching how to travel through worlds, Comstock became sterile.
Booker has no money and her child (Anna) is Elizabeth.
Comstock travels to Booker's world.
Comstock agrees to pay all of Booker's debts in exchange of Anna and Booker agrees.
Booker later repents and tries to get Anna back.
Comstock goes through a tear with Anna while Booker struggled to get Anna from Comstock and Anna's finger is caught between Booker's world and Comstock's world when Comstock orders the tear to be closed down; Anna's finger is cut remaining with Booker while Anna goes into Comstock's world.
Booker "remembers everything"
Booker sets on to kill Comstock.
Booker tries to kill Comstock by never allowing him to be birth.
Booker discovers he is Comstock.
Elizabeth shows him that all other worlds are produced as a result of a single one of his life events; his baptism after knee deep.
Elizabeth shows him that regardless of whether he goes through with the Baptism or not, the Comstocks in the other worlds will still occur.
Elizabeth makes sure that Comstock/Booker drowns in the baptism as this is the only way to prevent Comstock from being born in all/any/every world.
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 recently finished the latest Deus Ex and I loved it. I experienced all of the endings in HR and I found the last boss battle to be a total joke, but I still loved HR. When it comes to Bioshock Infinite, THIS GAME BEATS OUT THE CRAP OUT OF DEUS EX!!!
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 +
the carbine
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.
yeah, i'm feeling good rolling with carbine + shotgun
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 recently finished the latest Deus Ex and I loved it. I experienced all of the endings in HR and I found the last boss battle to be a total joke, but I still loved HR. When it comes to Bioshock Infinite, THIS GAME BEATS OUT THE CRAP OUT OF DEUS EX!!!
JUST GET IT DUDE!!! THE ENDING MAKES IT WORTH IT!
o.O
out of Deus Ex 1? I'm reserving judgment of course until I play Bioshock Infinite but seeing as I would say Bioshock 1/2 are no way near DE1, I'd be surprised if Infinite is that much of an improvement that it topples what for me is the best game ever.
I'm glad you enjoyed it...I think I have enjoyed the majority of games 2k have been connected with, they are a publisher that seems to care about the end product rather than entirely about the profit margin *cough Activision/ EA cough*
I picked the bird, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. The cage references you're referring to was just the Songbird notes for Elizabeth to control him. Then you blow up the Sipher. Does that sounds any different? I know the ending isn't effected by any of the choices you make, so if there are differences they would be minor.
It was definitely a fantastic ending. My only quarrel with it is it felt sort of too predictable. Early on I had toyed with the idea that Booker was Comstock from a different tear(mainly because of the random red tear that you get in Fink's place that's playing a real song from our time) but I dismissed it because it felt too predictable. I definitely didn't think of the complexity that the ending actually ended up with but I was still sort of disappointed that I thought of the ending with no real clues or context, just a random fan-service in the game.
That being said, I still think the way it wove together and the exact way it ended was great. It really was a beautiful game.
After finishing it I'd say the game's absolutely amazing but if you're on the fence, rent it and finish it in 1-2 sittings. From a pure logic standpoint, as of right now there's no reason to own it. I only bought it because of the other $50 games that came with preordering. That being said, I do not regret buying it at all. If money is a non-issue for you and you're just being skeptical or you can only play it on PC, definitely pick it up; You will not be disappointed in your purchase.
I watched JP play and he picked bird but towards later parts of the game, I noticed the pendant was a cage (intentional? oversight?) At least, I'm fairly positive of what I saw. I was going to confirm but don't have access to the vods. What difference does the decision make? I can't say.
As far as the twist ending, I actually guess it correctly about midway through (it's almost blatantly obvious), but I still enjoyed the ride.
I watched JP play and he picked bird but towards later parts of the game, I noticed the pendant was a cage (intentional? oversight?) At least, I'm fairly positive of what I saw. I was going to confirm but don't have access to the vods. What difference does the decision make? I can't say.
As far as the twist ending, I actually guess it correctly about midway through (it's almost blatantly obvious), but I still enjoyed the ride.
Booker and Comstock are the same person, however, each developed through a different path of choices.
Booker is born by not going through the baptism.
Comstock is born though accepting the baptism.
Comstock's wife found a way to travel through universes (worlds).
While researching how to travel through worlds, Comstock became sterile.
Booker has no money and her child (Anna) is Elizabeth.
Comstock travels to Booker's world.
Comstock agrees to pay all of Booker's debts in exchange of Anna and Booker agrees.
Booker later repents and tries to get Anna back.
Comstock goes through a tear with Anna while Booker struggled to get Anna from Comstock and Anna's finger is caught between Booker's world and Comstock's world when Comstock orders the tear to be closed down; Anna's finger is cut remaining with Booker while Anna goes into Comstock's world.
Booker "remembers everything"
Booker sets on to kill Comstock.
Booker tries to kill Comstock by never allowing him to be birth.
Booker discovers he is Comstock.
Elizabeth shows him that all other worlds are produced as a result of a single one of his life events; his baptism after knee deep.
Elizabeth shows him that regardless of whether he goes through with the Baptism or not, the Comstocks in the other worlds will still occur.
Elizabeth makes sure that Comstock/Booker drowns in the baptism as this is the only way to prevent Comstock from being born in all/any/every world.
I watched JP play and he picked bird but towards later parts of the game, I noticed the pendant was a cage (intentional? oversight?) At least, I'm fairly positive of what I saw. I was going to confirm but don't have access to the vods. What difference does the decision make? I can't say.
As far as the twist ending, I actually guess it correctly about midway through (it's almost blatantly obvious), but I still enjoyed the ride.
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: + Show Spoiler +
- What happened at the lighthouse at the beginning? Who set up the sign/dead guy inside? - Exactly how does killing Booker pre-baptism in just one world kill ALL the Comstocks in all the worlds?
Hmm 60 is a bit much for me but the game looks great, is there a place I can get it for like 40 ? Or do you know how long it takes steam to put a game on sale ?
I watched JP play and he picked bird but towards later parts of the game, I noticed the pendant was a cage (intentional? oversight?) At least, I'm fairly positive of what I saw. I was going to confirm but don't have access to the vods. What difference does the decision make? I can't say.
As far as the twist ending, I actually guess it correctly about midway through (it's almost blatantly obvious), but I still enjoyed the ride.
Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
On March 27 2013 16:38 NightOfTheDead wrote: Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
the shooter experience was never bioshock's strong point. You are enjoying the game the wrong way, get immense into the world and look around. No other shooter put so much effort into where you go around and can always find something special
On March 27 2013 16:38 NightOfTheDead wrote: Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
the shooter experience was never bioshock's strong point. You are enjoying the game the wrong way, get immense into the world and look around. No other shooter put so much effort into where you go around and can always find something special
This person has it right, Bioshock isn't about going in guns blazing with two machine guns in each arm with some Crysis like armor blasting everyone's head off. Where the game mostly shines is within the visual beauty and story telling the game has. When I first started the game I went around everywhere just looking at the place and history the game had and was very pleased with what the game had to offer.
I understand this type of game isn't everyone's cup of tea and it might not be yours but I'd personally give it a 10/10.
On March 27 2013 16:38 NightOfTheDead wrote: Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
the shooter experience was never bioshock's strong point. You are enjoying the game the wrong way, get immense into the world and look around. No other shooter put so much effort into where you go around and can always find something special
Dont get me wrong, i love that they have this story and world, what i hate most about it that you take the shotgun/rifle and go on rampage killing half of town rambo style. Personally, it is immersion breaker for me. The only thing when FPS style is immersive, at least for me, when it is survival or horror, cause then the gameplay and setting goes hand to hand. I have nothing against this game, but probably it is not my type of game.
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 recently finished the latest Deus Ex and I loved it. I experienced all of the endings in HR and I found the last boss battle to be a total joke, but I still loved HR. When it comes to Bioshock Infinite, THIS GAME BEATS OUT THE CRAP OUT OF DEUS EX!!!
JUST GET IT DUDE!!! THE ENDING MAKES IT WORTH IT!
o.O
out of Deus Ex 1? I'm reserving judgment of course until I play Bioshock Infinite but seeing as I would say Bioshock 1/2 are no way near DE1, I'd be surprised if Infinite is that much of an improvement that it topples what for me is the best game ever.
I'm glad you enjoyed it...I think I have enjoyed the majority of games 2k have been connected with, they are a publisher that seems to care about the end product rather than entirely about the profit margin *cough Activision/ EA cough*
Comparing it to Deus Ex is pretty much like comparing it to Street Fighter 2. The genres are just too different, BI is a linear shooter and DE is an RPG/stealth/action game. Both are among the best of their respective genres in my opinion.
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: + Show Spoiler +
- What happened at the lighthouse at the beginning? Who set up the sign/dead guy inside? - Exactly how does killing Booker pre-baptism in just one world kill ALL the Comstocks in all the worlds?
Man, I wrote up a long post explaining this, but as it turns out you have a good point! + Show Spoiler +
Time travel does not seem to work well with parallel universes!
1. The game assumes that if Booker isn't alive to make the decision to become Comstock, it effectively severs the entire branch of Comstock alternate universes within the multiverse. This includes the alternate future where they find pieces of Columbia in 1981, because if Comstock never existed then Columbia was never built. In a trippy way, this makes the Bioshock universe a possible parallel to our own.
2. But however! the game doesn't address the fact that Elizabeth's climactic act of killing Booker results in a branch in the multiverse right there! You have to account for the fact that there are universes where Elizabeth doesn't kill him, or Booker refuses to die. In those situations, they have created yet another alternate branch of possibilities where Booker can still become Comstock. Essentially, Bioshock's resolution only works assuming one given timeline, not a multiverse. With Bioshock's "infinite" universes, the idea of you traveling back in time to kill yourself is no longer a paradox. (The paradox is that if your future self kills you, then who's going to time travel back and kill you? The answer is simple: an alternate version of yourself that can travel between parallel universes. These outcomes can simultaneously exist because in some universes you die, in others you don't.)
3. What it boils down to is this: Elizabeth killing Comstock is a classic time-travel scenario, but time-travel stories typically don't encompass the multiverse, because with infinite universes, you can't actually change the future since all possibilities simultaneously exist. There are, right now, universes where Comstock never took Anna and she is living happily ever after with Booker as her dad. Elizabeth never had to kill Comstock for that universe to exist. It's just that she's one of the unlucky Annas in a horrible parallel universe.
Edit: Oh shit, I thought about it some more and the ending can still work! + Show Spoiler +
We were thinking about it on far too grand a scale. It's a fucking video game, after all. It's not that Elizabeth is trying to eradicate all Comstocks across all parallel universes, she is only removing him from her own timeline (and maybe several more, as seen by the few extra Lizzies in the last scene). But the only timeline that matters for our purposes is the one we play through in Bioshock Infinite, let's call them universe-A and universe-B, where A is our Booker's original universe, and B is the alternate that our particular Anna gets trapped in. Between these two universes, Elizabeth is the constant, as there is only one of her.
Our Lizzie kills Booker of universe B, before he becomes the Comstock that snatches her away. By killing him, she is creating a brand new timeline for herself where Comstock doesn't exist. But she is mainly rewriting the timeline in universe A, from destroying the Comstock of universe B. Only these two universes can affect her directly. In all other universes, Annas are still getting fucked over, but whatever.
It's odd then that our Booker experiences the drowning in first person, since Booker-A isn't the same person as Booker-B. Theoretically, he could enter universe B and watch his likeness drown. But meh, I guess it's more dramatic that way.
So I've played through the first bioshock, I thought the story was amazing and the gameplay was pretty decent too, last few hours of the game kind of dragged on a bit, but it was still enjoyable. I've not played a lot of bioshock 2 at all, I'm only like 1-2 hours into the game, and while I think it's ok, the first game just seemed better right from the start.
So my question is, is bioshock: infinite a good game (regarding both the gameplay and story. I heard gameplay was very, very easy?), how would you rank it against bioshock 1 and 2, and should I buy this game?
On March 27 2013 19:30 Canas wrote: So I've played through the first bioshock, I thought the story was amazing and the gameplay was pretty decent too, last few hours of the game kind of dragged on a bit, but it was still enjoyable. I've not played a lot of bioshock 2 at all, I'm only like 1-2 hours into the game, and while I think it's ok, the first game just seemed better right from the start.
So my question is, is bioshock: infinite a good game (regarding both the gameplay and story. I heard gameplay was very, very easy?), how would you rank it against bioshock 1 and 2, and should I buy this game?
The gameplay is a less clunkier version of both games. It's very similar, but there are improvements so if you enjoyed 1 and 2's gameplay you will enjoy this game. If you start on hard or 1999 it isn't easy at all. Hard is not insanely difficult, but you will die multiple times and you will be frustrated over the deaths because the situation seems hard, as it should. I can't speak for normal or easy, I'm sure they're a walk in the park. Honestly, you will want to find out whats going on in this game much more than 1 or 2 because its more of a mystery and as a result the hard scenarios become more of a pain in the ass than enjoyable simply because you want to find out more about what happens.
Story wise its complexity and the appreciation you will have for it will be equal to if not exceed the first ones. It is incredible and will have you thinking for a long time after it ends.
If you have no way to rent it or money isn't an issue, buy it. If you can rent it, do so and finish it in one or two sittings. There is no real reason to own it other than saying you own a piece of art. If you do buy it, however, I can say with confidence that you won't regret doing so.
Go it for free with Tomb Raider when buying my Radeon. The game is beautiful, the sound effects and overall sound design is great. But the game itself is just another too easy FPS. It's not bad, but it's not good. I have not finished it yet tho, and I will, but I won't try the 1994 difficulty cause the fighting itself isn't enjoyable enough to do it twice. I'd buy it when it's at 30€ because the atmosphere is great, but those reviews are a little too enthusiast imo.
On March 27 2013 20:04 MrCon wrote: Go it for free with Tomb Raider when buying my Radeon. The game is beautiful, the sound effects and overall sound design is great. But the game itself is just another too easy FPS. It's not bad, but it's not good. I have not finished it yet tho, and I will, but I won't try the 1994 difficulty cause the fighting itself isn't enjoyable enough to do it twice. I'd buy it when it's at 30€ because the atmosphere is great, but those reviews are a little too enthusiast imo.
The point of the game is not about how hard the gameplay is.
On March 27 2013 16:38 NightOfTheDead wrote: Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
Yeah, exactly my thoughts too. Game is ok, but is far from a goty. A decent generic shooter with a good ambiance, nothing more, nothing less.
On March 27 2013 20:04 MrCon wrote: Go it for free with Tomb Raider when buying my Radeon. The game is beautiful, the sound effects and overall sound design is great. But the game itself is just another too easy FPS. It's not bad, but it's not good. I have not finished it yet tho, and I will, but I won't try the 1994 difficulty cause the fighting itself isn't enjoyable enough to do it twice. I'd buy it when it's at 30€ because the atmosphere is great, but those reviews are a little too enthusiast imo.
The point of the game is not about how hard the gameplay is.
What is the point of the gameplay ? I don't say a game has to be hard, but at least challenging. It's still a shooter, and the shooting part is just average. The theme and ambiance/story is what make you forget the gameplay. But it's just another solid shooter, nothing exceptional, you'll play your 10 hours then forget it.
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: + Show Spoiler +
- What happened at the lighthouse at the beginning? Who set up the sign/dead guy inside? - Exactly how does killing Booker pre-baptism in just one world kill ALL the Comstocks in all the worlds?
Man, I wrote up a long post explaining this, but as it turns out you have a good point! + Show Spoiler +
Time travel does not seem to work well with parallel universes!
1. The game assumes that if Booker isn't alive to make the decision to become Comstock, it effectively severs the entire branch of Comstock alternate universes within the multiverse. This includes the alternate future where they find pieces of Columbia in 1981, because if Comstock never existed then Columbia was never built. In a trippy way, this makes the Bioshock universe a possible parallel to our own.
2. But however! the game doesn't address the fact that Elizabeth's climactic act of killing Booker results in a branch in the multiverse right there! You have to account for the fact that there are universes where Elizabeth doesn't kill him, or Booker refuses to die. In those situations, they have created yet another alternate branch of possibilities where Booker can still become Comstock. Essentially, Bioshock's resolution only works assuming one given timeline, not a multiverse. With Bioshock's "infinite" universes, the idea of you traveling back in time to kill yourself is no longer a paradox. (The paradox is that if your future self kills you, then who's going to time travel back and kill you? The answer is simple: an alternate version of yourself that can travel between parallel universes. These outcomes can simultaneously exist because in some universes you die, in others you don't.)
3. What it boils down to is this: Elizabeth killing Comstock is a classic time-travel scenario, but time-travel stories typically don't encompass the multiverse, because with infinite universes, you can't actually change the future since all possibilities simultaneously exist. There are, right now, universes where Comstock never took Anna and she is living happily ever after with Booker as her dad. Elizabeth never had to kill Comstock for that universe to exist. It's just that she's one of the unlucky Annas in a horrible parallel universe. Which leaves us with the question, is Elizabeth's attempt to change the past (and all the events of Bioshock Infinite) ultimately futile?
Unless there is something we've missed, I suspect we'll have to be content with the knowledge that we've at least ended the chain of events in our current reality, which we're most invested in.
Just finished it! I'm still trying to wrap my head around it like a dummy..... but shit. I think I'm gonna play it again :o The sound team for this game deserve so much frikin props I swear zomg it is soooooooooooo gooooooooooooood. And the people who designed Columbia (dat intro). You know what might as well give props to the entire team fuck. Game of 2013 for sure
Also something I hadn't mentioned in my initial interpretation regarding the Lutece siblings. I am not 100% sure about this since I kinda skipped over it in my initial playthrough, but after reading around I figure this is the way it is. Will confirm when I finish my second, more thorough playthrough.
There was initially only one Lutece person in each world. In Comstock's world, it was a lady. In Booker's world, it was a man. They were both born on the same day, only one chromosome separated them.
In lady Lutece's work with multiple worlds etc, she came into contact with her male counterpart. She asked him to approach Booker with the 'girl for the debt' message, which is why Booker never sees lady Lutece in the flashbacks. The Lutece siblings only come into contact when they pass Anna over, where you see the male Lutece cross over first before Comstock.
My theory is that this explains why, at the very beginning of the game, when you walk through Columbia you see the statue of Lutece change from a man (your initial universe) to a lady (current universe). It also explains why they finish each others sentences etc, because they are essentially the same person.
Unless there is something we've missed, I suspect we'll have to be content with the knowledge that we've at least ended the chain of events in our current reality, which we're most invested in.
Egads, you caught me while I was editing! But, yeah, we have to keep things localized for storytelling purposes.
Best AAA title I've played in years, I didn't enjoy Bioshock 1/2 that much, but LOVED this game, easily the best game I've ever played, such a well put together environment.
On March 27 2013 20:32 Firebolt145 wrote: Also something I hadn't mentioned in my initial interpretation regarding the Lutece siblings. I am not 100% sure about this since I kinda skipped over it in my initial playthrough, but after reading around I figure this is the way it is. Will confirm when I finish my second, more thorough playthrough.
There was initially only one Lutece person in each world. In Comstock's world, it was a lady. In Booker's world, it was a man. They were both born on the same day, only one chromosome separated them.
In lady Lutece's work with multiple worlds etc, she came into contact with her male counterpart. She asked him to approach Booker with the 'girl for the debt' message, which is why Booker never sees lady Lutece in the flashbacks. The Lutece siblings only come into contact when they pass Anna over, where you see the male Lutece cross over first before Comstock.
My theory is that this explains why, at the very beginning of the game, when you walk through Columbia you see the statue of Lutece change from a man (your initial universe) to a lady (current universe). It also explains why they finish each others sentences etc, because they are essentially the same person.
Did you watch the ending after the credits and if so, what is your opinion on that? That's the one big thing (besides the two problems you've mentioned) that really throws me off, isn't he supposed to be dead? So why is he alive(?) after the credits, possibly with baby Anna/Liz in her cradle again?
On March 27 2013 20:32 Firebolt145 wrote: Also something I hadn't mentioned in my initial interpretation regarding the Lutece siblings. I am not 100% sure about this since I kinda skipped over it in my initial playthrough, but after reading around I figure this is the way it is. Will confirm when I finish my second, more thorough playthrough.
There was initially only one Lutece person in each world. In Comstock's world, it was a lady. In Booker's world, it was a man. They were both born on the same day, only one chromosome separated them.
In lady Lutece's work with multiple worlds etc, she came into contact with her male counterpart. She asked him to approach Booker with the 'girl for the debt' message, which is why Booker never sees lady Lutece in the flashbacks. The Lutece siblings only come into contact when they pass Anna over, where you see the male Lutece cross over first before Comstock.
My theory is that this explains why, at the very beginning of the game, when you walk through Columbia you see the statue of Lutece change from a man (your initial universe) to a lady (current universe). It also explains why they finish each others sentences etc, because they are essentially the same person.
Yea your theory about the Lutece's makes sense at least to me. I think it's in one of the Kinetoscopes that goes something like "who knew she even had a twin?" In the beginning of the game they don't even hint at the brother until later (all scientific props for Columbia at least in the beginning of the game goes strictly to Lady Lutece) And there's a voxophone way way later on where Lady Lutece says specifically that one chromosome is the difference between the Lutece twins. I totally didn't even know the statue in the beginning was that of Lutece, I was way too busy just marvelling at Columbia haha. Still, that would kinda explain the statue "morphing" like that.
On March 27 2013 16:38 NightOfTheDead wrote: Nothing impressive, 6 hours into the game, playing on hard. Sure story is decent, and world is pretty detailed and unique, but no way it is all 10s, because of one thing : gameplay is generic shooter. What is the fuss about that? There are tons of generic shooters with some sort of supernatural powers. Meh.
Yeah, exactly my thoughts too. Game is ok, but is far from a goty. A decent generic shooter with a good ambiance, nothing more, nothing less.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: Best AAA title I've played in years, I didn't enjoy Bioshock 1/2 that much, but LOVED this game, easily the best game I've ever played, such a well put together environment.
Just out of interest, what makes Infinite a better gaming experience than the previous games for you?
I found the two previous games often a bit clumsy and flawed here and there, but still overall very much enjoyable, worthwile and rewarding gaming experiences. Looks the new one might be the first full-prized game I buy in a long while. I don't think that has happened since SC2:WoL.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: Best AAA title I've played in years, I didn't enjoy Bioshock 1/2 that much, but LOVED this game, easily the best game I've ever played, such a well put together environment.
Just out of interest, what makes Infinite a better gaming experience than the previous games for you?
I found the two previous games often a bit clumsy and flawed here and there, but still overall very much enjoyable, worthwile and rewarding gaming experiences. Looks the new one might be the first full-prized game I buy in a long while. I don't think that has happened since SC2:WoL.
If I had to answer in one word, it would be Elizabeth.
Having a character there participating added a new level for me, not to mention your character talked a lot more as a result of her role in the story. That might sound dumb, but Bioshock got to me at times when I had nothing to listen to except the splicers yelling as they ran at me and recorders. Going back to Elizabeth, she was well designed, I ran into no bugs with her, and the story (and her as a result) was enjoyable to me.
There were other changes I really enjoyed as well, such as added variation to the color palette, the periods of time with no combat were amazing, especially places like Battleship Bay and the beginning of the game with the fair and the gardens. Getting rid of things like tonic slots was nice as well, I hated having to switch out tonics or hope I had the right ones equipped so I wouldn't miss something, a really big pet peeve of mine.
Initially of course, is the 'girl in the tower' and the racial injustice along with a unhealthy helping of patriotism and religious fanaticism. That persists at least in part, for a major portion of the games, but with every 'Tear', the paradigm shifts. Mob Mentality, convenient truths, political necessities, greed and capitalism and the corporate state, duality, time travel, multi-dimensionality and even prophecy and predetermination all come into play by the end.
Though I enjoyed the game, as a whole, the end point of the game came rather rapidly, and with more than a bit of sudden exposition. There's very little evidence of the eventual end and the truths revealed therein throughout the game. It ends up feeling rather sudden and somewhat disappointing.
Though obviously something weird is going on with the twins, it's only much later that you can figure out what, and even then... they comprised of a very strange role. I'd dare say they ended up taking the narrator role in the whole drama, for all that they may have initially been the instigators of it too.
The Comstock vs DeWitt revelations were unfortunately abrupt. I felt that they disrupted the natural flow of the game a bit more harshly than any of the previous renditions, plus they seem well out of left field and due to the nature of the game and the singular ending, left me feeling somewhat morose. That any and all 'choices' made through the game are meaningless is fairly depressing, and almost renders the whole game pointless save as a psychological experiment.
That all said, I still enjoyed it, but like ME3, I felt the ending left much to be desired, indeed the entire closing sequence/series ended up so divergent from the game as a whole to feel rather discordant.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
LOL the irony of this post. I remember you more than once accusing people of getting paid to post on forums. But carry on
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
LOL the irony of this post. I remember you more than once accusing people of getting paid to post on forums. But carry on
Link me to these posts please.
In the mean time, lets not derail the thread like you seem to love baiting me into doing. Bioshock Infinite is easily the best game I've played this year, loving it.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
LOL the irony of this post. I remember you more than once accusing people of getting paid to post on forums. But carry on
Link me to these posts please.
In the mean time, lets not derail the thread like you seem to love baiting me into doing. Bioshock Infinite is easily the best game I've played this year, loving it.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
If a person has such a good experience with a game that he feels it is easily the best game he has ever played, he is free to state his opinion. Why would you assume he gets paid for it?
Who gets paid to make posts on forums anyways? lol....
LOL the irony of this post. I remember you more than once accusing people of getting paid to post on forums. But carry on
Link me to these posts please.
In the mean time, lets not derail the thread like you seem to love baiting me into doing. Bioshock Infinite is easily the best game I've played this year, loving it.
Where in that post did I say people were getting paid to make posts? Sorry, try again. Which, btw I was still completely correct with the points I made about IPL . Anyways, pm me if you want to continue this ridiculous debate because I just know you would love to get me banned again for derailing threads.
On March 27 2013 23:31 MassHysteria wrote: I called that shit out on the very first post if you look at the Firebolt's link =P .
A pretty good interview here with Ken Levine for those interested.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
I don't think most people would call it 'a mediocre shooter', but you're entitled to your opinion. And don't worry, I'm not mad, but both of your posts do come off as insulting. Perhaps it is just due to a lack of understanding of the language on your part.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
Finished in 14 hours on hard, and will most likely give 1999 difficulty a go.
Loved it to bits, some fights can get a little messy, personally I hate the handyman fights. Otherwise the combat gameplay is pretty smooth and has an awesome feel, but that's hardly why I'd praise the game.
I was very hessitant with buying at fullprice but after reading a few reviews I got suckered in, not a single regret however.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
There's a level of maturity and sophistication missing from shooters. Other elements of the games industry are doing just fine.
If anything Bioshock Infinite just compounds this. The elements which don't involve shooting are interesting and relatively sophisticated. However you're then tasked with trouncing through an interesting place, breaking into private property and massacring its inhabitants as part of the 'shooter' element.
In Bioshock this wasn't as much of an issue, the inhabitants were homicidal maniacs, here they are just racist, or at least implied on a societal scale, that says nothing of the individuals you kill with astonishing regularity. Infinite is different, sure there is an altercation at the start, but that just feels crowbarred in and you 'defending' yourself by killing 2 guards in a very brutal fashion gives perfectly reasonable justification for everyone else to want you dead at that point, so beyond that you're killing people who are perfectly justified in attacking you (especially when you break onto their property waving a gun), you're the bad guy at this point.
Now I'm only a short way through, so maybe there is some kind revaluation which somehow contextualises everything but at the moment I feel that the game is crippled by its shooter elements, not in any mechanical sense, but in terms of story, atmosphere and especially 'sophistication'.
Really for me this game completely fails to make shooters sophisticated. Spec Ops added a layer of sophistication to shooters, but it did so by pointing out the absurdity of what you were doing in the game, Bioshock just tries to pretend like this isn't the case.
It's still a great game though, I just don't really understand why people think its some kind of shining star in terms of depth atmosphere and story, it could've been, but it shoots itself in the foot and most people just want to ignore this. Each to their own I suppose.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
i wanna play the pc version with a gamepad to be able to use my huge tv from the sofa, but i'm really bad at aiming with gamepad. so i wonder, is there some sort of aim assist option available for gamepad controls?
On March 28 2013 03:06 Corvi wrote: i wanna play the pc version with a gamepad to be able to use my huge tv from the sofa, but i'm really bad at aiming with gamepad. so i wonder, is there some sort of aim assist option available for gamepad controls?
Pretty sure I saw an aim assist option somewhere in the menu.
There seem to be a lot of ways to abuse the game. Winter shield is obviously broken, as long as there's a zipline nearby there's no reason to lose or even take damage.
You can do pure melee too, upgrading charge, maxing shields, and using the gear that raises melee damage a lot. I've been hacking away at everyone, including bosses, on hard, without taking damage...
On March 28 2013 03:06 Corvi wrote: i wanna play the pc version with a gamepad to be able to use my huge tv from the sofa, but i'm really bad at aiming with gamepad. so i wonder, is there some sort of aim assist option available for gamepad controls?
\Bioshock Infinite\Engine\Config\BaseInput is where you will find the aim assist setting. It is near the end of the file and by default is on.
On March 27 2013 20:56 Saryph wrote: easily the best game I've ever played]
you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
On March 27 2013 22:47 MotherOfRunes wrote: [quote] you are one of those hundreds who get paid for posts like this??( not trolling, its serious business)
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
As soon as the game revealed it was about time manipulation and different worlds, about an hour in more like sorry I exaggerated, it was incredibly obvious that he was him and she was his daughter. It's the only possible thing that makes sense the way the narrative was, and frankly every time based thing does that ( LOL THEYLL NEVER EXPECT THIS TWIST GUYS.) I was absolutely sure when the guard called Elizabeth Anna that I was 10000% correct, which is about 1:15 into the game. Based on you comments I've come to the conclusion that you're a rabid fanboy who wants people to buy a 60$ game with ~8-10 hours of gameplay front to back. Good times.
Finished my first playthrough. Such a well-produced game. Can't wait to playthrough it again, only I'll be in less of a rush this time. First playthrough it's hard to not want to get to the next cutscene.
And the ending isn't a single twist that one can simply "figure out". There are the Lucete twins, the deformed pinky, what started everything in motion, the songbird, etc. Putting all these pieces together in a way that makes a straight narrative is what makes the ending great. You can't "predict" it, as most of these pieces are given to you as the game progresses, right up until the end. Even if you guess that + Show Spoiler +
you're sort of the bad guy, and the girl is your daughter (which is easy to sort of figure, since that's kind of standard for Bioshock)
, the story encompasses much more than that. It's a beautiful narrative, and most of all, thought-provoking.
This isn't an indie-game. You don't get this level of quality-in-design from a single small studio. There was a lot of talent in the making of this game. It's blatantly obvious to most people who play it. Some will rag on superficial parameters, but these say nothing about the actual experience of playing the game, which is one of the most enjoyable I've had with any game.
Not sure how far I am into the game, but I like the story so far and gameplay. It's a bit too easy sadly (I'm on normal) and I find myself not finding much use in all the guns since I can just use the handbarrel and headshot people from 10 miles away.
I keep the Carabine for the feel of it, but yeah: no point in the other 6 guns sadly.
On March 28 2013 07:17 Torte de Lini wrote: Not sure how far I am into the game, but I like the story so far and gameplay. It's a bit too easy sadly (I'm on normal) and I find myself not finding much use in all the guns since I can just use the handbarrel and headshot people from 10 miles away.
I keep the Carabine for the feel of it, but yeah: no point in the other 6 guns sadly.
I like how Dewitt is so similar to the DimWit in those child propaganda stage show machines
On harder difficulty sniper is the only way you can one shot some of the enemies, Heater works really well vs non humans, burst gun and repeater are great in the mid range. Everyone gets the feel that 6 of the guns are useless, but pretty much everyone is running through the game with different guns. the upgrades make the guns more than anything. they are all great at something.
On March 28 2013 07:17 Torte de Lini wrote: Not sure how far I am into the game, but I like the story so far and gameplay. It's a bit too easy sadly (I'm on normal) and I find myself not finding much use in all the guns since I can just use the handbarrel and headshot people from 10 miles away.
I keep the Carabine for the feel of it, but yeah: no point in the other 6 guns sadly.
I like how Dewitt is so similar to the DimWit in those child propaganda stage show machines
On harder difficulty sniper is the only way you can one shot some of the enemies, Heater works really well vs non humans, burst gun and repeater are great in the mid range. Everyone gets the feel that 6 of the guns are useless, but pretty much everyone is running through the game with different guns. the upgrades make the guns more than anything. they are all great at something.
Yeah I've noticed this as well, especially on harder difficulties, the upgrades you choose REALLY affect how you perceive your combat options. The guns you upgrade end up feeling broken and the ones you don't end up feeling useless. I played on hard but had the same gun choice as Torte throughout most of the game (Hand Cannon was still one-shot-headshotting most normal enemies throughout, and did massive bodyshot damage to everyone else). Carbine felt like it was the second strongest to me from there, but when I upgraded Sniper near the end I saw the value in that as well.
