Yeah I was assuming it was a quantum leap thing. The rifts that Elizabeth can open can be through space and time. A good point is when you end up in rapture as rapture doesn't come about until much later in time (The 1950s or 60s I think?) as well as seeing the signs for "Revenge of the Jedi" as that would be in '83. I understood it as traveling to that time and drowning during the baptism. Also amusing since the same man that baptized you at the start of the game and the one who baptized you after Wounded Knee are the same man. Booker had also said at the beginning of the game that he needed to learn the difference between a "Baptism and a drowning."
Also, you are only drowning the Booker that chose to be baptized. This kills the Comstock timeline completely as any Booker that decided to get baptized is now dead. However, any Booker that ran from the baptism lived on and did not drown.
That's my point though. At 96/95 metacritic it IS regarded as a masterpiece which in my mind it clearly is not.
I really respect what Ken Levine is trying to do with the storytelling in his games I just wish he wouldn't tie them with generic shooter mechanics. It would be like if Hideo Kojima made all of the metal gears rhythm action games. Ok, that's and extreme example but hopefully you get my point.
Also, I don't buy into the whole, "Everything is that way in the game for a reason and it serves the plot" shtick. That's just pulling the wool over our eyes as to why the game mechanics are pretty much a copy and paste of the previous game.
Ohhh come on. Most people liked it. Thats why it's so high. It's metacritic though. Who cares. If you are worried we will get more games like that because of this rating I can't understand you. It's not a reason to be sad Comparing to most AAA games Infinite is really a step in right direction. Comparing to brown and grey CODs or Gears of War where you shoot bad guys for the sake of shooting bad guys it's really something more. Even though you didn't like it that much I hope you at least agree that we need more games experimenting with visuals and story. Infinite doesn't experiment with mechanics at all and you all are right that it's step backwards.
Wonder if they'll add a multiplayer, everything seems to be there. Can't be too hard to pump out a few maps with those assets, you got the air rails, the vigors, the guns... Teams are classic red vs blue, Vox vs columbians
Shoehorning multiplayer into a finished singleplayer game is a nightmare. There's a lot more to it than just throwing out some maps. The lack of networking in the code base for starters...
definitely too much story for my taste. There's all these lingering questions that I'm not sure games are the right medium for. Particularly, who really was Lady Comstock? Who are the Lutece twins-- are they dead or what? When did DeWitt's timeline split in two? What happens to Elizabeth?
And it feels like the themes at the start of the game get sidelined by this diversion into quantum theory.
Someone else who didn't quite understand - the quantum theory is genuinely significant to understanding the plot, so if you're not totally au-fais with it, you're understandeably going to miss the intricate details.
They're not twins. They're two versions of the same person. They are both dead and alive; a quantum state. (Lived, Living, Will Live, Dead, Dying, Will Die)
It didn't split in two. It split every time a decision was made - it split an infinite number of times. This is an important thing to understand - there are an infinite number of light houses for an infinite number of decisions. Everytime you die and respawn, you never really respawn - you're just another Booker stepping out of a light house.
Ugh, I seem to be in the minority here since I didn't like the game at all. It really felt as if I was being spoon-fed a multitude of ideological and moral standpoints and it was more obvious than I would have liked. "Slavery is bad, mkay kids!?". Yup got it. "No, really, it's super bad". Yes, thank you, I know. "Yes, but do you reeeeally get it!?" Sigh.
I know it's all story centered and all, and knowing Ken Levine I was just waiting for that M. Night Shyamalan twist to come around near the end, and I didn't care for it at all.
Other than that, I felt that the combat and overall gameplay was really boring.
Sorry for being so negative.... The art was sweet though.
I'm just glad I'm in the one that had it as an FPS. I absolutely loved the combat.
I would like the non-FPS version. The combat was dire! From the poor weapon selection and balance, to the use of a regenerating shield, to the lack-luster special powers and the dodgy AI, and the annoying rift mechanics that rarely did much for you but often blocked line of sight to who-ever is shooting at you...
