Jimquisition: Jimquisition Awards 2013 - BioShock Infinite

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

The best explanation for "Why does everyone hate Bioshock Infinite now?" came from Chris Franklin (Campstar on Reddit). His response is lengthy so I'll hide it behind a spoiler tag:

TL/DR:

1) The hype machine and marketing behind new releases is obviously going to proclaim any game it can as the Second Coming, and often the audience gets swept up in the hype.
2) The initial reviewers from the mainstream, consumer-oriented publications aren't going to deviate too far from the expectations generated by the hype machine, to avoid being labelled link-baity trolls or corporate shills.
3) When the game is released, no matter how good it is, it can't possibly live up to the hype, and eventually becomes Just Another Game in your collection.
4) Weeks or months later, more self-appointed game critics are able to contemplate and investigate the game long after the hype and rush of release have faded, and are better able to articulate its shortcomings.

Whether hating it is cool or not, I simply didn't enjoy Infinite much. I practically forced myself through most of it just so I could see what the narrative would do.

Full Metal Bolshevik:

109:

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.

'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?

You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.

Mcoffey:
Easily the best game in the series.

I've noticed a lot of great games that start out getting praised to the heavens only to be bashed to hell a couple weeks later (Bioshock, GTA, The Last of Us, etc.). Maybe the gamer community has gotten more cynical? Either way it's never fun to see such a clout of negativity follow so much positivity.

Infinite, TLoU and GTA V are the three BEST GAMES EVARRRR!!! of 2013, I don't know about you but if I get bashed on the head 50 times a day for weeks on end about how great it is I'm going to feel cynical (especially since I played both GTA V and Infinite and hated them both).

109:
I seriously hope that anybody calling the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite bad doesn't simultainiously mean to imply that the subpar, loose, clunky gameplay in the original Bioshock or anything in that piece of trash Bioshock 2 is deeper and more fun than Bioshock Infinite. The game easily outclasses every other first-person shooter released in its generation, not just for telling a superior story better than all of its competitors, but even as a game of just running around and shooting, dicking around with vigors and flying around on skylines.

The game is slick, tight, difficult, rewards experimentation and unique playstiles, oh and lest we forget that tears are the best innovation in the genre, hell, in the entire field of action games, since Bulletstorm's energy leash at least! Maybe even the gravity gun!

(Not to mention Bioshock Infinite has Elisabeth, the pinnacle of a companion character (okay, Ellie can count as well) instead of the half-baked, ultimately failed mechanic of the Little Sisters.)

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.

Yeah, no. There's this whole thing called "subjectivity" and to some Infinite's gameplay was utter shite and/or mediocre, Elizabeth was a crap character and as a whole the game was bland.

Full Metal Bolshevik:
A full episode on BI and not even one mention on the actual (average) gameplay?

Of course not, Infinite's story is SO good that it excuses it. Same with The Last of Us (I've seen entire reviews that don't mention the gameplay of that, nevermind Top 5s).

Most criticism I've heard these days is leveled at the gameplay, the combat not being as interesting or fun as the previous games (BioShock 2 as well) outside of the rail sequences and I'm inclined to agree but everything else from the characters to the world to the themes are still great.

At least it got flack later, most popular games these days get it immediately (see GTAV), although the Last of Us has avoided as much for now.

109:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

109:

Time to admit it folks: Bioshock Infinite is the best first-person shooter released since Half-Life 2.

'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?

You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

Full Metal Bolshevik:

109:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?

You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

Of course I can, BECAUSE IT DID!

Bioshock Infinite's gameplay is on par -if not superior- to any of the great first-person shooters from Quake 3 all the way to Modern Warfare 2!

Full Metal Bolshevik:

109:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

'insert laugh harder futurama video'

Want me to make a list of fps with better mechanics than Bioshock Infinite?

You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.

109:

Evonisia:
Yeah, no. There's this whole thing called "subjectivity" and to some Infinite's gameplay was utter shite and mediocre, Elizabeth was a crap character and bland.