That said, if/when I play it again, I'll definitely try to focus on some different weapons to see how it alters the experience. Maybe a bigger deal when it comes to different combat experience is which vigors you use/upgrade most frequently and how much usage you make of skyrails/tears. Hand Cannon / Sniper / Carbine headshotting everyone from far away has it's appeal, but I definitely enjoyed the few times I was forced to actually jump around constantly and change weapons on-the-fly from lack of ammo. More hectic, but when using the right vigors for the situation, just as effective.
On March 28 2013 07:17 Torte de Lini wrote: Not sure how far I am into the game, but I like the story so far and gameplay. It's a bit too easy sadly (I'm on normal) and I find myself not finding much use in all the guns since I can just use the handbarrel and headshot people from 10 miles away.
I keep the Carabine for the feel of it, but yeah: no point in the other 6 guns sadly.
I like how Dewitt is so similar to the DimWit in those child propaganda stage show machines
On harder difficulty sniper is the only way you can one shot some of the enemies, Heater works really well vs non humans, burst gun and repeater are great in the mid range. Everyone gets the feel that 6 of the guns are useless, but pretty much everyone is running through the game with different guns. the upgrades make the guns more than anything. they are all great at something.
Yeah I've noticed this as well, especially on harder difficulties, the upgrades you choose REALLY affect how you perceive your combat options. The guns you upgrade end up feeling broken and the ones you don't end up feeling useless. I played on hard but had the same gun choice as Torte throughout most of the game (Hand Cannon was still one-shot-headshotting most normal enemies throughout, and did massive bodyshot damage to everyone else). Carbine felt like it was the second strongest to me from there, but when I upgraded Sniper near the end I saw the value in that as well.
That said, if/when I play it again, I'll definitely try to focus on some different weapons to see how it alters the experience. Maybe a bigger deal when it comes to different combat experience is which vigors you use/upgrade most frequently and how much usage you make of skyrails/tears. Hand Cannon / Sniper / Carbine headshotting everyone from far away has it's appeal, but I definitely enjoyed the few times I was forced to actually jump around constantly and change weapons on-the-fly from lack of ammo. More hectic, but when using the right vigors for the situation, just as effective.
go through the game again with Pistol + Burst Gun. Super fun way to play.
The atmosphere is great in the game though it feels like I'm missing a lot of references to American history which kind of takes away from the experience to some degree and I've never been a huge fans of the "time elements" in these kinds of stories. It also did feel at times like the story and the gameplay was fighting each other at times, though this is common in most games. They ask you to get immersed in the story and beautiful environment only for the gameplay elements to take you out of it just so they are more fun (supposedly) to play and some of the guns was a bit lackluster. Still a strong 7/10 for me.
I'm liking the game, but it feels so darn easy, even on hard. Could also do with less pointless slaughter of minor enemies to keep the atmosphere up better, but still. Good game, I'd say worth the price.
Got the game on final preorder day because of the additional games they offered as preorder content.
I played through the game on hard and I guess combat was moderately alright. Struggled at the start but once i got the hang of it and discarded the notion of ironsights alltogether it worked out.
I went with a full shield build, then started building on my hp. Spent most of my time with the more spammable vigours like the mustang aoe while having the ram charge as a close friend.
Went all out damage with the shotgun, carbine and other assorted weaponry because i thought some of the enemies didn't die fast enough to melee, and that coupled with the ram upgrades (temp invulnerability after charge, and elemental damage aoe during impact) and complemented that with "when struck in combat 70% of the time deal firedamage in aoe," "when jumping from skyline firedamage aoe." "Excessive death causes aoe stun" worked out alright.
Things went down relatively quick and abusing elizabeth temporary immunity when handing you items gets you out of tricky handyman situations. I haven't found a good way to take them out for a melee build, but kept the carbine and the rocket launcher as a close secondary weapon to supplement. As for upgrades i went damage on all the weapons and only upgraded capacity for carbine and the Vox machine gun with 20 rounds default. This worked out for me. Charge in. melee, and spam weapon into chest before jumping off or chargin back in for a shield refill.
I'll probably replay it again on 1999 mode, but the amount of replay value in the game seems limited. Mostly due to how choice seems to be relatively insignificant in the amount of impact it has. I think the atmosphere and story is great, but the ending seemed lacking. No final bossfight with something like the songbird, no alternative ending or morality exclusive levels based on some ingame mechanic.
Very great cinematic storytelling, but it lacked a good foil to play off of the two main characters. definitively made me think of triple A games as a bygone era. 10/10. Dare I say most pirated game 2013?
Look. If you have endured the hypetrain til now. Just watch it on youtube. The combat alone is not worth 60 bucks and there are tons of Lets players out there who want to cash in on adding their own commentary to the storyline. If you are European or just exceedingly ignorant they might even enhance your experience in glorious 1080p as there are apparently TONS of references to american history in this game that will fly directly by you but might not be missed by someone like Jesse Cox.
Another thought that dawned on me before I went to sleep..that time in Columbia right after you get the possession vigor and go past the gateguard, you run into the Lutece's and they ask you heads or tails and you pick what they predict they'll pick. Then you look closer at Mr. Lutece and find he's wearing a board that summarizes the results of their little experiment, with all markers going to only one outcome (I forget which it was, heads or tails). Are they just going through all the parallel universes at that exact time and writing down the results of all the Bookers' answers..which are all the same regardless of the differences in each respective world?
I'm eight hours in now. It's amazing. The atmosphere, the DeWitt-Elizabeth interaction, the gunplay,... It's just as polished as a Valve or Blizzard game.
What I like the most so far is how the story progresses: everything starts of really slowly and then gradually the plot reveals itself. I find it pretty unpredictable. I just stopped trying to guess what was going to happen next because you just don't know.
I find it better than the first Bioshock game. Bioshock had a great setting and atmosphere, a very memorable cast of characters and one of the best stories in a first person shooter ever, but it lacked in the gameplay department. Bioshock Infinite's setting improves on its predecessor and while its characters aren't as memorable as Bioshock's (at least, up 'til this point of the game), the gameplay is fantastic.
I would not advise this game for people who want to be challenged by a shooter though. Playing on normal, I have a rather hard time dying. Like Half Life 2, this is a game that should be experienced, not played.
5 hours into my second playthrough. Reading every sign, listening to every audio diary, watching every short video by Comstock, etc. This game truly blows my mind. I cannot believe they created something so breathtaking. The story is nothing short of breathtaking. Going through it a second time really makes me appreciate the genius behind the game.
Booker always makes the same choices no matter what, since the infinite paralleled universes loop infinitely and never deviate until Elizabeth figures out how to break the cycle. So this being said, the choices you make in the game (bird or cage, shoot or mercy Slate, who I actually shot later on which led to a perfect response from both booker and liz...) Don't have any effect on the plot what so ever, since the variables are indirect. The reason for this, I assume, is the fact that Slate either gets killed by booker, or left brain damaged from torture thanks to Comstock's men. Either way, Booker never speaks to him again after leaving the hall of heroes, so his plot can never change the overall outcome. Constants and variables, as the twins constantly talk about
One thing I am still confused about is why Elizabeth said ' it must run in the family ' when she stabbed Fitzroy. I am guessing I missed a recording clip somewhere along the line.
overall a fantastic game. The writing is so far beyond anything else in the gaming industry. Despite enjoying Bioshock 1 more, I appreciate that Infinite is a masterpiece and a magnum opus. Every piece of music, every character, every line of dialogue is perfectly chosen and woven into the plot and themes. There are no mistakes that I could see, no plot holes that can't be explained by the ending.
So I guess the title of the game being Bioshock : "Infinite" is deliberate given the ending and I really liked it. It's not the "end all be all" for games and the game definitely uses several events they showed in the trailer differently such as when Elizabeth opened the tear to Paris and Elizabeth being retaken by Songbird which really disappointed me. I really thought Elizabeth was going to have more of a role in combat (like shown in the trailers/interviews like how tears might penalize you) so the talks of her being the BEST COMPANION SIDEKICK EVER sorta fell flat.
So I guess the title of the game being Bioshock : "Infinite" is deliberate given the ending and I really liked it. It's not the "end all be all" for games and the game definitely uses several events they showed in the trailer differently such as when Elizabeth opened the tear to Paris and Elizabeth being retaken by Songbird which really disappointed me. I really thought Elizabeth was going to have more of a role in combat (like shown in the trailers/interviews like how tears might penalize you) so the talks of her being the BEST COMPANION SIDEKICK EVER sorta fell flat.
Tears CAN penalize you, i know at least once i opened a tear for a patriot to join me and the enemies responded to the patriot by sending the rocket soldiers off the barges into the fight where i could no longer easily snipe them
So I guess the title of the game being Bioshock : "Infinite" is deliberate given the ending and I really liked it. It's not the "end all be all" for games and the game definitely uses several events they showed in the trailer differently such as when Elizabeth opened the tear to Paris and Elizabeth being retaken by Songbird which really disappointed me. I really thought Elizabeth was going to have more of a role in combat (like shown in the trailers/interviews like how tears might penalize you) so the talks of her being the BEST COMPANION SIDEKICK EVER sorta fell flat.
Tears CAN penalize you, i know at least once i opened a tear for a patriot to join me and the enemies responded to the patriot by sending the rocket soldiers off the barges into the fight where i could no longer easily snipe them
I have decided to indulge myself in this game. Going to buy it tomorrow thanks to all the good reviews it got here on TL. I have more faith in your guys' opinions than most game reviewers.
However, I am kind of surprised to see that people didn't like bioshock 1 for its combat mechanics. Imo both games in the series have such fluid combat that it's truly different than most games. I also love how you can go around the maps searching and picking up items and ammunition, without having to waste time stumbling through an inventory screen to see what you have (ala fallout/elder scrolls). Excited for this game.
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
As soon as the game revealed it was about time manipulation and different worlds, about an hour in more like sorry I exaggerated, it was incredibly obvious that he was him and she was his daughter. It's the only possible thing that makes sense the way the narrative was, and frankly every time based thing does that ( LOL THEYLL NEVER EXPECT THIS TWIST GUYS.) I was absolutely sure when the guard called Elizabeth Anna that I was 10000% correct, which is about 1:15 into the game. Based on you comments I've come to the conclusion that you're a rabid fanboy who wants people to buy a 60$ game with ~8-10 hours of gameplay front to back. Good times.
You know... a lot of people love this game, it's awesome. Calling people rabid fanboys for thinking paying 60$ for 8-10 hours of the best damn game content to come out in years makes you look like you got a stick up your butt. Fine if you don't like the game but maybe you should question why the fuck you think a game requires to deliver a minimum amount of gametime for it to be considered worth it.
@nttea: agreed. I'm not quite done yet, but I think people are missing out on just how packed each moment of the game is with different set pieces, gun fights, character interactions. It's a really rich game moment to moment, and if you're basing the quality of the game based on the length of time it delivers, you might be missing the point. This game is like a really fancy chocolate cake: small in appearance but really rich and velvety, packed with flavor in every bite.
On March 28 2013 00:00 MotherOfRunes wrote: [quote] seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
As soon as the game revealed it was about time manipulation and different worlds, about an hour in more like sorry I exaggerated, it was incredibly obvious that he was him and she was his daughter. It's the only possible thing that makes sense the way the narrative was, and frankly every time based thing does that ( LOL THEYLL NEVER EXPECT THIS TWIST GUYS.) I was absolutely sure when the guard called Elizabeth Anna that I was 10000% correct, which is about 1:15 into the game. Based on you comments I've come to the conclusion that you're a rabid fanboy who wants people to buy a 60$ game with ~8-10 hours of gameplay front to back. Good times.
You know... a lot of people love this game, it's awesome. Calling people rabid fanboys for thinking paying 60$ for 8-10 hours of the best damn game content to come out in years makes you look like you got a stick up your butt. Fine if you don't like the game but maybe you should question why the fuck you think a game requires to deliver a minimum amount of gametime for it to be considered worth it.
Did you see the response to his initial post about his thoughts? I don't know that you want to defend the tone of voice that he told off as sounding like a rabid fanboy.
Also, length of the game IS a heavy factor for people, regardless of the quality of the game. That's why people like TB always have to mention the price of the game they're commenting on, because even if it's a great game if it has poor cost performance with regards to time, many people will choose to spend their money elsewhere. It's a valid concern, even if you personally disagree with that valuation.
I mean, it may be shocking, but I have no trepidation forking out 60$ over time to like an MMO I play heavily (hundreds of hours), but I do hesitate to fork out 60$ for a game that generally is considered to be between 8-14 hours of play. Sure I'll miss out on fantastic games/stories, but missing out on a game that's 8-14 hours isn't generally going to change my life for the worse, I can wait for price drops in the future (+ inevitable sales, ie. GMG giving 20% off digital so BS:I actually costs ~50$), and so on and so forth.
Clearly I couldn't have just finished the game and really enjoyed it, as it offers something I have not experienced before. Clearly all of the people giving it such great reviews are all paid.
you are one of those hundreds who love complaining about how every new game sucks?? (not trolling, its serious business)
seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
As soon as the game revealed it was about time manipulation and different worlds, about an hour in more like sorry I exaggerated, it was incredibly obvious that he was him and she was his daughter. It's the only possible thing that makes sense the way the narrative was, and frankly every time based thing does that ( LOL THEYLL NEVER EXPECT THIS TWIST GUYS.) I was absolutely sure when the guard called Elizabeth Anna that I was 10000% correct, which is about 1:15 into the game. Based on you comments I've come to the conclusion that you're a rabid fanboy who wants people to buy a 60$ game with ~8-10 hours of gameplay front to back. Good times.
I also agree that the story gave enough hints earlier in the game to a point where you could guess about 80% of the story correctly. Hints I picked up: + Show Spoiler +
At the very beginning there's the Luteces that are speaking to each other as if they knew what Booker would do: "he DOESN'T row" as in he never rows in the hundreds of the loops they go through or something.
Luteces always wait for the player as well (coin flip, at the bar, etc.); I first thought these two were breaking the fourth wall in a very subtle way by making the player question their existence whereas Booker just kind of shrugs it off, almost as if he knew them.
The whole nose bleed thing was dropped a lot clearly suggesting that Booker experienced the tears before.
Anna was dropped a lot before: at the beginning where she asks if Booker is scared of god and he replies no but I am scared of you. The lady that thought Elizabeth was Anna. Comstock talking about Anna. Pretty sure by the time the lady calls Elizabeth Anna, you think that Elizabeth is in fact Anna and there's a previous connection between Booker and Anna.
Elizabeth dropping the "Must run in the family" although she implied that Comstock is a murderer; the sentence was pretty much a slap on the face if you really kept up with the story.
I didn't think that Booker was Elizabeth's father per say, but I kind of knew that Comstock would end up being Booker because of the whole fact that Comstock knows Booker so well and all the things Booker did, Comstock did (war wise anyway). And let's face it... all time traveling and parallel world stories end up having the bad guy as the protagonist in one form of another (clone, different dimension, twin sister/brother). The most compelling stories end up having the audience feel bad for the antagonist, and having the antagonist some evil version of the protagonist is one of the oldest tricks.
timetravel/alternate reality (look at Fringe, TV show)
story I enjoyed the game thoroughly, as much as I enjoyed ME3. The atmosphere was good and the gameplay was enjoyable. FPS's don't have to have punishing difficulty to be fun, sometimes having OP weapons and abilities is just as fun.
Disappointed by the lack of depth on the songbird character though >.>
I honestly cannot fathom how game length plays any role in anyone's mind when buying a single player story game. If you are truly placing your value of games solely on hours per dollar, this entire category would be a bad idea from the get-go. Go buy a super replayable game like Civ5, or one of a million different multiplayer games if you want to just dump hours on the cheap. Hell, find a FTP MMO and realize you've broken your own system and divided by zero!
But this game... It is a story. It is an experience. If you are buying it, you should be buying it for that, not to run down the clock on your life as cost-effectively as possible. It just doesn't make sense in my mind when people lump games like this in together with more time-wasting games. Not all games are created for the same purpose of consumption. Even among those games that are, not all are created equal.
If a friend told you to go watch the best movie he's ever seen, would you ask how long it was to determine if you want to see it? Do you choose your favorite band based on how many hours of material they have out there? Refuse to read a book under 1500 pages?
Length in a game like this should really only be a factor if it feels like it is affecting the ability of the game to tell it's story. Does it feel rushed? Does it feel boring and drawn out? If not, the length shouldn't matter when the difference is relatively trivial. Obviously extremes can push that when the price is far in excess of playtime, but this is clearly not that case. Even an extra 5-6 hours of playtime is not exactly going to make a huge difference in your life. Read some threads, reflect on the game, and maybe watch some streams and you've already made up the difference if you absolutely need to fill that time.
Ironically, for me this could theoretically be one of the MOST cost-effective gaming purchase possible because of the GMG pre-release deal. With X-Com and Civ5 in the package for $45, there could conceivably be countless hours of entertainment.
edit: I will say though that, passing on this because you intend to wait for a steam deal or something makes at least a bit more sense. Don't kid yourself though, that kind of decision is more about how long you are willing to wait and how much you are willing to pay for a single-player game in general than it is about hours/dollar spent.
The beginning and ending were two of the best experiences I've had in a video game. The middle was great fun too, but it wasn't all that challenging, even on hard. I play games like this mostly for the story and the environment though, if I want a challenge I'll go load up dota or something, and it did not disappoint. The rail system was actually really well done as well.
I mostly went around with carbine + sniper, making up for my weak short range killing power with bronco + ravens to do a ton of amped damage coupled with the overkill pants, the increased clip size shirt, the hat that spreads bronco whenever you kill someone under the effects of bronco (super OP hat, floating enemies everywhere), and the reload when you get on the rail boots. I mixed the shotgun in around the last part of the game just so I had enough killing power at short range.
If you want an explanation of the end, go look for firebolt's post. The only thing I can add on top of that is that possibly + Show Spoiler +
Elizabeth sent Booker through a tear right before he died, ending the timelines but still giving Booker another chance. Its the only way I can think of to explain the very end when he is back in his office. I don't really go along with the whole "timeline didnt end because multiple universes" theory because of the appearance of multiple Elizabeth's. I think the timeline was indeed broken, but I'm just not sure how to explain the very end besides that theory.
Another thing, because I keep seeing people say that Anna was his wife. Anna was definitely Elizabeth, but when he was creating memories due to the shock of going into Comstock's universe he tied clearing the debt to bringing back Elizabeth, and tied giving up his child to the death of his wife in childbirth. While the sadness at his wife's death shouldn't provoke as intense of a reaction as the remorse of giving up his child to pay a debt is giving him, he can't break through to the true memory.
I also found Slate's anger at Comstock to be really funny after the end.
Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that this is one of the few games where I feel that they really nailed their song. In the beginning I was just walking around listening for a good couple of minutes. It really made that part of the game. I also loved how it was used throughout the game. The rest of the soundtrack was really underwhelming though, which was a big disappointment, as I am a big fan of good music in games. The only other songs I really liked where the short piano piece when you broke through the clouds, and the piece that played when you first walked out into Colombia. (Did I mention that I really, really liked the beginning of the game :p)
On March 28 2013 14:51 geno wrote: If a friend told you to go watch the best movie he's ever seen, would you ask how long it was to determine if you want to see it? Do you choose your favorite band based on how many hours of material they have out there? Refuse to read a book under 1500 pages?
The right question isn't whether I'd play it or not, it's how much I'd pay.
For example, if a friend said a movie is the best he's ever seen, but it's 50$, I'm not paying to see it. I'm not! It's just not worth THAT PRICE. Same goes for music album/singles (pay 50$ for a single with 2 songs? lol). Book that's 200 pages and costs 50$?
I can buy and play very good and enjoyable Indie games that last around the same timeframe for ~10-20$. I also have the patience to, if I do want to play Bioshock:I eventually, wait a couple years or so for the price to inevitably go down and also use the power of sales to make the purchase.
60$ (50 with GMG code) is a LOT to pay for a game these days. People are complaining about 20$ for AoE2 for christ sakes. Again, you may or may not agree with that valuation, but it's a valid point for a lot of people, myself included.
That said, the original post by Kaal was stating why he gave it an 8 or 9/10 instead of 10/10, and some dude jumped on him for talking out of his ass (look at that post!). Kaal retorted by saying that the dude who jumped on his post was talking like a rabid fanboy, and pointed out that people DO evaluate whether they want to buy a (short) game for $60. I don't get why rude, venomous, hardly intelligible posting is acceptable just because someone disagrees that it's not a 10/10 game, and why it's completely unacceptable that people find 60$ for a short game is tough to swallow, no matter the quality.
Played about 2 hours so far (haven't played any other bioshock games) and I really like the enivornment detail and ambiance.
Unfortunately I started to get some motion sickness after that so I had to call it a night. For whatever reason some FPS games make me feel extremely queasy (still haven't beaten Half Life 2 because of it, LOL). I'll see if some motion sickness pills help, otherwise I'm gonna be playing this game in very small portions TT
On March 28 2013 14:51 geno wrote: If a friend told you to go watch the best movie he's ever seen, would you ask how long it was to determine if you want to see it? Do you choose your favorite band based on how many hours of material they have out there? Refuse to read a book under 1500 pages?
The right question isn't whether I'd play it or not, it's how much I'd pay.
For example, if a friend said a movie is the best he's ever seen, but it's 50$, I'm not paying to see it. I'm not! It's just not worth THAT PRICE. Same goes for music album/singles (pay 50$ for a single with 2 songs? lol). Book that's 200 pages and costs 50$?
I can buy and play very good and enjoyable Indie games that last around the same timeframe for ~10-20$. I also have the patience to, if I do want to play Bioshock:I eventually, wait a couple years or so for the price to inevitably go down and also use the power of sales to make the purchase.
60$ (50 with GMG code) is a LOT to pay for a game these days. People are complaining about 20$ for AoE2 for christ sakes. Again, you may or may not agree with that valuation, but it's a valid point for a lot of people, myself included.
That said, the original post by Kaal was stating why he gave it an 8 or 9/10 instead of 10/10, and some dude jumped on him for talking out of his ass (look at that post!). Kaal retorted by saying that the dude who jumped on his post was talking like a rabid fanboy, and pointed out that people DO evaluate whether they want to buy a (short) game for $60. I don't get why rude, venomous, hardly intelligible posting is acceptable just because someone disagrees that it's not a 10/10 game, and why it's completely unacceptable that people find 60$ for a short game is tough to swallow, no matter the quality.
I don't wholly disagree, but you take it to a bit of an extreme with your examples. This isn't exactly the difference between 2 and 20 songs here. Considering the rest of your post though, I take it that's because you don't really think any single-player game even fairly close in length to this to be worth $60. That I can completely understand. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. That should be more of a personal choice based on both your finances and how much value you place on this kind of experience. Thankfully, steam sales and the like will be there to fill that gap in time!
If that's not what you're saying, then I still disagree with length being a valid concern. Because if that's the case, then the comparison is more like a 12 song vs 18 song album for $15 each. Or a 3:20 movie vs a 2:00 one for regular ticket admission. Your examples were comparing apples and oranges by stretching the price rather than just the quantity, and that wouldn't make sense if you would be willing to buy SOME single-player 10 to 20 hour game for $60.
That said, this was all just a response to the general mindset of only buying games explicitly on their hours-per-dollar-spent ratio. The specific posts you mentioned are clearly a bit ridiculous, and people can score this game however they want as far as I'm concerned.
Also, it may be worth pointing out that I got 19hours of playtime out of this game with only a single run, and from random screenshots here and there, I apparently still missed a couple tiny areas. You get out of a game what you put into it.
On March 28 2013 15:16 Erik.TheRed wrote: Played about 2 hours so far (haven't played any other bioshock games) and I really like the enivornment detail and ambiance.
Unfortunately I started to get some motion sickness after that so I had to call it a night. For whatever reason some FPS games make me feel extremely queasy (still haven't beaten Half Life 2 because of it, LOL). I'll see if some motion sickness pills help, otherwise I'm gonna be playing this game in very small portions TT
I have some friends who have had this as well, I feel really bad for them
I can't imagine what that would be like to be forced away from the entire FPS genre because of something silly like that, knowing what you have to miss out on.
The only thing I want after finishing this game is a few pure recordings from the game: that Barbershop quartet cover of "God Only Knows", "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" , and the two or so other covers of modern songs that I heard but couldn't name right now. Such a great ending. The whole story gets explained in a plausible way that I really like. Everything that seems strange or weird throughout the game ends up making pretty much as much sense as you get in videogames. This one will go down as a favorite of mine I think.
On March 28 2013 00:00 MotherOfRunes wrote: [quote] seriously calling a mediocre shooter the best game ever just sounded suspicious....i just asked a question no reason to be mad , son
Mediocre is your opinion, not objective fact. By insinuating he was somehow paid to put his opinion on TeamLiquid, you're basically saying you think his opinion is wrong and no honest person could possibly have it. That's probably why he is "mad, son," even though his response is just as hostile as your original post, which just makes you a U MAD BRO troll.
There was no point to your original post other than to rile him up. If you don't like the game, give us something more than "YOU LIKED IT? LOLOL" in subtle troll-speak.
On-topic: I'm only about 2 hours in, but enjoying it so far. Reminds me of the fun I had playing the original Bioshock in 2008, but I'm not sure (yet) why people are putting it head and shoulders above that game aside from the obvious differences between a 2013 game and a 2008 game. It's possible that will change as I finish it up though.
wow now the shitstorm is coming.... ^^....i just had a suspicion and asked a question. because sadly forums are full of such hidden and false "advertisment". i never said its a bad game...just nothing special. and yeah thats my personal oppinion, but even if my oppinion would be something like "a great game" i would have asked the same question to him. and you all act now like he just said "i like this game" ....short reminder it was "easily the best game ever". and i just thought its suspicious....nothing more
If it's mediocre then what other fps are you playing lately that are so good? CoD? Ken Levine games offer a level of maturity and sophistication that is severely lacking from the gaming industry as a whole. Gliding around a floating city that is bursting at the seams with creativity is a lot of fun on its own, but there is an attention to detail and very high quality writing that is rarely ever seen in this medium.
yeah accuse me of being a cod kiddie or like im a guy who doesnt know shit about shooters....very nice of you....well lately im not playing any shooters at least i only give em a try for 1-2 hours. and because of what? because most of them are mediocre stuff....nothing really special like the half-life series or the first bioshock (because the first was awesome and something "new"). the only shooter who really got me latley was far cry 3 (but only the story line, everything around that was boring shit)...i hope that was enough random information for you....
The first Bioshock actually wasn't something "new", it was a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, also made by Ken Levine. Sorry for the aggressive tone of my original post, but I fail to see how some people are finding Bioshock Infinite only mediocre. It has clearly been crafted with an insane amount of care and intelligence, especially for an fps. But, to each his own I guess. I personally wish we had more games out there that go above and beyond the call of duty (pun intended hehe).
I thought the story was cliche and predictable, literally 30 minutes into the game I knew what was going on. But, the way the setting of the story was really fleshed out and the first part of the game where you enter Columbia and then you win the lotto, that part was amazing I gave a huge WTF to that, it's my most memorable moment for the entire thing. I wish the setting of Dishonored had been as well fleshed as BI's, that was the biggest disappointment of that game for me. As far as game play, I didn't really feel like it was that amazing, but it was simple and fun. I felt like three or four of the powers were really useless, and eventually I just zapped everything and won in hard mode with the 50% refill gear pretty damn easily. I don't feel like the game deserves the 10/10s it's been getting on every review site but I felt like it was a solid 8/10 and easily pushing a 9/10 just for setting alone. So yeah I don't agree with mediocre, it was definitely a good game, it just wasn't perfect. I wish there had been some more... original powers and that the story wasn't so immediately obviousl
Sorry to say it like this, but you could not be more full of crap... There is no way you could have known the ending without playing completely the game first.
You can obviously predict that Comstock is going to die, as Andrew Ryan did in the first Bioshock, but what happened after that, there is absolutely a 0% chance that you would remotely imagine what was going to happen. 30 minutes into the game, the game has just ramped up after you pick #77 and you have finished your first fight... There is no story yet and you are not even close to monument island yet... How the hell can you say that you knew what was going on in the game? Nothing had absolutely occurred with in the first 30 minutes of the game... Within 30 minutes of the game you have not even seen the twins the second time, so how the hell can you seriously say that you could see what was going on!?!?!?
I suggest you seriously stfu and think things thoroughly before speaking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, but want to make it seem as if you were that guy who knows it all...
Based on your comment I would be surprised if you have even played the game yet...
TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED BIOSHOCK INFINITE AND ARE CONSIDERING BUYING IT:
As soon as the game revealed it was about time manipulation and different worlds, about an hour in more like sorry I exaggerated, it was incredibly obvious that he was him and she was his daughter. It's the only possible thing that makes sense the way the narrative was, and frankly every time based thing does that ( LOL THEYLL NEVER EXPECT THIS TWIST GUYS.) I was absolutely sure when the guard called Elizabeth Anna that I was 10000% correct, which is about 1:15 into the game. Based on you comments I've come to the conclusion that you're a rabid fanboy who wants people to buy a 60$ game with ~8-10 hours of gameplay front to back. Good times.
I also agree that the story gave enough hints earlier in the game to a point where you could guess about 80% of the story correctly. Hints I picked up: + Show Spoiler +
At the very beginning there's the Luteces that are speaking to each other as if they knew what Booker would do: "he DOESN'T row" as in he never rows in the hundreds of the loops they go through or something.
Luteces always wait for the player as well (coin flip, at the bar, etc.); I first thought these two were breaking the fourth wall in a very subtle way by making the player question their existence whereas Booker just kind of shrugs it off, almost as if he knew them.
The whole nose bleed thing was dropped a lot clearly suggesting that Booker experienced the tears before.
Anna was dropped a lot before: at the beginning where she asks if Booker is scared of god and he replies no but I am scared of you. The lady that thought Elizabeth was Anna. Comstock talking about Anna. Pretty sure by the time the lady calls Elizabeth Anna, you think that Elizabeth is in fact Anna and there's a previous connection between Booker and Anna.
Elizabeth dropping the "Must run in the family" although she implied that Comstock is a murderer; the sentence was pretty much a slap on the face if you really kept up with the story.
I didn't think that Booker was Elizabeth's father per say, but I kind of knew that Comstock would end up being Booker because of the whole fact that Comstock knows Booker so well and all the things Booker did, Comstock did (war wise anyway). And let's face it... all time traveling and parallel world stories end up having the bad guy as the protagonist in one form of another (clone, different dimension, twin sister/brother). The most compelling stories end up having the audience feel bad for the antagonist, and having the antagonist some evil version of the protagonist is one of the oldest tricks.
timetravel/alternate reality (look at Fringe, TV show)
story I enjoyed the game thoroughly, as much as I enjoyed ME3. The atmosphere was good and the gameplay was enjoyable. FPS's don't have to have punishing difficulty to be fun, sometimes having OP weapons and abilities is just as fun.
Disappointed by the lack of depth on the songbird character though >.>
Blew my mind when I remembered at the beginning of the game + Show Spoiler +
After the baptism and he enters Columbia, Booker says something about how the dude needs to learn the difference between baptizing someone and drowning them. I love how there are tons of neat little moments like that that seem insignificant but really turn out to be foreshadowing/plays a neat role. There's an interview with Ken Levine out there about how in movies, every little shot has to mean something, and although he says in that interview that games are an interesting medium because you can have some unimportant things like the little movies, I just though of how everything in the main story ties together and is important.
Really enjoyed the story. Loved the whole many-worlds/everett quantum theme running through it.
The ending err, didn't disappoint me really but I don't really understand it. + Show Spoiler +
It ties up nicely only in the sense that its foreshadowed very well, but I can't really make sense of it. I mean, You're hopping backwards and forwards through time, or across realities or both...and you make this decision at the end that doesn't seem to really account for any of that. It seems entirely futile. This "future" you are trying to prevent has already happened, or is happening or will happen somewhere. Why is this version of Booker culpable for a choice another Booker in another world made anymore so than, say Elizabeth is culpable for future New York burning at her alternate hand? To me its seems Prophet made a choice. He was baptised a new man, but he had not truly paid penance for his past sins. Simultaneously Booker rejected this false repentance, he suffers with his past until he is given an opportunity to "wipe away the debt" by retrieving the girl and yet it seems he is still not absolved because he too suffers the same fate as Prophet. Why? Can some sins truly not be forgiven? :D - Honestly it felt like a gutpunch ending just for the sake of shock, because as far as I can tell it doesn't really tie up anything.
On March 28 2013 15:16 Erik.TheRed wrote: Played about 2 hours so far (haven't played any other bioshock games) and I really like the enivornment detail and ambiance.
Unfortunately I started to get some motion sickness after that so I had to call it a night. For whatever reason some FPS games make me feel extremely queasy (still haven't beaten Half Life 2 because of it, LOL). I'll see if some motion sickness pills help, otherwise I'm gonna be playing this game in very small portions TT
Try to change the FOV in the options slider if you're on PC, it can help. I know how badly things like this sucks, I never could get past the 1st chapter in Deus Ex Human Revolution due to these issues and there was 0 way to change fov or such in that game
On March 28 2013 17:33 KissKiss wrote: Really enjoyed the story. Loved the whole many-worlds/everett quantum theme running through it.
