No I don't play only FPS.
Game-play is always the most important, a game with absolute terrible game-play will always be a bad game. Who cares about its presentation and story if you cant be bothered to play it. This comes across all genres.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bioshock Infinite, overrated and repeative [spoilers]
- Thread starter Nilaul
- Start date
No I don't play only FPS.
Game-play is always the most important, a game with absolute terrible game-play will always be a bad game. Who cares about its presentation and story if you cant be bothered to play it. This comes across all genres.
If substance can be defined as philosophical or narrative depth (or an earnest and honest attempt at such), then I stand by my statement.
Not to say that Infinite is a masterpiece (I enjoyed the original more), but I think it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that it does not stand out among the glut of first person shooters. Or that it does not try to accomplish more with its campaign.
It's a shooter. You shoot things. What were you expecting exactly?
The power of the Vigors gives you an interesting range of relevant options. They're all balanced well enough to give you a respectable amount of options in combat.
The actual design of the battle areas themselves is head and shoulders above other shooters (shoutout to Shawn Elliot). Most of the areas where combat takes place, especially once the Skyhooks are introduced, are great to maneuver around and offer you plenty of tactical options, which I guess you could call "go run and hide".
The Skyhooks themselves add in a huge layer of intricacy and decision-making, and how well you maneuver onto and off of them fluidly in combat is directly related to your skill in learning the controls and the game's flow of combat, by the end it feels great and the final battle really felt to me like the culmination of my skills. I could use the weapons I wanted, the Vigors I wanted, and Skyhook as I saw fit. It was a playground of destruction and I had a blast.
After so many boring corridor shooters I welcomed the open environments and combat playgrounds the game offered to me. It reminded me very much of Bulletstorm in the best ways possible.
That game rewarded you for learning the "skillshot" system and by the end of the game you were chaining sick combos together involving kicks, different weapons, and the leash. Similarly, by the end of Bioshock Infinite you were combining your 2 favorite weapons, your favorite combinations of Vigors, and the Skyhook to create beautiful symphonies of destruction. It was fluid and sexy, and I made it look good.
1) That's not true, and 2) Infinite doesn't have terrible gameplay at all anyway.
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
Don't worry, I find the story amazing and the gameplay lacking. I was almost convinced I was enjoying my second playthrough more, but I was kidding myself. It is really repetitive, and at that end of the day I feel very indifferent towards the game.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
EDIT: Nvm
Well after playing I expected to shoot Vigors from my crotch and I just couldnt make it happen.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Yeah, options like, "shoot or make trap" and "shoot or make trap". They played the same, the only difference was the elemental properties of the attacks. Exception being the water tendrils, which was good and very appreciated.
You are vastly overestimating the impact of skyhooks on the combat system. They are a gimmick that don't really change how you approach encounters other than adding a method of faster travel. it still boils down to "shoot mans and run away when the shit gets too real" but now you can hit space to get in and out quicker.
This really only needs the word visceral to have the trifecta of buzzwords that don't mean shit.
It certainly tries.
The gameplay: almost nothing. It did a complete HALO in that regard. + It had some vigorous copied from plasmas in the first bioshock.
But what I have a problem with is that people expect it to exceed every game in the gameplay department. Shocks games are not entirely about gameplay (although its is decent), but about story.
I am not saying that gameplay in shock-games are top-notch, but the stories are very good.
This day and age (been using this expression a lot), being able to experience a story this deep while having decent gameplay is a rare thing and we should not dismiss it as not good enough.
To be clear: Is it the gameplay or story (of both) that you disapprove of?
And succeeds (if the comparative is the point of this exercise).
Unfortunately, it mostly fails to impress.
Anyone who calls Skyhooks a gimmick, even with their regards to usefulness in combat, played a different game than I did.
You don't HAVE to use them, just like you don't have to use more than 2 easy combo Vigors to play through the entire game, but you are rewarded for your creativity by not playing a repetitive shooter that the OP describes.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I turned the difficulty down on the last part just to be done with the game. Super repetitive, especially on hard. Keep calm and dump mags upon mags upon mags.
