Support NeoGAF

[JAYSIMPLE]

Ok, I'm shocked at this thread to be honest. The shooting is top notch, I'm playing on Hard and the game is brutal in places. I refuse to have someone tell me that the game was a shooter so it could sell to the masses. I think the game is exactly what it was always meant to be. I have no problem with people wanting more from things but this seems a little extreme. Are we getting to the point now where we could ask for more from every medium? I am starting to become a little bit ashamed to think of myself as a gamer. Nothing is ever good enough for us and we constantly act like we deserve more and everything is a scam and a rip off.

I can't comment on the ending as I am roughly half way through but on hard the game is a lot of fun. Im thoroughly enjoying it, Am i missing something that is making it a far lesser game than Bioshock 1??

 

[shouamabane]

I hope it's in the bargain bin in 3 months like ICO and Mirrors Edge.

 

[StuBurns]

GAF at the moment is like Lennie with the puppy, you love it too hard, and are clearly going to kill it, if you get your way.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Ico + Mirror's Edge. That would be my favorite game of all time.

 

[Derrick01]

Oh GAF; I think the majority of us can agree that B.I is one of the best games ever made and still, we want to chop and change.

Can't please everyone, I guess.

It's not even one of the best games of the gen, it's too forgettable even for that. I've already begun flushing parts of the lackluster story out of my head.

 

[SniperHunter]

It's not even one of the best games of the gen, it's too forgettable even for that. I've already begun flushing parts of the lackluster story out of my head.

what was the last game you really liked? just out of curiosity.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Ok, I'm shocked at this thread to be honest. The shooting is top notch, I'm playing on Hard and the game is brutal in places. I refuse to have someone tell me that the game was a shooter so it could sell to the masses. I think the game is exactly what it was always meant to be. I have no problem with people wanting more from things but this seems a little extreme. Are we getting to the point now where we could ask for more from every medium? I am starting to become a little bit ashamed to think of myself as a gamer. Nothing is ever good enough for us and we constantly act like we deserve more and everything is a scam and a rip off.

I can't comment on the ending as I am roughly half way through but on hard the game is a lot of fun. Im thoroughly enjoying it, Am i missing something that is making it a far lesser game than Bioshock 1??

You could remove the shooting parts entirely and the game would be just as interesting -actually, it would be even less boring. The problem is not whether the shooting gameplay in Bioshock Infinite is good or bad. The fact there is shooting in itself is a problem. It's unnecessary and should have been removed.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

At least it looks perdy.

 

[Currygan]

I fully subscribe to this point of view. The gameplay really drags down the whole experience; to be more specific, the awful scripted combat

 

[FloatOn]

Ok, I'm shocked at this thread to be honest. The shooting is top notch, I'm playing on Hard and the game is brutal in places. I refuse to have someone tell me that the game was a shooter so it could sell to the masses. I think the game is exactly what it was always meant to be. I have no problem with people wanting more from things but this seems a little extreme. Are we getting to the point now where we could ask for more from every medium? I am starting to become a little bit ashamed to think of myself as a gamer. Nothing is ever good enough for us and we constantly act like we deserve more and everything is a scam and a rip off.

I can't comment on the ending as I am roughly half way through but on hard the game is a lot of fun. Im thoroughly enjoying it, Am i missing something that is making it a far lesser game than Bioshock 1??

I am perhaps guilty of being a little heavy handed with my idealism of what could have been, and I'm sorry if that offends you or anyone in this thread. I tried to make it clear that I did enjoy what we ended up getting but I can't help but to think how things could be better whether it be in a video game or the political climate.

I'm not upset with the game at all, I just wish it had been something more. If you are fine with how it is, that's great. I'm glad you enjoyed the ride.

 

[Riposte]

What should discussion be then?

"Game X was excellent"

"Yes, it could not be changed in any way for my experience to be better"

You can have criticism without wiping out a pile of fan-fiction.