Yeah, and there's this whole thing called "people being wrong". Also: "people having bad taste".

I'm not even going to bother with your laughable "thought" regarding The LAst of Us.

My thought regarding The Last of Us? I can barely have an opinion on TLoU beyond the fact that it's overhyped (which at this point it is).

No offense, but "You're wrong" and "You have bad taste" are very, very poor ways to call out people for hating Infinite.

Goliath100:
Jimmy, who said that Bioshock has LD? I seen legitimate criticism of the reaction of the NPCs, and that the superpowers make no sense in the world, but the LD thing feels like straw figure.

There are a fair amount of people who associate any instance of graphic violence in a serious attempt at storytelling in games with Ludonarrative Dissonance. I'd wager the prominence of this opinion can be linked back to statements on the original Bioshock by John Blow. I'm typically in agreement with John Blow in a lot of his criticisms with gaming at large, but in this case, he was just dead wrong, specifically, he said the violence was out of place in a game about "altruism", but the issue is that Bioshock isn't about altruism, it's about objectivism, and the violence serves as a literalization of the economic struggles inherent to an objectivist system.

Regarding Infinite, it has it's share of LD, but it has nothing to do with how violent the game is. It's mainly a symptom of them carrying over the item scavenging mechanics from the first game that make no sense in a still functioning society.

Well this was definitely way better than the VGAs. You need to send out trophies or something. (trophies that of course are figurines of you)

109:

Evonisia:
My thought regarding The Last of Us? I can barely have an opinion on TLoU beyond the fact that it's overhyped (which at this point it is).

You're not acting contrarian just to look cool at all...

It's not contrarian to say that a game which has received overwhelming praise is overhyped. Quality of a game has nothing to do with how it is hyped.

109:

Evonisia:
No offense, but "You're wrong" and "You have bad taste" are very, very poor ways to call out people for hating Infinite.

No offense, but it's all the effort you and your ilk deserve.

My ilk? Oh wow, that's actually made my day. But I guess if I mustn't be cruel, what crime have I and other people who didn't like Infinite committed to deserve such a blunt "you're wrong" statement.

:) A grand first choice, Jim. I too was a bit confused when people complained Bioshock was too violent for the story.

I mean, have ya seen the Miracle of Sound song on it? Kind of explains the messages of the game.

Anyway, looking forward to the rest!

p.s. My reaction to the dog was first; ":D Aw. Jim added a little doggy to the set.".

Then; "<.< What is he going to do to it?"

You answered that question soon. ;p

Thank God for you, Jim.

Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D

Trishbot:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

109:

You can try, I'm going to love proving you wrong.

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.

Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.

I liked Bioshock Infinite when I first finished it because it had such a good ending I left it on a very good note, but ater taking a step back and replaying the game I realised that I didn't Actually enjoy it. I like to think it wasn't because of the insipid articles like "Why Bioshock Infinite is not as good as you think it is"or something of the sort

I disagree with Jim in that I do think Bioshock Infinite is a victim of ludonarrative dissonance to some extent for reasons I can't honestly remember at this point. I'm assuming I was satisfied with the argument at the time I formed the opinion.

Anyway, I'm not going to try and claim it didn't deserve this prestigious award though. While I certainly had some issues with the way the story and gameplay interacted it was still at the end end of the day a damn fine story with some pretty good gameplay. Could Bioshock Infinite have been better? Absolutely. Does that stop it being brilliant anyway? Absolutely not.

Ronack:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".

Those weren't "leaps".

Most FPSs are just shooting stuff with regular guns & throwing the occasional grenade. Just think about the standard FPS like COD, all you can do is move your character & aim, Infinite allows for much more. Infinite has a lot of powers to use & combine along with the fun as hell skyrails plus the Elizabeth tear aspect. There's not many shooters with powers (FPS or TPS), Infinite does stand out. The shooting is good (not the best), I was quickscoping enemies with the sniper rifle just fine on my PS3 without aim-assist whereas the 1st Bioshock, I needed aim-assist.