What really irritated me about the lack of originality in tears is we had glimpses of what they were planning at one point. Referring to the chase you have at Finkton Docks. Liz summoned a train, balloons, and a parade in order to slow you down. She created a tear to a universe where there wasn't a wall to get past one in her current universe. Various interviews indicated they planned on using these things as part of normal gameplay.
I wasn't really asking for the narrative to be less restrictive, but for something where I can more readily interact with the narrative. The thing that makes something a game and not a movie is that level of interactivity, but most of the story was just presented to you. It's one of the reason's why I though Bioshock 1's twist was better than Infinite's. The mere act of controlling Jack as we ourselves were controlled by Atlas made us interact with the story.
Coffee Dog
Banned
They were unessential to combat, and you aren't really rewarded for using them in combat besides initiation/disengaging.
Here is what I think. I don't think it's GOTY, but it's a very strong game on it's own. There are a few things that really annoyed me, but I feel like they stand out because the rest of the game is quite good.
- Colombia is a beautiful and the idea behind the city is awesome. Yet, Irrational chose to not create an actual city, but more of a succession of fight arenas. I never felt like I was progressing through a fully-realized city. It just served as a backdrop for the action. I would have loved more exploration and uncovering more information about how it was built, how people lived and died there. A nice theme park, but it could have been much more.
- There are 3 repeated fights, everyone who played the game will know, that made me almost give up on my Hard playthrough. They force you into a small area with limited ammo, no salts and a boss that spawns minions with guns. There is no foreshadowing and if you aren't stocked up before getting in the area, you can be seriously fucked. The fact that it's repeated three times is just lazy. There is no reason for a sequence like that to not be flagged during focused testing or even by the internal QA team. I've seen some people mention a specific vigor combination that made the fight trivial, but I don't think that's good design. In an ideal world, the game should let the player play how he wants without creating a "this is the best stuff, do it".
- I don't like woobley flimey timey stuff. It's hard to pull off, leaves you with too many questions and most of the time, doesn't work. I would have taken Booker in Colombia searching for a girl.
- Slavery, religious fanaticism, racism, nationalism, class struggle are all used in very "superficial" ways. At the beginning of the game, you see a black woman and a white man publically humiliated because of their relationship. Then, the game let's you pick between throwing a ball at them or at the announcer. That specific act has zero consequence on the actual story. It's irrelevant. You constantly see small snippet of the blatant racism, but it's never touched on. These themes act as furniture and small info about the actual city, but they are not at the core of the game. Infinite is really about time travel, variables and constant and how decisions influence who you are.
- Colombia is a beautiful and the idea behind the city is awesome. Yet, Irrational chose to not create an actual city, but more of a succession of fight arenas. I never felt like I was progressing through a fully-realized city. It just served as a backdrop for the action. I would have loved more exploration and uncovering more information about how it was built, how people lived and died there. A nice theme park, but it could have been much more.
- There are 3 repeated fights, everyone who played the game will know, that made me almost give up on my Hard playthrough. They force you into a small area with limited ammo, no salts and a boss that spawns minions with guns. There is no foreshadowing and if you aren't stocked up before getting in the area, you can be seriously fucked. The fact that it's repeated three times is just lazy. There is no reason for a sequence like that to not be flagged during focused testing or even by the internal QA team. I've seen some people mention a specific vigor combination that made the fight trivial, but I don't think that's good design. In an ideal world, the game should let the player play how he wants without creating a "this is the best stuff, do it".
- I don't like woobley flimey timey stuff. It's hard to pull off, leaves you with too many questions and most of the time, doesn't work. I would have taken Booker in Colombia searching for a girl.