 

[StuBurns]

I fully subscribe to this point of view. The gameplay really drags down the whole experience; to be more specific, the awful scripted combat

What are you comparing it to?

 

[Dylan]

I disagree completely. Bioshock has always felt like a game with an intelligent story to tell as it's first priority. Combat was the core of Quake 3.

What Bioshock does well in terms of it's combat is the use of Plasmids/Vigors and melee weapons. In terms of actual projectile weaponry the Bioshock games peaked with part 2 simply because of how different the weapons actually were compared to most every other FPS shooter.

The only interesting gun to use in Infinite is the Volley gun. Everything else is completely standard FPS fare.

But the entire point is that it isn't a standard FPS. Why are people critiquing the shooting aspects of BI in a vacuum? The combat of BI is designed around using vigors and guns together, not separately. If the game was just one or the other the combat wouldn't make any sense, and BI does a great job of encouraging players to mix up their tactics as much as possible, and in as many creative ways as possible.

If BI had a bunch of crazy space-aged guns then there would be no point of the vigors. The contrast between them is intentional.

 

[marjo]

Why are there so many threads like this popping up?

Bioshock Infinite is great the way it is. The truth is that despite the popularity of 'shooters', there are remarkly few good single player fps's released. Why can't us fans of the genre get a good game without everyone screaming that the game should have been something else?

I like the setting of infinite. I like the the combat in Infinte. Nothing needs to be toned down. The game is not an rpg, nor was it meant to be one.

 

[Derrick01]

what was the last game you really liked? just out of curiosity.

This game, kind of. I just don't subscribe to the greatest game ever status people like to throw on every new game they play.

 

[StuBurns]

This game, kind of. I just don't subscribe to the greatest game ever status people like to throw on every new game they play.

That's a very cynical stance, even Deus Ex was new once. Ico happens to be my favorite game, just because it's old, doesn't make it any more reasonable a selection.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

As much as people want Infinite to be something else, it wouldn't have enjoyed nearly as much success if it wasn't a shooter. It's a necessary evil, and i'm happy with the balance because more people can experience the great narrative and art as a result.

 

[Micerider]

Mirror edge and ico are not enough, we should add some Dance Central and Rocksmith. There are some musical parts in the game after all.

 

[StuBurns]

As much as people want Infinite to be something else, it wouldn't have enjoyed nearly as much success if it wasn't a shooter. It's a necessary evil, and i'm happy with the balance because more people can experience the great narrative and art as a result.

Well, we don't know that at all, Skyrim sold ten million copies. It's not as if FPS is the only genre you can sell huge.

 

[Dylan]

As much as people want Infinite to be something else, it wouldn't have enjoyed nearly as much success if it wasn't a shooter. It's a necessary evil, and i'm happy with the balance because more people can experience the great narrative and art as a result.

I think people seriously misunderstand the way games are made. Irrational took their specific specialty and use that format to craft an amazing narrative experience. It isn't like they said "OK, we have this cool world concept, so let's just pull some video game genres out of a hat and we'll make that kind of game."

BI is clearly an iteration on Irrationals' years of engineering and design experience. If they had changed course significantly, the end product wouldn't have been anywhere near as good as it is.

 

[Derrick01]

That's a very cynical stance, even Deus Ex was new once. Ico happens to be my favorite game, just because it's old, doesn't make it any more reasonable a selection.

Well let's see if people feel the same at the end of the year or years later like we do about those games. Overhyping the most recent good game people played is a really common issue in this industry.

 

[Riposte]

I think people seriously misunderstand the way games are made. Irrational wanted to take a certain type of game and use that format to craft an amazing narrative experience. It isn't like they said "OK, we have this cool world concept, so let's just pull some video game genres out of a hat and we'll make that kind of game."

BI is clearly an iteration on Irrationals' years of engineering and design experience. If they had changed course significantly, the end product wouldn't have been anywhere near as good as it is.

