Bioshock Infinite

The stor ywas pretty bad too. The villains were all cartoonyisly evil and bland, the 2 mai ncharacters are either a bland "gruff and grizzled" antihero, and a market study taken form (Elizabeth). Also it uses too many hadnwaves and ignores the more interesting aspects of a Multiveres setting in favor of some rather manipulative set pieces with way too many contrievances to make the story move forward, and it acts like it has a super message to say by having themes of racism and religion on them but they ultimately don't deliver on anything because they refuse to take any risks and instead reduce the issues to very simplistic almost childlike concepts.
Not to mention none of that is interactive in the least and the game tells you in Loading screens that there are multiple solutions to everything when there really aren't, like, IN THE LEAST.

I seriously believe this game was a giant waste of money. And I don't say that about other games I don't like.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEuJVAOoAyA[/youtube]

Part 2:
[spoiler:538980ae14][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCRVTxZ_rP4[/youtube] [/spoiler:538980ae14]
Part 3:
[spoiler:538980ae14][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wpsi_0z7QI[/youtube] [/spoiler:538980ae14]
Part 4:
[spoiler:538980ae14][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88gQQRdwE_g[/youtube] [/spoiler:538980ae14]
Part 5:
[spoiler:538980ae14][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnUGdoEHcKY[/youtube] [/spoiler:538980ae14]
 
for me, in short, it was waste of 60$.
Graphic was the only feature that was great.
the graphic would be last for decades.
stroy, shooting, stage all the things are bunch of dissapointment.
 
Ilosar said:
Similarily, while Plasmids were very well integrated into the gameworld of the first Bioshock, in Infinite it seems Booker and a handful of special enemies are the only one to ever use Vigors. Beyond the show at the beginning you never even hear of them; it becomes painfully obvious that Vigors are simply there because Bioshock is not Bioshock without magic powers, regardless of whenever they make sense. Or when Booker's shield allows him to absord rockets to the face, but a frail girl hitting him with a wrench knocks him unconscious. Or Handymen who are obviously a pale imitation of the Big Daddies.
Click to expand...

I agree, they would have made a lot more sense in the original version of the game, which took place in the beginning phase of the civil war on Columbia. But then they changed the story but had to keep that stuff anyway since was too tied with the gameplay.

Courier said:
The upcoming expansion where they go to Rapture looks kind of cool though.
Click to expand...

Kind of sad that one of the best things of BI is going back to B1...
 
I've replayed BioShock recently and I think you should too. It's not a game that has aged well. Clunky combat, cramped, corridor-based design, plot copy/pasted from System Shock 2, no meaningful choices in the game, binary endings... It's an enjoyable game, but it's certainly not the genre-defining title you make it out to be.

I liked Bioshock: Infinite and the way it tackled the themes. I have noticed a rather disturbing trend, that since I do not rail on the game, Levine, Irrational, (insert factor here), I'm a part of the circlejerk, as Walpknut so elegantly put it. In general, this kind of radicalization is troublesome, as it precludes any kind of meaningful discussion.

I'll point out that in the past few posts, Ilosar has been contributing, explaining his position in detail, providing reasoning, and generally being a good guy to discuss with. His criticism is well reasoned, accurate, and most importantly, put forward in a polite, non-confrontational way.

Walpknut, on the other way, is disruptive to the conversation. Rather than follow Ilosar's example and provide a well reasoned opinion, he deals in extremes, opting for a "my way or fuck you" method of posting, that is a monologue, rather than an invitation to a dialogue. There's no way in which you can discuss, because you're automatically wrong. If you like Bioshock: Infinite, you're a sucker that likes market study characters (which is a pretty blatant lie, but that's beside the point), shallow stories, manipulative set pieces, and fuck you, you're not a gamer.

I firmly believe that NMA should be a space for open discussion, not a circlejerk of hate/gushing where users are blatantly forced to accept opinions as fact. More dialogue, less monologue.
 
woo1108 said:
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/bioshock-infinite-a-fan-scorned/1900-6415464/

what a brave reviewer he is....

and I totally agree with this review for bad points.
but I guess his loves too much about BS 1.
looks like he criticise BSI with comparing BS1.
Click to expand...
I don't know the game really, but it's funny to see how people get soooo worked up by "this game received a 4/10!", while it doesn't mean anything in the end. I mean do people not even take their time anymore to actually read what someone is writing? Is the low number deserved or not? No clue. Probably not. But does it even matter? In my opinion not. Its more about if someone can make a valid point in what he writes.
 