The ending err, didn't disappoint me really but I don't really understand it. + Show Spoiler +
It ties up nicely only in the sense that its foreshadowed very well, but I can't really make sense of it. I mean, You're hopping backwards and forwards through time, or across realities or both...and you make this decision at the end that doesn't seem to really account for any of that. It seems entirely futile. This "future" you are trying to prevent has already happened, or is happening or will happen somewhere. Why is this version of Booker culpable for a choice another Booker in another world made anymore so than, say Elizabeth is culpable for future New York burning at her alternate hand? To me its seems Prophet made a choice. He was baptised a new man, but he had not truly paid penance for his past sins. Simultaneously Booker rejected this false repentance, he suffers with his past until he is given an opportunity to "wipe away the debt" by retrieving the girl and yet it seems he is still not absolved because he too suffers the same fate as Prophet. Why? Can some sins truly not be forgiven? :D - Honestly it felt like a gutpunch ending just for the sake of shock, because as far as I can tell it doesn't really tie up anything.
Elizabeth takes you to the place just before the Baptism, the place where you either become Comstock or remain as Booker. Every single Booker that exists in every universe undergoes the Baptism at that moment and is a "constant" as Elizabeth says in the ending, just like it always starts with a lighthouse in every universe and this is when the disconnect happens and infinitely different universes spring from the choice of receiving that Baptism (Comstock) or refusing and remaining as Booker. In order to eliminate the cycle of these universes where in the end, everything ends up the same, Booker has to die before choosing whether to be baptized or not.
Can you all take special care to spoiler things, there are still many people who read this thread who haven't played the game. For example, in the last couple posts, the bit about + Show Spoiler +
On March 28 2013 18:04 Firebolt145 wrote: Can you all take special care to spoiler things, there are still many people who read this thread who haven't played the game. For example, in the last couple posts, the bit about + Show Spoiler +
many worlds/everett quantum theme
really should be spoilered.
In my case I just completely avoided all reviews/forumtalk/gameplay videos from March, especially the week before release. I only had the Beast of America trailer to keep me happy hahaha. I'm gonna start my second playthrough next week now that I think about it (too much of a good thing too fast might ruin the experience..no matter how badly I wanna dbl click that damn icon on steam).
I wonder if I could just watch someone play on youtube to get the same experience. I am not a big fan of the game play in the first two because I find it all very unrewarding to fight through waves of enemies in a single-player FPS game.
The only drawback I see to just watching someone play the game is that I can't make the choices I would make. But, the last two were linear as a game can be. I wonder if this one breaks that mold, if not I really see no reason for me to drop 60 bucks so I can fight generic enemies with random mutated effects or old style pistols. I guess the immersion factor might be an argument against this, but full screen of a decent play-through is just as good for me especially because I don't have to focus on trying to kill generic enemy after enemy.
Only asking because all the positive comments are about the appearance and story all which can be conveyed through another player's perspective.
This is my own personal take on some aspects of the end. (Amazing btw, felt it dragged a little at points in the middle but was otherwise incredibly good)
I feel like the whole drowning thing is only meant to 'fix' things for a few realities. The version of his baptism/lack of Elizabeth takes you to when she drowns you is the specific version of this scene that leads to the future you+her (these specific versions of yourselves) are affected by. Basically, there will be many different versions of Booker post Wounded Knee that decides to get baptised - other decisions/events earlier in life may shape Booker slightly but in the end he still arrives at the baptism. He will just be a slightly different person when he arrives there, which will then shape what he does afterwards. (There will also be many versions of Booker that never even go the baptism at all, or fight in Wounded Knee or do almost anything our version of Booker did, but theyre not important to us. We just care about the essentially infinite variations of Booker that ended up accepting the baptism.)
So this specific world Elizabeth takes you to (to drown you) is the world inhabited by the precise version of Booker that becomes the version of Comstock youve been fighting throughout the game. You take his place somehow (this is the only bit that im a bit stuck on, generally what we've seen in the game is multiple versions of people being possible in one universe. Maybe Elizabeth has developed some new tearing powers post siphon destruction that lets her control them better, shrug), and die AS HIM in this universe.
The version of Booker that would become our-Comstock dissapears (this specific Booker that would become Comstock, many more still exist), this Comstock thus never orders Lutece to steal Elizabeth/Anna from your-version-of-Bookers universe and so your-Bookers universe is also completely changed. You wake up post credits to presumably about the point where male-Lutece would come to buy Anna from you, except now he never comes because the Universe that is ordering this to happen doesnt exist. You wake up because time gets erased as the loop/chain has been broken by Comstock in the second Universe never existing, thus basically the entire events of the game never happened, putting you back to just before any interaction with events inspired by the second Universe. Youre not dead because all the events leading to it nolonger happen, and as we've seen at many points in the game people can be brought back to life by shifting tears and they can be kinda mindfucked because they remember their death.
The other Elizabeths shown during the drowning scene are other Elizabeths that tangentially become a reality due to events after this specific baptism scene. For example this one instance of the baptism occurs, Booker gets baptised and becomes Comstock but makes different decisions in the future leading to different universes, each of which feature a version of Elizabeth. They all still originated from this specific version of Booker at Wounded Knee however, so their history also gets erased and they get 'saved' along with 'our' Elizabeth/Anna.
Any versions of Elizabeth that got sold to a Comstock that was a different person (different past events/tangents) when he got baptised is fucked however. The whole idea can be extended to include them too however by just saying that 'our' Elizabeth opened a 'MULTITEAR' of all universes where Booker got baptised and your player-character took the place of and thus ended the future of all possible Comstock-becoming Bookers.
QUESTIONS: So what are your takes on the actual event of our player character being drowned - its probably the most confusing element of the whole ending to me - how we, a version of Booker that did not become Comstock and have been through a completely seperate set of events post-lack of baptism have the ability to end other Bookers futures by dying ourselves. As has been seen by the very fact that we+Comstock were able to inhabit the same Universe for almost the entire game, why do we 'become' a Comstock-becoming Booker in the drowning scene.
On March 28 2013 18:24 justinpal wrote: I wonder if I could just watch someone play on youtube to get the same experience. I am not a big fan of the game play in the first two because I find it all very unrewarding to fight through waves of enemies in a single-player FPS game.
The only drawback I see to just watching someone play the game is that I can't make the choices I would make. But, the last two were linear as a game can be. I wonder if this one breaks that mold, if not I really see no reason for me to drop 60 bucks so I can fight generic enemies with random mutated effects or old style pistols. I guess the immersion factor might be an argument against this, but full screen of a decent play-through is just as good for me especially because I don't have to focus on trying to kill generic enemy after enemy.
Only asking because all the positive comments are about the appearance and story all which can be conveyed through another player's perspective.
I said this a few pages ago but
Got the game on final preorder day because of the additional games they offered as preorder content.
I played through the game on hard and I guess combat was moderately alright. Struggled at the start but once i got the hang of it and discarded the notion of ironsights alltogether it worked out.
I went with a full shield build, then started building on my hp. Spent most of my time with the more spammable vigours like the mustang aoe while having the ram charge as a close friend.
Went all out damage with the shotgun, carbine and other assorted weaponry because i thought some of the enemies didn't die fast enough to melee, and that coupled with the ram upgrades (temp invulnerability after charge, and elemental damage aoe during impact) and complemented that with "when struck in combat 70% of the time deal firedamage in aoe," "when jumping from skyline firedamage aoe." "Excessive death causes aoe stun" worked out alright.
Things went down relatively quick and abusing elizabeth temporary immunity when handing you items gets you out of tricky handyman situations. I haven't found a good way to take them out for a melee build, but kept the carbine and the rocket launcher as a close secondary weapon to supplement. As for upgrades i went damage on all the weapons and only upgraded capacity for carbine and the Vox machine gun with 20 rounds default. This worked out for me. Charge in. melee, and spam weapon into chest before jumping off or chargin back in for a shield refill.
I'll probably replay it again on 1999 mode, but the amount of replay value in the game seems limited. Mostly due to how choice seems to be relatively insignificant in the amount of impact it has. I think the atmosphere and story is great, but the ending seemed lacking. No final bossfight with something like the songbird, no alternative ending or morality exclusive levels based on some ingame mechanic.
Very great cinematic storytelling, but it lacked a good foil to play off of the two main characters. definitively made me think of triple A games as a bygone era. 10/10. Dare I say most pirated game 2013?
Look. If you have endured the hypetrain til now. Just watch it on youtube. The combat alone is not worth 60 bucks and there are tons of Lets players out there who want to cash in on adding their own commentary to the storyline. If you are European or just exceedingly ignorant they might even enhance your experience in glorious 1080p as there are apparently TONS of references to american history in this game that will fly directly by you but might not be missed by someone like Jesse Cox. Who apparently was a history teacher.
On March 28 2013 17:33 KissKiss wrote: Really enjoyed the story. Loved the whole many-worlds/everett quantum theme running through it.
The ending err, didn't disappoint me really but I don't really understand it. + Show Spoiler +
It ties up nicely only in the sense that its foreshadowed very well, but I can't really make sense of it. I mean, You're hopping backwards and forwards through time, or across realities or both...and you make this decision at the end that doesn't seem to really account for any of that. It seems entirely futile. This "future" you are trying to prevent has already happened, or is happening or will happen somewhere. Why is this version of Booker culpable for a choice another Booker in another world made anymore so than, say Elizabeth is culpable for future New York burning at her alternate hand? To me its seems Prophet made a choice. He was baptised a new man, but he had not truly paid penance for his past sins. Simultaneously Booker rejected this false repentance, he suffers with his past until he is given an opportunity to "wipe away the debt" by retrieving the girl and yet it seems he is still not absolved because he too suffers the same fate as Prophet. Why? Can some sins truly not be forgiven? :D - Honestly it felt like a gutpunch ending just for the sake of shock, because as far as I can tell it doesn't really tie up anything.
The lucky (or more likely, intentional) thing about such an out-there quantum based multi-verse exposition is that it can allow you to pretty much fill in the gaps however you like and it could still make some theoretical sense. Admittedly kind of a cop out, which was disappointing, but at the same time it was still a good way to provoke players to interpret the story in their own ways, taking meaning and resolution wherever they can find it themselves.
For your specific question, your own conclusion may be as apt an answer as any other, they may just be trying to say that some sins truly can't be forgiven. If he was truly resolved to make the man that caused Elizabeth's imprisonment, Columbia's fall, and even the potential future destruction of New York pay for his crimes, then he needs to destroy not only his Comstock-iteration, but his own as well. After all, the suffering Booker DeWitt was just as culpable for the key piece in the puzzle that leads to every other sin, Elizabeth's universe transfer. It doesn't matter if he regretted it or tried to make up for it, that is the kind of mistake you only need to make once to be forever ruined. If Comstock's only atonement could come through death, then who's to say Booker DeWitt didn't fall in the same boat, at least in his own and Elizabeth's eyes.
Or, you could interpret it a completely different way. Maybe that death sequence was merely a symbolic one set up by Elizabeth to help Booker come to terms with his own failings before being reborn again with a second chance in yet another alternate universe. This type of explanation allows the post-credits scene to not just be a red herring.
Better still, if taking into account the post-credits scene, maybe it was a literal death, some kind of convergent one set up by Elizabeth that kills all iterations of Booker DeWitt post-baptism. His salvation instead comes instead THROUGH his death, forcing it so that the only in tact iterations are where Booker never gave himself a false dichotomy of religious salvation vs forsaken morality in the first place, and was able to come to terms with his sins in his own way. It might be a bit too charitable for player-Booker to think of it this way at his death, but it could be his salvation either way.
Who really knows. There seems to be so few well understood rules with REAL quantum mechanics and popular multiverse theory, much less a dramatically fictionalized one. I wonder if Levine had intended for the ending to be as vague as it was in this sense, or if we'll eventually see an intended explanation pop out somewhere.
There's an extra layer of immersion you gain from being the one controlling where you go etc that just doesn't come with YouTube. If you're not willing to shell out the $60 or whatever that it costs, I'd advocate avoiding everything to do with Bioshock for now and just waiting for it to go on Steam discount.
On March 28 2013 18:24 justinpal wrote: I wonder if I could just watch someone play on youtube to get the same experience. I am not a big fan of the game play in the first two because I find it all very unrewarding to fight through waves of enemies in a single-player FPS game.
The only drawback I see to just watching someone play the game is that I can't make the choices I would make. But, the last two were linear as a game can be. I wonder if this one breaks that mold, if not I really see no reason for me to drop 60 bucks so I can fight generic enemies with random mutated effects or old style pistols. I guess the immersion factor might be an argument against this, but full screen of a decent play-through is just as good for me especially because I don't have to focus on trying to kill generic enemy after enemy.
Only asking because all the positive comments are about the appearance and story all which can be conveyed through another player's perspective.
It's not the big decisions that make a YouTube of a game unbearable for me, it's the little ones. Infinite may be fairly linear, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of things you can choose to do at any particular moment. I can't stand even regular Let's Plays because I'm always compelled to want to take control to look a certain direction or do a certain thing or fight a certain way. That would be magnified 100x in a game like infinite where atmosphere is everything and everyone will find (or won't) their own aspects that are most interesting to them in the setting itself.
That said, if you can stand that kind of thing, it's not a horrible option. I'm always surprised more people don't do that for more games as it is. I guess it's becoming more popular with Twitch streams like JPs playthrough. At least with twitch, you have the chat to share the experience with and maybe even have some kind of direct feedback with the player to influence the play. That would be considerably more bearable if you could luck out and catch a stream of someone you don't hate doing a playthrough.
On March 28 2013 18:45 Firebolt145 wrote: There's an extra layer of immersion you gain from being the one controlling where you go etc that just doesn't come with YouTube. If you're not willing to shell out the $60 or whatever that it costs, I'd advocate avoiding everything to do with Bioshock for now and just waiting for it to go on Steam discount.
Yeah, I think this is still the better option. A couple months isn't that long to wait, and the only things you miss out on are more active discussions and running the risk of spoiling yourself (if you care about that sort of thing).
Assuming that the ending was the scissors that cut off all possible futures involving DeWitt, Comstock and Columbia as a whole, then that in itself creates a new paradox. The entire baptism scene was, I believe, brought on by a fairly massive depression cycle caused by the guilt of selling his daughter away. Assuming there was never a Comstock to sell his daughter too, creates a paradox where there's no reason for him to spiral into depression and thus no reason to undergo baptism (well, no reason to sell Anna anyways, there may still not be a 'happy' future, but regardless).
It becomes it's own self-contained universe, completely isolated from the DeWitt/Comstock multi-verse. Granted, there's more than a bit of egg and chicken paradox in any case, as how did the entire Columbia Multi-verse begin if it requires the input of a Columbia verse to start, which is only possible because a Columbia verse exists. It's a logical impossibility, but then again, we are talking about multi-verse and quantum mechanics.
Effect before Cause, because the Effect exists, because the Effect exists. And no, that doesn't even make that much sense to me, but there really aren't good words to describe the timey-wimey bits that could generate this causality chain.
Thus, the after-credits scene is the newly formed multiverse that never allowed Comstock to develop, which never allowed Anna/Elizabeth to develop her powers, which prevents any mucking about with a Multi-verse. Unless the crazy twins still function, but even if they do... they seemed more passive than active with regards to causing events.
Assuming that the ending was the scissors that cut off all possible futures involving DeWitt, Comstock and Columbia as a whole, then that in itself creates a new paradox. The entire baptism scene was, I believe, brought on by a fairly massive depression cycle caused by the guilt of selling his daughter away. Assuming there was never a Comstock to sell his daughter too, creates a paradox where there's no reason for him to spiral into depression and thus no reason to undergo baptism (well, no reason to sell Anna anyways, there may still not be a 'happy' future, but regardless).
It becomes it's own self-contained universe, completely isolated from the DeWitt/Comstock multi-verse. Granted, there's more than a bit of egg and chicken paradox in any case, as how did the entire Columbia Multi-verse begin if it requires the input of a Columbia verse to start, which is only possible because a Columbia verse exists. It's a logical impossibility, but then again, we are talking about multi-verse and quantum mechanics.
Effect before Cause, because the Effect exists, because the Effect exists. And no, that doesn't even make that much sense to me, but there really aren't good words to describe the timey-wimey bits that could generate this causality chain.
Thus, the after-credits scene is the newly formed multiverse that never allowed Comstock to develop, which never allowed Anna/Elizabeth to develop her powers, which prevents any mucking about with a Multi-verse. Unless the crazy twins still function, but even if they do... they seemed more passive than active with regards to causing events.
If I'm understanding your theory correctly, then you should realise that the baptism scene happened just after the battle of Wounded Knee, and long before Anna/Elizabeth was born. The sins he was trying to rid himself of were the sins he committed at Wounded Knee rather than the sins of giving Emma up.
The baptism was after Wounded Knee, long before he sold his daughter. If he got baptised, he became Comstock and never met his wife/had Anna. If he didnt get baptised he met his wife, had Anna, wife died in childbirth and he sold Anna to an alternate reality Comstock. :o)
Hmm... I guess that does solve the chicken and egg problem, though in the end, it defeats any theories I had regarding the post-credits scene.
Honestly, it's fairly depressing just how little 'choice' mattered in this game, in the end. Destiny, karma, predetermination, or prophecy... it doesn't really matter how you define it, but it tends to leave a sour taste for those caught in it's grasp, or me, taking the roll of DeWitt anyways.
On March 28 2013 18:24 justinpal wrote: I wonder if I could just watch someone play on youtube to get the same experience. I am not a big fan of the game play in the first two because I find it all very unrewarding to fight through waves of enemies in a single-player FPS game.
The only drawback I see to just watching someone play the game is that I can't make the choices I would make. But, the last two were linear as a game can be. I wonder if this one breaks that mold, if not I really see no reason for me to drop 60 bucks so I can fight generic enemies with random mutated effects or old style pistols. I guess the immersion factor might be an argument against this, but full screen of a decent play-through is just as good for me especially because I don't have to focus on trying to kill generic enemy after enemy.
Only asking because all the positive comments are about the appearance and story all which can be conveyed through another player's perspective.
It's not the big decisions that make a YouTube of a game unbearable for me, it's the little ones. Infinite may be fairly linear, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of things you can choose to do at any particular moment. I can't stand even regular Let's Plays because I'm always compelled to want to take control to look a certain direction or do a certain thing or fight a certain way. That would be magnified 100x in a game like infinite where atmosphere is everything and everyone will find (or won't) their own aspects that are most interesting to them in the setting itself.
That said, if you can stand that kind of thing, it's not a horrible option. I'm always surprised more people don't do that for more games as it is. I guess it's becoming more popular with Twitch streams like JPs playthrough. At least with twitch, you have the chat to share the experience with and maybe even have some kind of direct feedback with the player to influence the play. That would be considerably more bearable if you could luck out and catch a stream of someone you don't hate doing a playthrough.
On March 28 2013 18:45 Firebolt145 wrote: There's an extra layer of immersion you gain from being the one controlling where you go etc that just doesn't come with YouTube. If you're not willing to shell out the $60 or whatever that it costs, I'd advocate avoiding everything to do with Bioshock for now and just waiting for it to go on Steam discount.
Yeah, I think this is still the better option. A couple months isn't that long to wait, and the only things you miss out on are more active discussions and running the risk of spoiling yourself (if you care about that sort of thing).
So the game-play is just waves of enemies then? I don't care that much about the immersion if I have to endure that style of game. I can completely relate to watching games and wanting to look left instead of right. But, that's the entire premise of a let's play. I've regretted buying a similar game called Spec Ops: The Line. Great story, but awful game-play and not worth the money (imho). Especially because I had virtually no control over the story. I'd rather read a book, watch a movie or TV show.
On March 28 2013 18:45 Firebolt145 wrote: There's an extra layer of immersion you gain from being the one controlling where you go etc that just doesn't come with YouTube. If you're not willing to shell out the $60 or whatever that it costs, I'd advocate avoiding everything to do with Bioshock for now and just waiting for it to go on Steam discount.
and how do you quantify that layer? I would say the combat and the story remains different beasts entirely. And the combat is such that If you just wanted to play this game for the story then a youtuber playing the game might just as-well make it a more entertaining and fulfilling experience. Especially if you don't know american history much. There are a ton of references that I just did not get, but some youtuber might get them and that would make the experience more worthwhile see?
On March 28 2013 18:24 justinpal wrote: I wonder if I could just watch someone play on youtube to get the same experience. I am not a big fan of the game play in the first two because I find it all very unrewarding to fight through waves of enemies in a single-player FPS game.
The only drawback I see to just watching someone play the game is that I can't make the choices I would make. But, the last two were linear as a game can be. I wonder if this one breaks that mold, if not I really see no reason for me to drop 60 bucks so I can fight generic enemies with random mutated effects or old style pistols. I guess the immersion factor might be an argument against this, but full screen of a decent play-through is just as good for me especially because I don't have to focus on trying to kill generic enemy after enemy.
Only asking because all the positive comments are about the appearance and story all which can be conveyed through another player's perspective.
It's not the big decisions that make a YouTube of a game unbearable for me, it's the little ones. Infinite may be fairly linear, but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of things you can choose to do at any particular moment. I can't stand even regular Let's Plays because I'm always compelled to want to take control to look a certain direction or do a certain thing or fight a certain way. That would be magnified 100x in a game like infinite where atmosphere is everything and everyone will find (or won't) their own aspects that are most interesting to them in the setting itself.
That said, if you can stand that kind of thing, it's not a horrible option. I'm always surprised more people don't do that for more games as it is. I guess it's becoming more popular with Twitch streams like JPs playthrough. At least with twitch, you have the chat to share the experience with and maybe even have some kind of direct feedback with the player to influence the play. That would be considerably more bearable if you could luck out and catch a stream of someone you don't hate doing a playthrough.
On March 28 2013 18:45 Firebolt145 wrote: There's an extra layer of immersion you gain from being the one controlling where you go etc that just doesn't come with YouTube. If you're not willing to shell out the $60 or whatever that it costs, I'd advocate avoiding everything to do with Bioshock for now and just waiting for it to go on Steam discount.
Yeah, I think this is still the better option. A couple months isn't that long to wait, and the only things you miss out on are more active discussions and running the risk of spoiling yourself (if you care about that sort of thing).
So the game-play is just waves of enemies then? I don't care that much about the immersion if I have to endure that style of game. I can completely relate to watching games and wanting to look left instead of right. But, that's the entire premise of a let's play. I've regretted buying a similar game called Spec Ops: The Line. Great story, but awful game-play and not worth the money (imho). Especially because I had virtually no control over the story. I'd rather read a book, watch a movie or TV show.
Maybe I'll see if my friend is buying it.
That depends on what "gameplay" aspect of Spec Ops you found to be lacking. Ironsights is completely useless in this game, and just running / gunning / vigorspam can get you through anything. The events are just as scripted and predictable, but spec ops has more variety while infinite has a lot more spectacle and pleasure with using the skyline. Shame those moments are very insular and self contained.
By game-play I mean seeing 3-4 enemies spawn in an area and killing them as they ran in predictable patterns and then seeing the same thing happen until someone says 'oh let's move on.' Just any generic firefights. But, I think I made my choice based on your responses thanks. Go back to discussing + Show Spoiler +
profound spoilers.
I'll come back when I've watched a play-through maybe.
On March 28 2013 21:10 Chillax wrote: My biggest pet peeve with this game was that it had to end. I loved the story that much.
my biggest pet peeve with this game is that its just very little to it outside of the story and the combat. No minigames or subplots. the othermost pet peeve is just how theres no foil or adversary that matches up against Dewitt. Most of the major characters opposing him just lack a moment where they can shine, but bioshock never did much with antagonists anyhow so it's not like that was something i expected going into the series. Infinite is cute, its shiny and wonderful, but it needs to be just about 20% cooler. ;/
On March 28 2013 21:10 Chillax wrote: My biggest pet peeve with this game was that it had to end. I loved the story that much.
my biggest pet peeve with this game is that its just very little to it outside of the story and the combat. No minigames or subplots. the othermost pet peeve is just how theres no foil or adversary that matches up against Dewitt. Most of the major characters opposing him just lack a moment where they can shine, but bioshock never did much with antagonists anyhow so it's not like that was something i expected going into the series. Infinite is cute, its shiny and wonderful, but it needs to be just about 20% cooler. ;/
WHAT!? The enemies in this game AND in Bioshock were amazing. In Bioshock, Sander Cohen & Dr. Steinman were some of the most engrossing antagonists I've had to deal with. Sure there was no epic battle scene between us, but that's really not what these games are about. As for Infinite, I feel like quite a few NPCs fit in the same category
On March 28 2013 21:10 Chillax wrote: My biggest pet peeve with this game was that it had to end. I loved the story that much.
my biggest pet peeve with this game is that its just very little to it outside of the story and the combat. No minigames or subplots. the othermost pet peeve is just how theres no foil or adversary that matches up against Dewitt. Most of the major characters opposing him just lack a moment where they can shine, but bioshock never did much with antagonists anyhow so it's not like that was something i expected going into the series. Infinite is cute, its shiny and wonderful, but it needs to be just about 20% cooler. ;/
WHAT!? The enemies in this game AND in Bioshock were amazing. In Bioshock, Sander Cohen & Dr. Steinman were some of the most engrossing antagonists I've had to deal with. Sure there was no epic battle scene between us, but that's really not what these games are about. As for Infinite, I feel like quite a few NPCs fit in the same category
I guess what I'm getting at is that bioshock infinites grounding did not resonate much with me due the heavy american lore background. You would have to know and be invested in american history to sorta get the same vibes as you'd get with the more universal villains like Andrew Ryan.
On March 28 2013 21:10 Chillax wrote: My biggest pet peeve with this game was that it had to end. I loved the story that much.
my biggest pet peeve with this game is that its just very little to it outside of the story and the combat. No minigames or subplots. the othermost pet peeve is just how theres no foil or adversary that matches up against Dewitt. Most of the major characters opposing him just lack a moment where they can shine, but bioshock never did much with antagonists anyhow so it's not like that was something i expected going into the series. Infinite is cute, its shiny and wonderful, but it needs to be just about 20% cooler. ;/
WHAT!? The enemies in this game AND in Bioshock were amazing. In Bioshock, Sander Cohen & Dr. Steinman were some of the most engrossing antagonists I've had to deal with. Sure there was no epic battle scene between us, but that's really not what these games are about. As for Infinite, I feel like quite a few NPCs fit in the same category
I guess what I'm getting at is that bioshock infinites grounding did not resonate much with me due the heavy american lore background. You would have to know and be invested in american history to sorta get the same vibes as you'd get with the more universal villains like Andrew Ryan.
It's been a long time since I've played the original but wasn't it supposed to be mainly focused as a criticism of rational objectivism? Andrew Ryan is a fairly obviously play on Ayn Rand and thats really quite a uniquely american phenomenon, noone outside the US knows or cares about Randian thought (because its nonsense).
I suppose the character does have qualities outside of this which are more universal but Bioshocks themes were more uniquely american than Bioshock: Infinite's, although I haven't complete Infinite yet, the themes of religion, zealotry, cults of personality etc that I've been picking up so far are fairly universal, although less so in modern western culture outside of america.
I certainly agree with the assertion that Bioshock Infinite is heavily grounded in american history and culture, I just think that extends more so to the originals but I guess that its more up for interpretation and less shoved in your face than Infinites, which does have an annoying habit of being less than subtle with its references and styles.
On March 28 2013 21:10 Chillax wrote: My biggest pet peeve with this game was that it had to end. I loved the story that much.
my biggest pet peeve with this game is that its just very little to it outside of the story and the combat. No minigames or subplots. the othermost pet peeve is just how theres no foil or adversary that matches up against Dewitt. Most of the major characters opposing him just lack a moment where they can shine, but bioshock never did much with antagonists anyhow so it's not like that was something i expected going into the series. Infinite is cute, its shiny and wonderful, but it needs to be just about 20% cooler. ;/
WHAT!? The enemies in this game AND in Bioshock were amazing. In Bioshock, Sander Cohen & Dr. Steinman were some of the most engrossing antagonists I've had to deal with. Sure there was no epic battle scene between us, but that's really not what these games are about. As for Infinite, I feel like quite a few NPCs fit in the same category
I guess what I'm getting at is that bioshock infinites grounding did not resonate much with me due the heavy american lore background. You would have to know and be invested in american history to sorta get the same vibes as you'd get with the more universal villains like Andrew Ryan.
It's been a long time since I've played the original but wasn't it supposed to be mainly focused as a criticism of rational objectivism? Andrew Ryan is a fairly obviously play on Ayn Rand and thats really quite a uniquely american phenomenon, noone outside the US knows or cares about Randian thought (because its nonsense).
I suppose the character does have qualities outside of this which are more universal but Bioshocks themes were more uniquely american than Bioshock: Infinite's, although I haven't complete Infinite yet, the themes of religion, zealotry, cults of personality etc that I've been picking up so far are fairly universal, although less so in modern western culture outside of america.
I certainly agree with the assertion that Bioshock Infinite is heavily grounded in american history and culture, I just think that extends more so to the originals but I guess that its more up for interpretation and less shoved in your face than Infinites, which does have an annoying habit of being less than subtle with its references and styles.
The Ayn Rand thing just kinda flew past my head when i played bioshock. I think I was 16 when it came out. XD
The thing is that you could see sides to Andrew Ryan or his compatriots regardless of whether you'd read Ayn Rand or not (comments about the working man etc are very universal given how recent our history with labour movement in western world, and that topic is still very relevant today).
Booker and the heavy borne again Colombia stuff / slavery thing seems to be at first glance a purely american thing (Europe cast them out or at least made it so shitty for them that they moved on to America), so the religious undertones just don't seem to work for me (welcome to church of England. Cake or death?). I can understand why its there, but the appeal is lost to me.
It certainly doesn't help that theres no external foe(s) to project them on outside of the father himself. It's basically just Fink and Comstock whereas the Vox just have mister lee and Fitzgerald. In bioshock 1-2 that was kinda justified by the whole decay thing and basically everyone in rapture being bonkers. Here its just. Where are the people? Wheres the morally grey crusader? How come we don't get to see more of the order of the sword / crow / scroll thingy? For a guy who's in two places at once Father Comstock sure as hell seems to be a different kind of guy when you finally board his zeppelin and knock him on his ass. How come Booker can be this awesome and his future self so shit? I was ready to piss myself when i finally got up to that floor, as i figured he'd be twice as scary with plasmids coming out of his ass given how he's been draining Elizabeth and such, but it turned out to be for nothing. I dunno. The climax was very plain despite the twist and the plot lacked substance.
On March 28 2013 15:16 Erik.TheRed wrote: Played about 2 hours so far (haven't played any other bioshock games) and I really like the enivornment detail and ambiance.
Unfortunately I started to get some motion sickness after that so I had to call it a night. For whatever reason some FPS games make me feel extremely queasy (still haven't beaten Half Life 2 because of it, LOL). I'll see if some motion sickness pills help, otherwise I'm gonna be playing this game in very small portions TT
Try to change the FOV in the options slider if you're on PC, it can help. I know how badly things like this sucks, I never could get past the 1st chapter in Deus Ex Human Revolution due to these issues and there was 0 way to change fov or such in that game
I went into the settings file in my documents and changed the max FOV value so that it goes up to 90 degrees. So far it seems to be going much better since I don't need to spin the camera around as much just to move around/aim.
Finished, the game, and imo deserves a 9/10. Had lots of fun. The ending was ofc a mind-fuck for me, I had to look around to really find out what exactly happened. Even though the game is a bit short, it's extremely high quality. Every little location, scene, etc was packed with detail. The game was also artistically breath taking. I haven't seen a game with art style like this in a while. I also enjoyed the combat, but found only a few vigors (is that what they're called?) useful, them being the bronco one and electric one. Though I will admit my style of combat doesn't exactly use all my abilities to their creative potential.
Hmm to be honest I do not agree with most of the reviews and all the exceptional criticism this game is getting. I never played Bioshock before, but I have a pretty big FPS-experience. So after watching all the reviews I had to give it a try.
Yes the world looks nice (if you like Alice in Wonderland) and the story may be interesting, but for me this was just another single player console shooter. The first half hour of the game you sit, wait and watch. Sometimes press a few buttons and lean back again to watch some scripted scenes. This is just boring. Even if the story is nice.
Usually I am really into good stories, especially if its surreal, weird and critial of society. But a game has to be fun to play too. And this definitely was not the case. I was bored to death after the first 30 minutes. When I finally was able to move 'freely' I just ran to anything and spammed the f key, didnt even care what to pick up. Stupid AI, super easy combat (I played on hard difficulty) and 'push-this-button-to-auto-jump-somewhere-and-kill-dudes' makes this just another lame 'shooter'.
If you like watching a movie and sometimes press buttons to keep on watching this is for you. Linear level design and restricted 'exploration' (There are a lot of things to interact with, but they are boring too) is what modern shooters and games have all in common. In my opinion this is just bad.
Maybe the game gets better after some time, but I decided to uninstall and I will not touch it again.
From the first few minutes in I knew this was going to be amazing. Being welcomed by the great choral version of "Will the circle be unbroken", and the overall incredibly gorgeous look of everything. They created a really great universe, and I found myself exploring every single corner of it. That's also why I loved the parts where you would just walk around with Elizabeth, for example at Battleship Bay. And I really like how they have Elizabeths clothing change because of the events you go through.