Ahhhh BS Infinite, what a game. I've actually got it pulling an upset on GTA V to take Game of the Year on my Escapist bracket!

That said, I did have some issues with it. Only two, really, one is a popular nit-pick at the game, the other is just my personal feelings.

1: Going with the popular nit-pick: the combat wasn't that great. Didn't like the 2-gun system (because all that does is say "find your two favorite guns and run through the game with them since Elizabeth basically gives you infinite ammo"). At least give us some special ammo types or something. What, they could peek through dimensions to get the concept for Vigors - super-power inducing beverages based off of a substance found only in sea-slugs at the bottom of the ocean - but the concept of armor piercing bullets? What fine-ass madness is this! Altering ammo is physically impossible!

Other than that, the typical "bullet sponge" complaint about most of the enemies beyond the standard dime-a-dozen soldiers. I'm not asking for CoD-style "one to three shots will kill any enemy" style combat, but good lord...you shouldn't have to unload 5 clips of ammo into some guy to bring him down.

All in all I still enjoyed the game thoroughly. Great setting and the story (at least up until the ending) was engaging and fun to play through. To make a long story short: I can agree with naming this as one of the Games of the Year, especially since it was really one of the only few games I was actually looking forward to this year. :P

Well, award shows are all about opinions, and yearly award shows tend to be limited by comparing them to what else came out in the year in question.

As I've said many times Bioshock Infinite is a decent game, and is probably worthy of being called one of the year's best generally due to pretty much crap coming out this year, so it doesn't have a lot to really compete with in the final equasion. As a game it has a large number of flaws, starting with of course the attempt to be a giant bash on the American right wing, oftentimes without an understanding of the positions it's trying to satirize, and of course the weakest cop out of an ending since "Mass Effect 3" where they pretty much decided to fire out a shotgun of weirdness, had no real idea on how to tie things up, so in the end they pretty much decided to go with a surreal "Infinite Paradox" type ending that is supposed to be profound due to the entire thing pretty much rendering itself irrelevant and ending on a note equivalent to a giant wet raspberry coming from your dog's posterior before it rolls over and goes to sleep.

The thing is that Bioshock: Infinite is an example of a game that still manages to be really good, despite numerous failures, especially in light of simply not being up against much else that really seemed to make the effort. It has beautifully constructed environments, an illusion of depth in it's storyline for a while (even if it takes a dump all over it), and some amusingly quirky ideas. I mean simply contriving an environment where you can see warbots in the form of George Washington and Abe Lincoln cut loose on each other with mini guns deserves points for the simple "WTF" factor if nothing else.

All told it's a decent, safe, choice for any awards show.

That said I will say that where the initial Bioshock games tried to present their powers in the context of the setting for example, the disconnect with this one was immediate which I think is where a lot of my personal issues come from. When the very first thing you run into is them pretty much giving away what amounts to free mind control powers at a faire it makes my brain hurt. Seems like we're dealing with a society that should have had more of a rape and civil disobeidience problem on that merit alone before a bunch of anarchists came along... I mean the problems with that one almost write themselves.

Thanatos2k:

Trishbot:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.

Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.

You can't say those three games are mechanically inferior to Bioshock Infinite. Some people like regenerating health. Some people don't like mouse aiming. It's not bad, it's just different.

The issue I had with Bioshock Infinite's gameplay had nothing to do with the gunplay, I actually liked that. It was the enemies. Almost all of them were way too easy to me, but then I got to the handymen, who were just dumb. They were just giant bullet sponges that did tons of damage, I feel like they could've had more interesting mechanics and counterplay.

Phoenixmgs:

Ronack:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".

Those weren't "leaps".

Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!

Phoenixmgs:

Ronack:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".

Those weren't "leaps".