Tagz, you act a lot in the "My way or fuck you" reasoning a lot (Like when I just said I personally didn't like the setting of Arcanum and you acted like that was impossible and I could have only not pay attention to it). I went in depth on my opinion on the game a few pages back and Arkatus posted a series of videos that also go in depth with the problems of the narrative and the story in general. Also are you gonna deny that most 10/10 reviews are basically just gigantic circlejerks or that the way this game gets so much unwarranted praise as "The Citize nKane of gaming" is not ridiculous?
THere have been reviews were people just say "If you didn't think this was perfect then you are wrong.

Even if you liked the game you have to admit that it is neither a 10/10 or the Best THING EVUR as the media likes to pretend? The games has way too many flaws for it to be either of those things.
 
Walpknut said:
Tagz, you act a lot in the "My way or fuck you" reasoning a lot (Like when I just said I personally didn't like the setting of Arcanum and you acted like that was impossible and I could have only not pay attention to it). I went in depth on my opinion on the game a few pages back and Arkatus posted a series of videos that also go in depth with the problems of the narrative and the story in general. Also are you gonna deny that most 10/10 reviews are basically just gigantic circlejerks or that the way this game gets so much unwarranted praise as "The Citize nKane of gaming" is not ridiculous?
THere have been reviews were people just say "If you didn't think this was perfect then you are wrong.

Even if you liked the game you have to admit that it is neither a 10/10 or the Best THING EVUR as the media likes to pretend? The games has way too many flaws for it to be either of those things.
Click to expand...

So why aren't you consistently stating that your beef is with the mainstream review whoring? The impression I get from you is that your relegate everyone who likes the game to the circlejerking group.

For the record: I don't consider Bioshock: Infinite a groundbreaking game in all aspects. I really liked its story and characters, I liked the braver storytelling aspects (Infinite is one of this year's few games that really haunted me; making way through Comstock House listening powerlessly to Elizabeth being tortured was nerve-wracking), and I even liked the gameplay. Each vigor and weapon was consistently useful, whereas previous Bioshock games had plenty of chaff that was a waste of currency. However, it was linear, it could definitely use more exploration and character development, and there definitely could be more aspects of gameplay brought back from System Shock 2.

That said, I apologize if my posts are sometimes "my way or the highway." I've had this problem since time immemorial. I am a stubborn bastard, but I really try to rectify it. Compare my posts from a few years back and hopefully the difference is noticeable.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Its more about if someone can make a valid point in what he writes.
Click to expand...
Good point.
I wish the reviewer erase scores and only discuss about what contents the game has and what is good and bad for the "reviewer".
thinking about does it really bad or good is depend on gamer's decision.

Problem is, many lazy gamer don't even want to read anything.
just looking at score and "oh 62? then itz bad" or "90? hell it's good game."

but actually even for score 60, there's lots of good games(like the guild 2 and Theatre of war series). and there's tons of bad game at the score of 90.
 
Yeah, hence why it really matters what people write ...

Those score system doesn't make sense anyway. It rarely does. Maybe in sport. No clue. I mean if anything, a score system eventually for each individual part, like the visuals, the gameplay, story telling etc. could be close to usefull. But I think not even that works all the time. Because how do you give the graphics a value that cleary go in a more stylized direction? Like the game XIII that is trying to mimic a comic style. Obviously you cant use the same standarts here as you would with games like Crysis for example.

There are so many aspects that can make a game good or bad. And in many cases you can while not ignore it, at least forget about it sometimes. Because some games age very well while others don't. Its like with black and white movies. Some movies, are awesome, because they are in black and white, they are classics. Does that mean every movie in black and white is good? So why do we go to games with the same approach where we automatically dismiss games if they don't have the newest shader or best 3D engine inside? Visuals go much further then just the power of the engine, its about how those visuals are used, if the art style is coherent, in short the aesthetics.

Best part is though how some reviews are totally inconsistent ... I mean they talk about all sorts of problems in the game, bugs, bad textures, mediocre gameplay. Yet ... give the game 90 from 100 points in the end or 9/10 score. So if mediocre games are already 9/10? happens not all the time, but I have seen such reviews.
 
Tagaziel said:
I've replayed BioShock recently and I think you should too. It's not a game that has aged well. Clunky combat, cramped, corridor-based design, plot copy/pasted from System Shock 2, no meaningful choices in the game, binary endings... It's an enjoyable game, but it's certainly not the genre-defining title you make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Oh, Bioshock is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (the ending in particular was a let-down). But it had far more consistency in its themes and gameplay than Infinite did. Was the plot twist somewhat copied from SS2? Yes. Was it still a great plot twist? Of course it was. It was also one of the few times were taking out a ''boss'' in a cutscene was far, far more fitting than killing it in a fight. Unfortunate they didn't follow the same philosophy for Fontaine.