The only thing that "disappointed" me was how it turned out in the end. For me, games - or stories in general - that feature time travel or multiple universes never work out. I feel like there are too many parts that can make the story illogical, and that really bothers me. I know we aren't talking reality here, but it just feels wrong. After reading through some of you guys interpretations it makes more sense, but I'd still rather have a "fixed" ending than one that leaves space for that much interpretation and unanswered questions. Don't get me wrong, I love the story and that is just one of my personal minor problems with the end. It's pretty positive actually, it's the only thing I can criticise about the game.
Then there is another thing that, so far, no-one seems to have mentioned. What is it about the "trip" to Rapture in the end? Booker seems confused and asks Elizabeth multiple times what that place is IIRC, why does she know it exists? Why does she know where to go? She says it's a door right? But why? Is it really just that they wanted to have some sort of reference to the previous games? I was kinda happy when I got there and that I could see Rapture again, with such a nice look, but doesn't it seem really out of place?
On March 29 2013 02:52 okinoki wrote: Hmm to be honest I do not agree with most of the reviews and all the exceptional criticism this game is getting. I never played Bioshock before, but I have a pretty big FPS-experience. So after watching all the reviews I had to give it a try.
Yes the world looks nice (if you like Alice in Wonderland) and the story may be interesting, but for me this was just another single player console shooter. The first half hour of the game you sit, wait and watch. Sometimes press a few buttons and lean back again to watch some scripted scenes. This is just boring. Even if the story is nice.
Usually I am really into good stories, especially if its surreal, weird and critial of society. But a game has to be fun to play too. And this definitely was not the case. I was bored to death after the first 30 minutes. When I finally was able to move 'freely' I just ran to anything and spammed the f key, didnt even care what to pick up. Stupid AI, super easy combat (I played on hard difficulty) and 'push-this-button-to-auto-jump-somewhere-and-kill-dudes' makes this just another lame 'shooter'.
If you like watching a movie and sometimes press buttons to keep on watching this is for you. Linear level design and restricted 'exploration' (There are a lot of things to interact with, but they are boring too) is what modern shooters and games have all in common. In my opinion this is just bad.
Maybe the game gets better after some time, but I decided to uninstall and I will not touch it again.
Just my 2c
This is exactly what i felt too. And this was my first bioshock. I guess previous bioshocks had a bit different feel and setting to it, and that is why a lot of people just feel a bit nostalgic.
The story telling through FPS is not my type of thing, because the world and gameplay felt very far apart. I felt disconnected after 2 hours of gameplay. As i said in my earlier post, FPS might be amazingly good with survival or horror cause gameplay and setting go together. Not in this case.
Apart from story and world which are great, gameplay is nothing more than shoot em' up with some powers. And i want some engaging gameplay. After playing for 7 hours i just cant force myself to get back to it.
Ill just say that this was one of the very few games that i gladly paid full price for and I don't regret it. There has never been a game like this before.
I don't think you have a right to talk abotu the difficulty of the game until you play on 1999. Period. You don't get to talk about the difficulty of any other game without playing on the hardest difficulty, why do your experiences on normal and hard matter? 1999 mode is actually difficult enough that the majority of players should die at least 10-12 times. and most players (unless they metagame and horde cash) should come close to having to restart if they aren't careful.
also honestly it only feels like europeans are complaining because they dont "get it". the game is uncanny how well it ties into the american "ideal" talked about by many of conservative politicians. It IS the ideal america that was attempted to be created, except the game shows you the flaws, and not just the rose colored glasses. Read the Iron Heel by jack london, for the inspiration behind + Show Spoiler +
Fink and the Vox who are a combination of the proletariat in that book as well as black panthers
. The game is truly magnificent if you understand the basics of modern american culture as well as the last century of it.
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.
On March 29 2013 03:33 PrinceXizor wrote: I don't think you have a right to talk abotu the difficulty of the game until you play on 1999. Period. You don't get to talk about the difficulty of any other game without playing on the hardest difficulty, why do your experiences on normal and hard matter? 1999 mode is actually difficult enough that the majority of players should die at least 10-12 times. and most players (unless they metagame and horde cash) should come close to having to restart if they aren't careful.
Normally I would say you are correct, except that Bioshock Infinite doesn't even let you play on 1999 until you've beaten the game once already. And for those of us who are taking their time, listening to all the voxaphones, etc. we probably won't replay the game a second time right away. I realize that there are workarounds to 1999 being locked, but I'd say the vast majority of people, including myself, just set it to hard and went on our way.
Granted, I'm not the best FPS player, so hard is just fine for me, but the fact that 1999 is locked from the get-go is a legitimate criticism and not something I really understand. I guess it's to encourage replayability, but you would think the richness of the world and DLC would help with that just fine. They should really allow people to play on whatever difficulty they want, immediately.
But really that's my only gripe so far, I love the game but I'm only a few hours into it.
On March 29 2013 03:33 PrinceXizor wrote: I don't think you have a right to talk abotu the difficulty of the game until you play on 1999. Period. You don't get to talk about the difficulty of any other game without playing on the hardest difficulty, why do your experiences on normal and hard matter? 1999 mode is actually difficult enough that the majority of players should die at least 10-12 times. and most players (unless they metagame and horde cash) should come close to having to restart if they aren't careful.
Normally I would say you are correct, except that Bioshock Infinite doesn't even let you play on 1999 until you've beaten the game once already. And for those of us who are taking their time, listening to all the voxaphones, etc. we probably won't replay the game a second time right away. I realize that there are workarounds to 1999 being locked, but I'd say the vast majority of people, including myself, just set it to hard and went on our way.
Granted, I'm not the best FPS player, so hard is just fine for me, but the fact that 1999 is locked from the get-go is a legitimate criticism and not something I really understand. I guess it's to encourage replayability, but you would think the richness of the world and DLC would help with that just fine. They should really allow people to play on whatever difficulty they want, immediately.
But really that's my only gripe so far, I love the game but I'm only a few hours into it.
If you enter the konami code when you first open the game, it unlocks 1999 mode without you having to play through it first. Look it up on youtube.
Then there is another thing that, so far, no-one seems to have mentioned. What is it about the "trip" to Rapture in the end? Booker seems confused and asks Elizabeth multiple times what that place is IIRC, why does she know it exists? Why does she know where to go? She says it's a door right? But why? Is it really just that they wanted to have some sort of reference to the previous games? I was kinda happy when I got there and that I could see Rapture again, with such a nice look, but doesn't it seem really out of place?
The Implication is that the storyline of bioshock is reverberated through infinitely many worlds, with only a few contants, but many variables.
Rapture is a: free thought, competition driven society built to seclude themselves from the world above, eventually competition and technology leads to its own downfall where only a single interloper who somehow accesses rapture through a lighthouse despite "not" having the "genetic key" (get what i am getting at?) has the ability to change the outcome. Colombia is a Religious, monopoly driven soceity built to seclude themselves from the world below, eventually religion and techology leads to its own downfall where only a single interloper who somehow accesses colombia through a lighthouse (which is as we know always a portal), has the ability to change the outcome.
They are one in the same. Reflections of eachother in the mirror. Elizabeth said, constants and variables, there is always a girl, always a man, and always a city.
Since the scene when DeWitt/Comstock is killed by Anna occurs before Anna's birth, it ultimately is self-defeating.
Anna can only go back in time to help DeWitt kill Comstock because Comstock exists, but if DeWitt/Comstock dies at that age (prior to Comstock), then Anna is never born, thus she never goes back in time to help. Thus the entire thing happens as it's supposed too. It's the grandfather paradox, but really... it's the 'father' paradox.
The entire game becomes an endless, infinite cycle.
Since the scene when DeWitt/Comstock is killed by Anna occurs before Anna's birth, it ultimately is self-defeating.
Anna can only go back in time to help DeWitt kill Comstock because Comstock exists, but if DeWitt/Comstock dies at that age (prior to Comstock), then Anna is never born, thus she never goes back in time to help. Thus the entire thing happens as it's supposed too. It's the grandfather paradox, but really... it's the 'father' paradox.
The entire game becomes an endless, infinite cycle.
Not entirely true. they killed all but 1 Dewitt before conception. the PC is dewitt after conception of Anna. the PC is dewitt murdered POST conception of anna.all the anna's fade except the one anna that was the dead dewitts child.
Then there is another thing that, so far, no-one seems to have mentioned. What is it about the "trip" to Rapture in the end? Booker seems confused and asks Elizabeth multiple times what that place is IIRC, why does she know it exists? Why does she know where to go? She says it's a door right? But why? Is it really just that they wanted to have some sort of reference to the previous games? I was kinda happy when I got there and that I could see Rapture again, with such a nice look, but doesn't it seem really out of place?
The Implication is that the storyline of bioshock is reverberated through infinitely many worlds, with only a few contants, but many variables.
Rapture is a: free thought, competition driven society built to seclude themselves from the world above, eventually competition and technology leads to its own downfall where only a single interloper who somehow accesses rapture through a lighthouse despite "not" having the "genetic key" (get what i am getting at?) has the ability to change the outcome. Colombia is a Religious, monopoly driven soceity built to seclude themselves from the world below, eventually religion and techology leads to its own downfall where only a single interloper who somehow accesses colombia through a lighthouse (which is as we know always a portal), has the ability to change the outcome.
They are one in the same. Reflections of eachother in the mirror. Elizabeth said, constants and variables, there is always a girl, always a man, and always a city.
Unless I am mistaken, Colombia "steals" technology from Rapture by watching through rifts. So Handymen are like BigDaddies because they are basically stolen from rapture, and Vigors are also from Rapture world. Rapture therefore has some impact on the world of Bioshock Infinite and going there was really nice.
I really loved the art style and especially the sounds and music in BioShock Infinite. The way it picks up pace when things are happening is great and little details like single notes when you are headshooting people are outstanding. The animations were also really nice and the game in general was very fluid and stable on my crappy computer.
The gameplay/fighting was probably the game's weakest aspect. Largely uninspired, pointless "super powers" for the most part and boring weapons with boring ways to "customize" aka upgrade them. Not as boring as Call Of Duty style of single player, but also not really great or innovative. It plays mostly like a cover based shooter (despite there not being a cover system). You hide, you pop out and kill people until shield runs out, rinse, repeat. The difficulty is also very bad in my opinion. On Hard normal human people were absolutely no threat, while Handymen have no weakness, apart from a potentially exploitable AI (+ Show Spoiler +
I could only defeat them without dying by doing stupid shit like a) bugging them in a door or b) running circles around a pillar and abusing their long animations; both of which were pretty stupid ways to play
).
But somehow, gameplay doesn't seem as important. Story usually doesn't do very much for me in games, but Bioshock Infinite was an exception. The experience I got was more like having read a pretty good book and less like having played a game. I haven't felt like this in any other game.
So I would say that Bioshock is an exceptional game, with flaws.
the good: - overall story despite me not liking the general concept behind it - the first ~30minutes are a masterpiece of videogame-art - overall production was outstandig, the scenes were magnificant and thoughfully created. Amazing experience
the bad: - overall game lenght (took me around 8 hours on easy) - some fights are unnaturally extended to genrate a lenghier game time (that and because I dont like FPS in general I played on normal) - no real sidequests or anything, I missed that!
the ugly: - the whole FPS part (aka gameplay!) is absolutely stupid and boringly designed. There are so few different kind of enemies and its basically the same all game long (shoot shoot, spam f, shoot shoot, spam f). Its just really boring. I started out on hard to get myself more time till the game is over but I quickly changed to easy just for the sake of a faster story telling. In the end I was kinda pissed by the whole shooting part and I was somehow glad the game was over, this is sad.
Playing through again there's just so much that you don't get not knowing the ending + Show Spoiler +
I was checking my phone for the beginning bit in the boat, and Lutece says "He's not moving" to which her brother replies "He will, he always does" That's a huge bit of foreshadowing right there, but a bit that becomes so much more enjoyable if you know what they're on about. After you get baptized Booker says "He needs to learn the difference between baptizing someone and drowning them" lol
Also realized that the song playing in your rocket chair thing when you first see Columbia is Will the Circle be Unbroken, the song Elizabeth sings in the slums.
the good: - overall story despite me not liking the general concept behind it - the first ~30minutes are a masterpiece of videogame-art - overall production was outstandig, the scenes were magnificant and thoughfully created. Amazing experience
the bad: - overall game lenght (took me around 8 hours on easy) - some fights are unnaturally extended to genrate a lenghier game time (that and because I dont like FPS in general I played on normal) - no real sidequests or anything, I missed that!
the ugly: - the whole FPS part (aka gameplay!) is absolutely stupid and boringly designed. There are so few different kind of enemies and its basically the same all game long (shoot shoot, spam f, shoot shoot, spam f). Its just really boring. I started out on hard to get myself more time till the game is over but I quickly changed to easy just for the sake of a faster story telling. In the end I was kinda pissed by the whole shooting part and I was somehow glad the game was over, this is sad.
7/10
"Just for the sake of a faster story telling". Maybe this is what hurts your experience the most. You shouldn't rush through this game at all. You describe the first 30 minutes as a masterpiece and it continues like this if you take your time and discover all the littler secrets. Taking this into consideration the FPS part will also get better if you adjust the difficulty. I played it on Hard the first time and it took me 14-16 hours to finish the game because I took the time to explore the world as a whole. The details make this game beautiful and complete the circle that completes in the end. You learn so much more about the game if you relax and try to enjoy every minute of the game. The FPS part is rather normal but taking the physics and vigors into consideration it's more than a normal shooter and adds creative elements to the normal modern military shit people like.
So if you would've taken the time for exploration you would've seen the different aspects and also sidequests like the Vox codes. In addition to that the Voxophones also offer A LOT of additional story telling which helps to understand the story and dive into it. I just really really like the feeling of the game from start to finish and I'm excited what Irrational will do with the DLCs.
Anyone who does not explore all the side rooms and listen to all (or as many as you can find) of the audiologs (ESPECIALLY NEAR THE END) is missing out on things. If you are confused by what is happening near the end of the game, you need to explore more and listen to those logs. Some of them give motivations for certain characters' actions and others straight up fill in plot holes that people are complaining about. That said, the fact the story is filled in that way is kinda lame, but I can understand the decision to keep the focus on the Booker/Elizabeth story rather than filling in everything about everyone via cutscenes or w/e.
Overall the story might have been more awesome as a novel, but then again, I think most stories would be.
I'd give the game 9.5/10. Definately better than the previous ones and everyone who likes a decent story will love this. The gameplay has its flaws, you can't really deny it. But the story, art setting, landscape, characters make up for it big way. The story is a mixture between Shutter Island, Butterfly Effect and Fight Club. Love this game. It's a bit like Shutter Island where you really have to play/watch it again to fully understand every hint that is given during the playthrough.
Just got through it and I'm a little bit disappointed. The first couple of hours were great, but after a while everything became too dark. And the whole Ending was freaking weird! And the Gameplay is just a joke on PC. Its too casual, not enough RPG-Elements and most of the Spells are kinda useless or way too weak.
Overall a solid game, but not this 90+ Game everyone hypes it to be. Not even in my Top10 All-Time Games. Bioshock 1 was definitly better.
Without a doubt the best single player fps game I've ever played.
If HL3 will come close to this I will be happy, but I really doubt it.
All the details in the art, characters and music are just insane. I've never seen anything like it. I spent minutes just looking at some of the paintings, posters and statues in the game, incredible details!
If you haven't bought this game yet: Gogogogogogo buy! Developers who put their heart in games should be rewarded!
Just beat the game. It's amazing. Now, I'm gonna sell it bc the replay value isn't there since DLC isn't out yet. If you are holding out and don't need to have it right now, I'd recommend waiting for a DLC pack to come out. I wanna play more but I can't
the good: - overall story despite me not liking the general concept behind it - the first ~30minutes are a masterpiece of videogame-art - overall production was outstandig, the scenes were magnificant and thoughfully created. Amazing experience
the bad: - overall game lenght (took me around 8 hours on easy) - some fights are unnaturally extended to genrate a lenghier game time (that and because I dont like FPS in general I played on normal) - no real sidequests or anything, I missed that!
the ugly: - the whole FPS part (aka gameplay!) is absolutely stupid and boringly designed. There are so few different kind of enemies and its basically the same all game long (shoot shoot, spam f, shoot shoot, spam f). Its just really boring. I started out on hard to get myself more time till the game is over but I quickly changed to easy just for the sake of a faster story telling. In the end I was kinda pissed by the whole shooting part and I was somehow glad the game was over, this is sad.
7/10
"Just for the sake of a faster story telling". Maybe this is what hurts your experience the most. You shouldn't rush through this game at all. You describe the first 30 minutes as a masterpiece and it continues like this if you take your time and discover all the littler secrets. Taking this into consideration the FPS part will also get better if you adjust the difficulty. I played it on Hard the first time and it took me 14-16 hours to finish the game because I took the time to explore the world as a whole. The details make this game beautiful and complete the circle that completes in the end. You learn so much more about the game if you relax and try to enjoy every minute of the game. The FPS part is rather normal but taking the physics and vigors into consideration it's more than a normal shooter and adds creative elements to the normal modern military shit people like.
So if you would've taken the time for exploration you would've seen the different aspects and also sidequests like the Vox codes. In addition to that the Voxophones also offer A LOT of additional story telling which helps to understand the story and dive into it. I just really really like the feeling of the game from start to finish and I'm excited what Irrational will do with the DLCs.
One of the issues I have with this game, and also with the previous two bioshock games, is that the Vigours/plasmids are not in the tiniest bit necessary to do well in this game. I had hoped that they would encourage you to combine gunplay and vigours, but personally, I just prefer to shoot my way through the game because it's a lot more efficient and bullets/weapons are in semi-ridiculous abundancy throughout the game. Especially in Bioshock 1 and 2 they made a huge deal out of Adam and the Plasmids, but I was disappointed once I found out how weak they were compared to a well-placed headshot (or swing from a wrench, for that matter).
Hell, some of the halls in Bioshock Infinite were clearly constructed for epic battles, but I just took down everything that ran at me with the carabine before they got close enough to become a threat.
I know it's all supposed to be about the freedom to tackle every situation as you see fit but it sometimes feels as if I'm breaking the game by just being careful instead of running guns blazing into a pack of enemies. This is something Valve has mastered that others haven't. Valve never really gives you freedom on how to tackle a certain situations, they just make sure that they have sections where you'll be right in the middle of the action and sections where you have to take out enemies from a distance and somehow they manage to make all that feel completely natural.
Don't get me wrong, Bioshock Infinite is a masterpiece of a game. It is not just as perfect as some reviews make it up to be. Personally I found the first Bioshock to be a much more engrossing experience. Infinite just hasn't got these memorable characters like Sander Cohen or Andrew Ryan. Bioshock 1 was one of a kind in the sense that the player wasn't the main character in the game. Andrew Ryan was. You, the player, were just a pawn of bigger powers, something the game reminded you of very harshly near its ending.
So I finished the game over an hour ago and since then I've just been thinking about the ending, how it all ties together, reading others opinions on it etc, and this is just a complete mindfuck. Just wow.
Game was absolutely incredible though, do not regret buying it or playing one single bit.
On March 29 2013 03:33 PrinceXizor wrote: I don't think you have a right to talk abotu the difficulty of the game until you play on 1999. Period. You don't get to talk about the difficulty of any other game without playing on the hardest difficulty, why do your experiences on normal and hard matter? 1999 mode is actually difficult enough that the majority of players should die at least 10-12 times. and most players (unless they metagame and horde cash) should come close to having to restart if they aren't careful.
Normally I would say you are correct, except that Bioshock Infinite doesn't even let you play on 1999 until you've beaten the game once already.
Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right Escape Enter
On March 29 2013 05:39 DystopiaX wrote: Playing through again there's just so much that you don't get not knowing the ending + Show Spoiler +
I was checking my phone for the beginning bit in the boat, and Lutece says "He's not moving" to which her brother replies "He will, he always does" That's a huge bit of foreshadowing right there, but a bit that becomes so much more enjoyable if you know what they're on about. After you get baptized Booker says "He needs to learn the difference between baptizing someone and drowning them" lol
Also realized that the song playing in your rocket chair thing when you first see Columbia is Will the Circle be Unbroken, the song Elizabeth sings in the slums.
That song is like the theme to the game (obviously even the title); they have multiple "versions" of it throughout the game. Like you said, they play it when you first see Columbia, they sing it in the slums, the people of Columbia also sing it prior to your baptism (that was no religious hymn lol it was the song again :O)
I just finished the game and it was well worth the wait. The ending was a complete mind twist and I was not expecting it. Really good game and hope the dlc that will be released in the future adds to an already amazing game.
At the moment where Dewitt says 'Im both' or something similar just before Elizabeth(s) drown him, I have to admit I didnt really immediately get it. After a few minutes of thinking and putting a few facts together that I got from recordings in game+previous events in game I remember having an epiphany type moment and going 'Uhm, yup that totally makes sense, holy shit'. I might have forgot about some things that make it more blatantly clear as you progress through the game, but to me at least the revelation that Booker=Comstock felt like one of those things where you can put all the pieces together after youre told the twist, but before you know the twist the pieces dont really tell you enough to guess the twist accurately. Kinda like a Sixth Sense (the movie) twist where on first viewing finding out hes been dead all along can kinda come as a complete leftfield what the fuck moment, but when you think through the previous events of the movie you can find a hundred different moments that support the idea, you just didnt look at it that way initially.
The only thing I really saw coming from early on was Elizabeth being Bookers daughter in some way - just some general vibe I got that I cant really put my finger on. I also had a feeling that Elizabeth was perhaps going to be a younger version of Lady Comstock taken from another universe etc, some moments just seemed to draw massive parallels between Elizabeth+Lady Comstock that kept bugging me - in the end it didnt happen tho.
I think overall the game delivered its story pretty damn perfectly, I personally loved that feeling of ':O wat' I had after the drowning scene and how hard my brain hurt by the end of the credits as I hurriedly tried to put it all together.
i think i figured it out. After finishing the game i wanted to watch some reviews just to get other opinions on the game and the in one (The Adam Sessler one) he mentions the idea that the game brings up the gaming medium as a whole and i thought about it.
AND i figured it out. When Elizabeth shows us all the lighthouses and the alternate version of herself and Booker she says a line "These are all different oceans but they all end at the same dock" (maybe not exactly how it goes but about that).
These alternate worlds aren't just different universes of the game-world. THEY ARE DIFFERENT GAMES THAT WE AS PLAYERS ARE PLAYING. Every games of Bioshock Infinite that we play is a new world (ocean) and we ultimately all end at the same point when we finish the game (the dock). Our oceans are different because we all have different experiences in our game, different reactions, upgrade choices, skill, etc.
Through that it all makes sense at the end. The universes are simply copies of our game and thus eventually we (the players) will all have Booker die at the focal point where he either becomes Booker or Comstock.
THIS IS GENIUS
OR
IM INSANE....you decide =p
Also, anyone still playing/not finished it yet. find as many audio logs as you can, they have a ton of good info in them.
i think i figured it out. After finishing the game i wanted to watch some reviews just to get other opinions on the game and the in one (The Adam Sessler one) he mentions the idea that the game brings up the gaming medium as a whole and i thought about it.
AND i figured it out. When Elizabeth shows us all the lighthouses and the alternate version of herself and Booker she says a line "These are all different oceans but they all end at the same dock" (maybe not exactly how it goes but about that).
These alternate worlds aren't just different universes of the game-world. THEY ARE DIFFERENT GAMES THAT WE AS PLAYERS ARE PLAYING. Every games of Bioshock Infinite that we play is a new world (ocean) and we ultimately all end at the same point when we finish the game (the dock). Our oceans are different because we all have different experiences in our game, different reactions, upgrade choices, skill, etc.
Through that it all makes sense at the end. The universes are simply copies of our game and thus eventually we (the players) will all have Booker die at the focal point where he either becomes Booker or Comstock.
THIS IS GENIUS
OR
IM INSANE....you decide =p
Also, anyone still playing/not finished it yet. find as many audio logs as you can, they have a ton of good info in them.
Dude...you just kind of blew my mind. That's totally meta. This game is fucking genius! I just finished it tonight, and it definitely is a game that has impacted and affected me as much as the original Half-Life...and moreso.
What I appreciate about B:I is that it's really going for the Literary. Capital L. And Levine succeeds at telling a story that's thought-provoking and soul-stirring and manages to not be pretentious. The story is pretty deep and intricate. I have to admit, I was moved, both emotionally and intellectually, nearly on the same level as some classic books, movies, whatever.
For those of you who haven't played it yet, go. slow. There are a lot of people complaining about the game's length, but this is one of those games that really is an example of quality NOT quantity. Every moment is packed with character, set pieces, sound. Every scene is so lush. Really sit in the world. This isn't a straight up shooter. It has a lot of adventure like qualities to it. So just really explore. Fantastic game. Just fantastic.
On March 29 2013 10:24 Dracolich70 wrote: A masterpiece seems like a term of perfection, maartendq.
Not necessarily. I find Beethoven's 9th symphony a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean that there aren't moments I find a bit boring. You can be a master of your craft yet still realize that there are areas you can improve upon. If Bioshock: Infinite was a perfect game, the other developers may as well close their books because nothing will ever be able to top it.
i think i figured it out. After finishing the game i wanted to watch some reviews just to get other opinions on the game and the in one (The Adam Sessler one) he mentions the idea that the game brings up the gaming medium as a whole and i thought about it.
AND i figured it out. When Elizabeth shows us all the lighthouses and the alternate version of herself and Booker she says a line "These are all different oceans but they all end at the same dock" (maybe not exactly how it goes but about that).
These alternate worlds aren't just different universes of the game-world. THEY ARE DIFFERENT GAMES THAT WE AS PLAYERS ARE PLAYING. Every games of Bioshock Infinite that we play is a new world (ocean) and we ultimately all end at the same point when we finish the game (the dock). Our oceans are different because we all have different experiences in our game, different reactions, upgrade choices, skill, etc.
Through that it all makes sense at the end. The universes are simply copies of our game and thus eventually we (the players) will all have Booker die at the focal point where he either becomes Booker or Comstock.
THIS IS GENIUS
OR
IM INSANE....you decide =p
Also, anyone still playing/not finished it yet. find as many audio logs as you can, they have a ton of good info in them.
I don't think I agree with this theory. That theory should only be applied to a game with branching paths that are derivative of the players' choices (with the same end and obviously same beginning). It seems that this game has a story that it wants to tell in a pretty precise order and it does so. All players at all times will experience almost identical main events, as you mention the minor details are different. But, I don't find that a deep sentiment in a game where the path is always the same no matter what. Especially, because from what I have gathered the game-play is typical FPS waves of enemies with trite mechanics. So in this case every ocean (story path) is always going to be the same, except for minor details and maybe that's what you might argue is different.
Perhaps, rather than disagreeing with the theory I just find this to be a rather weak attempt (on the writer's part not the poster's) to draw parallels between the story and the medium. Similar to Spec Ops (these games seem to have A TON of similarities) where the story being linear detracts from the message, IMHO.
i think i figured it out. After finishing the game i wanted to watch some reviews just to get other opinions on the game and the in one (The Adam Sessler one) he mentions the idea that the game brings up the gaming medium as a whole and i thought about it.
AND i figured it out. When Elizabeth shows us all the lighthouses and the alternate version of herself and Booker she says a line "These are all different oceans but they all end at the same dock" (maybe not exactly how it goes but about that).
These alternate worlds aren't just different universes of the game-world. THEY ARE DIFFERENT GAMES THAT WE AS PLAYERS ARE PLAYING. Every games of Bioshock Infinite that we play is a new world (ocean) and we ultimately all end at the same point when we finish the game (the dock). Our oceans are different because we all have different experiences in our game, different reactions, upgrade choices, skill, etc.
Through that it all makes sense at the end. The universes are simply copies of our game and thus eventually we (the players) will all have Booker die at the focal point where he either becomes Booker or Comstock.
THIS IS GENIUS
OR
IM INSANE....you decide =p
Also, anyone still playing/not finished it yet. find as many audio logs as you can, they have a ton of good info in them.
I don't think I agree with this theory. That theory should only be applied to a game with branching paths that are derivative of the players' choices (with the same end and obviously same beginning). It seems that this game has a story that it wants to tell in a pretty precise order and it does so. All players at all times will experience almost identical main events, as you mention the minor details are different. But, I don't find that a deep sentiment in a game where the path is always the same no matter what. Especially, because from what I have gathered the game-play is typical FPS waves of enemies with trite mechanics. So in this case every ocean (story path) is always going to be the same, except for minor details and maybe that's what you might argue is different.
Perhaps, rather than disagreeing with the theory I just find this to be a rather weak attempt (on the writer's part not the poster's) to draw parallels between the story and the medium. Similar to Spec Ops (these games seem to have A TON of similarities) where the story being linear detracts from the message, IMHO.
your not "wrong" about that but my theory was based on PLAYER's experience not Booker's (although i would think not finding some/all the audio logs does change some of the context and knowing how X works a lot and there ARE really minor choices you can make but they don't impact much of anything).
And the 2nd part was "landing on the same dock" so really the events can't really diverge THAT much and still end the same way. I suppose a river is the better metaphor here than an ocean.
Its things like; did you blaze through the areas or did you take your time? Did you only kill enemies or did you kill EVERYONE?, did you explore area X or Y? Did you use X and Y weapons and vigers? Did you 'die' a lot?
While these things do little to nothing for the actual game's plot they would be pretty significant to the individual's experience/enjoyment of the game itself, hence my theory.
I think myself and many other people have been tripping up on the idea that the versions of Booker Dewitt+Elizabeth we play as/with during the course of the game are far more important/special than they actually are.
The game basically shows you point blank to your face in the last five minutes that we're really, really not all that unique - outside the lighthouses we see an implied infinite number of Bookers+Elizabeths wandering along infinite number of piers doing the exact same thing we're doing. This calls into question slash outright destroys any idea that we (the Booker controlled by the player) are somehow denying any Comstock EVER from EVER existing. If we alone are doing something so grand, wtf is the point in all these other Bookers wandering along the piers?
I think the answer is quite simply that there are basically an infinite number of pairs of universes:
Say we have a version of Dewitt who goes to the baptism after Wounded Knee. Now this version of Dewitt is an exactly precise version of Dewitt who has lived a very specific life up to this point at the baptism. A tangent is formed at the point of the baptism however, as this specific Dewitt will sometimes decide to get baptised and sometimes not (although in reality this can be debated for days, but we'll assume this is the case).
So we had Dewitt X (pre-baptism), who then could turn into Comstock X or Booker X depending on his baptism choice.
Booker X's wife dies in childbirth and has Anna X. Comstock X makes Columbia, gets infertile etc.
Comstock X buys Booker X's Anna X and that story proceeds. Booker X later goes over to Comstock X's universe to get Anna X back (although obviously he doesnt really know it).
You go through the events of the game and in the end you, the player, Booker X, die in the Universe of Comstock X's baptism and thus (through time travel magic) end all tangents that follow on from Comstock X being baptised. This means that Comstock X never built Columbia and never came through to purchase Booker X's Anna. It means Booker X never sold Anna, never went to Columbia, never went through the entire series of events that led to his death via drowning. Booker X gets moved back to presumably just pre-contact with anything inspired by Comstock X's universe. Story ends.
Your Booker, Booker X, does nothing more. He doesn't save or change the history of Booker/Anna Y, Z, XYZYJYZ or whoever else, thats for the other Bookers wandering along the piers to do. Theyre doing their own version of what you're doing. Your Booker is not particularly special - the entire sequence has happened, is happening and will happen forever - you just watched your specific version of it.
The other Elizabeths that appear then disapear in the final drowning scene are other Elizabeths that tangent off from Booker/Comstock X's baptism/lack of. Random events/decisions could occur post-baptism that make Comstock X build Columbia earlier or later, treat Elizabeth X better or worse or any other number of things. The same variations could happen in the Booker X futures leading to different Elizabeths, different Bookers (like Booker X-2, a Booker originating from Booker X's non-baptism, but with a different future). These things could all pair up and would all be ended by Comstock X being killed at his baptism. Perhaps we could make ourselves feel more special if we said that only one version of Booker X makes it to the end to save the futures of all the Booker X/Elizabeth Xs - that only one Booker X/Anna X/Comstock X takes the exact path they need to post-baptism to end all of the other X-versions horrible futures. Only one Booker Y/Anna Y/Comstock Y take the exact path needed to end all of the Y-versions horrible futures, etc.
One thing that kind of makes the ending bittersweet when you look at it this way is that the Elizabeth we spend the entire game with actually ceases to be. Although we 'die' through drowning, we (in my interpretation) do wake up again in our apartment once time has been erased - Elizabeth sadly/happily reverts back to ~1 year old Anna. Everything that made her who she was through being brought up in that tower - her interests, mannerisms and personality etc are essentially erased and shes given a new chance to be brought up with her father, which is lovely, but sad at the same time.