Most FPSs are just shooting stuff with regular guns & throwing the occasional grenade. Just think about the standard FPS like COD, all you can do is move your character & aim, Infinite allows for much more. Infinite has a lot of powers to use & combine along with the fun as hell skyrails plus the Elizabeth tear aspect. There's not many shooters with powers (FPS or TPS), Infinite does stand out. The shooting is good (not the best), I was quickscoping enemies with the sniper rifle just fine on my PS3 without aim-assist whereas the 1st Bioshock, I needed aim-assist.

And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.

Thanatos2k:

Trishbot:

Full Metal Bolshevik:

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

I'll go one or two better. Halo 1, Goldeneye, and Doom. Expertly crafted with the right amount of pacing, variety, level design, and player agency, all through genuinely new and exciting forms of gunplay and character alteration.

Though BI is in good company, I think.

Goldeneye has horrible controls, Halo has regenerating health (Bioshock Infinite went halfway with that awful mechanic), and Doom is flat and doesn't have mouse aiming.

All three of those are inferior mechanically to Bioshock Infinite.

See, the thing is about people who say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay is that they're really suggesting that all FPS games have bad gameplay. There's REALLY nothing very different that hasn't been done before in popular genre-leading FPS games of the past. So people start in with all sorts of nonsense reasons like "the pacing" or "doesn't support the narrative" or all sorts of things trying to dance around things that they can't really say are wrong because it's not exactly different from things they claim are good.

Goldenye had shit controls, but for its time it was simply revolutionary, level design, soundtrack, aiming, different body damage hits.

And you assume regenerating health is objectivly inferior, and I argue it depends on how the game is made around it. Slower games usually benefit from health packs while faster games benefit from regeneration. Some exceptions like Team Fortress (another FPS way better than BI), which is a fast paced game, but it has many ways of recovering health.

Full Metal Bolshevik:
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

The COD games aren't anything special, there's no lean & no slide (Ghosts finally has a slide). In pure gunplay, MoH Warfighter blows any COD out of the water (Warfighter's campaign is shit but its superior controls & gunplay makes its online so much better than COD). At least, Bioshock has powers & gear to makes things a lot more interesting along with the skyrails. In COD, you literally just move your character, aim, and shoot while throwing an occasional grenade; that's better than Infinite how? Plus, COD still has that stupid exploitable aim-assist that has no place in a competitive environment.

It looked very, very nice, and I'm glad it's one of the only games that still uses keyframe animation instead of simply opting for mo-cap.

I'll leave it at that.

I loved Infinite! I've played it though when it came out and I loved it. It was a definite #1 Game of the Year for me.

Then I played it again, post the backlash it received... And I still love it, I just adore the series as a whole and I know it doesn't work for everyone. But I still recommend the game to anyone looking for good gameplay and story. I love Elizabeth, I love Booker, and I love Columbia. Call me a fanboy, but I appreciate your opinions too!

Phoenixmgs:

Full Metal Bolshevik:
Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty World at War.
Obviously I won't make a full list.

Can you tell me with a straight face that BI had better gameplay than those COD's?

The COD games aren't anything special, there's no lean & no slide (Ghosts finally has a slide). In pure gunplay, MoH Warfighter blows any COD out of the water (Warfighter's campaign is shit but its superior controls & gunplay makes its online so much better than COD). At least, Bioshock has powers & gear to makes things a lot more interesting along with the skyrails. In COD, you literally just move your character, aim, and shoot while throwing an occasional grenade; that's better than Infinite how? Plus, COD still has that stupid exploitable aim-assist that has no place in a competitive environment.

I'm talking about PC. Who cares about the inferior consoles?

Pc has no aim assits and the games I mentioned do have lean.

And I repeat, 'move & aim' is what basically makes an fps, BI failed in doing that. Powers are cool, when done well. Take Dishonored has an example, while there wasn't much of shooting, the powers were cool to use, much cooler than BI's.
It's the feeling you get from using them, or shooting on an FPS. BI simply sucks at it.