And while I don't think it's genre-busting, the gameplay being pretty standard FPS fare after all, it was still pretty well executed overall. I disagree that it has aged that badly; I personally prefer having 8 weapons than being forced to carry 2, albeit I've no strong preferences in the medkits VS shield+health debate. I miss being able to know exactly how much damage my weapons/plasmids do; that was a change I welcomed in Infinite. But the Bid Daddy fights are far better than anything in Infinite. I like being able to prepare the terrain and plan ahead, while in BI every fight is thrown at you like in any other FPS. It's also why I actually liked Bioshock 2, the gathering phases with the Little Sisters were very fun.

I also personally prefered Rapture's atmosphere and its delightfully insane denizens; Columbia lacks the same weird ''charm'' after the first glance. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but eventually I stopped caring for Columbia or the conflicts it was trapped in, probably because the game itself treats them as little more than a convenient source of fodder for your guns. Comstock House was a great level, that much is certain, but it's the only standout. Bioshock had the Medical Pavillion, Fort Frolic, and Hephaestus that stood out as amazing. Bioshock 2's Ryan Amusements and Dyonisus Park were also great.

Finally, small pet peeve of mine, but Infinite's story implies that, in the bad future of 1984, Columbia comes from the sky and succesfully destroys New York. Erm, not to be a party pooper, but while Columbia is definitely a game-breaker in 1900, by 1984 a single wing of F18 can bring down the entire sorry city in a few passes, and that's not even counting on stuff like cruise missiles and AA batteries. It doesn't seem like the city has changed at all during that timespan either. So I find the danger pretty hard to believe.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, hence why it really matters what people write ...


Best part is though how some reviews are totally inconsistent ... I mean they talk about all sorts of problems in the game, bugs, bad textures, mediocre gameplay. Yet ... give the game 90 from 100 points in the end or 9/10 score. So if mediocre games are already 9/10? happens not all the time, but I have seen such reviews.
Click to expand...
It really matters indeed.
even reviews that scores poorly, there might be a good points that is matter for me, or even scores well, there's bad points that matters a lot. but most reviews don't show these two well but just repeat other famous review. that's the big problem.

Almost every score over than 90 game's reviews are useless.
not many reviewer points out bad point of game.
even they point out flaws, they ignore them or underestimate them.
but for 60~80 games, some reviews points out bad points well, and some reviews points out good points well. but other reviews? they just repeat most popular review or they just simply say "it's horrible" , unplayable and other short meaningless review. are they really a reviewer?
 
Well, the problem is, that most are playing the games only for a short period of time, then they write their review. Oftentimes they are also still hyped up as well, which then results in BEST GAYM EVAR!!! reviews and a year later the true "retrospective" ... Just remember Alpha Protocoll, which was beaten down by many people on release and a year later we got the "well, it's not that bad after all" news.
 
I feel like people loosing patient for game.
Don't want to learn how to play,
don't want to hesitate what to do(which is most important part of RPG), don't want to waiting for decent review or bug fix.
 
Ilosar said:
Oh, Bioshock is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (the ending in particular was a let-down). But it had far more consistency in its themes and gameplay than Infinite did. Was the plot twist somewhat copied from SS2? Yes. Was it still a great plot twist? Of course it was. It was also one of the few times were taking out a ''boss'' in a cutscene was far, far more fitting than killing it in a fight. Unfortunate they didn't follow the same philosophy for Fontaine.

And while I don't think it's genre-busting, the gameplay being pretty standard FPS fare after all, it was still pretty well executed overall. I disagree that it has aged that badly; I personally prefer having 8 weapons than being forced to carry 2, albeit I've no strong preferences in the medkits VS shield+health debate. I miss being able to know exactly how much damage my weapons/plasmids do; that was a change I welcomed in Infinite. But the Bid Daddy fights are far better than anything in Infinite. I like being able to prepare the terrain and plan ahead, while in BI every fight is thrown at you like in any other FPS. It's also why I actually liked Bioshock 2, the gathering phases with the Little Sisters were very fun.
Click to expand...

No argument there. I just liked the fluid gameplay in Infinite better, having to switch between plasmids and guns in B1 was terribly clunky. The lack of balance was pretty evident too, as the crossbow's trap bolts and the chemical thrower were enough to waste everything in your path. It's what JES points out often: an imbalanced weapon that makes one playstyle trump all others.

I also personally prefered Rapture's atmosphere and its delightfully insane denizens; Columbia lacks the same weird ''charm'' after the first glance. I can't put my finger on the exact difference, but eventually I stopped caring for Columbia or the conflicts it was trapped in, probably because the game itself treats them as little more than a convenient source of fodder for your guns. Comstock House was a great level, that much is certain, but it's the only standout. Bioshock had the Medical Pavillion, Fort Frolic, and Hephaestus that stood out as amazing. Bioshock 2's Ryan Amusements and Dyonisus Park were also great.
Click to expand...