- Slavery, religious fanaticism, racism, nationalism, class struggle are all used in very "superficial" ways. At the beginning of the game, you see a black woman and a white man publically humiliated because of their relationship. Then, the game let's you pick between throwing a ball at them or at the announcer. That specific act has zero consequence on the actual story. It's irrelevant. You constantly see small snippet of the blatant racism, but it's never touched on. These themes act as furniture and small info about the actual city, but they are not at the core of the game. Infinite is really about time travel, variables and constant and how decisions influence who you are.
Did you play through the entire game without fighting a single Handyman?
Oh, I see. You're one of those people who needs to be forced to use every tool they're given, rather than being creative and using them yourself.
Except it answered all of the questions and worked incredibly well.
I have no idea how I would have killed the Handymen without using the skyrails. Even with the first one, I had to use the skyhooks.
Especially on 1999 mode.
In his defense, by the time you fight your second handyman, you can pretty much go toe-to-toe with it.
Patriots and Firemen never really needed any special maneuvering to handle...
never a GOTY was this easy to pick, and most probably the GOTG, every time I play it I come with new strategies and have a lot of fun with combos, skyhooks, tears, different weapons... of course if you play on medium/easy you're "watching" combat instead of taking part in it, play 1999 for the best experience, decide which weapons and tonics suit you the best and go for them, the end "boss" is all about testing what you did learn through playing the game and understanding the mechanics, by no means a chore if you played the game as it was meant to be played.
Coffee Dog
Banned
I made regular use of the skyhook, but acting as if it's some kind of grand innovation is folly. It's unnecessary in that it doesn't change the dynamic of combat other than making the large battlefields not annoyingly long to traverse. There isn't really anything to be creative with, it's a frankly limited toolset.
No, you're right, Patriots and Firemen are pretty straight forward. But Handymen are much easier to take down with the use of the Skyrails.
Ya, but we're comparing it with most other shooters which offer you... nothing.
Running around small rooms, hacking everything and doing fetch quests constantly doesn't really seem like a great concept to repeat in a series.
Don't forget the researching. I'm so glad they got rid of that.
Depends on you loadout and familiarity with the game. I will give you this one as I did not figure out how to break them until near the end of my first playthrough.
metalmania4evr
Member
I like how you like to mention the story is a mess, you fail to provide answers as to why you felt this way.
It's one thing if the narrative had a consensus of being a poor messy sloppy narrative amongst the gaf community. But it's been pretty notable for having no plot holes, and being wrapped very well all together.
I suggest you check out the spoiler ot thread if you have any questions regarding the "messy" narrative.
I will agree that the twist was better/more shocking in BS1. But I think BSI is more "clever" as to "force" you to the actions. While in BS1 the game forced you to bludgeoned A.R., BSI could explain the actions as one-of-many outcomes based on the decisions off the player.
I think that experiencing BS1 made BSI's impact a little less.
Jack Scofield
Member
The end of the game reminded me of Uncharted 1, which basically had you utilize your full moveset if you wanted to survive. It was awesome in Uncharted, but unfortunately brainless players and reviewers blasted the game because there was no real "bossfight," so instead you get the garbage like the Lazaravic battle in Uncharted 2.
Your post reminded me of that. I felt the end battle in BioShock Infinite was great, just like how Uncharted 1 had the best ending of any of the Uncharted games. Would you rather have something like the Atlus battle in BioShock 1? Because that was hated even more.
Your post reminded me of that. I felt the end battle in BioShock Infinite was great, just like how Uncharted 1 had the best ending of any of the Uncharted games. Would you rather have something like the Atlus battle in BioShock 1? Because that was hated even more.
Maybe, but the game's overrated as hell.
The game was really struggling in development, and they weren't going to get it out before next-gen by making the combat even more complicated then it already was with the number of variables in the environment.
I don't think most people claimed the gameplay was earth-shattering, but you're flying around on a monorail by a hook shooting people in the face and drenching them with water and electricity. Bored I wasn't.
I don't think most people claimed the gameplay was earth-shattering, but you're flying around on a monorail by a hook shooting people in the face and drenching them with water and electricity. Bored I wasn't.
Same, I had no idea until Shawn Elliot mentioned it.