Maybe it's a bit pedantic but 5/5 or 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean people think it's a perfect game, it more shows the fault of rating systems. If I rate something 96/100, that would round up to 5/5 or 10/10 if you downscale it. I find it hard to believe that people playing the game can't find any faults with it or they must be blinded by the aesthetic of the game. There's several elements of the game that's far from perfect, even if it doesn't effect the overall experience that much.
Was a bit high when i started this game yesterday. I think i spent 30 minutes walking around and just looking at the floating houses when I first entered the city... amazing. And mindfuck T_T
Just finished the game. Honestly, games like this are the reason why I think video games as a medium are more fascinating and allow for more creativity than movies or books, or any other type of media. The sound, the environment, the openness, the story and feeling like you're truly a part of a world...just something you can't really get in any other type of media.
Definitely a great game. Probably not the best game I've ever played, but it definitely is better than most of the other games I've played in the last 2 years or so.
it might be possible that one decision in your life might have a great effect on what you become
Otherwise, the execution of the story isn't that good imo (it's a bit convoluted). + Show Spoiler +
For example when they jumped twice between the two parallel universes at different points in the game (e.g. where they switch to the universe where the Vox revolution has basically destroyed Columbia), I found that to be a completely pointless addition to the game because it's a complete deus ex machina. "Oh, we can't solve this problem, so lets switch to a parallel universe where our problems are solved". Even more so since it's not just a small temporary switch but you eventually stay in that universe until the end of the game. WTF? Did I misunderstand something here? What happened to that other universe?
That's just an example. I think I have a lot of stuff to digest with this game, I'll probably finish it a second time pretty soon.
Although I got no clue how I missed 12 of those Kinetoscopes and about 20 of the voice recordings in the game. I literally spent 15+ minutes in every area just looking for doors and stuff.
Wow. Outstanding reviews from people here. If its anything like the engrossing story of the first Bioshock, then I'll love it. There are still some great games being made!
Elizabeth is the predecessor to the little sisters. How do I know? I don't, but her clothes are similar, she had the same needle (if you died you'd know that), and it kind of makes sense.
To take this one step further, a Forbes article actually said that Rapture IS Columbia, but sunk under the ground (really paraphrasing here, the article itself is here.
Obviously purely speculation, but what can't really think of how else the game ties in with the previous ones.
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Edit: To be clear, I know almost nothing about the game apart from that spoiler I accidentally read
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Might as well just not play it. The game isn't fun at all if you know...pffff. Its still epic! You'd still watch fightclub even if you knew the ending, right?
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Ahahahaha oh man, why would you ever do such a thing to yourself?
If I'm to be honest, it's a pretty fucking big spoiler, but you can at least still enjoy the question of 'how is that possible?!?!!' while playing through the game.
Might as well just not play it. The game isn't fun at all if you know...pffff. Its still epic! You'd still watch fightclub even if you knew the ending, right?
Well... I DID watch fight club, but I didn't know the ending prior. So... I'm not really sure if I would lol. But you make a good point.
On March 29 2013 23:56 Firebolt145 wrote:
Ahahahaha oh man, why would you ever do such a thing to yourself?
If I'm to be honest, it's a pretty fucking big spoiler, but you can at least still enjoy the question of 'how is that possible?!?!!' while playing through the game.
I dunno, I was bored at work and ended up randomly browsing TL. I was half reading posts, half just scrolling, and before I knew it, I ended up in this thread and dun goof'd.
But yeah... I guess that's what's keeping me going right now. It's been a long time since I've managed to immerse myself into a single player experience enough to bother finishing it, and I was pretty sure that this game would be the one that would be able to grab and hold my attention at long last! ...But i had to fuck it up LOL.
Ah well, I'm still very interested to know how it happened, so hopefully I can stop hitting myself in the head and just enjoy the journey despite knowing what awaits me in the destination. We'll see!
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Edit: To be clear, I know almost nothing about the game apart from that spoiler I accidentally read
Maybe this read will put your mind at ease. I'm sorry that happened, though. I know it definitely would've ruined it a bit for me. With that said, the journey is still amazing.
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Edit: To be clear, I know almost nothing about the game apart from that spoiler I accidentally read
Maybe this read will put your mind at ease. I'm sorry that happened, though. I know it definitely would've ruined it a bit for me. With that said, the journey is still amazing.
I think its to do with knowing how the situation ends up just makes you more curious as to how it gets there, to be a bit cliche, its not the destination but the journey that counts.
Obviously that doesn't mean go out and spoil things for people, just don't start thinking you've ruined it if you accidentally come across one. I know I've done it before with films etc and I really enjoyed reading the first GoT book after watching the series, probably more than if I hadn't watched it tbh, you pick up on things a bit more if you have a an idea of where things are heading, if its a well written story with depth anyway.
On March 29 2013 14:43 boon2537 wrote: Am I the only one who don't really understand+ Show Spoiler +
why DeWitt is Comstock until I read this thread >.<
Fuck I accidentally read your spoiler at work before starting the game! I just started playing but can't keep thinking of the spoiler... How spoiled is the game for me?
Edit: To be clear, I know almost nothing about the game apart from that spoiler I accidentally read
Come on man; that's like a moving marines/tank into banelings on creep. I'm sorry that I indirectly change your game experience But, look at the bright side; the spoiler will force you to give more attention to the story when you are playing the game :D
How the first loop begin? (If Comstock doesn't come back to steal Booker's daughter, He(Booker) would not sad and go do baptism and become Comstock at the first place. Or the real reason that he go to baptism is to remove his sin from the Wounded knee?)'
How the first loop begin? (If Comstock doesn't come back to steal Booker's daughter, He(Booker) would not sad and go do baptism and become Comstock at the first place. Or the real reason that he go to baptism is to remove his sin from the Wounded knee?'
Baptism scene was directly after Wounded Knee, long before Anna is born. Comstock became infertile due to his exposure to the machinery created by Lutece.
How the first loop begin? (If Comstock doesn't come back to steal Booker's daughter, He(Booker) would not sad and go do baptism and become Comstock at the first place. Or the real reason that he go to baptism is to remove his sin from the Wounded knee?'
Baptism scene was directly after Wounded Knee, long before Anna is born. Comstock became infertile due to his exposure to the machinery created by Lutece.
Thanks, Now understand this game story (finally) It's funny that i finished this game just around 10 hours ,but need another 20 hours to understand the ending lol
On March 30 2013 03:26 PrinceXizor wrote: Btw if you guys play through another time, the game gets better. which is probably why 1999 mode was unlockable.
On March 30 2013 03:26 PrinceXizor wrote: Btw if you guys play through another time, the game gets better. which is probably why 1999 mode was unlockable.
What do yoou mean by, it gets better?
Were you disappointed by your first play through?
not at all. but the plot and characters are sooo much more rewarding the second time through. the game was best game i've played this century first time though. second is even better.
On the link between Rapture and Columbia.. In rapture we've got Jack, Ryan and the little sisters protected by a big daddy. Opposing faction is Atlas/Fontaine's movement. In columbia we've got DeWitt, Comstock, Elizabeth and the songbird. Opposing faction is the Vox Populi with Fitzroy at the helm.
To me they seem to be the constants, whereas the locations and motivations are the variables.
Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
Looks like I'll just have to power through it then.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
How can I turn off auto-aim for the PC version? I have tried turning off SoftLockOn and AimAssistOn in XInput.ini and DefaultbAimAssist and bAimAssist in XUserOptions.ini but it still has the insane auto-aim on?
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
Why is it always Heads?
[spoiler]I suspect it's because there are multiple worlds where this is happening and he is presenting this coin flip to every single Booker out there.
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
Variables and constants. Certain things will vary from time to time, certain things will be constant. Apparently, flipping the coin and getting heads is one of them. Also another thing very few people notice - whenever Elizabeth flips a coin at you, it always comes up tails.
the game is really amazing, I love the environment and world setting. I still prefer bioshock 1 however, the low growling sound of big daddy is just unrivaled by anything in this game. I also often have trouble finding elizabeth, she kept running off when I am exploring (Or is it because I am the one running and she can't catchup?)
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
When Booker almost drowns the first time and is safed by elizabeth, she asks who anna is. Iirc Booker says he doesnt want to talk about it, which means he must know and remember that he had a daugher named anna and that he gave her away originally and also how she lost her finger. Unless he suppressed those memories, but then he would say he doesnt know who anna is?
On March 30 2013 11:36 Warri wrote: One more thing that bugs me: + Show Spoiler +
When Booker almost drowns the first time and is safed by elizabeth, she asks who anna is. Iirc Booker says he doesnt want to talk about it, which means he must know and remember that he had a daugher named anna and that he gave her away originally and also how she lost her finger. Unless he suppressed those memories, but then he would say he doesnt know who anna is?
Someone said earlier in the thread that the combat system was shallow, and I don't understand that perspective. I got through the entire game not really using vigors at all, but instead feeling out the benefits and drawbacks of each weapon. Spamming Possession after getting the upgrade seems like it would be a simple way to brute force 1999 mode, but I dunno. I don't have any desire to find out; the next time I'm gonna play the game is in five years when my computer is powerful enough to run everything on high at 60 fps.
I have such huge respect for the way the story was constructed. One bit that stuck out to me was the middle of the game, where tears start being used more often and once you're done messing with them, the whole city has gone to shit. The writers had to find a way to realistically bring the city from one state to another in a rapid but believable way. It used existing story elements to achieve that goal. It didn't really have to pull anything out of its ass, the way HL2 did in solving the same problem in a similar fashion.
The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
Everything matters in this game, story-wise. I could go scene by scene. The Hall of Heroes stage is critical for establishing Booker's past mistakes, which is a big part of what makes the ending work. Yet, the level does so much more than fill that purpose. We get plenty of world-building, the most awe-inspiring areas of the game (IMO, anyway, especially the final Boxer room), and that wonderful choice at the end, a truly moral choice, so rare in video games.
Over the first few hours, I was annoyed at a lot of little things in the game. I couldn't interact with this or that item; there was an invisible wall where there really didn't need to be one; the lettering used in the little movie boxes looked like a computer font and not something that would be used in 1912. But after a few hours, all my complaints melted away. I can stop playing single player games now. I've played the best there ever could be.
After replaying this game, I can safely say this beats out everything else as my favorite game of all time. Thanks Irrational Games, now I can't play any games for a large amount of time.
On March 30 2013 15:41 motbob wrote: Someone said earlier in the thread that the combat system was shallow, and I don't understand that perspective. I got through the entire game not really using vigors at all, but instead feeling out the benefits and drawbacks of each weapon. Spamming Possession after getting the upgrade seems like it would be a simple way to brute force 1999 mode, but I dunno. I don't have any desire to find out; the next time I'm gonna play the game is in five years when my computer is powerful enough to run everything on high at 60 fps.
I have such huge respect for the way the story was constructed. One bit that stuck out to me was the middle of the game, where tears start being used more often and once you're done messing with them, the whole city has gone to shit. The writers had to find a way to realistically bring the city from one state to another in a rapid but believable way. It used existing story elements to achieve that goal. It didn't really have to pull anything out of its ass, the way HL2 did in solving the same problem in a similar fashion.
The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
Everything matters in this game, story-wise. I could go scene by scene. The Hall of Heroes stage is critical for establishing Booker's past mistakes, which is a big part of what makes the ending work. Yet, the level does so much more than fill that purpose. We get plenty of world-building, the most awe-inspiring areas of the game (IMO, anyway, especially the final Boxer room), and that wonderful choice at the end, a truly moral choice, so rare in video games.
Over the first few hours, I was annoyed at a lot of little things in the game. I couldn't interact with this or that item; there was an invisible wall where there really didn't need to be one; the lettering used in the little movie boxes looked like a computer font and not something that would be used in 1912. But after a few hours, all my complaints melted away. I can stop playing single player games now. I've played the best there ever could be.
10/10
I'll explain what he meant. The game makes an attempt to allow many choices: Health/Shields/Salts, wide variety of weapons, wide variety of vigors, and upgrades for weapons and vigors. While variety is great and all, the actual meaningful usage for weapons and vigors are trivial. Lets talk details.
Health Shield & Salts
In any game difficulty, the choice is clear that you would always maximize Salts first. But wait, since I am given a choice, wouldn't that mean there is some meaning in choosing to invest in some salts, then some health and shields? Nope. Even on 1999 mode (which is practically the same as Hard except with more currency lost per death), you always max salts first. Why? Health consumables and kits are everywhere. Shields regenerate. But salts consumables scale to your total amount, and therefore both mathematically and in usage, you always want to max salts first. This leads to Salts maxed over HP and Shields. Then you max Shields over HP because they recharge. Then you max HP last because its the least effective coefficient. There are no incentives to do it any other way OTHER than the "thinking" that you are making your own custom flavored design to the same problem everyone faces: Killing or be killed.
Weapons and Weapon Upgrades
The fact that you can only carry two weapons is a good thing. This represents choice on how to approach combat. The problem is that when considering the weapon design, you get two styles: Columbia Weapons (Mg, Volley Gun, Shotgun, etc) and Vox Weapons (Repeater, Hail Fire, Fire Shotgun, etc). I don't need to explain that half the weapons are practically duplicates of the other. Its the illusion of choice there. Then we go deeper into exploring Weapon effectiveness and role. Let's face it, ranged combat is superior in this game. The sniper rifle is by far the best weapon to deal with human enemies. The RPG/Volleygun/Explosives is the best to deal with Robot (unless shooting them in the gears). This essentially boils down weapon choice to Sniper Rifle/Handcannon/Pistol (Ranged Headshotting Gun), and Explosive Weapon (AT Weapon). You could choose a number of other weapons too but only when you don't have ammo. And let's be honest, ammo is everywhere. You don't need to spend a single dollar on ammo, health or salts.
Weapon upgrades. Ok so we've already covered that half the weapons are similar because of the time rip Vox plot. You simply don't have enough money to upgrade more than 4-5 guns fully. This is a critical limiting factor already which further limits your combat choices. You know that gun sitting there has few upgrades. You choose of course the best gun available or for the job. So again, due to scarcity, you proritize upgrading what works best: Sniper rifle for example, or RPG for example. You stick to those guns. Thankfully combat is pretty much straight forward...headshots or blow shit up (I'm eluding to it being shallow here).
Vigors
This probably nails it in the coffin for it being shallow. There are three vigors used over everything else. Bucking Bronco, Electric Shock, and Possession. Possession is used mainly to disrupt hard targets but more often for getting extra cash from vendors. Bronco stuns targets that are humanoid. Shock stuns targets that are robotic. Both can be upgraded to stun longer, affect more area, and basically tear shit up. These two vigors (which you basically use say on 1999 mode or Hard often) makes combat shallow. You don't need more than two vigors generally. And how many choices do they offer? Eight? Nine?
The upgrades too are expensive. Currency limits what you can do and what you choose. Unless you plan on playing it multiple times (I am sure people have), you are limited to improving what is the best unless you like a greater challenge. But some vigors designed for say "melee only" play styles come way too late to truely give you a melee only experience. Difficulty levels will also make play styles such as melee only impossible because of the way the combat system is designed. Again, this adds to the "shallowness" argument which as you can see isn't just made up.
Enemy Behavior
The enemy behavior is simple and straight forward as you expect. The enemy either rushes you from whatever path they can reach you or hangs back and pops up to snipe (like every other fps game). Only specific enemies such as the Fireman, Handyman do slightly more things than stand there and shoot at you (RPG, Sniper guy). This stuff is hard to code so I don't really see it as making the combat shallow. It is more along the lines that you literally know when enemies will fight and from what areas they will come from just based on level design and pacing. Its the fact that you move from room to room and clear it knowing that enemies are always coming from one direction that really makes it shallow.
I could go on too, about other aspects that are lacking. But you seem to really like the story (since you talk about it a lot) so I'll just leave it at that. Is Bioshock Infinite a good game? Yes. Does it bring a lot of new things into shooters and FPS? No, but the Skyrail system was cool for the tiny amount that was used in the game. And this is what I think he meant as shallow.
On March 30 2013 16:31 Exoteric wrote: This was a joy to play through, but from watching early demos of the game again, it had the potential to be even better if they kept more stuff in.
I rewatched it again recently as well and must agree. There is a lot of really cool stuff that had to have been cut to get to where we ended up. That's not to say the end product isn't amazing, it's still as good or better than I've ever seen in a lot of ways. That 2011 demo though just sings out about what we have to look forward to when improved technology and development techniques open up the freedom for them to work in some of those elements on the larger scale outside of a scripted demo (the main ones I'm thinking of are larger scale combat/environmental sets and more on-the-fly friendly and hostile interaction and advanced combat AI). Much of it should already be doable, it's just a matter of limited resources I imagine, as well as having to deal with console requirements.
That said, there were a number of aspects of that demo that I just think we probably won't ever see, or at least won't with any consistency and depth throughout a game. That demo worked as well as it did because it was largely scripted to do so, but with so many variables of player action, there also comes a million and a half ways to break it or at least disrupt the narrative flow.
Also for those who missed it somehow, motbob's links (particularly the first one) helps the ending make more sense and also makes it a 'happy' ending. Definitely worth reading ^_^
On March 30 2013 14:37 motbob wrote: If you finished the game, read this and this.
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.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
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.
For shotgun and melee "builds" I think shield and salt is the best and health the worst, because charge + shotgun + lots of shield is a great combination later in the game. Charge allows you to regenerate shields and be invincible for a short duration, while you get close and destroy everything with a shotgun.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
Nosebleeds. When one booker gets killed they all remember his life and experiences. by killing Dewitt at the root of all the universes all dewitts will feel the way Booker does.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
Then what of the Booker that wakes up after the credits. My understanding was that only "Comstock versions of Booker" died at that point. Otherwise Anna wouldn't even be born, every single Booker dies after the Wounded Knee, and the last scene seems impossible.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
Nosebleeds. When one booker gets killed they all remember his life and experiences. by killing Dewitt at the root of all the universes all dewitts will feel the way Booker does.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
Then what of the Booker that wakes up after the credits. My understanding was that only "Comstock versions of Booker" died at that point. Otherwise Anna wouldn't even be born, every single Booker dies after the Wounded Knee, and the last scene seems impossible.
That's quite simple actually, your assuming every Booker went to be baptized. Some never even went there or made the choice. The guy in the credits could have easily been from such a timeline. Hell his wife might even have been alive in that reality. Infinite possibility's remember.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
Then what of the Booker that wakes up after the credits. My understanding was that only "Comstock versions of Booker" died at that point. Otherwise Anna wouldn't even be born, every single Booker dies after the Wounded Knee, and the last scene seems impossible.
That's quite simple actually, your assuming every Booker went to be baptized. Some never even went there or made the choice. The guy in the credits could have easily been from such a timeline. Hell his wife might even have been alive in that reality. Infinite possibility's remember.
The point is that they isolated the root of the split to the moment where Booker accepts or declines the baptism. Elizabeth shows you the baptism scene twice, allowing you to 'relive' it; the first time, you reject the baptism - this is Booker's timeline, so it proceeds as normal. The second time, you are 'merged' into Comstock's Booker, and at the moment just before you accept the baptism, Elizabeth smothers you. This prevents the continuation of Comstock's timeline, thus allowing the Booker timeline to proceed normally (the post-credits scene). The reason you are so surprised to hear Emma's cry is because you always keep your memories from other world lives (nosebleeds, etc).
This is literally all speculation though right, at this point I don't think there's any true cannon explanation? I'm not saying I'm right I'm just not entirely convinced anyone else is either.
Any clues about what happened when you first entered Columbia, when you were baptized / almost drowned and suddenly woke up in a fountain without any door behind you?
On March 30 2013 20:12 Chillax wrote: This is literally all speculation though right, at this point I don't think there's any true cannon explanation? I'm not saying I'm right I'm just not entirely convinced anyone else is either.
I like the explanation that I gave you because it ties up all loose ends, makes sense, and results in a happy ending. ^_^
Any clues about what happened when you first entered Columbia, when you were baptized / almost drowned and suddenly woke up in a fountain without any door behind you?
Any clues about what happened when you first entered Columbia, when you were baptized / almost drowned and suddenly woke up in a fountain without any door behind you?
For me it really felt like the game is a better version of the movie The Butterfly Effect
When you think of it, there is so much in common bewteen those two. The bleeding, the outcome of changing a decision or an act on different universe. And yet Bioshock manage to get a happy ending with the cutscene after the credits.
I really like the game and the feeling that the Elizabeth we've play with is dead make me kinda sad (cause yeah if you erase Comstock you also erase the Elizabeth from Colombia). And now we've got all the clues to udnerstand the franchise, i guess we won't have any other game which take place in a "Bioshock universe". That makes me sad too :/
On March 30 2013 06:16 Mondeezy wrote: Hey guys, I'm on Bioshock 1 currently looking to start Infinite right after.
I have a quick question for those who have finished the first one - does the game get any less 'dark' as I move on, or am I going to be stuck in this underwater hellhole for the rest of the game? If you could PM me the answer so that I can avoid spoilers, I'd really appreciate it
Also, is Infinite less jumpy? I hate being freaked the fuck out at 1AM and jumping out of my chair when someone pops around the corner, lmao.
First two games stay in that environment for the whole game. Infinite is based in a completely different setting which is much brighter and last darker and ominous. There are still a few 'jump' moments in Infinite but they are few and far in between.
But one of them nearly gave me a heart attack. At 5am in the morning.
When that weird watcher thing suddenly stands right behind you in that asylum near the end of the game. Holy crap that thing scared the fuck out of me
Hey that totally happened to me too. Same time and everything. I went to sleep after that t_t
That also made me jump up and start shouting curse words lol, must've woken up my flatmate.
Ditto. Nearly made me crap my pants. I sucked at the sneaking part earlier, so I barely had any ammo at that point. When he showed up I immediately unloaded the remaining ammo of my rifle before I realized "oh..he's gone..".
Haha same. I didnt realize that you could not trigger them and ran out of ammo and salt and had to melee/run/melee the first wave of them. + Show Spoiler +
Why is it always Heads?
are you fucking kidding me? i played on hard and the whole thing without any ammo. i went full melee mode and barely made it. i triggered every one of them. holy shit i'm bad. :D
On March 30 2013 23:10 deth2munkies wrote: Power gamed it in 8 hours on hard.
Fuck the ghost lady.
Everything else was pretty good.
Yep, if you died more than 2-3 times it was already over because she rezzed like 20 Corpses. First time I was like "How is this supposed to work?!"
The first time, I found an area where the corpse AI glitched and didn't attack me, the ghost would always come 1 foot away from a corner to LoS her attack, but I had already exhausted all of the ammo in the area, so I just beat her down with the skyhook. It took like 10 minutes.
The last time it took 15 minutes of taking like 1-2 shots then hiding and killing the corpses that actually walked far enough to get past the cover of the giant statue.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
Then what of the Booker that wakes up after the credits. My understanding was that only "Comstock versions of Booker" died at that point. Otherwise Anna wouldn't even be born, every single Booker dies after the Wounded Knee, and the last scene seems impossible.
That's quite simple actually, your assuming every Booker went to be baptized. Some never even went there or made the choice. The guy in the credits could have easily been from such a timeline. Hell his wife might even have been alive in that reality. Infinite possibility's remember.
The point is that they isolated the root of the split to the moment where Booker accepts or declines the baptism. Elizabeth shows you the baptism scene twice, allowing you to 'relive' it; the first time, you reject the baptism - this is Booker's timeline, so it proceeds as normal. The second time, you are 'merged' into Comstock's Booker, and at the moment just before you accept the baptism, Elizabeth smothers you. This prevents the continuation of Comstock's timeline, thus allowing the Booker timeline to proceed normally (the post-credits scene). The reason you are so surprised to hear Emma's cry is because you always keep your memories from other world lives (nosebleeds, etc).
I just re-watched the after-credits scene on youtube again and I can't hear Anna crying at all. There's just a lullaby/music box playing and Booker says "Anna, is that you" but the screen fades away before we see if there is actually anything in the cradle. So for all we know, this could be some sort of hallucination and the Black/White world is actually the only REAL timeline -- therefore implying that Booker is in some sort of insane/ traumatic state and locked up in his room/dreaming for the whole game.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
Nosebleeds. When one booker gets killed they all remember his life and experiences. by killing Dewitt at the root of all the universes all dewitts will feel the way Booker does.
The thing I still don't understand is how you get to actually experience Booker getting killed by the Elizabeths. Your Booker is not part of this reality, he refused the baptism and didn't get to that point in time. In my understanding the Booker that gets killed at the end should be seen at the 3rd person, like the ones you see in the "infinite lightouses" scene.
The more I think about the ending, the less it makes sense actually... Are you actually the Booker that refused the baptism? If not, why would it even matter if you died? If yes, why would you get to experience Comstock's baptism?
The Booker that gets drown hasn't made the Comstock choice yet, by killing him there before the choice is made you erase the Comstock timeline's but also the timelines where he gives his daughter away. That's why all the Elizabeth's disappear at the end, they never existed.
Then what of the Booker that wakes up after the credits. My understanding was that only "Comstock versions of Booker" died at that point. Otherwise Anna wouldn't even be born, every single Booker dies after the Wounded Knee, and the last scene seems impossible.
That's quite simple actually, your assuming every Booker went to be baptized. Some never even went there or made the choice. The guy in the credits could have easily been from such a timeline. Hell his wife might even have been alive in that reality. Infinite possibility's remember.
The point is that they isolated the root of the split to the moment where Booker accepts or declines the baptism. Elizabeth shows you the baptism scene twice, allowing you to 'relive' it; the first time, you reject the baptism - this is Booker's timeline, so it proceeds as normal. The second time, you are 'merged' into Comstock's Booker, and at the moment just before you accept the baptism, Elizabeth smothers you. This prevents the continuation of Comstock's timeline, thus allowing the Booker timeline to proceed normally (the post-credits scene). The reason you are so surprised to hear Emma's cry is because you always keep your memories from other world lives (nosebleeds, etc).
I just re-watched the after-credits scene on youtube again and I can't hear Emma crying at all. There's just a lullaby/music box playing and Booker says "Anna, is that you" but the screen fades away before we see if there is actually anything in the cradle. So for all we know, this could be some sort of hallucination and the Black/White world is actually the only REAL timeline -- therefore implying that Booker is in some sort of insane/ traumatic state and locked up in his room/dreaming for the whole game.
I believe we are meant to assume that it is Anna playing with the music box. While strictly speaking it is possible that it was all a dream, it would be really boring to assume the whole was just one helluva nightmare.
Well, even after all the stuff resolved, there's still a paradox inbound. It's completely obvious that the Letuces aren't actual twins, but different universe versions of one person (and they are fascinated by their tiny differences). As long as they stay together, the paradox isn't completely resolved, and there's still room for more story to be told.
Well, even after all the stuff resolved, there's still a paradox inbound. It's completely obvious that the Letuces aren't actual twins, but different universe versions of one person (and they are fascinated by their tiny differences). As long as they stay together, the paradox isn't completely resolved, and there's still room for more story to be told.
Not sure I understand. There's no mention of them staying together after the credits, so while it's entirely plausible that they exist somewhere, it's not insinuated by the game.
Lady Comstock's first name is shown here to start with A. Booker named Anna/Elizabeth after his wife died in childbirth. It could well be that both Booker and Comstock married the same woman in their respective worlds. Constants and variables, that thing. It would explain the bond between Elizabeth and Lady Comstock, since they would be related but not quite.
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
Great game. The gameplay i think has it's faults (probably just because FPS isn't my preference) but this game bar none has the greatest art and style I've ever seen.
Great game, going into it I wasnt expecting it to be as good as 1&2, Columbus just didn't sound as cool as Rapture. But I'm very happy I was wrong. The city and the atmosphere are amazing, plus the story is more complex and interesting than the stories of its predecessors
Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on this after having just beaten it. I can't tell if it cracks my top 5 games ever or if I'm just wearing rose tinted glasses atm.
On March 31 2013 05:37 adwodon wrote: Ok so I finished the game, the story seemed decent enough but one thing has completely flown over my head and I wander if anyone has an answer:
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
As chillax said, it was a result of him finding religion. He thought of himself as reborn after his worst crimes, and that gave him license in his mind to be even worse in many ways. Despite his atrocities, he felt himself a better man now then his peers, and he was able to actually put that idea to the test when he met Rosalind Lutece and the went to work on a floating city. When he started seeing the tears as religious visions confirming his world view rather than just as a window into what such a world view would ultimately result in, it only made him worse.
You have to consider the time period and location when you take into account the racist elements in particular. It was still too normal for there to be such heavy discrimination, often just as bad in the US as it was in Columbia. Booker, like many of that time, clearly had it in him to become such a megalomaniac racist, but circumstances only allowed that to shine when he got the power of his religious position and the floating city behind him. Kind of a nature vs nurture argument, was he really a crazy racist deep down, or was it just circumstances that made him into one? They give the player agency to decide which of those arguments holds more true, because they never made an overt effort to paint player-Booker one way or another (outside of the choices they offer you like throwing the baseball).
On an additional note, his sterility was not a cause for his insanity, but a result of it. In addition to his advanced aged appearance, the sterility was caused by his exposure to the quantum mechanics-based machinery of the floating city and reality tears. Whether that exacerbated his apparent insanity at that point is up for debate, it did after all cause him to think stealing his own child from an alternate reality was a good idea, lol.
On March 31 2013 05:37 adwodon wrote: Ok so I finished the game, the story seemed decent enough but one thing has completely flown over my head and I wander if anyone has an answer:
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
The racism thing was because that's how every religious person in the 1800s was. I'm pretty sure that's how the bible read back then as well. Whites were "God's chosen" and everyone else wasn't. Of course it was a ridiculous notion, but that's how it was. The game stayed true to the times. Comstock found religion and thus created a nation based on combining religion with politics(which is considered a no no). When America decided to change its ways, Comstock decided to split away from America and continue what was ultimately going on. Obviously, a lot of it is hyperbole.
Comstock stole his daughter because he read a prophecy/was visited by an archangel saying a child only from his bloodline would take his place and bring ruin to America. Basically cleanse it by fire, which is what you see the elderly Elizabeth do before she sends you back in time to prevent it from happening. Since he was sterile due to universe-traveling, he had to find a way to get a child directly from his bloodline which is what he did when he found Booker. There's actually a lot of explaining if you view all the slideshows/listen to every tape recording/pay close attention to the dialogue.
Booker on the other hand was the non-religious opposite. He was indifferent because he refused to be baptized and thus never took religion seriously like Comstock did.
The Fink/Fitzroy overthrow was a way to introduce the different timelines/worlds/universes and I personally felt they did a good job with it. I agree it felt kind of silly for it to go from "I'm fighting Comstock's men" to "Revolution" to "I'm fighting Fitzroy's men" but I can't say I agree this part of the storyline felt glossed over.
On March 31 2013 05:37 adwodon wrote: Ok so I finished the game, the story seemed decent enough but one thing has completely flown over my head and I wander if anyone has an answer:
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
As chillax said, it was a result of him finding religion. He thought of himself as reborn after his worst crimes, and that gave him license in his mind to be even worse in many ways. Despite his atrocities, he felt himself a better man now then his peers, and he was able to actually put that idea to the test when he met Rosalind Lutece and the went to work on a floating city. When he started seeing the tears as religious visions confirming his world view rather than just as a window into what such a world view would ultimately result in, it only made him worse.
You have to consider the time period and location when you take into account the racist elements in particular. It was still too normal for there to be such heavy discrimination, often just as bad in the US as it was in Columbia. Booker, like many of that time, clearly had it in him to become such a megalomaniac racist, but circumstances only allowed that to shine when he got the power of his religious position and the floating city behind him. Kind of a nature vs nurture argument, was he really a crazy racist deep down, or was it just circumstances that made him into one?
On an additional note, his sterility was not a cause for his insanity, but a result of it. In addition to his advanced aged appearance, the sterility was caused by his exposure to the quantum mechanics-based machinery of the floating city and reality tears. Whether that exacerbated his apparent insanity at that point is up for debate, it did after all cause him to think stealing his own child from an alternate reality was a good idea, lol.
He was offended by America when they wanted to call Columbia back in after the Chinese battle that they interfered in. He saw a tear that showed Columbia 'raining fire on the mountains of man', but it would only come true if he his blood remained on the throne.
On March 31 2013 05:37 adwodon wrote: Ok so I finished the game, the story seemed decent enough but one thing has completely flown over my head and I wander if anyone has an answer:
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
Simply put, popular belief in the US back then was that the Mark of Cain = dark skin. An example being that the Southern Baptist groups used this as justification for slavery.
On March 31 2013 05:37 adwodon wrote: Ok so I finished the game, the story seemed decent enough but one thing has completely flown over my head and I wander if anyone has an answer:
Was it explained at any point why Commstock / Booker became a racist, build a massive floating city and decided to steal his own daughter? I get that he was sterile, but that seems like a pretty bold leap.
Even then does anything explain why he's totally different to Booker or this whole time was I just playing a white supremacist with a passion for megalomania?
Feels kind of like they decided on how the story would end but sort of glossed over how it actually began (beyond the whole baptism thing) other than that it was a pretty decent story but personally I was more interested in the Lutese 'twins' than Elizabeth or Commstock / Booker and the whole thing with Fitzroy / Fink etc felt glossed over as well, really the whole racism / uprising thing just felt like an excuse to have choas towards the end rather than being an integral part of the story.