YMMV. I liked Columbia, since totalitarian regimes fascinate me. The libertarian philosophy never appealed to me, and neither did Rapture, since I found it to lack a fair bit of exposition. The most important bit was the lack of information on the governance of Rapture. Beyond Bill McDonagh's exposition, there's very little lore on how Rapture was ran and why exactly Ryan's actions were that bad (beyond "FREE TNERPRIES IS VIOLATED").

Finally, small pet peeve of mine, but Infinite's story implies that, in the bad future of 1984, Columbia comes from the sky and succesfully destroys New York. Erm, not to be a party pooper, but while Columbia is definitely a game-breaker in 1900, by 1984 a single wing of F18 can bring down the entire sorry city in a few passes, and that's not even counting on stuff like cruise missiles and AA batteries. It doesn't seem like the city has changed at all during that timespan either. So I find the danger pretty hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Who says it didn't upgrade? The aesthetics remain the same, but it's quite likely Columbia was upgraded extensively, not to mention the network of agents in the Sodom below that would cripple the United States. It's not against the Bible either, as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does involve agents of God entering the city.
 
Stumbled upon this recently, brings up some interesting points:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdNhwb7iuI4[/youtube]
 
Tagaziel said:
No argument there. I just liked the fluid gameplay in Infinite better, having to switch between plasmids and guns in B1 was terribly clunky. The lack of balance was pretty evident too, as the crossbow's trap bolts and the chemical thrower were enough to waste everything in your path. It's what JES points out often: an imbalanced weapon that makes one playstyle trump all others.
Click to expand...

Meh, in Infinite I always used the Hand Cannon paired with the China Broom shotgun, unless I ran out of ammo for one or the other where i would then pick the Carbine. As for Vigors, I always used either Shock Jockey or Bucking Bronco. Bioshock 1 and 2 had more variety thanks to actually being able to carry every weapon at once. I especially liked using the drill in BS2 to charge into a group then set everyone aflame with a charged Incinerate and moping up with the machine gun. I'd whip out the freezing plasmid, the shotgun and the spear gun for bosses.

YMMV. I liked Columbia, since totalitarian regimes fascinate me. The libertarian philosophy never appealed to me, and neither did Rapture, since I found it to lack a fair bit of exposition. The most important bit was the lack of information on the governance of Rapture. Beyond Bill McDonagh's exposition, there's very little lore on how Rapture was ran and why exactly Ryan's actions were that bad (beyond "FREE TNERPRIES IS VIOLATED").
Click to expand...

True, but Infinite doesn't say much about Comstock either beyond him being the Prophet and ultimate leader and all that. I imagine Ryan ruled a bit like House in New Vegas, until Fontaine arrived at least. Bioshock 2 adds a lot of backstory in that regard. Setting-wise there's few bad things to say about Infinite; the aestethic is marvelous and the sound design is great. It's just not used to its potential like Rapture was used (and perhaps overused in BS2).

Who says it didn't upgrade? The aesthetics remain the same, but it's quite likely Columbia was upgraded extensively, not to mention the network of agents in the Sodom below that would cripple the United States. It's not against the Bible either, as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does involve agents of God entering the city.
Click to expand...

I don't remember agents in the United States ever being discussed. But I guess with Elizabeth as its leader Columbia has indeed access to the magical quantum super-tech even if the Luteces are away/dead/whichever. Still seems weird that one city can take on the entire US and crush them so badly we need to go back in time to undo it. But as I said, pet peeve of mine.

As for the review, the guy is a bit too abrasive and unfair and falls into ye olde ''the industry suffers beause of this game'' paradigm, but he's got some good points. First, that the story is kinda pretentious and doesn't make much sense, and second that the gameplay is both fairly unremarkable and completely divorced from the story. The comparison with Oddworld is a bit out of left field however.

Again, as a movie Infinite would have been good. But as game, it just has way too much of an indentity crisis. Is it an action-packed shooter or an introspective story about character development, the flaws of humanity, racism and multiple realities? Because it's trying to be both and it fails at both. It's possible to make such things work, but you have to marry the gameplay and the story in that case, not separate them as much as humanly possible.
 
Does that guy have a text transcription of his points? No way I am listening to a video for half an hour like this.
 
PlanHex said:
Stumbled upon this recently, brings up some interesting points:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdNhwb7iuI4[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I had seen this before. Overall good points, but one thing that sticks out to me as very wrong is where he complains that throwing baseball balls is a tame "torture" for the interracial couple. I guess he has never held a baseball ball in his hands because those things are hard. It would basically be lapidation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top