Artbook just arrived, well worth the ยฃ20!!! its all 2d bar an early concept sculpt but seeing the design development and process is super awesome. This could of been a very different game
I loved the game, the ending left a bitter taste as it
poo poos on the original bioshocks a bit and makes everything feel pointless
, but the story was super engrossing throughout, I couldnt stop playing. Combat I thought was good when you start experimenting with vigors and I ended up using all the weapons trying for trophies etc. I would of stuck with the hand cannon if not but the patriot and handymen were pain in the butt bullet sponges most of the time. Loved the story and loved the world they created. Liz came across really natural and is a great way of making escort missions fun. The combat didnt bother me like others as I really enjoyed it. A friend said they should of renamed the game to 'open boxes 3' haha but in all I enjoyed the scavenging, never felt like a chore and helped me get engrossed with the game. I explored everything and was gutted to only get 79/80 soundclip thingeys one of my favourite games
I really liked this. Some people complain that the story was too much, but I mostly play games for their stories and adventures they can give, and Bioshock Infinite def. delivers.
Though I really did like the game, the story felt too disconnected from the objective of killing 98% of the city's population. I kept wishing there was an option like in Metal Gear Solid 2, where you can tranquilize enemies or just avoid them altogether.
That review is genius. I take my fancy hat off to the guy who wrote it.
"a shooting game in which players use a variety of guns and magical powers to fight two ideological factions warring over a dream city in the sky called Columbia"
Eh, I disagree with all the whining. Then again anything that a majority of people enjoy will always have a select few people dedicated to disliking it for the sake of offering a different opinion, which I guess is good for discussion.
The only other shooter I've played ever with such a different take on story telling in videogames is Spec Ops: The Line, and that too met with people disliking it for the sake of being on the other "team" I guess.
Then again any game ever can be distilled down to be nothing but a droll "Hero's journey" mock-up with "pretty scenery".
Then again anything that a majority of people enjoy will always have a select few people dedicated to disliking it for the sake of offering a different opinion, which I guess is good for discussion.
Lol that's a terribly dismissive thing to say, and not true at all.
Lol that's a terribly dismissive thing to say, and not true at all.
Just my opinion 8D
(But seriously, it's all subjective, discussion is important and I'm rather dismissive of others opinions when they're the stark opposite of my own when it comes to games. In this case especially since it seems to stem from people not paying attention during the story, somehow being so used to the idea of infinity that the story is uncreative and dull or expecting a non FPS experience from an FPS.)
I'm not disliking this game for the sake of offering a different opinion. In fact I'm pretty sure I stated that the game was an 80% for me. Which makes it a pretty good game. I completed it after all which is rare for me these days. The art helped a great deal with this though. What I do dislike is the ridiculously high praise/ratings its getting for it's "amazing" storytelling and gameplay.
I kept wishing there was an option like in Metal Gear Solid 2, where you can tranquilize enemies or just avoid them altogether.
I don't disagree there. I found myself wanting for the ability to just avoid enemies rather than fight them. No real stealth elements in the game, which was off putting.
I agree with that, there were times where I would have liked to sneak around and observe the situation, even if just to get the upper hand in combat. but enemies seemed to instantly know I was there just by getting slightly close. It's telling they had to design an enemy specifically to include any kind of stealth element (the big ear / light shining dudes)
Well, what a ride. I thought the game was amazing. Deff a game that will sit in my consciousness for years to come. It felt like a new benchmark in storytelling, it really went up and beyond anything i could have imagined. Visuals were stunning, especially the lighting :O As with any game, it had its fair share of hitches, both in terms of visuals and narrative, but i think they can be dismissed as minor in the scheme of things, considering the scope of the game and what it was trying to achieve. I was having to much fun to care much anyway!, and thats all that really matters right
In this case especially since it seems to stem from people not paying attention during the story, somehow being so used to the idea of infinity that the story is uncreative and dull or expecting a non FPS experience from an FPS.)