*totally almost put that in quotes instead of spoilers trolololol*
As chillax said, it was a result of him finding religion. He thought of himself as reborn after his worst crimes, and that gave him license in his mind to be even worse in many ways. Despite his atrocities, he felt himself a better man now then his peers, and he was able to actually put that idea to the test when he met Rosalind Lutece and the went to work on a floating city. When he started seeing the tears as religious visions confirming his world view rather than just as a window into what such a world view would ultimately result in, it only made him worse.
You have to consider the time period and location when you take into account the racist elements in particular. It was still too normal for there to be such heavy discrimination, often just as bad in the US as it was in Columbia. Booker, like many of that time, clearly had it in him to become such a megalomaniac racist, but circumstances only allowed that to shine when he got the power of his religious position and the floating city behind him. Kind of a nature vs nurture argument, was he really a crazy racist deep down, or was it just circumstances that made him into one?
On an additional note, his sterility was not a cause for his insanity, but a result of it. In addition to his advanced aged appearance, the sterility was caused by his exposure to the quantum mechanics-based machinery of the floating city and reality tears. Whether that exacerbated his apparent insanity at that point is up for debate, it did after all cause him to think stealing his own child from an alternate reality was a good idea, lol.
He was offended by America when they wanted to call Columbia back in after the Chinese battle that they interfered in. He saw a tear that showed Columbia 'raining fire on the mountains of man', but it would only come true if he his blood remained on the throne.
Yeah, America was on a trend AWAY from what Columbia's ideal was, so it only made sense for Comstock to want to separate at that point. I'm still unsure if Comstock ever actually saw any visions/hallucinations of his own (if not, who is the archangel he refers to? future Elizabeth?), it seems like everything he saw could be explained by tears as we saw later that the future of raining fire had plenty of propaganda in it to prove to Comstock it was his daughter leading the destruction.
And yeah, that tear is the reason why he felt he had to steal his alternate-daughter, but that doesn't make him any less insane for feeling justified in doing so. Like I said, those vision-tears just exacerbated his level of insanity and how far he would be willing to go.
On March 31 2013 06:46 Fzero wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on this after having just beaten it. I can't tell if it cracks my top 5 games ever or if I'm just wearing rose tinted glasses atm.
I'm a sucker for time travel, though.
I'm going through it for a second time now. Even the opening two hours are a lot better knowing the whole backstory. There is a ton of foreshadowing already but you have to be nostradamus to actually be able to predict what will happen if you're on your first playthrough though.
Am I the only one who thinks that the archangel Comstock always refers to is actually Lutece? I mean, he keeps saying "as the archangel showed me". It was Lutece who invented the whole dimensional travel thing, so I figured he may be referring to her.
On March 31 2013 06:46 Fzero wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on this after having just beaten it. I can't tell if it cracks my top 5 games ever or if I'm just wearing rose tinted glasses atm.
I'm a sucker for time travel, though.
I'm going through it for a second time now. Even the opening two hours are a lot better knowing the whole backstory. There is a ton of foreshadowing already but you have to be nostradamus to actually be able to predict what will happen if you're on your first playthrough though.
Am I the only one who thinks that the archangel Comstock always refers to is actually Lutece? I mean, he keeps saying "as the archangel showed me". It was Lutece who invented the whole dimensional travel thing, so I figured he may be referring to her.
My problem with that theory is that he would have recognized both of them. I'd say it's more likely future-Elizabeth, as he wouldn't recognize the similarities with the newly acquired baby until much later, but that has its holes as well. This is one of the more interesting things still missing, imo, assuming it's not something more simple like a hallucination his brain has made up to make the tears make sense.
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.
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.
Handymen are not kiteable unless you exploit the AI/terrain (which I did on more than 1 occasion). They're still the only hard individual mobs in the game.
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.
Handymen are not kiteable unless you exploit the AI/terrain (which I did on more than 1 occasion). They're still the only hard individual mobs in the game.
But fuck that ghost lady.
Handymen are plenty kiteable. Just skyrail til they do the electric boogaloo, jump down to avoid a the damage and shoot the immobile handyman. Repeat until death. I thought the ghost lady was hard too, but then i learned to just throw a fireball at her to tease her in range of my shottie. XD
Game's fantastic. I wonder though how it is not more motivating than Dishonored, despite the girl you're protecting always being around. Anyways, this is the best game of the year so far, kicking Tomb Raider from the number 1 spot. No way HOTS will be top10 this year.
Can someone explain to me how come Comstock needed to steal the baby from the player's Booker? If they are the same person, shouldn't Comstock have the exact same baby in his universe, and not need to go into another universe to steal the baby? And how was he able to go between universes if he never had Anna/Elizabeth in the first place?
Can someone explain to me how come Comstock needed to steal the baby from the player's Booker? If they are the same person, shouldn't Comstock have the exact same baby in his universe, and not need to go into another universe to steal the baby? And how was he able to go between universes if he never had Anna/Elizabeth in the first place?
You should read a bit more of the thread, we've discussed this before. Here is my copy-pasted answer that covers the entire story:
In some worlds, Booker is baptised into Comstock. He becomes wealthy and comes into contact with Rosalind Lutece, whose work with quantum mechanics puts Columbia in the sky. Her works also involve crossing over timelines and alternate worlds, allowing him to become 'the prophet' and giving him the prophecy stating that Columbia will last as long as his bloodline stays on the throne. However, Comstock becomes infertile due to the exposure to this machinery, so he asks Rosalind Lutele 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. In this universe she also comes across her twin 'with one chromosome difference', the male Lutece, who acts as the messenger between Comstock and Booker. Booker accepts the deal. 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, along with Comstock and the male Lutece. 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 feel regret and 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.
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.
I played on hard and felt that the game wasn't balanced very well, but the gameplay was generally pretty fun in the larger levels with sky-rails. The biggest problem I had with the game is how poorly it encouraged weapon variety and experimentation. First the game very haphazardly throws different weapons your way: ~90% of the enemies use machine guns it seems. I really liked the hand-cannon but every time I decided to change it out for something else I would end up having to wait long stretches of time before getting a chance to use it again (same with the pistol in the second half of the game).
I also felt like the respawning system was unsatisfying. Generally if the checkpoints are good I like to replay levels in games until I can get them done right, so it felt wrong to just respawn with less money a little bit away if I died. Addition frustration comes from losing money for dying, which just meant that I had less upgrades for my stuff in the game which doesn't really make the game more fun at all (not that any of the weapon upgrades were interesting at all in the game, although that's just a gripe i have with most skill-trees and upgrade systems in modern games).
Is there a new game + option for this game? I would love to be able to play through it again with all the vigors unlocked from the start so I could experiment with them all more (and get more upgrades for them, as vigors seem to have a lot more interesting upgrades than the weapons do).
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
Can someone explain to me how come Comstock needed to steal the baby from the player's Booker? If they are the same person, shouldn't Comstock have the exact same baby in his universe, and not need to go into another universe to steal the baby? And how was he able to go between universes if he never had Anna/Elizabeth in the first place?
You should read a bit more of the thread, we've discussed this before. Here is my copy-pasted answer that covers the entire story:
In some worlds, Booker is baptised into Comstock. He becomes wealthy and comes into contact with Rosalind Lutece, whose work with quantum mechanics puts Columbia in the sky. Her works also involve crossing over timelines and alternate worlds, allowing him to become 'the prophet' and giving him the prophecy stating that Columbia will last as long as his bloodline stays on the throne. However, Comstock becomes infertile due to the exposure to this machinery, so he asks Rosalind Lutele 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. In this universe she also comes across her twin 'with one chromosome difference', the male Lutece, who acts as the messenger between Comstock and Booker. Booker accepts the deal. 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, along with Comstock and the male Lutece. 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 feel regret and 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.
On March 31 2013 10:19 Chaoz wrote: I get incredibly nauseous when playing this game. Is there a way to fix this? Heard it has something to do with the FOV.
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
I felt like Bioshock 1 was really good for the first playthrough, but without the narrative appeal the combat doesn't hold up very well at all.
On March 31 2013 10:19 Chaoz wrote: I get incredibly nauseous when playing this game. Is there a way to fix this? Heard it has something to do with the FOV.
Can someone explain to me how come Comstock needed to steal the baby from the player's Booker? If they are the same person, shouldn't Comstock have the exact same baby in his universe, and not need to go into another universe to steal the baby? And how was he able to go between universes if he never had Anna/Elizabeth in the first place?
You should read a bit more of the thread, we've discussed this before. Here is my copy-pasted answer that covers the entire story:
In some worlds, Booker is baptised into Comstock. He becomes wealthy and comes into contact with Rosalind Lutece, whose work with quantum mechanics puts Columbia in the sky. Her works also involve crossing over timelines and alternate worlds, allowing him to become 'the prophet' and giving him the prophecy stating that Columbia will last as long as his bloodline stays on the throne. However, Comstock becomes infertile due to the exposure to this machinery, so he asks Rosalind Lutele 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. In this universe she also comes across her twin 'with one chromosome difference', the male Lutece, who acts as the messenger between Comstock and Booker. Booker accepts the deal. 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, along with Comstock and the male Lutece. 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 feel regret and 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.
BTW does that mean that the twins were the ones who left the note saying "bring back the girl" pinned to the wall of the lighthouse in the beginning? Did they also trash the lighthouse and kill that guy there?
Can someone explain to me how come Comstock needed to steal the baby from the player's Booker? If they are the same person, shouldn't Comstock have the exact same baby in his universe, and not need to go into another universe to steal the baby? And how was he able to go between universes if he never had Anna/Elizabeth in the first place?
You should read a bit more of the thread, we've discussed this before. Here is my copy-pasted answer that covers the entire story:
In some worlds, Booker is baptised into Comstock. He becomes wealthy and comes into contact with Rosalind Lutece, whose work with quantum mechanics puts Columbia in the sky. Her works also involve crossing over timelines and alternate worlds, allowing him to become 'the prophet' and giving him the prophecy stating that Columbia will last as long as his bloodline stays on the throne. However, Comstock becomes infertile due to the exposure to this machinery, so he asks Rosalind Lutele 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. In this universe she also comes across her twin 'with one chromosome difference', the male Lutece, who acts as the messenger between Comstock and Booker. Booker accepts the deal. 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, along with Comstock and the male Lutece. 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 feel regret and 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.
BTW does that mean that the twins were the ones who left the note saying "bring back the girl" pinned to the wall of the lighthouse in the beginning? Did they also trash the lighthouse and kill that guy there?
On March 31 2013 10:19 Chaoz wrote: I get incredibly nauseous when playing this game. Is there a way to fix this? Heard it has something to do with the FOV.
I'll have to replay the start to make sure but i got the feel that future elizabeth (the one who rained fire on new york)is the one who killed the guy in the lighthouse, based on some of the stuff she said and what i saw in the lighthouse the 2nd time through.
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?
Loved it. Every Bioshock game has left me with lasting impressions. I always think about the games even for days after finishing them. The atmosphere and immersion is unmatched by almost any other game I've played. Great presentation, and brilliant characters. The gameplay got a little repetitive for me but still good.
Holy shit. I just finished the game. Still coming down from that high, lemme read through all the comments and the wikipedia summary, to see your guys' reactions and see how my impression of the game compares. Dayum.
Oh yeah the reddit links are good. Wow they actually dealt with time-travel admirably well. Their take on it closed the open loop nicely and didn't break suspension or anything. Nice to see it's a good ending.
Can anyone remind me of the back-story for vigors? How exactly are they supposed to work again? I felt like they were a lot less fleshed-out in the story than plasmids were in Bioshock 1, but maybe I just missed an audio recording or something.
edit - also does the game ever flesh out the motivation for Roselin? Why does she help out Comstock and allow apparently only him to look out into the future?
Can anyone remind me of the back-story for vigors? How exactly are they supposed to work again? I felt like they were a lot less fleshed-out in the story than plasmids were in Bioshock 1, but maybe I just missed an audio recording or something.
edit - also does the game ever flesh out the motivation for Roselin? Why does she help out Comstock and allow apparently only him to look out into the future?
I would say Vigor is something that Fink comes up with after peering into many many world when the tears occur due to Lutece's experimentation. He might stole it when the tears open to Rupture and see how he could modify it from other tears. It could also be another "constant" in Bioshock's universe but I am not so sure about that.
1) What exactly are the differences between 1999 mode and the other modes? 2) Why would elizabeth go down the path of continuing comstock's plan? I just mean that we're shown the example that has the old elizabeth, and she has evidently followed through on attacking the "earth world". She says it's wasn't the torture or whatever but that it was "time"? Could someone interpret that for me, not completely sure what that meant 3) So do any of your choices in the game matter or not really? They don't really do anything right?
Part of the commentary of the game was sort of on "games" in general... they have a set beginning and end and everything you do in the middle is all meaningless. You're supposed to pull the meaning out for yourself.
There's always a lighthouse and a man and a city...
Can anyone remind me of the back-story for vigors? How exactly are they supposed to work again? I felt like they were a lot less fleshed-out in the story than plasmids were in Bioshock 1, but maybe I just missed an audio recording or something.
edit - also does the game ever flesh out the motivation for Roselin? Why does she help out Comstock and allow apparently only him to look out into the future?
I would say Vigor is something that Fink comes up with after peering into many many world when the tears occur due to Lutece's experimentation. He might stole it when the tears open to Rupture and see how he could modify it from other tears. It could also be another "constant" in Bioshock's universe but I am not so sure about that.
I must be crazy because I really, really disliked this game. I thought it was amazing at the beginning, then it started going downhill when they started introducing tears. Then they turned into a generic, convoluted time-travel story. I can't figure out why reviewers keep raving about how amazing and unique the story is, it seems like something from a badly written sci-fi book. Plus, the nationalism/religion stuff was really lazily done. It was way too ham-fisted, especially with some of the behavior from the Vox and their leader. The backstory for the city was barely explained either, I don't think we were even told why the city was built.
The combat was a letdown too. It was way too chaotic, you couldn't plan for engagements like you could in Bioshock 2. Little enemy variety, generic weapons, recycled plasmids from earlier games (they should've at least improved the useless ones like the lifting one and the bats/bees ones).
On March 31 2013 16:28 iamho wrote: I must be crazy because I really, really disliked this game. I thought it was amazing at the beginning, then it started going downhill when they started introducing tears. Then they turned into a generic, convoluted time-travel story. I can't figure out why reviewers keep raving about how amazing and unique the story is, it seems like something from a badly written sci-fi book. Plus, the nationalism/religion stuff was really lazily done. It was way too ham-fisted, especially with some of the behavior from the Vox and their leader. The backstory for the city was barely explained either, I don't think we were even told why the city was built.
The combat was a letdown too. It was way too chaotic, you couldn't plan for engagements like you could in Bioshock 2. Little enemy variety, generic weapons, recycled plasmids from earlier games (they should've at least improved the useless ones like the lifting one and the bats/bees ones).
I don't think I have any more spoilers than you do, but just in case: + Show Spoiler +
I think a lot of the stuff you disliked were just straight up things other people enjoy. Comes down to taste. Most of the people complaining about the combat had the opposite complaint, too easy to avoid the chaos with a handful of well-upgraded weapons and vigors (the more chaotic fights with heavy skyrail usage seem the more enjoyed sections). Funny enough, I made the most use out of the crow vigor during the game and most other people seem to think of the lifting one as one of the strongest. I think it's a fault of their upgrade system, everyone thinks the thing they upgraded and wore equipment for was the best and everything else was useless.
I'm not sure why you would consider it poorly written though, there was far more foreshadowing, carefully laced in details, and enticing plot progression in this game than the vast majority that I've played, you'd have to go out of your way to ignore much of it.
I think the nationalism/religious stuff ONLY could have worked in the 'ham-fisted' way that they did implement, largely because of the time-travel elements you didn't like. If they didn't take such drastic leaps from state to state, it would have felt either of too large a scope for such a fast paced game or unnaturally fast for it to progress on it's own. Using the tear-mechanism though, they could have bigger extreme changes without having to worry about any minor character progression in the process.
I don't know if you listened to all the of the audio diaries / watched the video boxes or not, but that is where the vast majority of story progression and background detail was in this game. If you skipped out on most of it, you would have missed many of the details (either explicitly revealed or heavily suggested) that you seemed to have missed. It may have been a poor choice to do things that way, but it is there.
I know a lot of people are just put-off from time-travel / dimension hopping stories like this in the first place though, so that probably tainted your view on it from the get go. That is just a matter of taste though, plenty of people love to delve into the intricacies of such a plot, and others are fine taking it at it's face (or after a bit of explanation). I can get why it might feel a bit too convoluted though if you aren't interested in it already.
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.
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.
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".
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 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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Metal Gear Solid is a 10 hour movie. This game, though, is cinematic and interactive practically the whole time. There are very few moments where you don't have control. Sure it's linear and there's a prescribed path, but so was the original Half-Life.
I have been giving the ending scene some thought. Drowning is a recurring theme in the game, and it clearly symbolizes the washing away of Booker's sins. However, by drowning him, Elizabeth washes away his sins of the past, the present, and the sins he may still commit in the future.
This is all pretty logical and I think most of you figured this out already, but there's another something I'd like to add. Remember how Elizabeth was repeatedly called the 'Lamb of the Prophet'? I can't help but link that, and the aforementioned scene to the following biblical quote: 'the lamb that washes away the sins of the world'. In-game she does it by either destroying New York ("the sodom below") or making sure that certain sins can never be committed by drowning DeWitt.
I'm quite impressed by the depth of this story, to be honest.
On March 29 2013 10:24 Dracolich70 wrote: A masterpiece seems like a term of perfection, maartendq.
Not necessarily. I find Beethoven's 9th symphony a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean that there aren't moments I find a bit boring. You can be a master of your craft yet still realize that there are areas you can improve upon. If Bioshock: Infinite was a perfect game, the other developers may as well close their books because nothing will ever be able to top it.
I see, but isn't it the "boring" parts that makes the great parts greater, thus playing their role in the perfection/masterpiece? However, I see where you are aiming at, and I think you are right nonetheless, even if I still believe the masterpiece tag, is - to me - the perfection of ones' craft - the craftmanship of one that mastered his art to perfection, making it all come together.
Maybe the "problem" is that perfection is a subjective abstract - much like masterpiece.
I get the False Shepherd/Prophet contrast with the end baptism parallel.
Overall, good game. I felt the ending was stretched pretty hard, but knitted neatly together. Not quite as satisfying as Bioshock 1 (not talking from nostalgia, since I played the game two years ago for the first time)
Elizabeth kills you to stop the endless timeline, but she kills you when you were baptized ie: before she was born so she disappears after killing you since you never got married and got a wife, but (via knowledge gleaned from the post-credits) since she disappeared due to you dying and never having her in the first place, she never existed in the first place to kill you at the baptism therefore you come back to life but all the timelines merge into one and Elizabeth is just a normal little girl in a cradle at the end
Elizabeth kills you to stop the endless timeline, but she kills you when you were baptized ie: before she was born so she disappears after killing you since you never got married and got a wife, but (via knowledge gleaned from the post-credits) since she disappeared due to you dying and never having her in the first place, she never existed in the first place to kill you at the baptism therefore you come back to life but all the timelines merge into one and Elizabeth is just a normal little girl in a cradle at the end
well no. there is a branch in universes at the baptism, half of which booker gets baptized as zachary comstock, half he walks away as booker and has his daughter. The elizabeths who were raised in comstocks tower all kill booker as he chooses to be baptized. this makes it so bookers choice is : walk away and have his daughter and live his life, or die. effectively ending any possible Anna's raised as elizabeth by eliminating any comstocks.
Elizabeth gets taken away from you by the big ear-splittingly loud bird..
now I'm at the part where the guys are all wearing those stupid heads, I almost pissed my pants when the one came wheeling out on the wheelchair, and now I'm too terrified to go into the room where there's hundreds of the heads on the walls/on mannequins.
I have a really unreasonable fear of non-human humans, if that makes any sense...
On April 01 2013 14:52 Torenhire wrote: Fuck, I just got to the part where + Show Spoiler +
Elizabeth gets taken away from you by the big ear-splittingly loud bird..
now I'm at the part where the guys are all wearing those stupid heads, I almost pissed my pants when the one came wheeling out on the wheelchair, and now I'm too terrified to go into the room where there's hundreds of the heads on the walls/on mannequins.
I have a really unreasonable fear of non-human humans, if that makes any sense...
I just stayed up all night completing it. It's incredible, Im overwhelmed with thought and emotion. It is exemplary on every level, the ending is as good as anything Ive encountered in any artform.
On April 01 2013 16:27 FireBlast! wrote: I just stayed up all night completing it. It's incredible, Im overwhelmed with thought and emotion. It is exemplary on every level, the ending is as good as anything Ive encountered in any artform.
So you're the guy everyone keeps mixing me up with......
On April 01 2013 16:27 TheEmulator wrote: Uh oh, there is a terrifying part? I'm the biggest girl when it comes to scary stuff. This means I should play it at night with the lights off.
no, just a personal fear.
People in fake-heads scare me LOL. You'll see the area when you see all their disembodied puppet-heads, it terrifies me.
On April 01 2013 16:27 TheEmulator wrote: Uh oh, there is a terrifying part? I'm the biggest girl when it comes to scary stuff. This means I should play it at night with the lights off.
no, just a personal fear.
People in fake-heads scare me LOL. You'll see the area when you see all their disembodied puppet-heads, it terrifies me.
Well, I also have that fear. Anything scary is a fear of mine, lol.
On April 01 2013 16:27 FireBlast! wrote: I just stayed up all night completing it. It's incredible, Im overwhelmed with thought and emotion. It is exemplary on every level, the ending is as good as anything Ive encountered in any artform.
So you're the guy everyone keeps mixing me up with......
Towards the end of the game, after Elizabeth gets recaptured by songbird and you're trying to free her. You meet the dudes with horns and masks for heads. The scary moment is here (also the best reaction I found on youtube):
My own reaction was to fire an entire clip into it and shout FUCK FUCK MOTHERFUCK FUCK at 2am.
On April 01 2013 01:59 grush57 wrote: 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 used 9.3 hours with alot of backtracking, looking for stuff and general horsing around. Im fairly confident i could get it down to perhaps 8 hours on hardest difficulty. So the game is not overly long
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.
I think it's dumb to say that it doesn't matter if the gameplay sucks as long as the narrative is great. you spend >50% of the time in Infinite actually playing it in combat or going through trash cans and the like looking for cash, and you can't look past the faults of that because the narrative is delivered well.
And while I think it's true that games offer a certain experience that movies can't mimic in terms of story narrative, I don't necessarily think a first-person action shooter is the best form of delivery for the story in Infinite. The game has so many flaws in the narrative delivery that take you out of the experience: the farfetched-ness of people leaving around <60 seconds worth of audio recordings about random shit everywhere, a lot of kaleidoscope kiosks were about really specific stuff and were totally unbelievable to be placed in the certain place that they were about about the certain thing that they were, all NPCs only have 1 line or 2 of dialogue outside Elizabeth basically and then just stand around staring FOREVER, and the story doesn't take into account the gameplay behavior of the player at all (IE stealing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE THE WHOLE TIME).
I think the story was pretty cool and the gameplay was decent, but I still don't think the same story couldn't have been delivered better in a movie or better yet a novel.
This is an example of a game that is getting rave reviews simply based on how atrocious its AAA video game competition is.
Let's be honest. It's basically getting praised on the back of its twist ending considering the rest of the "story" is pretty weak (the whole Comstock vs. Fink vs. Daisy vs. Slate religious/political thing has literally nothing to do with the actual story of the game and simply serves to pad the game length / give background info on the world). However, it's not even like the game's twist is original or shocking. Hell, that movie Looper had the same twist ending and we're talking about a movie that came out a year or two ago and didn't make any waves at all in the industry. So, Bioshock Infinite is akin to an OK but mostly unsuccessful action film that most movie watchers ignored...
That's not even talking about the actual gameplay which is in turns mediocre (combat) and nonsensical (scrounging in every available container for loose change, buying ammunition and vigor mods from vending machines, etc).
Apparently that's good enough to get 10/10 reviews and cause video gamers to go ape?
On April 01 2013 23:41 Yacobs wrote: This is an example of a game that is getting rave reviews simply based on how atrocious its AAA video game competition is.
Let's be honest. It's basically getting praised on the back of its twist ending considering the rest of the "story" is pretty weak (the whole Comstock vs. Fink vs. Daisy vs. Slate religious/political thing has literally nothing to do with the actual story of the game and simply serves to pad the game length / give background info on the world). However, it's not even like the game's twist is original or shocking. Hell, that movie Looper had the same twist ending and we're talking about a movie that came out a year or two ago and didn't make any waves at all in the industry. So, Bioshock Infinite is akin to an OK but mostly unsuccessful action film that most movie watchers ignored...
That's not even talking about the actual gameplay which is in turns mediocre (combat) and nonsensical (scrounging in every available container for loose change, buying ammunition and vigor mods from vending machines, etc).
Apparently that's good enough to get 10/10 reviews and cause video gamers to go ape?
The "broad strokes" aspect of the game isn't too interesting (even though the twist was balls to the walls awesome imo), that's true. But there are other aspects to the overall story that other games usually don't deal with in that way.
The game has things to say about religion, racism, nationalism, the human nature of choices and the resulting troubles that plague us sometimes for the rest of our lives (I know I've had one of those before, probably not different for you), and other things. It also has some really nice moments (e.g. that black woman singing about 50% through the game, "some people are born with silver spoon in hands", just sent a shiver down my spine) that you simply don't ever see in other games. Some of the story telling is really subtle and you probably won't notice the implications without someone else telling you or you thinking about it. E.g. did you notice what the coinflip in the beginning of the game means?
And the atmosphere and art direction of the game is just a solid 10/10. The amount of detail and environmental story telling you find in the world if you pay attention is absolutely incredible and at least in my gaming memory absolutely unrivaled (even by the original Bioshock).
I would have given the game a 9/10 instead of 10/10 simply because of the shooter gameplay and the incredibly bad balancing on hard difficulty, but I can't say anything objective about that since shooters are incredibly boring to me in general.
On April 01 2013 23:41 Yacobs wrote: Apparently that's good enough to get 10/10 reviews and cause video gamers to go ape?
Maybe 99.9% of gamers aren't miserable elitists who over-analyze every aspect of every single game in existence. Maybe that same 99.9% of gamers recognizes when a game is enjoyable and worthy of rave-reviews. Let the good times roll, because BioShock Infinite will be recognized as one of the greatest games of all time. It will sit right next to Half-Life 2, BioShock, Zelda OoT, and a few others.
Most people just enjoyed the game so much they found reviews justified I guess. I'm no video game design expert, but I enjoyed this game way more than others with better gameplay, just because it was amazing just to run around the city, watching and listening to everything you could. I even might have missed on a lot, as it seems there was a lot of references to american history and characters.
I guess you have to not be too rationalist to enjoy this game, because most of the amazement comes from the overall artistic quality of the game (be it the surroundings, characters, atmospheres, sound), and not the actual gameplay and fights (I don't agree much with people saying the story is simplist or bad, maybe it's an already used theme but I feel the characters are good enough to interest you in the story).
People saying the game is bad because of the gameplay remind me of people telling me amnesia is shitty and not scary at all, because if you remove sound and just run all game long, nothing is scary about it and the game bores you in 5 minutes.. It's like you're playing the games just to prove people giving good feedback they're wrong, by trying to find everything bad about the game and playing it with the mindset that it's not good.
I'm fine with people having different point of views, it would just be sad to miss everything that is great about something you spend several hours on because of a bad mindset. I guess if you can't be moved at all by great graphics in beautiful settings and great atmosphere, plus appealing characters, some with which you can interact a lot, B:I is not for you.
On a different topic,
People in fake-heads scare me LOL. You'll see the area when you see all their disembodied puppet-heads, it terrifies me.
I wouldn't say I was terrified, but I was certainly not at ease during this whole part xD
Towards the end of the game, after Elizabeth gets recaptured by songbird and you're trying to free her. You meet the dudes with horns and masks for heads. The scary moment is here (also the best reaction I found on youtube):
As per the ratings arguement, I would give it a 10/10 and place it on top of most of the recent releases easily. As far as putting it on a GOAT list, I wouldn't go that far with it - there was a lot more that could have been done with the game before considering it for GOAT, a lot of the NPC interaction (non-critical NPCs like Elizabeth) could have been better, maybe make at least some minor differences based on choices you make (I haven't played through twice but as far as I have read, 0 of your choices matter? Forgive me if I'm talking out my ass) even if it's just different dialogue throughout the game.
It was certainly not a faultless game but you can't argue that it tackled a lot of areas of game development that seems to be overlooked - what I'm hoping with Bioshock Infinite is that game developers realize that you can make a very, very good game based on character interaction/growth, and story, and start spending time on that AS WELL as good gameplay. No game review is going to match with every single persons thoughts, though, so to be annoyed or upset with people who think it's a 9/10 or lower is a little unfair. Different strokes for different folks!
Also the RPG is pretty good, considering most enemies file out of doorways or hallways generally, unless they are already set up like in the very beginning of the game. Fire trap + RPG shot will generally pre-clear enemies lol. I played Carbine/Heater myself...Shocking the patriots and Charging behind them to pop a heater shot and some carbine shots in their back was ridiculously effective.
edit: although that looks like easy, considering all those guys died in one shot - pretty sure the basic enemies took two rockets on medium...can't tell if his lighting hits them or not.
On April 01 2013 23:53 heishe wrote: The game has things to say about religion, racism, nationalism, the human nature of choices and the resulting troubles that plague us sometimes for the rest of our lives (I know I've had one of those before, probably not different for you), and other things.
The problem is that these things are too in your face, to the point where everything becomes ridiculous and overly-exaggerated (the cheesiest scene that makes me facepalm comes to mind: a woman, looking at a huge statue of Comstock, says to someone something along the lines: "Do you think this does justice to Father Comstock? I don't think it's a match for his divinity!") . Not to mention the fact that if you pay attention, the themes are only touched on at a shallow level, sort of like: "Oh, look at this, racism and religous extremism is bad!". To me it seems like the game doesn't really have anything to say so it just chooses the easiest way of making it look meaningful: point some general flaws that many societies have, exaggerate them a great deal so everyone spots them and goes like: "oh, this game is so smart!" and then add one of the go-to narrative choices to make the story complicated enough that it covers its intrinsic lack of essence: parallel universes. Add the general cliches that go with it and you can call it done.
The sad part is that this is enough for the game to be revered due to the low standards set by AAA games story-wise. The story lacks depth, the dialogues are forgettable at best, cheesy at worst, all it has going for it is a carefully crafted environment, which still shoves the game's simplistic messages down your throat perhaps too often. I can't believe this is seen as some kind of an example of what games should be narrative-wise. I'd recommend Planescape: Torment or the best game I have ever played when it comes to story, Pathologic, if you want to see just how much better game stories can be. Bioshock only seems like a Hollywood blockbuster if you compare it to games like those.
On April 01 2013 23:53 heishe wrote: The game has things to say about religion, racism, nationalism, the human nature of choices and the resulting troubles that plague us sometimes for the rest of our lives (I know I've had one of those before, probably not different for you), and other things.
The problem is that these things are too in your face, to the point where everything becomes ridiculous and overly-exaggerated (the cheesiest scene that makes me facepalm comes to mind: a woman, looking at a huge statue of Comstock, says to someone something along the lines: "Do you think this does justice to Father Comstock? I don't think it's a match for his divinity!") . Not to mention the fact that if you pay attention, the themes are only touched on at a shallow level, sort of like: "Oh, look at this, racism and religous extremism is bad!". To me it seems like the game doesn't really have anything to say so it just chooses the easiest way of making it look meaningful: point some general flaws that many societies have, exaggerate them a great deal so everyone spots them and goes like: "oh, this game is so smart!" and then add one of the go-to narrative choices to make the story complicated enough that it covers its intrinsic lack of essence: parallel universes. Add the general cliches that go with it and you can call it done.
The sad part is that this is enough for the game to be revered due to the low standards set by AAA games story-wise. The story lacks depth, the dialogues are forgettable at best, cheesy at worst, all it has going for it is a carefully crafted environment, which still shoves the game's simplistic messages down your throat perhaps too often. I can't believe this is seen as some kind of an example of what games should be narrative-wise. I'd recommend Planescape: Torment or the best game I have ever played when it comes to story, Pathologic if you want to see just how much better game stories can be. Bioshock only seems like a Hollywood blockbuster if you compare it to games like those.
If the takeaway is religion and extremism in the form of racism, then you missed the point of the game. This is meant to be shallow, since racism and religious extremism are shallow. The meat of the story comes in the relationship with Elizabeth and the revelations as the game moves forward.
On April 01 2013 23:53 heishe wrote: The game has things to say about religion, racism, nationalism, the human nature of choices and the resulting troubles that plague us sometimes for the rest of our lives (I know I've had one of those before, probably not different for you), and other things.