Majima Everywhere System
Member
It made those games worse? The problem is they are both more enjoyable than infinite on every level.
Here's my thoughts on it: it's easy to hate on a hacking minigame or rpg like mechanics. They are short silly things that break you away from the driving force of the game. By their very nature they are an easy target for scorn. However, I think those side snipits of gameplay bring the overall work up in a way that we aren't able to perceive because there is no direct causal relationship . Games with that stuff are greater than the sum of their parts.
But what do I know? I found meaning in the escort quest in Bioshock 1.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Since there are infinite realities, there is a reality where drowning booker at the end fails and therefore, there are still comstocks.
Elizabeth should have realised this and realized that her efforts to get rid of all comstocks were futile, as she just explained the infinite nature of reality. She did not.
Easily one of the stand-out games of this gen. Liked the combat, loved the narrative, adored the aesthetic. Irrational knocked it out of the park. Picking up all the food, drink and coins can get a bit tedious, but in the grander scheme of things its a small complaint. Brilliant.
Don't care if I'm the lone dissenter here, I still feel like the game's story ain't nearly as clean as people say it is. I don't think it holds up well to scrutiny much at all.
I didn't get that same feeling of investment though. Booker was a character separate from me, whereas Jack was designed to be an empty slate I could impress myself upon. Booker's actions were the actions of Booker...Jack's actions were my actions. Infinite felt like it could've been made into a Movie and lose nothing in the process (or maybe a 6-episode thing on HBO).
Sorry OP, I enjoyed the game and its story. I did find some level to be quite frustrating (earlier level when you barely have any power and later level where things just go out of control) but overall, I enjoyed the game. It was actually one of 2 FPS I've enjoyed and fully completed (the other being Deus Ex HR).
Speaking of Vigors, Murder of Crows is my favorite. I don't use other Vigors much. Except for Shock Jockey and Possession for those Patriots and turrets.
Speaking of Vigors, Murder of Crows is my favorite. I don't use other Vigors much. Except for Shock Jockey and Possession for those Patriots and turrets.
Appropriate, since at the end of the day the story relies on Booker being a character apart from the player.
Part of the reason why the 'choices' were all faux.
Sir, you owe it to yourself to (ab)use charge.
spiderman123
Member
I was hoping for a larger open world experience. Plus I was a little disappointed in how limited the sky lines were used. I was hoping it would be more like a puzzle and you would have to figure out how to end up at ur destination. I barely used my powers. It was all guns blazing for me b/c I felt the vigor's didn't make a difference in the game-play regardless of difficulty. Every encounter was a gun fight. I wanted to have a choice between stealth or fighting. There were things they could have done better, it somewhat I expected it to be. Overall a good game. Not entirely overrated b/c the storyline was a mind fuck and incredibly awesome IMO.
CambriaRising
Member
Not everyone is a contrarian.
I used my vigors so much that I didn't have a single "kill X enemies with Y weapon" trophy by the end of the game.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
I still can't wrap my head around people saying the original game had better gunplay than Infinite. I prefer how its levels are more open-ended and Doom-like compared to Columbia, but everything else is so horribly unpolished and janky right down to the pointless morality system that I can't see where people are coming from. Even vigor's felt far better integrated (Bio 2 also handled plasmids better than the first game); there's still some things like security bullseye and cyclone traps that felt completely pointless in Bio 1, yet I never had that feeling with anything in Infinite.
Preferring Rapture and its story to Columbia is a more subjective matter and hence understandable, though personally I still feel the latter was far more polished in the end (despite my love of art deco aesthetics over old-timey American kitsch). Infinite's ending is every bit as good as Bio 1's is terrible and divorced from what came before it.
Preferring Rapture and its story to Columbia is a more subjective matter and hence understandable, though personally I still feel the latter was far more polished in the end (despite my love of art deco aesthetics over old-timey American kitsch). Infinite's ending is every bit as good as Bio 1's is terrible and divorced from what came before it.