I have found most of the criticism to be quite reasonable. In fact, most criticism I've seen comes from people who did follow the story and discuss it close detail. I don't think anyone denies it's a great game, but if we are to move forward as the industry, we should be looking at things with a critical eye. In fact, things that are good, warrant more criticism.
I don't see many comments that complain about BI being uncreative, or dull. In fact, I see the opposite; people usually complain about it being too ambitious, trying to do too many things at once and for being inconsistent.
As for it being an FPS, there is nothing wrong with that; but BI has this really weird dissonance between the narrative and gameplay. One second the games tries to be deep and thoughtful, the next you're electrocuting someone till his head pops off. The combat mechanics are fun of course, but they don't really mix that well with the narrative and the mood that BI tries to create. IMHO, Bioshock 1 was much more consistent in this regard and all mechanics (apart from Vita Chambers) felt like they had a place. BI on the other hand seem to be stuck with these game'y aesthetics, while its story tries to pull in the opposite direction.
IMHO, Bioshock 1 was much more consistent in this regard and all mechanics (apart from Vita Chambers) felt like they had a place. BI on the other hand seem to be stuck with these game'y aesthetics, while its story tries to pull in the opposite direction.
Exactly my sentiments. for the last third of the game I was groaning every time I had to chore through another combat segment. As for the story resolution I think Looper did a better job, that's not to say Infinite was bad.
Infinite all in all is an amazing piece of work.
and props for all the animators and mocap actors, excellent work.
Elizabeth drowns Booker, why is she still left standing at the end? It seems to me the only logical way to look at it was she was committing suicide, since no comstock equals no elizabeth-- unless that was somehow Anna?
Elizabeth drowns Booker, why is she still left standing at the end? It seems to me the only logical way to look at it was she was committing suicide, since no comstock equals no elizabeth-- unless that was somehow Anna?
She does dissapear. Every time Elizabeth disappears the music plays piano notes. Screen goes black and you hear one last note = Elizabeth disappearing.
... it is possible... Levine could have written the script some time ago...I hope its true... probably not but one could hope.
I think the commenters are most likely right I'm afraid. they probably re-used some stock sound effect for songbird that they also happened to use in bioshock, simple as that.
Just finished the game and.....wow. I haven't played a game like that since, well, the first Bioshock. What a fantastic game, top to bottom, I absolutely loved it.
Just finished it, lovely art direction, atmosphere, audio direction, art assets seemed noticeably higher quality than the previous two games, and I have to say the ending was one of the most interesting I've ever seen in any game. Sure beats the "Defeat X boss, receive gold medal" ending you see in many games.
Most enjoyable game experience I've had since Bioshock 1, or maybe even HL2.
It was a little more linear than I expected it to be, but that wasn't a problem at all for me as I really enjoyed the ride.
Anyone find that bioshock games deserve to be an adventure game rather than a first person shooter? Everytime I resorted to gunplay, it kind of took me out of the experience and cheapened what is otherwise a brilliantly crafted game. I also didnt think that gore was all that necessary, and I love gore.
I should say the violence didn't bother me personally, but I think the article makes some good points about how the overall mechanisms of a shooter get in the way.
I didn't have any problem with the violence personally. In the first skyhook scene I felt it was completely justified, not just because of the scene it's a part of but because those cops were just about to do the same damn thing to you!
I made an awful lot of headshots throughout my play but barely noticed the gore and as for the mele-kills, if you con't like 'em why can't you just not use 'em?
Ultimately I feel that given the background of both the characters and Columbia, it's a brutal world where brutal stuff happens.
The violence is realistic and makes sense in the game. Has no one ever seen a gunshot wound or the aftermath of an industrial accident?
The only thing I found dumb was the electrical head pop, then again having the enemy go paralysed and start slowly sizzling as their skin burned off would be too violent I guess?