The problem is that these things are too in your face, to the point where everything becomes ridiculous and overly-exaggerated (the cheesiest scene that makes me facepalm comes to mind: a woman, looking at a huge statue of Comstock, says to someone something along the lines: "Do you think this does justice to Father Comstock? I don't think it's a match for his divinity!") . Not to mention the fact that if you pay attention, the themes are only touched on at a shallow level, sort of like: "Oh, look at this, racism and religous extremism is bad!". To me it seems like the game doesn't really have anything to say so it just chooses the easiest way of making it look meaningful: point some general flaws that many societies have, exaggerate them a great deal so everyone spots them and goes like: "oh, this game is so smart!" and then add one of the go-to narrative choices to make the story complicated enough that it covers its intrinsic lack of essence: parallel universes. Add the general cliches that go with it and you can call it done.
The sad part is that this is enough for the game to be revered due to the low standards set by AAA games story-wise. The story lacks depth, the dialogues are forgettable at best, cheesy at worst, all it has going for it is a carefully crafted environment, which still shoves the game's simplistic messages down your throat perhaps too often. I can't believe this is seen as some kind of an example of what games should be narrative-wise. I'd recommend Planescape: Torment or the best game I have ever played when it comes to story, Pathologic if you want to see just how much better game stories can be. Bioshock only seems like a Hollywood blockbuster if you compare it to games like those.
If the takeaway is religion and extremism in the form of racism, then you missed the point of the game. This is meant to be shallow, since racism and religious extremism are shallow. The meat of the story comes in the relationship with Elizabeth and the revelations as the game moves forward.
Racism and religious extremism are far form shallow issues, otherwise they would be simply cured and wouldn't exist in the world that we live in today. He has a point, if handled properly these things need to be dealt with in more depth, and the game only really touches on these issues and notifies the player of their existance, as opposed to actually looking at any of them in detail(except the motive of choice, which is viewed in more detail in the game).
I'm not sure, I guess I have to play the game a second time to form a final opinion.
On April 01 2013 23:53 heishe wrote: The game has things to say about religion, racism, nationalism, the human nature of choices and the resulting troubles that plague us sometimes for the rest of our lives (I know I've had one of those before, probably not different for you), and other things.
The problem is that these things are too in your face, to the point where everything becomes ridiculous and overly-exaggerated (the cheesiest scene that makes me facepalm comes to mind: a woman, looking at a huge statue of Comstock, says to someone something along the lines: "Do you think this does justice to Father Comstock? I don't think it's a match for his divinity!") . Not to mention the fact that if you pay attention, the themes are only touched on at a shallow level, sort of like: "Oh, look at this, racism and religous extremism is bad!". To me it seems like the game doesn't really have anything to say so it just chooses the easiest way of making it look meaningful: point some general flaws that many societies have, exaggerate them a great deal so everyone spots them and goes like: "oh, this game is so smart!" and then add one of the go-to narrative choices to make the story complicated enough that it covers its intrinsic lack of essence: parallel universes. Add the general cliches that go with it and you can call it done.
The sad part is that this is enough for the game to be revered due to the low standards set by AAA games story-wise. The story lacks depth, the dialogues are forgettable at best, cheesy at worst, all it has going for it is a carefully crafted environment, which still shoves the game's simplistic messages down your throat perhaps too often. I can't believe this is seen as some kind of an example of what games should be narrative-wise. I'd recommend Planescape: Torment or the best game I have ever played when it comes to story, Pathologic if you want to see just how much better game stories can be. Bioshock only seems like a Hollywood blockbuster if you compare it to games like those.
If the takeaway is religion and extremism in the form of racism, then you missed the point of the game. This is meant to be shallow, since racism and religious extremism are shallow. The meat of the story comes in the relationship with Elizabeth and the revelations as the game moves forward.
The point is the way the game criticizes those is shallow, not how those things are themselves. I don't consider simply pointing to a problem in a simplistic way makes your work deep, otherwise anyone could do it. And I only brought racism and religion up as a response to a statement that made it seem the game touches upon these aspects on a higher level. Regarding Elizabeth's story, I was disappointed as well. To say it in a few words, I felt it was too far-fetched and filled with cliches at certain times, to the point where I didn't even care about the final twist. With that being said, my general experience with the game as a whole was positive but I didn't see it as much more than a decent shooter trying to excel with its story but not succeding. I just don't understand why it is hyped so much.
Man I just finished this game today and it left me emotionally crippled, kinda funny because I wasn't in the game's world more than 10 hours. The game was amazing to me, and I feel so sad that it's over. I don't think I'm going to want to play other games in a while because this one set the bar into the stratosphere.
I hope there will be some DLC content updates to fill the void that this game left. Or perhaps I'll have to try out the previous Bioshock games.
first bioshock was far better, combat was more fun and the story was better. I felt like the entire middle of infinite was just a filler with boring combat (i played on hard if that means anything). For how hyped the game was i was expecting it to be ALOT more enjoyable. It was a decent game but defiantly doesn't deserve a 10, id give it a 7.
On March 30 2013 15:41 motbob wrote: Someone said earlier in the thread that the combat system was shallow, and I don't understand that perspective. I got through the entire game not really using vigors at all, but instead feeling out the benefits and drawbacks of each weapon. Spamming Possession after getting the upgrade seems like it would be a simple way to brute force 1999 mode, but I dunno. I don't have any desire to find out; the next time I'm gonna play the game is in five years when my computer is powerful enough to run everything on high at 60 fps.
I have such huge respect for the way the story was constructed. One bit that stuck out to me was the middle of the game, where tears start being used more often and once you're done messing with them, the whole city has gone to shit. The writers had to find a way to realistically bring the city from one state to another in a rapid but believable way. It used existing story elements to achieve that goal. It didn't really have to pull anything out of its ass, the way HL2 did in solving the same problem in a similar fashion.
The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
Everything matters in this game, story-wise. I could go scene by scene. The Hall of Heroes stage is critical for establishing Booker's past mistakes, which is a big part of what makes the ending work. Yet, the level does so much more than fill that purpose. We get plenty of world-building, the most awe-inspiring areas of the game (IMO, anyway, especially the final Boxer room), and that wonderful choice at the end, a truly moral choice, so rare in video games.
Over the first few hours, I was annoyed at a lot of little things in the game. I couldn't interact with this or that item; there was an invisible wall where there really didn't need to be one; the lettering used in the little movie boxes looked like a computer font and not something that would be used in 1912. But after a few hours, all my complaints melted away. I can stop playing single player games now. I've played the best there ever could be.
10/10
Completely and utterly agree.
What is the choise you talk about at the end?
Edit: This game will be the first single player game where I acutally cannot wait to play it throw again to get and understand all those little references the dialog and history which you will only understand once you know the entire story. I'm just so impressed with this game I now have a void, which I previously only have experienced with a few of the best books I've read.
I decided to ignore all of the hype (trailers etc...) other than the opening trailer, obviously, and was blown away by the character work, the games ability to portray emotions and thus impact me on an emotional level, as well as the entire narrative and product as a whole. One thing i found interesting the the amount of so-called revelations at the end. It was almost as if they wanted them to happen at a speed that would prevent the player from directly predict what was going to happen, as in a video game, unlike in a book, you are not going to pause in the most important section to stop and think. It felt very similar to bioshock, but had more organic, natural feeling shooting as well as the other mechanics. This is what a story driven first person shooter should strive for in the future.
I appreciate where some peoples complaints are coming from, the combat wasn't anything brilliant. Certainly it wasn't bad but from some of the things I read I was expecting half life-esque gameplay.
A day ago I would have thought this to be a somewhat damning critique of a first person shooter yet pretty much every other aspect of this game is, I feel, so sublime that it essentially ceases to matter.
I cant remember the last time I enjoyed a single player game this much.
I just finished the game. I really liked the ending, but it could've been a bit more clear what happened. I wasn't sure on some important details until I actually looked them up -_-.
The story overall was really really interesting. It stretched a lot of things, but it was still a blast just to move through it.
I loved EVERYTHING about the game's art design. Columbia is absolutely incredible. The attention to detail and execution of the idea overall was just spectacular. I'm so glad this game came out just because of how fun it was to just move through the game. I explored EVERY place I possibly could in this game.
The gameplay itself was eh. I'm not sure there was a difference between using ironsights and not, but I didn't use them for more than 90% of the game either way. Regardless, the combat was basically like the first Bioshock, but with the Halo rechargeable shield and the option to use ironsights (again, I don't think they actually increased accuracy, which is nice).
The enemies consist of the same variety you see in any other shooter. The one thing that did annoy me is that their difficulty went up simply by increasing their hit points. The harder enemies were only marginally more dangerous than the weaker ones, but took many, many more shots to take down.
I don't see why people didn't like Elizabeth as a combat mechanic, calling it "easy mode" or whatever. She literally does nothing. The hp, salts (mana), and ammo she gives you is stuff that's already there. If you kill someone and he drops ammo, at some point she'll pick that up and throw it to you. She doesn't generate it out of thin air and keep you supplied (this is on hard. It may be different in normal and easy). If there's nothing left in the area you're in, you're out of luck, and she's completely useless.
That's kind of another annoying part. She's a complete non-issue at all in combat. Enemies ignore her, and she just runs in circles around you as you fight. Aside from picking up stuff and tossing them to you on occasion, she does NOTHING. I think it wouldve been interesting for there to be some more mechanics and deeper interaction there, but oh well. At least she wasn't annoying and didn't get in the way. That would've crippled the game.
Anyway, I really liked the game, and I'm going to be thinking about it a lot for a while. I really hope we see more games in the future on this level. They're too few and far between.
Towards the end of the game, after Elizabeth gets recaptured by songbird and you're trying to free her. You meet the dudes with horns and masks for heads. The scary moment is here (also the best reaction I found on youtube):
My own reaction was to fire an entire clip into it and shout FUCK FUCK MOTHERFUCK FUCK at 2am.
Oh gotcha. Hahaha for some reason I thought it was pretty surprising but it didn't get that big of a reaction out of me. At the time, I didn't think that others would really feel particularly surprised/scared or anything for some reason =P
Towards the end of the game, after Elizabeth gets recaptured by songbird and you're trying to free her. You meet the dudes with horns and masks for heads. The scary moment is here (also the best reaction I found on youtube):
My own reaction was to fire an entire clip into it and shout FUCK FUCK MOTHERFUCK FUCK at 2am.
Oh gotcha. Hahaha for some reason I thought it was pretty surprising but it didn't get that big of a reaction out of me. At the time, I didn't think that others would really feel particularly surprised/scared or anything for some reason =P
Hehe that's a throwback to a bioshock 1 moment . I was actually wondering when they would do something like that during my playthrough.
The middle part (getting guns for Daisy) was a bad filler arc but I liked the game overall. It’s sad that they mishandled the time travel (well, people almost never get it right). It definitely grabbed me and I’m glad they didn’t make it hyper-complicated just to seem intellectual but as I said, the conclusion was very much ad hoc.
On April 02 2013 10:24 Zax19 wrote: The middle part (getting guns for Daisy) was a bad filler arc but I liked the game overall. It’s sad that they mishandled the time travel (well, people almost never get it right). It definitely grabbed me and I’m glad they didn’t make it hyper-complicated just to seem intellectual but as I said, the conclusion was very much ad hoc.
definitely agreeing with the ending, it just didn't fit the game. granted the other endings from the other bioshock games were just as out-of-the-blue, i feel infinite's ending was just way too disconnected from what happened during the game.
indeed it was these certain parts of the story that really detract from the overall experience whence you finish the game. if i were to score it, an 8.5/10, -1 for some unneeded long and boring parts of the game, -.5 for the ending.
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Or am I reading into this too much?
They couldn't be used cause of a Lockout during/after the civil war, a war that may not have taken place in that dimension or played out differently, or they could be related or the same people. so yeah dont think too much into it
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Booker is the 1 man like how Jack is the 1 man in BioShock. how Booker is related to Jack/Ryan, who knows but can just assume his genetic make up is close enough.
BioShock took place in 1960. Infinite takes place in 1912.
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
Didn't we learn in the original Bioshock that only Ryan family members could use the bathyspheres? How could DeWitt and Elizabeth use them unless they were related?
On March 30 2013 15:41 motbob wrote: The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
On March 30 2013 15:41 motbob wrote: The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
You need to play more games.
lol ouch.
Also I got the soundtrack and IT'S SO FREAKING GOOD :3
On March 30 2013 15:41 motbob wrote: The best twists are those where you feel like they should have been obvious all along. It's hard for a movie to do that; you can probably count the movies that have had truly great twists on your hands. And video games historically haven't tried, but when they have tried they've been awful at it. The only exception I can think of is Bioshock 1. And now this game.
You need to play more games.
And watch more movies .
Edit: I would list them, but that would be spoilering.
I really enjoyed the game: the art, the story, the atmosphere, even the gameplay. Also it's one of the few games were my AI companion was actually useful and enjoyable. + Show Spoiler +
But the final revelation disappointed me(and I'm not one of those people who hate on game endings regularly, I didn't mind ME3's ending). The final twists were really great until the Comstock revelation, which was too cliché and unneeded, imo.
Also the political/social stuff was pretty shallow compared to Bioshock 1, but I guess that they were a pretext for the actual story instead of being its focus.
I just finished the game and it wasn't bad or anything but still I left it completly disappointed. In terms of gameplay it did nothing better than BioShock and even did some things worse (the enemys were far mor dull compared to BioShock's Splicer and Big Daddys). I also thought Rapture was in terms of design and as a clever look on society way better than Columbia. Elizabeth "worked" but honestly to me she was a fine character in dialogue but everytime the actual gameplay started I almost forgot she existed, if anything she was a mobile ammounition and health pack. + Show Spoiler +
But my biggest problem is with the story, in the beginning it starts very promising with focus on social issues and the US' history but it developed way to fast into this strange dimension tear stuff which is I think a lazy story device to implement twists. The ending completly infuriated me. It was barely connected to the stuff I actually did in the game and further built on this dimension tear bullshit. I rarely hate on the story of games and I was fine with stuff like ME3's ending but this one was even for me too much
Overall I don't get the hype and praise at all, Infinite is in almost every regard inferior the BioShock and is not even close to the Half Life series, neither in terms of gameplay nor storytelling or even character development. I enjoyed Alyx in every regard more than Elizabeth.
I also just played the game through and i have to agree with CrazyBirdman, the story really started out good but soon went downhill when the pseudo-intellectual many-worlds stuff started. I felt a little bit like watching "Lost", where in the beginning you think "hey this plot is really clever" but at a certain point you come to the conclusion that it's just weird and that the authors probably have no idea where they are going with it.
Gameplay wise the game is quite solid but in my opinion worse than the first Bioshock. I just used the possession and shock jockey vigor from a certain point on, because besides possession it felt like they all worked the same anyway. I also felt that there were way too much simple "shoot your way through" parts and overall the game was , even on hard, quite easy and lacked some interesting enemies.
Overall it's still a very good game of course, but i think if they would stepped up the gameplay a little bit and wouldn't have gone all pseudo- philosophical and crazy with the plot and would've just stuck to the racism/nationalism/utopia issue the game would've been way better.
the title of the game is BioShock: Infinite, not BioShock: Revolution
the idea of tears was also introduced early on when watching Elizabeth in Monument Island and there's also plenty of foreshadowing that the Booker in the Columbia universe did not originate there (example his conversation with Elizabeth on Columbia and him not knowing Columbia existed)
the setting of the game just represent's the game's environment, but the focus of the game is between Elizabeth, Booker, and the intertwining of other characters' histories
the title of the game is BioShock: Infinite, not BioShock: Revolution
the idea of tears was also introduced early on when watching Elizabeth in Monument Island and there's also plenty of foreshadowing that the Booker in the Columbia universe did not originate there (example his conversation with Elizabeth on Columbia and him not knowing Columbia existed)
the setting of the game just represent's the game's environment, but the focus of the game is between Elizabeth, Booker, and the intertwining of other characters' histories
Obviously you are right. My problem just is that with all those beautiful levels and art assets you could have told such a good story about the non-metaphysical stuff that is already there. Obviously it is the developers choice. For me it is just a bit of a missed opportunity. I would just love a game with those production values and creative power that manages to focus on a social or philosophical matter without bringing it over the top science fiction. I am starting to believe that developers are scared of doing such a thing because you never can pull out a deus ex machima which in my eyes Elizabeth kind of was that at the end.
the title of the game is BioShock: Infinite, not BioShock: Revolution
the idea of tears was also introduced early on when watching Elizabeth in Monument Island and there's also plenty of foreshadowing that the Booker in the Columbia universe did not originate there (example his conversation with Elizabeth on Columbia and him not knowing Columbia existed)
the setting of the game just represent's the game's environment, but the focus of the game is between Elizabeth, Booker, and the intertwining of other characters' histories
Obviously you are right. My problem just is that with all those beautiful levels and art assets you could have told such a good story about the non-metaphysical stuff that is already there. Obviously it is the developers choice. For me it is just a bit of a missed opportunity. I would just love a game with those production values and creative power that manages to focus on a social or philosophical matter without bringing it over the top science fiction. I am starting to believe that developers are scared of doing such a thing because you never can pull out a deus ex machima which in my eyes Elizabeth kind of was that at the end.
there's still DLC content that can possibly flesh out what you are looking for
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.
the title of the game is BioShock: Infinite, not BioShock: Revolution
the idea of tears was also introduced early on when watching Elizabeth in Monument Island and there's also plenty of foreshadowing that the Booker in the Columbia universe did not originate there (example his conversation with Elizabeth on Columbia and him not knowing Columbia existed)
the setting of the game just represent's the game's environment, but the focus of the game is between Elizabeth, Booker, and the intertwining of other characters' histories
Obviously you are right. My problem just is that with all those beautiful levels and art assets you could have told such a good story about the non-metaphysical stuff that is already there. Obviously it is the developers choice. For me it is just a bit of a missed opportunity. I would just love a game with those production values and creative power that manages to focus on a social or philosophical matter without bringing it over the top science fiction. I am starting to believe that developers are scared of doing such a thing because you never can pull out a deus ex machima which in my eyes Elizabeth kind of was that at the end.
I have to agree that the setting was interesting and it would probably be easier to lead the story into some interesting yet believable conclusion rather than using time travel as a plot device. The conclusion makes the setting pointless because it supposedly never existed. What you usually have to do is explain enough to keep the audience invested while avoiding anything that could prematurely expose the main plot twist but the time travel was explained so explicitly that it wouldn’t lead to the conclusion the authors chose. In other words, my impression should be “yeah, that could have happened” rather than “eer, that’s kinda impossible”.
Finished it in little more than 10H on hard. Of course missed some recordings etc but I didn't really rushed it.
I really really liked it. The story, setting, soundtrack and overall ambiance is top quality. Only downfall is the textures here and there that look a bit old (damn those red curtains on the ground look really ugly) but nothing really important. + Show Spoiler +
I'm not 100% convinced about the whole time traveling/multiverse thing but I will put my issue with it away since its the same for every story that attempts time travel and paralel universes, it just creates paradoxes. As some have pointed out however, the end plot is a bit brutal. The game does a very good job at giving you answers slowly but kinda throw a ton of stuff at you at the end
Gameplay was very good but could have been perfect. I didn't used possess (since I felt it looked broken reading some comments) and I really loved some of the action scenes. I felt I really had to use everything available at times. However, some ennemies were a bit too resistant to bullets and it felt really annoying at times. Gear upgrades are kinda meh.
The game had a good length for its kind. I'm not sure what some people are complaining about when it comes to length. I don't want to reignite the debate but it feels like people want a RPG length for a single player FPS. Non sensical. The amount of work that is put in those 10H of Bioshock Infinite by the devs is not less than a 100H Skyrim. It's just totally different stuff and if length is a huge problem I would suggest you just to wait for the price to drop. The same way you dont pay 30$ for a 1h30 DvD and wait for its price to drop at 10$. Or you could get 20h of Bioshock with recycled content or endless battles. Meh. Well of course, if it would have been THAT good but for 10h more, I wouldn't complain. But I know its just not possible.
Overall I'd give it somewhere between 9 and 10 (9.5 ?). It has a few meh points but it's definetly one of the best single player games that came in years, and definetly my top single FPS I've played (I had even more fun than with HL2 back in the day... which was the same length).
the title of the game is BioShock: Infinite, not BioShock: Revolution
the idea of tears was also introduced early on when watching Elizabeth in Monument Island and there's also plenty of foreshadowing that the Booker in the Columbia universe did not originate there (example his conversation with Elizabeth on Columbia and him not knowing Columbia existed)
the setting of the game just represent's the game's environment, but the focus of the game is between Elizabeth, Booker, and the intertwining of other characters' histories
Obviously you are right. My problem just is that with all those beautiful levels and art assets you could have told such a good story about the non-metaphysical stuff that is already there. Obviously it is the developers choice. For me it is just a bit of a missed opportunity. I would just love a game with those production values and creative power that manages to focus on a social or philosophical matter without bringing it over the top science fiction. I am starting to believe that developers are scared of doing such a thing because you never can pull out a deus ex machima which in my eyes Elizabeth kind of was that at the end.
I have to agree that the setting was interesting and it would probably be easier to lead the story into some interesting yet believable conclusion rather than using time travel as a plot device. The conclusion makes the setting pointless because it supposedly never existed. What you usually have to do is explain enough to keep the audience invested while avoiding anything that could prematurely expose the main plot twist but the time travel was explained so explicitly that it wouldn’t lead to the conclusion the authors chose. In other words, my impression should be “yeah, that could have happened” rather than “eer, that’s kinda impossible”.
Huh, I think I just fixed the story for them xD + Show Spoiler +
If Booker drowned during the baptism Liz would never be born. But as I said, the story was great, it just needs a different conclusion. I’d explain it as there is time “above” time so that at one point there are various universes at a different stage of their own existence. What happens in the game is the breaking point when finally, after infinite numbers of universes, Booker manages (with the help of Liz) to merge with himself at the point of baptism, drown and somehow give precedent to all the future universes. This would erase both Comstock and Liz from all such universes but not from the “previous” ones. So the point is not to fix the “greater past” but the “greater future” by a personal sacrifice.
You are shown two baptism scenes. In the first scene, you become the Booker that rejects the baptism due to feeling unable to forgive himself for past sins, including Wounded Knee. This scenario proceeds as normal and is unchanged. Booker's own time line proceeds as normal.
You are then shown the second baptism scene. Importantly, this is the scenario where you are about to accept the baptism, thus becoming Comstock. However, Elizabeth interferes (following your wishes, you had just told her that you were fully committed to killing Comstock at his birth) and smothers you, thus ending the second time line.
Overall result as shown in the post credits scene: the original Booker has Anna, but there is no Comstock to steal her away.
You are shown two baptism scenes. In the first scene, you become the Booker that rejects the baptism due to feeling unable to forgive himself for past sins, including Wounded Knee. This scenario proceeds as normal and is unchanged. Booker's own time line proceeds as normal.
You are then shown the second baptism scene. Importantly, this is the scenario where you are about to accept the baptism, thus becoming Comstock. However, Elizabeth interferes (following your wishes, you had just told her that you were fully committed to killing Comstock at his birth) and smothers you, thus ending the second time line.
Overall result as shown in the post credits scene: the original Booker has Anna, but there is no Comstock to steal her away.
I wasn’t trying to explain what happened in the game but how to change it in order to make it plausible. What you described isn’t plausible because of the time travel paradox which is my main problem with the conclusion.
Every element of this game is so good that it puts so much shame on so called game developers around the world. Made me think about blizzard and how long they worked on hots and the story turned out like average boring TV show.
If you are not a complete dimwit you will take your time playing this game, on highest difficulty that suits your skill, and allow yourself to maximally absorb this immaculate interactive work of purest art.
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.
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!!
It's kinda hard to explain but if they are scatter all across the "possibilities" (as in quantum mechanic terms), then from their perspective they would be observing all Bookers at the same time. So it might be that they ask Booker to flip a coin, then appear immediately to the next Booker and ask the same thing immediately, then move to the next Booker, repeat infinite time. So our playable Booker is the 123rd time they observe.
I wish that the game spent more time focusing on the airborne city idea: showing how day-to-day life took place in the city, how different parts of the city worked (each building has it's own self-contained water system?), etc. I felt like the first 2-4 hours were the best parts to just look around because you can see so much of the city and clouds and really feel like you're in a city in the sky. Whereas most of the rest of the game is in indoor environments or comes with really high walls that don't let you see the rest of the city at all.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
Wow, what an ignorant post.
All books, movies and stories about love are all pretty much the same, but still some get alot of recognition, while others don't.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
Do i have low standards or is hating cool on the internet ?
My friend and I were playing at the same time over skype and one of the first things I said was. This is gonna be amazing, they are gonna do some fringe shit here! After I finished I said "See I told you they were gonna do some fringe shit!" I love this game and I loved fringe, such a good show.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
That's pretty ironic considering BioShock Infinite actually does an objectively horrible job telling the story. If the game is broken into three "acts," with act 2 taking place between the time you find Elizabeth until you approach Comstock, act 2's events are completely and totally irrelevant to the actual arc. You spend 6-8 hours delving into a dispute between the Founders and the Vox Populi when this dispute literally has nothing to do with yours or Elizabeth's story. Not a lick. Every couple of hours, your shallowly rendered relationship with Elizabeth evolves, usually demarcated by another piece of her clothing being ripped off, but beyond that they could have removed the middle 8 hours of the game and the story would have been no less understandable.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
That's pretty ironic considering BioShock Infinite actually does an objectively horrible job telling the story. If the game is broken into three "acts," with act 2 taking place between the time you find Elizabeth until you approach Comstock, act 2's events are completely and totally irrelevant to the actual arc. You spend 6-8 hours delving into a dispute between the Founders and the Vox Populi when this dispute literally has nothing to do with yours or Elizabeth's story. Not a lick. Every couple of hours, your shallowly rendered relationship with Elizabeth evolves, usually demarcated by another piece of her clothing being ripped off, but beyond that they could have removed the middle 8 hours of the game and the story would have been no less understandable.
And yet if they removed the middle 8 hours of the game, the game wouldn't have told a good story. The word you're looking for is "subjectively". The "middle" part you're talking about does the job of evolving your relationship with Elizabeth (which I would far from call shallow, again, subjectively), and filling you in about the world you're in, through storytelling, audio books, environment, and even the combat itself. If you had taken all the "filler" part of the game out, you'd just be left with "a story". I can tell you everything that happens in game of thrones up till now within 5 minutes. It would be the same story, but it wouldn't be good, and sure as hell wouldn't be engaging. This is the difference between telling a story, and telling a good one. Bioshock Infinite does an incredible job of telling a good story (even if its not particularly new or inventive).
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
That's pretty ironic considering BioShock Infinite actually does an objectively horrible job telling the story. If the game is broken into three "acts," with act 2 taking place between the time you find Elizabeth until you approach Comstock, act 2's events are completely and totally irrelevant to the actual arc. You spend 6-8 hours delving into a dispute between the Founders and the Vox Populi when this dispute literally has nothing to do with yours or Elizabeth's story. Not a lick. Every couple of hours, your shallowly rendered relationship with Elizabeth evolves, usually demarcated by another piece of her clothing being ripped off, but beyond that they could have removed the middle 8 hours of the game and the story would have been no less understandable.
What those story arc's really do is helps flesh out an amazing world, which is something bioshock infinite has in spades. Just because it doesn't push the main story forward doesn't mean it is completely worthless, there were many more stories in that game than just the main plot. Many more characters developing than just yours and Elizabeth's.
Just finished the game....I'm kind of conflicted on it. I thought gameplay was the big weak point and production values were the highest ever in a videogame obv. I liked bioshock 1 and even 2 way better as far as gameplay for example....way too many useless weapons/vigors/gears, no character progression system in an age when more and more fps are implementing them. No hacking or any minigames for that matter -_-. Enemies were boring for a bioshock game.
Normally to me gameplay is everything. I can take a game like bayonetta where the story is zero but play the shit out of it because the gameplay is amazing. But in the end I have to say this is the first time ever for me that I can say the game is worth getting just for the amazing amount of work they put into creating the game world. Even with all the weaknesses I listed playing through the game and experiencing the world and story they created was pretty amazing. I think such effort deserves respect and at least a one time playthrough from any gamer to support similar efforts in the future. Just hope that the next time a developer is able to create such a great an immersive game world they can put as much effort into the gameplay portion.
On April 08 2013 11:20 antelope591 wrote: Just finished the game....I'm kind of conflicted on it. I thought gameplay was the big weak point and production values were the highest ever in a videogame obv. I liked bioshock 1 and even 2 way better as far as gameplay for example....way too many useless weapons/vigors/gears, no character progression system in an age when more and more fps are implementing them. No hacking or any minigames for that matter -_-. Enemies were boring for a bioshock game.
Normally to me gameplay is everything. I can take a game like bayonetta where the story is zero but play the shit out of it because the gameplay is amazing. But in the end I have to say this is the first time ever for me that I can say the game is worth getting just for the amazing amount of work they put into creating the game world. Even with all the weaknesses I listed playing through the game and experiencing the world and story they created was pretty amazing. I think such effort deserves respect and at least a one time playthrough from any gamer to support similar efforts in the future. Just hope that the next time a developer is able to create such a great an immersive game world they can put as much effort into the gameplay portion.
hah I felt like the biggest improvement between infinite and bioshock 1 was the fact that there was no crappy hacking minigame that takes up 5-10% of total playtime. Also there was definitely character progression in the game (different clothing upgrades, upgrading vigors and weapons), although they were all pretty boring. The story/atmosphere is definitely the biggest draw of the game though.
On April 08 2013 11:20 antelope591 wrote: Just finished the game....I'm kind of conflicted on it. I thought gameplay was the big weak point and production values were the highest ever in a videogame obv. I liked bioshock 1 and even 2 way better as far as gameplay for example....way too many useless weapons/vigors/gears, no character progression system in an age when more and more fps are implementing them. No hacking or any minigames for that matter -_-. Enemies were boring for a bioshock game.
Normally to me gameplay is everything. I can take a game like bayonetta where the story is zero but play the shit out of it because the gameplay is amazing. But in the end I have to say this is the first time ever for me that I can say the game is worth getting just for the amazing amount of work they put into creating the game world. Even with all the weaknesses I listed playing through the game and experiencing the world and story they created was pretty amazing. I think such effort deserves respect and at least a one time playthrough from any gamer to support similar efforts in the future. Just hope that the next time a developer is able to create such a great an immersive game world they can put as much effort into the gameplay portion.
hah I felt like the biggest improvement between infinite and bioshock 1 was the fact that there was no crappy hacking minigame that takes up 5-10% of total playtime. Also there was definitely character progression in the game (different clothing upgrades, upgrading vigors and weapons), although they were all pretty boring. The story/atmosphere is definitely the biggest draw of the game though.
I agree, with both of you guys, as a FPS, the gameplay is definitely weak. Usually I don't mind the 2 gun limit , but here it doesn't really make sense. Hey, I cannot carry more than 2 guns, but I'm still being able to carry a truckload of ammunition. 11 rockets, 24 shotgun shells, 24 sniper bullets, god knows how many machine gun bullets,... I'd like to be able to drop a couple of rockets and grab another gun instead. But nope. However the game is very well paced and the immersion is amazing.
As the fanboyest bioshock fanboy ever, i loved this game. But not as a bioshock title. When sc2 was half way through the beta i thought "Man this game has nothing to do with starcraft, but this is a pretty damn good rts anyways" . It's the same for infinite.
I think creepiness is the key flavor in bioshock's rich recipie. + Show Spoiler +
The asylum level
were the only part when i felt like i was playin bioshock. And it was damn short yo.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
That's pretty ironic considering BioShock Infinite actually does an objectively horrible job telling the story. If the game is broken into three "acts," with act 2 taking place between the time you find Elizabeth until you approach Comstock, act 2's events are completely and totally irrelevant to the actual arc. You spend 6-8 hours delving into a dispute between the Founders and the Vox Populi when this dispute literally has nothing to do with yours or Elizabeth's story. Not a lick. Every couple of hours, your shallowly rendered relationship with Elizabeth evolves, usually demarcated by another piece of her clothing being ripped off, but beyond that they could have removed the middle 8 hours of the game and the story would have been no less understandable.
Yeah, use the word "objective" in a text where you state your oppion about a story.
Again I will tell you, theres a difference between the PLOT and the STORYTELLING in any fictional piece of work. You keep talking about the plot as it was the storytelling. Most good books have pages and pages just fleshing out the world, and minor details that doesn't really impact the plot but moreso gives you an idea about the persons involved, the world they live in so the plot and story is believable and makes you have affection etc towards characters and persons in the plot or story.
Like the time when Elisabeth kills the Vox populi leader. This is part of the storytelling to make you understand that Elisabeth is a woman of action and that she will take action if she sees something she believes is wrong. This is DIRECTLY drawing the picture of the same person that kills YOU in the final scene, and actually very much makes that scene beleiveable.
Alot other of that part which you "objectively" don't like is drawing out the world that you character lives in, drawing the + Show Spoiler +
vast impact "traveling" between dimensions have, so you as the player again understands the major impacts your action, the twins actions and Elisabeths action all have on each dimension.
On April 08 2013 11:20 antelope591 wrote: Just finished the game....I'm kind of conflicted on it. I thought gameplay was the big weak point and production values were the highest ever in a videogame obv. I liked bioshock 1 and even 2 way better as far as gameplay for example....way too many useless weapons/vigors/gears, no character progression system in an age when more and more fps are implementing them. No hacking or any minigames for that matter -_-. Enemies were boring for a bioshock game.