First thought: At first I went "AWWW PUPPY!" and then I went "PIIIIINK! NOOOOOO!"

It's been a strange day with Bioshock especially after finding this article just after watching the video:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/16/5215468/tea-party-facebook-group-begins-posting-bioshock-infinite-propaganda

Well it might not be an example of Ludonarrative Dissonance, but it's certainly an example of irony.

Ronack:

Phoenixmgs:

Ronack:
I have immense issues with this first award because the game in question tried to be Sliders but failed immensely so. The only thing the game has going for it is the city itself and the visuals, with gameplay being "been there, done that" 90% of the time. To be fair, the story was quite entertaining until the first "leap".

Those weren't "leaps".

Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!

I didn't mean to correct you based on a technicality. I said it that way so I didn't have to put spoilers in.

---

Full Metal Bolshevik:
And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.

It is very important, but COD does not do it to near-perfection either. Just from a movement, shooting, and controls standpoint, MoH Warfighter blows COD out of the water. Warfighter's campaign is shit for level design, story, enemy placement, and just about everything else (besides controls, movement, and shooting), but its online shines because all that stuff that makes the campaign suck is not present in the online multiplayer. Warfighter has a MANUAL lean (not that contextual bullshit that Ghosts and BF4 has) and a slide, which is a game changer (Ghosts finally has a slide). 1v1 gun battles are just so much more dynamic in Warfighter compared to COD. Infinite's shooting isn't the best but it's good and very competent. Plus, if you are playing Infinite properly, you're not shooting that much anyways, or at least you should be using the power weapons.

Always laugh at that pre-release trailer.

That was not the game that I played lol

BreakfastMan:
Well, it appears I am the only one who deeply loved the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite. Really don't see what others hate in the combat...

Still, I agree with Jim on this one: Bioshock Infinite is definitely one of the best games released this year. I have it tied with Saints Row IV and Super Mario 3D World as my favorite game of the year. :D

People hate on the combat because they are pretty much FPS junkies, and miss the point that Bioshock is still trying to make pretensions of being an RPG even if it isn't one anymore, it actually has become a substandard FPS game when it comes to the mechanics. The idea being that in Bioshock the number of options you have is supposed to counterbalance the core mechanics being somewhat less than a dedicated shooter. What's more being based around super-abilities and crazy stunts it really is kind of floaty in an attempt to balance the gunplay with the use powers and such compared to other games that are priding themselves on the kind of realism that pretty much has you feeling the recoil of each shot.

In general the complaint about combat being "floaty" nowadays generally comes from people who primarily play games that have trained them to balance their reflexs with more realistic expectations, so they tend to automatically aim as if they expect a gun to be more off the mark based on it's recoil, compensate for simulated bullet drop, and similar things, and when that isn't there, and is replaced more by video game logic, it tends to be noticible. Compared to the amount of work a lot of games have put into their gunplay and making each gun "feel different" even over a computer, Bioshock is very much a "bad" game because Booker does all the assumed compensation as opposed to you the player.

In the overall scheme of things this is not bad, despite making it a bad FPS, I'd normally argue it's the best way to handle things in an RPG right behind simply making the gunshots stat based since it's supposed to be an RPG. The problem of course being that Bioshock also tends to fail as an RPG because Booker tends to wind up being able to do everything and pretty much solves most of the assigned problems in the same exact way, your choices in how to build him usually come down to what FX you like to watch when he kills.

Basically Bioshock started as a spiritual successor to "System Shock" especially the classic "System Shock 2" which in of itself was an attempt to pretty much transpose "Ultima Underworld" into a science fiction environment. This was done alongside the basic assumption that your typical gamer nowadays is too dumb or impatient to really deal with something like "System Shock 2" and to try and increasingly simplify it while trying to maintain the premise.