Maybe the suits they wear conduct the electricity in such a way that all the energy gets forced out of the one un-exposed area? I have no fucking idea and didn't really use Shock Jockey that much anyway, Murder of Crows was where the real action was at;)
I'm pretty certain that Irrational wanted you to think the violence was over the top. It's in perfect contrast with this seemingly beautiful and innocent town. The moment you are asked to throw the first baseball is when you get a sense of how dark this place actually is, and then bam -- in perfect contrast some guys face gets ripped off and it's just downhill from there.
I sometimes wonder if people read more books, traveled more and went outside more then simply living a baby-boomer dream, half of the arguments wouldn't exist, our life isn't an clean as many people would like to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't clean back then.
Warning for Gore at 2:00+, the guys arm is literally split open from running away and tripping on a fence (supposedly), this is everyday stuff for many people, I fail to see how BI is considered too violent in any extreme considering it's play the generic statement visually of "Pretty from the outside, Corrupt from the inside", how else if a game supposed to show this stuff visually?
It's as if some people never even experience a paper cut in their life, or a prick in their fingers, or ate at Taco Bell...
Everyone thinking they're critiques on something they aren't even experts on, nice. It's great to see people misunderstand Penny Arcades strip and use it for their own argument, and people like Kirk Hamilton on Kotaku who de-starred on the old site several Pokycount users when they told him off for only showing characters from the previous PC Comp. and no environment pieces, is having a nice point that people are actually listening to.
Glad to see the same people who argued for 'The Knee' reference was a Skyrim joke in BI and failed to realized it was actual history based upon a real person, have places to talk with all their understanding about violence in a game and how it's out of place.
I bet these people are the same ones who argued "Where the Wild things are" wasn't a kids a movie, when they sit at home and watch Game of Thrones.
I think you missed the point. Seems like you needed to get a lot off your chest that doesn't relate to the arguement.
Anyway, my slight issue is that the exaggerated gore was cartoony to the point of selling short what was a very rich, complex, emotional and thought provoking world. I think Bioshock is a fairly highbrow (considering the age of our industry) dish wrapped in a more mass market digestible sandwich.
The violence was the last thing that stirred my emotions in this game and maybe that's why I felt that the comical nature of it all kind of took me out of the experience a few times.
Also the blatant racism and jingoism was a bit too hamfisted at first. It got crafted with a bit more nuance and philosophy through the audiologs, which I enjoyed much more. I hate when I'm told how to feel about an issue as if its some sort of self imposed guilt. When it's a little less obvious and more intelligent, it becomes much more devious.
And I don't, for a second, believe that violence was serving as the contrast for the setting. The people at irrational are much more intelligent than to cop out with such an easy and naive trope. There were plot points that unravelled and served that purpose. The violence served nothing more than a means to market a shooter.
Lets be honest, bioshock won't sell if it doesn't provide action packed frills of a shooter. They balance that masterfully but the concept really deserves something more, at the risk of being a bit too niche and not profitable.
If you look at the box art for Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, you might get what I'm on about. Bioshock was as much about big underwater diving suit monsters as BI was about a battle weary gun slinger in the 1900's Alas that's all marketing.
I'm with Fuse on this. While I wasn't "bothered" by the violence and found it pretty hilarious most of the time, it didn't really seem to help the game in any sense. If it was meant to portray a contrast between the beautiful and the ugly, then I feel that it fails to make its point. The violence was too caricatured to be taken seriously and it often feels like it was designed purely to be fun, or to serve some mechanical purpose (as in; exploding heads make it easier to tell when you land a headshot).
The only time I felt disturbed by it was when
I saw the bodies of the civilians executed by Vox Populi; kneeling, with hands tied behind their backs. Or when I heard the audiologs of an officer who cut off the leg of an Indian boy.
You are right on the money! I love gore but I almost feel like Bioshock deserves more than that. I totally understand why they did it though, it's a game after all.
Man, I loved this game. I really think this game could represent a pivotal moment in video game history. Maybe, it's just me, but I doubt it. I don't usually pay much attention to stories in games because they just usually don't warrant it. I loved the first Bioshock, but I really felt like this game took video game narrative to a new level. It's the first game that's kept me thinking me about the story after I played it.