Normally to me gameplay is everything. I can take a game like bayonetta where the story is zero but play the shit out of it because the gameplay is amazing. But in the end I have to say this is the first time ever for me that I can say the game is worth getting just for the amazing amount of work they put into creating the game world. Even with all the weaknesses I listed playing through the game and experiencing the world and story they created was pretty amazing. I think such effort deserves respect and at least a one time playthrough from any gamer to support similar efforts in the future. Just hope that the next time a developer is able to create such a great an immersive game world they can put as much effort into the gameplay portion.
hah I felt like the biggest improvement between infinite and bioshock 1 was the fact that there was no crappy hacking minigame that takes up 5-10% of total playtime. Also there was definitely character progression in the game (different clothing upgrades, upgrading vigors and weapons), although they were all pretty boring. The story/atmosphere is definitely the biggest draw of the game though.
I agree that the hacking in bioshock was too much but something like hacking in bioshock 2 would've been nice to break up the monotony of just going to point A to point B and shooting people over and over. I dont consider going to a vending machine an buying crap character progression. Something like far cry 3 skill trees is character progression. Even the first 2 bioshocks did it a lot better with getting plasmids from little sisters and using them for upgrades instead of just scrounging for coin -_-
On April 12 2013 04:12 _Edge_ wrote: I'm still on the fence for this game. I've never been a massive Bioshock fan in the past. How much different is this game from the rest of the series?
Not much. The story/immersion is as good as you'd expect from a Bioshock game and possibly a bit better, but the shooting and gameplay is just as mediocre.
Yes, the player isn't your standard silent protagonist, and Elizabeth plays a large part, but all other interactions between the major persona in the game are exceedingly limited. A few speeches by the twins, a sermon or two, and that's about it. You don't get very deep into any of their heads and they are all such paragons of their own cliche that it's contrived.
Likewise with the world as a whole, for all your flying in the sky, there isn't that much of an immersion in that. Quite a bit of the gameplay takes place inside, or in significantly tighter quarters than you'd expect, and the parts that are outside don't really give the feeling of 'mid-air' even the skylines are more rail-road than I'd like.
That's nothing next to the utter contrivance of the plot itself. They had loads of wonderful pieces that they could have expanded upon, but they ultimately ended with a hashed psudo-science-fiction theme that was poorly conceived and utterly disappointing, not to mention ultimately morose and circular. All I really felt towards the end was that choice was an illusion, or at the very least ultimately futile. They could have kept with the socio/religious-political/racial tension that they built up earlier and that could have made a very interesting plot, but in the end, neither side was functional. Granted, there was evidence pretty early on that Fitzroy was just another sociopath.
In the end, there were some pretty massive plot-holes, and it left me largely unfulfilled. The ending itself was depressing, confusing, and contrived.
Overall, I'd probably have to rate the game 7.5/10 or so.
On April 08 2013 02:51 Erasme wrote: this is an amazing game i dont even care if i have infinite health/ammo/vigor, the story is just too fucking good
There have been about 100 movies released with the same story. Looper was released a couple years ago and no one flipped out because of how "amazing" its story was.
Low standards...
the way the story is told is often more important than the story itself. What Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite does best is telling the story.
That's pretty ironic considering BioShock Infinite actually does an objectively horrible job telling the story. If the game is broken into three "acts," with act 2 taking place between the time you find Elizabeth until you approach Comstock, act 2's events are completely and totally irrelevant to the actual arc. You spend 6-8 hours delving into a dispute between the Founders and the Vox Populi when this dispute literally has nothing to do with yours or Elizabeth's story. Not a lick. Every couple of hours, your shallowly rendered relationship with Elizabeth evolves, usually demarcated by another piece of her clothing being ripped off, but beyond that they could have removed the middle 8 hours of the game and the story would have been no less understandable.
Yeah, use the word "objective" in a text where you state your oppion about a story.
Again I will tell you, theres a difference between the PLOT and the STORYTELLING in any fictional piece of work. You keep talking about the plot as it was the storytelling. Most good books have pages and pages just fleshing out the world, and minor details that doesn't really impact the plot but moreso gives you an idea about the persons involved, the world they live in so the plot and story is believable and makes you have affection etc towards characters and persons in the plot or story.
Like the time when Elisabeth kills the Vox populi leader. This is part of the storytelling to make you understand that Elisabeth is a woman of action and that she will take action if she sees something she believes is wrong. This is DIRECTLY drawing the picture of the same person that kills YOU in the final scene, and actually very much makes that scene beleiveable.
Alot other of that part which you "objectively" don't like is drawing out the world that you character lives in, drawing the + Show Spoiler +
vast impact "traveling" between dimensions have, so you as the player again understands the major impacts your action, the twins actions and Elisabeths action all have on each dimension.
If you want to know the difference between plot and storytelling, just look at sc1 vs sc2.
Just finished playing through this game and I have to say that I absolutely loved it. It is without a doubt one of the best games I've ever played. The immersion was amazing, the setting was unique and beautiful for a game, the characters and voice acting were top notch, and the score for the whole game is superb. This game leashed me in and held me at the screen for hours. There were never pacing problems, I never got bored or felt as though a scene or sequence took too long or short. If you buy one game this year this should be the one.
Seems like people in this thread just want to complain and say that the game isn't really that good to be different than the masses, well I have to say that the masses are right about this game, it is truly a 10/10 hands down I have no problem in saying that.
Brilliant game loved every second of it, will play again.
I mean, elizabeth turned into dictator, for some odd reason recollects her decades old feelings and uses her last powers to get in touch with booker and save herself in the past. She said earlier that they were using some devices in the tower to drain power from her, so after she was free to reign she could open or create tears and escape if she remembered her old self. The fact that she didn't until she became an old hag is just bad writing. That's straight up made from thin air. Same thing with booker and the baptism, ops I'm a new man now, guess I'll turn into Hitler cause why not, that would be fun and not unnatural at all.
I won't even touch the subject of how physics change people's personalities. Whatever.
I mean, elizabeth turned into dictator, for some odd reason recollects her decades old feelings and uses her last powers to get in touch with booker and save herself in the past. She said earlier that they were using some devices in the tower to drain power from her, so after she was free to reign she could open or create tears and escape if she remembered her old self. The fact that she didn't until she became an old hag is just bad writing. That's straight up made from thin air. Same thing with booker and the baptism, ops I'm a new man now, guess I'll turn into Hitler cause why not, that would be fun and not unnatural at all.
I won't even touch the subject of how physics change people's personalities. Whatever.
Please use spoiler tags like so.
Also why do you think 'physics' changes their personalities? + Show Spoiler +
I agree that the changes are daft, but its not meant to be 'physics' that changes them, its meant to be the result of different events in their lives, however far-fetched that may be the idea was simply that their time lines diverge at a particular point, in one Booker leads one life and in another he leads a totally different life, its not hard to see how that would end up with a completely different person at the end, maybe not to the extremes the game suggests, but that's fiction for you, the games story is hardly a masterpiece or original.
On April 13 2013 13:31 peekn wrote: Just finished playing through this game and I have to say that I absolutely loved it. It is without a doubt one of the best games I've ever played. The immersion was amazing, the setting was unique and beautiful for a game, the characters and voice acting were top notch, and the score for the whole game is superb. This game leashed me in and held me at the screen for hours. There were never pacing problems, I never got bored or felt as though a scene or sequence took too long or short. If you buy one game this year this should be the one.
Seems like people in this thread just want to complain and say that the game isn't really that good to be different than the masses, well I have to say that the masses are right about this game, it is truly a 10/10 hands down I have no problem in saying that.
Brilliant game loved every second of it, will play again.
I'm not trying to diminish what you felt, but did you play the first two games, or was this your first bioshock experience? It seems like those who haven't played any previous bioshock games love it, and those that have, feel like it's lacklustre.
I mean, elizabeth turned into dictator, for some odd reason recollects her decades old feelings and uses her last powers to get in touch with booker and save herself in the past. She said earlier that they were using some devices in the tower to drain power from her, so after she was free to reign she could open or create tears and escape if she remembered her old self. The fact that she didn't until she became an old hag is just bad writing. That's straight up made from thin air. Same thing with booker and the baptism, ops I'm a new man now, guess I'll turn into Hitler cause why not, that would be fun and not unnatural at all.
I won't even touch the subject of how physics change people's personalities. Whatever.
Please use spoiler tags like so.
Also why do you think 'physics' changes their personalities? + Show Spoiler +
I agree that the changes are daft, but its not meant to be 'physics' that changes them, its meant to be the result of different events in their lives, however far-fetched that may be the idea was simply that their time lines diverge at a particular point, in one Booker leads one life and in another he leads a totally different life, its not hard to see how that would end up with a completely different person at the end, maybe not to the extremes the game suggests, but that's fiction for you, the games story is hardly a masterpiece or original.
Because to be fair in my critique towards the game I read the bioshock wiki. + Show Spoiler +
There it is explained that it's the quantum experiments that slowly alter their personalities and even their physiques, that's why comstock became sterile and had to steal a child from an alternative self, which happened to be booker.
Even if that all made sense, which it doesn't, these things should be explained in the game.
I mean, elizabeth turned into dictator, for some odd reason recollects her decades old feelings and uses her last powers to get in touch with booker and save herself in the past. She said earlier that they were using some devices in the tower to drain power from her, so after she was free to reign she could open or create tears and escape if she remembered her old self. The fact that she didn't until she became an old hag is just bad writing. That's straight up made from thin air. Same thing with booker and the baptism, ops I'm a new man now, guess I'll turn into Hitler cause why not, that would be fun and not unnatural at all.
I won't even touch the subject of how physics change people's personalities. Whatever.
Please use spoiler tags like so.
Also why do you think 'physics' changes their personalities? + Show Spoiler +
I agree that the changes are daft, but its not meant to be 'physics' that changes them, its meant to be the result of different events in their lives, however far-fetched that may be the idea was simply that their time lines diverge at a particular point, in one Booker leads one life and in another he leads a totally different life, its not hard to see how that would end up with a completely different person at the end, maybe not to the extremes the game suggests, but that's fiction for you, the games story is hardly a masterpiece or original.
Because to be fair in my critique towards the game I read the bioshock wiki. + Show Spoiler +
There it is explained that it's the quantum experiments that slowly alter their personalities and even their physiques, that's why comstock became sterile and had to steal a child from an alternative self, which happened to be booker.
Even if that all made sense, which it doesn't, these things should be explained in the game.
It was indeed explained in the game. There was a voxophone which had Lutece theorising about this.
I mean, elizabeth turned into dictator, for some odd reason recollects her decades old feelings and uses her last powers to get in touch with booker and save herself in the past. She said earlier that they were using some devices in the tower to drain power from her, so after she was free to reign she could open or create tears and escape if she remembered her old self. The fact that she didn't until she became an old hag is just bad writing. That's straight up made from thin air. Same thing with booker and the baptism, ops I'm a new man now, guess I'll turn into Hitler cause why not, that would be fun and not unnatural at all.
I won't even touch the subject of how physics change people's personalities. Whatever.
Wait, so you don't think that all born-again Christians go from hardened veteran-murderers into racist, daughter-snatching, tyrannical cliched religious dictators?
You don't hold to a viewpoint that cannot even be described as 1-dimensional it is so shallow?
To me everything that was discussed in the game was so disgustingly shallow. It's expected of video games, but come on don't talk about this game like the story was even close to decent. A toddler could wade in the depth of this game.
P.S. Borrowed the game from a friend. Can't say I understand the praise at all of a linear and mindnumbingly boring game with such a trite story. It looked pretty though, and the voice acting was nice.
On April 13 2013 13:31 peekn wrote: Just finished playing through this game and I have to say that I absolutely loved it. It is without a doubt one of the best games I've ever played. The immersion was amazing, the setting was unique and beautiful for a game, the characters and voice acting were top notch, and the score for the whole game is superb. This game leashed me in and held me at the screen for hours. There were never pacing problems, I never got bored or felt as though a scene or sequence took too long or short. If you buy one game this year this should be the one.
Seems like people in this thread just want to complain and say that the game isn't really that good to be different than the masses, well I have to say that the masses are right about this game, it is truly a 10/10 hands down I have no problem in saying that.
Brilliant game loved every second of it, will play again.
I'm not trying to diminish what you felt, but did you play the first two games, or was this your first bioshock experience? It seems like those who haven't played any previous bioshock games love it, and those that have, feel like it's lacklustre.
I have the first two, and I started to play through them but then something came up. I think that I'm going to go back and play through them then compare the two.
I replayed 1 and 2 after finishing Infinite just for fun, but it helped clear things up for me personally (and without bias for the most part) about the weapon/equipment system in Infinite after getting the full-on refresher course in all that is Bioshock. What made the weapon system so exciting (at least for me) in 1 and 2 was: 1. There's only ever a limited number of Power to the people (weapon upgrade) stations throughout the game. So whenever you glimpsed one from afar, you knew you just HAD to get it. It's that feeling of finding a Piece of Heart in a Zelda game all over again. Not to mention they make pretty damn significant gameplay changes for your weapons. I feel that 2 did this better because of the third upgrade for any given weapon was always epic, i.e. the tesla coils on shotguns, heated rivets for the rivet gun, etc. 2. There weren't as many weapons as there are in Infinite so each felt unique in their purpose for the most part. 3. Cosmetics. This is the least significant reason, but still it's nice to actually see the tesla coils/lightbulb thingamabobs on your shotgun.
I guess what I couldn't grasp during my first playthrough of infinite was how weird it felt to find a weapon upgrade station and then just abandon it because there weren't any new upgrades for that favorite weapon of yours. Or that the bonuses the upgrades provided were fairly generic and not as exciting. Or how I constantly picked up ammo for the duplicate guns I was never going to use.
The whole bit with the equipment was a nice idea, but as for the effects that most of them provide...I didn't end up liking a majority of them except for like one totally awesome piece. Everything else kind of fell by the wayside in comparison. A prime example would be the piece of equipment that shortens the delay for shield recharge and also speeds up the shield regen rate. I don't really know how everyone else played, but that piece of equipment was literally the best in slot right there. I used that basically until the game ended. The 1 and 2 equivalent of these "equipment" pieces would be the gene tonics, but the difference is that there were so many good gene tonics to the point where I didn't have enough slots to fit them all .
I loved the vigors and their upgrades and I totally don't care if crows = direct copy of bees or whatever like so many reviews nitpick on. Crows are pretty badass imo. Undertow is just frikkin awesome. I played around with that in my 2nd playthrough and it was so friggin fun!
The reason I wrote this up is basically because, at least for me, all that shit I wrote above was the only "huge chunk" of that Bioshock-feel that was missing for me in Infinite. The story, the music (Garry Schyman is the man), the sounds, the characters, the environment, the mother-humpin skyhook system...all of it was amazing. I just couldn't get a clear grasp on what it was that was missing for me until I replayed the previous games. I really hope the dlc content in the future has some of the stuff they scrapped out from their E3 demo.
slightly unrelated sidenote: how amazing would it be if Arkane Studios got together with Irrational and created something. I lurved dishonored's gameplay SO MUCH .. if that was mixed together with Levine's way of telling/showing us a story my life would be complete.
Memories suppressed by the act of crossing dimensions. In the ending, we see that he "manufactured" his initial charge in the game ("Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt") from his old memories of selling Anna to Comstock. Likewise, it isn't until Elizabeth brings him across dimensions and time to the actual moment where Booker gives up Anna that he remember (and as viewers, we consequently know what actually happened).
One question I didn't see answered though was why all the citizens of Columbia look the same (you know the standard guy/female you see everywhere, not the Luteces.) This isn't even a spoiler because it was the first thing I noticed when playing.
Also epic-ness linking to Bioshock 1: (if it's been posted in a spoiler already my apologies) + Show Spoiler +
Also the Vox Populi conflict I just took to show that no matter rich, or poor,, or what color skin they have, if they have power they will abuse it I think the reason everyone looks the same is because they were lazy and didn't think anyone would notice. Or they could be really smart, and Columbia is made from Bookers passed memories since the two baptism guys are the same. I think it was just laziness though.
Overall, a fantastic game that really immersed me and let me forget about day to day problems for a while. 9/10 for me.
On April 13 2013 13:31 peekn wrote: Just finished playing through this game and I have to say that I absolutely loved it. It is without a doubt one of the best games I've ever played. The immersion was amazing, the setting was unique and beautiful for a game, the characters and voice acting were top notch, and the score for the whole game is superb. This game leashed me in and held me at the screen for hours. There were never pacing problems, I never got bored or felt as though a scene or sequence took too long or short. If you buy one game this year this should be the one.
Seems like people in this thread just want to complain and say that the game isn't really that good to be different than the masses, well I have to say that the masses are right about this game, it is truly a 10/10 hands down I have no problem in saying that.
Brilliant game loved every second of it, will play again.
I'm not trying to diminish what you felt, but did you play the first two games, or was this your first bioshock experience? It seems like those who haven't played any previous bioshock games love it, and those that have, feel like it's lacklustre.
Personally, I played Bioshock 1 about two thirds through before I stopped playing it completely. It just wasn't fun at all for me. However, I just finished Bioshock Infinite and I have to say that I loved every minute of it. The story and scenery were both amazing. The voice acting was great, the characters were engaging, the game was immersive, the gameplay was good.
One question I didn't see answered though was why all the citizens of Columbia look the same (you know the standard guy/female you see everywhere, not the Luteces.) This isn't even a spoiler because it was the first thing I noticed when playing.
Also epic-ness linking to Bioshock 1: (if it's been posted in a spoiler already my apologies) + Show Spoiler +
it's hard for me to say but I have stopped playing bioshock infinite. The world is just not dark enough for me. I am at the + Show Spoiler +
ghost lady
area and it is really boring at the moment. I think the main issues I have with it are: the arrow that points you where you need to go is often very confusing when it includes rail lines travel. I thought it's just me that have the problem but it seems my friends also are finding it annoying
Elizabeth constantly teleporting. I wish I was following her so that if she finds something interesting, she would show me. But with me leading the party, sometimes I didn't notice she was looking at things and I cut her short by running too far ahead. She also doesn't react to a lot of things I do. I can shoot the whole town and she doesn't seem to care at all other than the initial few kills.
Elizabeth not targettable by the enemies, making it feels more like a one man fight with an invincibile ghost's support. Unlike this: + Show Spoiler +
Elizabeth randomly disturbing herself by offering you items when she is saying something emotional.
One question I didn't see answered though was why all the citizens of Columbia look the same (you know the standard guy/female you see everywhere, not the Luteces.) This isn't even a spoiler because it was the first thing I noticed when playing.
Also epic-ness linking to Bioshock 1: (if it's been posted in a spoiler already my apologies) + Show Spoiler +
Booker and Elizabeth were in the Rapture Metro while Jack was dealing with Cohen down in Fort Frolic...
MIND. BLOWN.
Yeah I noticed the population also within 15 minutes. Identical people everywhere, even the kids are reused. Was it done on purpose?
Well, at first I was like... hmm this guy looks like the other, why they so lazy! Then I realized all of them were like that. It was 100% done on purpose no question. I mean, just brainstorming here perhaps it has something to do with how + Show Spoiler +
Alternate reality Bookers keep repeating the same paths so the unimportant details like random people's faces just blend together...
Earlier on in the game I thought the likeness of all the upper-class seeming citizens being the same was going to be significant in some way like they were clones of the ruling family or something but unless I'm missing something it wasn't really explained (I'm sure someone has figured this out though, will google more tomorrow mayhaps.)
Also, random thing I found amusing was when you aim at Elizabeth she will squirm away trying to get out of your sights and ask you to stop.
Elizabeth randomly disturbing herself by offering you items when she is saying something emotional.
That was the biggest immersion killer for me. I remember at one point deep in the game she was speaking about the event that just happened and got very emotional. I was waiting for her to finish before making her open the lock, so as soon as she finished she goes back to the normal "Yeah i can open that" voicel.
The whole Elizabeth being your daughter was pretty obvious for me: 1. AD inscribed on your arm had to be Anna Dewitt and Anna Dewitt had to be Elizabeth. 2. I meta'd the shit outta this game and realized that there must be a reason there was zero romance option in a video game where you spend the entire time with an attractive lady. The age difference only made it more obvious that she was your daughter. BUT I suppose her being your daughter isn't the real twist, it's you being Comstock. At one point in the game I had guessed this just because it seemed a very Bioshock-y thing to do and the multiple timelines made it seem very plausible but still, the way it was done was very satisfying for me.
Great game. As for little dialogue that ruin immersion, one time Booker tell's Elizabeth he's going to take her to New York and she's ignores him. Later he sets a course for New York and she cries and bashes him over the head with a wrench. I was like WTF lady I already told you this.
But I beat this game in one day yesterday and am now watching Day9 play it. Speaks as to how amazing it was.
On April 20 2013 02:56 PassiveAce wrote: I will never understand why some people prefer aiming with a stick rather then a mouse.
They're an undeveloped sub-species, who feel more comfortable with something they know and love that helped their ancestors protect themselves, while the more developed species moves on and adapts to some that gives them more precision and rotation.
Just beat the game today, was fairly proud of myself for seeing most of the twists beforehand. + Show Spoiler +
Guessed early on that Anna was connected to Elizabeth...that was more of a Chekhov's gun thing, where it had to have some significance. I might have gotten some story crossed though, because I had assumed Anna was Booker's wife...so the assumption was that Elizabeth either was Anna or Anna and Booker's daughter. Guess I was right twice?
Lutece twins was fairly obvious once Quantum physics was mentioned.
Multiple Bookers was by extension of the twins and the head/tails board.
Comstock being Booker kinda just followed from assuming he wasn't lying about her being his daughter.
Only thing I missed was the "Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt".
Gameplay felt much tighter than in the first Bioshock, and I actively cycled through most of my Vigours throughout fights (opposed to ignoring most of the Plasmids). Only one I never used was Possession.
On April 20 2013 02:56 PassiveAce wrote: I will never understand why some people prefer aiming with a stick rather then a mouse.
I play single player games like that with a controller. It's just a lot more comfortable for long hours at a time. Anything competitive i use m/k. I assume a lot of people do this.
On April 20 2013 02:56 PassiveAce wrote: I will never understand why some people prefer aiming with a stick rather then a mouse.
I play single player games like that with a controller. It's just a lot more comfortable for long hours at a time. Anything competitive i use m/k. I assume a lot of people do this.
Curious about this - more comfortable as in, you can go lay down on a couch or whatever? Or better for your actual hands, ie carpal tunnel/wrists etc?
On April 20 2013 02:56 PassiveAce wrote: I will never understand why some people prefer aiming with a stick rather then a mouse.
I play single player games like that with a controller. It's just a lot more comfortable for long hours at a time. Anything competitive i use m/k. I assume a lot of people do this.
Curious about this - more comfortable as in, you can go lay down on a couch or whatever? Or better for your actual hands, ie carpal tunnel/wrists etc?
This game was my favorite single player game I've played since.... I really don't know when.
This is going to be just some very unstructured thoughts, so don't feel the need to comment, I just wanted to write something.
I don't like tinkering with gear or figuring out optimal combinations. I don't want to master the combat system in a single player game, I'd rather play on lower difficulty and play it the way I want it, rather than play single player games optimally.
To me a lot of the things complained about in this thread, are features.
I don't want open worlds, I really loved that "n" button to point me in the right direction. I don't like running out of ammo because I didn't conserve it or something, I just want to sit back and enjoy the ride. I don't like side-quests or exploring, I just want to be told a story.
To me, if you tell me a game is linear, you've caught my attention. If you tell me the combat system is non-intrusive to the story, well now I'm really listening. I've been burned many times because of my unusual opinions about gameplay in general. People seemed to like skyrim, or dragon age. But any game that makes me care about what pants I have on, is a game that just annoys me. I realize there is some gear in BI, but I honestly couldn't tell you what shit I had on by the end of the game. I also used mostly just one spell and the same two guns throughout the game.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy shooting a bunch of bad guys, that's always enjoyable, and I did after the first hour or so crank the difficulty up to medium just to have a bit of a challenge. But I'm really, really not into learning a combat system for a game I will only play for a few hours.
I'm a gamer, but spending time on improving a character is only something I'd do in an mmo I intend to invest hundreds or thousands of hours into, and as for getting good at game systems, I reserve that for the likes of dota and starcraft, games I will replay a million times.
I love reading books, watching movies, and sometimes, playing the occasional gem of a single player game. I consider playing BI more similar to reading a book than playing dota. And I consider playing dota more similar to playing sports than playing BI.
I loved the setting, I really fucking loved the music, the music set such a feel for the game. I think beyond everything else the music is what made this game. The amazing and beautiful dystopia of columbia was great too.
The story was very intriguing, it was told in a manner that kept me interested throughout the game. I'm not the kind of person who enjoys trying to guess plot-twists before they happen, so I genuinely get to experience the wonder and surprise of each revelation, right to the end of the game I had no real idea what was up, and I had a serious case of mind: blown once it was over.
I really, really like being told stories, I'm probably easy to impress because my imagination takes me out and beyond whatever flaws the story may have. Bioshock Infinite told me an engaging, touching and interesting story, like almost no video games have done before it. I loved every second of it.
When you first enter columbia, you hear that old christian hymn being sung, and immediately make the connection "there's a better home awaiting, in the sky lord, in the sky" to Columbia.
When the end credits roll around you realize those weren't the lines most relevant to the game from the song, instead the title itself "will the circle be unbroken".
This is the kind of thing that just really gets to me.
I don't know why this game was so hyped. It was really disappointing. Too linear, too little gameplay, and when it was gameplay it was boring as hell, and the story was pretty predictable. I bought a new graphics card to play this game and Blood Dragon(they followed the card, and were the reason why I decided to buy it), and this game disappointed me like fuck, while Blood Dragon wouldn't let me load my save files. I'm so sick of how the gaming business is these days, bad, unpolished games hyped as fuck, and everyone is like "this is the best game ever, WOW!!!" and then a few weeks later it's a new game that is being hyped and will be the "best game ever".
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: I don't know why this game was so hyped. It was really disappointing. Too linear,
That's good in my book
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: too little gameplay
Again, good
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: and when it was gameplay it was boring as hell,
To each his own, I find shooting people with guns to be somewhat fun, and I liked the skyhooks
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: and the story was pretty predictable.
Only if you're the type of person who cannot stop himself trying to figure everything out. I've never really understood this. And it's not like I'm dumb or anything, I make a living figuring things out, but when it comes to being told a story I just intentionally shut off my brain thinking about all scenarios.
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: I bought a new graphics card to play this game and Blood Dragon(they followed the card, and were the reason why I decided to buy it), and this game disappointed me like fuck, while Blood Dragon wouldn't let me load my save files. I'm so sick of how the gaming business is these days, bad, unpolished games hyped as fuck, and everyone is like "this is the best game ever, WOW!!!" and then a few weeks later it's a new game that is being hyped and will be the "best game ever".
The reason people say "This is the best game ever" is maybe because people enjoy the game? I didn't even care when this game came out because multiple boring games had led to me just thinking that maybe I just don't enjoy today's version of single player games. I just randomly picked it up at the steam sale, and it was amazing.
The reason I'm replying to you is not that I want you to change your opinion or anything, I'm simply highlighting how different things work for different people.
If a game doesn't work for you, it's not really a problem with the industry, they're just catering to someone other than you. Some very popular games I find mind-numbingly boring, but that doesn't mean they're bad games, they're just made for other people than me. Saints row: The Third, Skyrim, league of legends are three very different games I've tried and gotten really annoyed with or bored of, yet they're all very popular. That's not because "they're a problem with the gaming industry today". It just means they don't work for me, despite working for a lot of other people
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: and the story was pretty predictable.
Only if you're the type of person who cannot stop himself trying to figure everything out. I've never really understood this. And it's not like I'm dumb or anything, I make a living figuring things out, but when it comes to being told a story I just intentionally shut off my brain thinking about all scenarios.
On July 16 2013 01:52 Arnstein wrote: I bought a new graphics card to play this game and Blood Dragon(they followed the card, and were the reason why I decided to buy it), and this game disappointed me like fuck, while Blood Dragon wouldn't let me load my save files. I'm so sick of how the gaming business is these days, bad, unpolished games hyped as fuck, and everyone is like "this is the best game ever, WOW!!!" and then a few weeks later it's a new game that is being hyped and will be the "best game ever".
The reason people say "This is the best game ever" is maybe because people enjoy the game? I didn't even care when this game came out because multiple boring games had led to me just thinking that maybe I just don't enjoy today's version of single player games. I just randomly picked it up at the steam sale, and it was amazing.
The reason I'm replying to you is not that I want you to change your opinion or anything, I'm simply highlighting how different things work for different people.
If a game doesn't work for you, it's not really a problem with the industry, they're just catering to someone other than you. Some very popular games I find mind-numbingly boring, but that doesn't mean they're bad games, they're just made for other people than me. Saints row: The Third, Skyrim, league of legends are three very different games I've tried and gotten really annoyed with or bored of, yet they're all very popular. That's not because "they're a problem with the gaming industry today". It just means they don't work for me, despite working for a lot of other people
Thank god we're not all the same huh?
Well, too linear was maybe not the right words. I mean, Half-Life 2 is very linear, but it was still a fucking amazing game! Hell, even the first Bioshock was very linear, but still, it was a good game. But it was something about the linearity in this game that made it bad. I don't know exactly what.
I just don't like that the gaming industry have turned into the same thing that action movies were in the 80s/90s, just action-packed blockbusters that would kill your time, but wouldn't blow your mind with a new and cool thing. A game (or movie) like that doesn't deserve to be called greatest game of the year, or even worse, greatest game EVER.
But hey, at least we still see good indie games being released
On July 16 2013 04:10 Palmar wrote: Only if you're the type of person who cannot stop himself trying to figure everything out. I've never really understood this. And it's not like I'm dumb or anything, I make a living figuring things out, but when it comes to being told a story I just intentionally shut off my brain thinking about all scenarios.
I do the same normally, but when the story bends the logic of its own premises in an attempt to create some kind of a pretentiously overplayed twist, the entire story and setting that were established during the game just crumble as a result. This is why I compared it to Mass Effect 3 (or Lost) - it's a classic story of overreaching authors that run themselves into a proverbial dead end and then decide to just wing it from there.
Stories are about characters and relationships. The protagonists and their relationship in BI as they travel together was masterfully done in my opinion, but in the end it was rendered completely meaningless and thrown away in favor of some flashy twist in a very poorly developed background plot.
“It’s really a story of Booker and Elizabeth again, but set against the backdrop of pre-fall Rapture,” Levine told IGN, “and to have an extended period in pre-fall Rapture without combat, where you’re just living in the space, like you got to sort of live in Columbia at the beginning of the game. Which nobody has ever been able to do before, with those systems and that technology. My favorite BioShock quest is actually in that part, with no combat. He meets an old friend from BioShock 1. Not a very nice friend, but a friend. And in the second half, it takes place in a department store, a Fontaine department store that’s been shuttered and sunk to the bottom of the ocean by Ryan after he takes over. All of Fontaine’s cronies are put into that department store, so that place has gone to hell. It’s very traditional BioShock 1. They’re all spliced up down there. They’re all crazy. You get this mix of pristine Rapture and a very traditional Rapture experience, in a pretty organic story.”
Why would they make combat challenge DLC for this? Combat was easily the worst part of the game. Alternate reality story in pre-fall Rapture sounds like it could be really interesting though.
On July 30 2013 21:22 imallinson wrote: Why would they make combat challenge DLC for this? Combat was easily the worst part of the game. Alternate reality story in pre-fall Rapture sounds like it could be really interesting though.
I agree, but i don't think its a bad thing that they make something like that. They did say that they want to "prove how fun the combat actually is". So i'm fine with them pushing out something like this, but i won't be buying it though.
"So I thought, maybe we can do something where we give the player the opportunity to just play with the full toolset, and all of the powers and upgrades and everything, and create far more challenging gameplay for them," he said. "So with that in mind, we gathered up the people really specialized in combat on Infinite and essentially told them the gloves were off, you guys can make whatever you want."
oh boy, I thought it couldn’t get any worse after the 3rd season, how silly of me. Despite my reservations concerning the conclusion of Bioshock: Infinte it doesn’t even come close to the mumbo jumbo that is Fringe. On the other hand, if you liked Fringe you’re going to LOVE this game .D
Primarily for people living in the USA, there is a sale pack of Bioshock 1,2 & 3 for $20 from amazon.com [LINK] You can get it in Canada too like I have in the past by listing a U.S address. edit*no longer on sale
Has anyone been playing "Burial at Sea part 2"? I've just started, and i love what they did so far. The way they handle gameplay here is so much better than part 1 in my honest opinion, what do you guys think?
EPT![[image loading]](http://img269.imageshack.us/i/bioshockinfinite1280x10.jpg/)
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/Firebolt145/2013/March/Desktop_screenshot_30th_Marc.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QcpwBFP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uFq1uDI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6Tu3xpa.jpg)
] ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8lEv5d3.png)
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/366dfc93b404396612a2c4e01843d3fd/tumblr_mkdm92z7UW1r8iz23o3_250.gif)
![[image loading]](http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/944.jpeg)