In System Shock 2, you pretty much had three major "paths" of skills, psionics, navy, and marines each of which had their own ways past problems, and specific things that could only be done by one skill set. You could also pick up abilities from each of the paths as you progressed and found the materials to unlock more abilities, but there was limited advancement opportunities and it was virtually impossible to make a perfect character who could get/see/do everything, not to mention if you spread yourself out too much it was possible to kind of put yourself into a sort of "Fail state" where progression would be almost impossible (say facing a battle your not tough enough to take on head to head, while lacking any of the abilities to circumvent the fight).

In Bioshock it pretty much removes the technical skills (Naval Path), and gives you what amounts to gunplay and psionics, with the psionics being used for the problem solving, and every ability being unlocked to it's basic level automatically which is sufficient to bypass any of the "puzzles" you run into if you use the right thing in the right place. Ultimatly it comes down to a choice of how you decide to deconstruct each area of enemies in front of you with the puzzles being ways of blocking arena to arena. You don't have to make choices like "do I want telekinesis, or lock picking, or the ability to have someone not laugh at me as much when I shoot them" and then being forced to apply your choice to problems from there on out, intentionally choosing to miss/close off options for a while. By the time you might have the ability to gain more than one, you wind up having more options and have to weigh the potential benefits of say becoming better at something than gaining a more versatile selection of skills. Nothing really closes out quite the same way in Bioshock... which is simpler, and more to the liking of people who want to do it all, but leads to less of an RPG-type experience as well.

Not sure if I'm articulating this particularly well.

The thing is that Bioshock is a good game, especially with what it's up against this year, but it's flaws are many and myriad, and that includes it's disadvantages coming from it's origin. In an attempt to at least seem like it's maintaining some RPG elements from it's spiritual predeccesor [SP] when it really isn't (powers just being basically more weapons that also act as keys) it's kind of become a lite FPS, "lite" being pretty accurate due to the amount of work FPS games put into the elements Bioshock is overlooking intentionally by being specialist games.

Those who complain about Bioshock being floaty, seem to mostly be argueing that the game should ultimately feel like a vintage gun simulation, and require the same kind of ingrained reflexes and adaption from other FPS games, especially seeing as it can be as hard to unlearn reflexs for compensation as it is to learn them.

I'll have to disagree because despite all of its upsides, the actual gameplay itself was...boring. Unfortunately, that is kind of a key aspect of a video game.

Phoenixmgs:

Ronack:

Phoenixmgs:

Those weren't "leaps".

Oh, thank you, my entire argument would have been void if you hadn't corrected this technicality!

I didn't mean to correct you based on a technicality. I said it that way so I didn't have to put spoilers in.

---

Full Metal Bolshevik:
And that is what COD does perfectly. Say what you want about the series, but the gameplay was refined to near-perfection (even if I dislike recent COD's). Shooting in a Call of Duty game feels really well, something I don't feel at all with Bioshock Infinite.
'move & aim' might seem like a simple thing, but it's actually the most important part of an FPS.

It is very important, but COD does not do it to near-perfection either. Just from a movement, shooting, and controls standpoint, MoH Warfighter blows COD out of the water. Warfighter's campaign is shit for level design, story, enemy placement, and just about everything else (besides controls, movement, and shooting), but its online shines because all that stuff that makes the campaign suck is not present in the online multiplayer. Warfighter has a MANUAL lean (not that contextual bullshit that Ghosts and BF4 has) and a slide, which is a game changer (Ghosts finally has a slide). 1v1 gun battles are just so much more dynamic in Warfighter compared to COD. Infinite's shooting isn't the best but it's good and very competent. Plus, if you are playing Infinite properly, you're not shooting that much anyways, or at least you should be using the power weapons.

Oh well, I won't bother continuing arguing. And again, the games I mentioned had manual lean.

Antsh:
Always laugh at that pre-release trailer.

That was not the game that I played lol

Yeah, I should know better not thinking a game will be good due to the trailer. But the first time I got in contact with Bioshock Infinite was on a video on the Escapist, from either Bob or Jim I don't remember, and I absolutly loved the video. Shame the game is average.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.