Oh yeah, and I loved the color in this game. They were somewhere in between realism and something like the darker side of Disney. Everything was so rich. And yet, they were still able to make the game feel menacing and foreboding.
I'm rambling now, I know. This game kicked my ass on hard mode. Heh. I loved it!
Hey, I hate to necro up a thread from half a week ago, but I've got a question. Now I haven't played Bioshock Infinite myself, because I refuse to play anything violent, but I've read more than a handful of things here and there. Please ignore if it's a dumb question and it'll be out of the first page tomorrow.
The gist of it is that Bioshock Infinite is a great game except for the gameplay.
It obviously has a lot of great elements, but none of them are ludic.
Imagine, if you will, a video recording of Mozart's Requiem. It's great! Mozart's Requiem is a much deeper, much more artistic piece of expression than Citizen Kane or Vertigo is. But would anyone claim a video of it to be a master piece of film making?
Bioshock Infinite is, I imagine, a thorn of epic proportions in the side of people such as Jonathan Blow and Jason Rohrer who try to make good games; to make rules, not scenes, that express thoughts. Therefore, my question is, does anyone here perceive the likes of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite which use the label of games to present installation art, street theatre, or environmental storytelling (genres which aren't technically games) to be a threat to what games could be as games?
Bioshock Infinite is, I imagine, a thorn of epic proportions in the side of people such as Jonathan Blow and Jason Rohrer who try to make good games; to make rules, not scenes, that express thoughts. Therefore, my question is, does anyone here perceive the likes of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite which use the label of games to present installation art, street theatre, or environmental storytelling (genres which aren't technically games) to be a threat to what games could be as games?
I'm thoroughly on the side of games as games, but having read a lot of different perspectives on Infinite, I've reached the conclusion that there is quite a divide on this issue. For some it's a masterpiece of storytelling and others like me it's just a mediocre shooter with an interesting story. I happen to think games as an entertainment staple are so big now that both of these currents can co-exist, both will continue to be made and innovation won't be lacking because people don't lack the tools and means to make their ideas happen.
I don't strictly disagree with Zwebbie, but there is certainly something to be said about storytelling in an interactive medium versus using one that isn't. Books and movies can tell incredible stories, but the lack of interactivity makes them something passive that's simply consumed. A game like Infinite is something that can be experienced directly. It's much easier to be emotionally invested in something that actually involves you versus something you witness as a third party. This is arguably something games need to work on more - I think Mass Effect, Heavy Rain etc are starting to follow the right line in that regard.
I just finished it earlier today, the ending still has me thinking. Overall I really liked it quite alot. The art was really great, and the music. I do feel Bioshock 1 did some things better in ways, like the intro. , but the Elizabeth character in BI was well done.
She felt alive and intelligent. It was cool to see her react to smoke in the air, or go off a little ways and inspect things on her own. I never had her get in the way really or feel just like a typical AI.
I almost want to go play it again now to see the little things that didn't click at first, or make sense. Also just to experience the interaction between Booker and her again.
Replies
Also, you are only drowning the Booker that chose to be baptized. This kills the Comstock timeline completely as any Booker that decided to get baptized is now dead. However, any Booker that ran from the baptism lived on and did not drown.
Ohhh come on. Most people liked it. Thats why it's so high. It's metacritic though. Who cares. If you are worried we will get more games like that because of this rating I can't understand you. It's not a reason to be sad
I found this game charming and I had a blast.
http://kotaku.com/the-problem-with-bioshock-infinites-combat-468530143
And it feels like the themes at the start of the game get sidelined by this diversion into quantum theory.
Of course. Alternate universes would imply that there is a universe for every possible choice/outcome ever.
I'm just glad I'm in the one that had it as an FPS. I absolutely loved the combat.
How u doin'?
I know it's all story centered and all, and knowing Ken Levine I was just waiting for that M. Night Shyamalan twist to come around near the end, and I didn't care for it at all.
Other than that, I felt that the combat and overall gameplay was really boring.
Sorry for being so negative.... The art was sweet though.
I would like the non-FPS version. The combat was dire! From the poor weapon selection and balance, to the use of a regenerating shield, to the lack-luster special powers and the dodgy AI, and the annoying rift mechanics that rarely did much for you but often blocked line of sight to who-ever is shooting at you...
I loved the game, the ending left a bitter taste as it
Though I really did like the game, the story felt too disconnected from the objective of killing 98% of the city's population. I kept wishing there was an option like in Metal Gear Solid 2, where you can tranquilize enemies or just avoid them altogether.
"a shooting game in which players use a variety of guns and magical powers to fight two ideological factions warring over a dream city in the sky called Columbia"
The only other shooter I've played ever with such a different take on story telling in videogames is Spec Ops: The Line, and that too met with people disliking it for the sake of being on the other "team" I guess.
Then again any game ever can be distilled down to be nothing but a droll "Hero's journey" mock-up with "pretty scenery".
Also, three professional critics discuss the game: Warning spoilers
[ame="
Lol that's a terribly dismissive thing to say, and not true at all.
Just my opinion 8D
(But seriously, it's all subjective, discussion is important and I'm rather dismissive of others opinions when they're the stark opposite of my own when it comes to games. In this case especially since it seems to stem from people not paying attention during the story, somehow being so used to the idea of infinity that the story is uncreative and dull or expecting a non FPS experience from an FPS.)
I don't disagree there. I found myself wanting for the ability to just avoid enemies rather than fight them. No real stealth elements in the game, which was off putting.
I have found most of the criticism to be quite reasonable. In fact, most criticism I've seen comes from people who did follow the story and discuss it close detail. I don't think anyone denies it's a great game, but if we are to move forward as the industry, we should be looking at things with a critical eye. In fact, things that are good, warrant more criticism.
I don't see many comments that complain about BI being uncreative, or dull. In fact, I see the opposite; people usually complain about it being too ambitious, trying to do too many things at once and for being inconsistent.
As for it being an FPS, there is nothing wrong with that; but BI has this really weird dissonance between the narrative and gameplay. One second the games tries to be deep and thoughtful, the next you're electrocuting someone till his head pops off. The combat mechanics are fun of course, but they don't really mix that well with the narrative and the mood that BI tries to create. IMHO, Bioshock 1 was much more consistent in this regard and all mechanics (apart from Vita Chambers) felt like they had a place. BI on the other hand seem to be stuck with these game'y aesthetics, while its story tries to pull in the opposite direction.
... it is possible... Levine could have written the script some time ago...I hope its true... probably not but one could hope.
Exactly my sentiments. for the last third of the game I was groaning every time I had to chore through another combat segment. As for the story resolution I think Looper did a better job, that's not to say Infinite was bad.
Infinite all in all is an amazing piece of work.
and props for all the animators and mocap actors, excellent work.
I think the commenters are most likely right I'm afraid. they probably re-used some stock sound effect for songbird that they also happened to use in bioshock, simple as that.
Most enjoyable game experience I've had since Bioshock 1, or maybe even HL2.
It was a little more linear than I expected it to be, but that wasn't a problem at all for me as I really enjoyed the ride.
I should say the violence didn't bother me personally, but I think the article makes some good points about how the overall mechanisms of a shooter get in the way.
I made an awful lot of headshots throughout my play but barely noticed the gore and as for the mele-kills, if you con't like 'em why can't you just not use 'em?
Ultimately I feel that given the background of both the characters and Columbia, it's a brutal world where brutal stuff happens.
Cliffy's article is also pretty cool.
The only thing I found dumb was the electrical head pop, then again having the enemy go paralysed and start slowly sizzling as their skin burned off would be too violent I guess?
I'm very glad it was a violent FPS.
Here is a video of bounty hunters chasing a person in a city:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUuafsljakoYaaAWnOg_Ucug&feature=player_detailpage&v=buAvD-O8658#t=92s
Warning for Gore at 2:00+, the guys arm is literally split open from running away and tripping on a fence (supposedly), this is everyday stuff for many people, I fail to see how BI is considered too violent in any extreme considering it's play the generic statement visually of "Pretty from the outside, Corrupt from the inside", how else if a game supposed to show this stuff visually?
It's as if some people never even experience a paper cut in their life, or a prick in their fingers, or ate at Taco Bell...
Everyone thinking they're critiques on something they aren't even experts on, nice. It's great to see people misunderstand Penny Arcades strip and use it for their own argument, and people like Kirk Hamilton on Kotaku who de-starred on the old site several Pokycount users when they told him off for only showing characters from the previous PC Comp. and no environment pieces, is having a nice point that people are actually listening to.
Glad to see the same people who argued for 'The Knee' reference was a Skyrim joke in BI and failed to realized it was actual history based upon a real person, have places to talk with all their understanding about violence in a game and how it's out of place.
I bet these people are the same ones who argued "Where the Wild things are" wasn't a kids a movie, when they sit at home and watch Game of Thrones.
Anyway, my slight issue is that the exaggerated gore was cartoony to the point of selling short what was a very rich, complex, emotional and thought provoking world. I think Bioshock is a fairly highbrow (considering the age of our industry) dish wrapped in a more mass market digestible sandwich.
The violence was the last thing that stirred my emotions in this game and maybe that's why I felt that the comical nature of it all kind of took me out of the experience a few times.
Also the blatant racism and jingoism was a bit too hamfisted at first. It got crafted with a bit more nuance and philosophy through the audiologs, which I enjoyed much more. I hate when I'm told how to feel about an issue as if its some sort of self imposed guilt. When it's a little less obvious and more intelligent, it becomes much more devious.
And I don't, for a second, believe that violence was serving as the contrast for the setting. The people at irrational are much more intelligent than to cop out with such an easy and naive trope. There were plot points that unravelled and served that purpose. The violence served nothing more than a means to market a shooter.
Lets be honest, bioshock won't sell if it doesn't provide action packed frills of a shooter. They balance that masterfully but the concept really deserves something more, at the risk of being a bit too niche and not profitable.
If you look at the box art for Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, you might get what I'm on about. Bioshock was as much about big underwater diving suit monsters as BI was about a battle weary gun slinger in the 1900's Alas that's all marketing.
The only time I felt disturbed by it was when
Oh yeah, and I loved the color in this game. They were somewhere in between realism and something like the darker side of Disney. Everything was so rich. And yet, they were still able to make the game feel menacing and foreboding.
I'm rambling now, I know. This game kicked my ass on hard mode. Heh. I loved it!
The gist of it is that Bioshock Infinite is a great game except for the gameplay.
It obviously has a lot of great elements, but none of them are ludic.
Imagine, if you will, a video recording of Mozart's Requiem. It's great! Mozart's Requiem is a much deeper, much more artistic piece of expression than Citizen Kane or Vertigo is. But would anyone claim a video of it to be a master piece of film making?
Bioshock Infinite is, I imagine, a thorn of epic proportions in the side of people such as Jonathan Blow and Jason Rohrer who try to make good games; to make rules, not scenes, that express thoughts. Therefore, my question is, does anyone here perceive the likes of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite which use the label of games to present installation art, street theatre, or environmental storytelling (genres which aren't technically games) to be a threat to what games could be as games?
I'm thoroughly on the side of games as games, but having read a lot of different perspectives on Infinite, I've reached the conclusion that there is quite a divide on this issue. For some it's a masterpiece of storytelling and others like me it's just a mediocre shooter with an interesting story. I happen to think games as an entertainment staple are so big now that both of these currents can co-exist, both will continue to be made and innovation won't be lacking because people don't lack the tools and means to make their ideas happen.
She felt alive and intelligent. It was cool to see her react to smoke in the air, or go off a little ways and inspect things on her own. I never had her get in the way really or feel just like a typical AI.
I almost want to go play it again now to see the little things that didn't click at first, or make sense. Also just to experience the interaction between Booker and her again.