I have it on good authority that videogames are made by developers pulling them out of the "innovation hat".

 

[Canis lupus]

That would be amazing if it were combined with less shooting, there is too much shooting in Infinite.

 

[Robin64]

The shooter part bored me to tears. It's the same game I've played a hundred times now. Watched a friend played through it in the end while I sat doing stuff on my computer, looking up at the story stuff. Much better experience.

There really is nothing quite like using the sky rails

http://youtu.be/SUwQ7OjxZXY?t=1m2s

 

[Barry Burton]

Considering the combat in Ico is some of the worst ever implemented in a game, and its inclusion is a huge black eye on what is otherwise an incredible game, I certainly don't think Bioshock should be taking cues from it. If there was ever a game that shouldn't have had any combat, it's Ico.

 

[Dylan]

I have it on good authority that videogames are made by developers pulling them out of the "innovation hat".

"Innovation Hat" is actually the new Microsoft console.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I've just reached the part where

Spoiler

Elizabeth knocks you out on the airship and you arrive to a new map area I guess.

What percentage do you think I've completed so far?

I must say I'm disappointed with the game. As of now, I think Bioshock 1 is better than Infinite in almost every department: music, art, scare factor, and plot.

 

[FloatOn]

But the entire point is that it isn't a standard FPS. Why are people critiquing the shooting aspects of BI in a vacuum? The combat of BI is designed around using vigors and guns together, not separately. If the game was just one or the other the combat wouldn't make any sense, and BI does a great job of encouraging players to mix up their tactics as much as possible, and in as many creative ways as possible.

If BI had a bunch of crazy space-aged guns then there would be no point of the vigors. The contrast between them is intentional.

Bioshock 2 had plasmids with 3 levels of charge plus awesome atypical weapons such as the Rivet gun, Spear gun and drill hand (to name a few). Then the weapons themselves had varying ammo types to diversify them even further. Infinite scrapped ammo types completely.

I can't tell you how much fun I had laying trap rivets all over an area, shooting a mob of bad guys with machine gun bullets that ricochet to lead them through the traps and hitting them with chain lightning as we went along.

Compare that to what we have in Infinite. Pistol, Machine gun, Shotgun, Sniper rifle. Then the vigors were just variations on what we had in the previous Bioshock games. Which isn't to say any of this is bad per se', just very safe and standard.

 

[Riposte]

As of now, I think Bioshock 1 is better than Infinite in almost every department: music, art, scare factor, and plot.

The four categories on which all games are judged.

 

[ComputerMKII]

I've just reached the part where

Spoiler

Elizabeth knocks you out on the airship and you arrive to a new map area I guess.

What percentage do you think I've completed so far?

I must say I'm disappointed with the game. As of now, I think Bioshock 1 is better than Infinite in almost every department: music, art, scare factor, and plot.

I'd say about 50%.

 

[lifa-cobex]

I wouldn't go as far to say it's the best game ever made but it's nice to get the shinning gem out of the ocean of so so games once in a while.

Its kinda like the Half Life 2, Red Dead Redemption, Portal or Uncharted 2 standard.
You know you will be keeping it and you know you will replay it again in the distant future.

I feel like the only person who was fine with it being a shooter.

I liked it too.

 

[StuBurns]

Well let's see if people feel the same at the end of the year or years later like we do about those games. Overhyping the most recent good game people played is a really common issue in this industry.

I agree overhyping is common, but it could just as easily be a case of people actually think games get consistently better. It's conceivable to me someone could think this is the best game ever made, then in June think TLoU is, then in September think GTA5 is. I don't think it makes them fickle or anything.

Considering the combat in Ico is some of the worst ever implemented in a game, and its inclusion is a huge black eye on what is otherwise an incredible game, I certainly don't think Bioshock should be taking cues from it. If there was ever a game that shouldn't have had any combat, it's Ico.

There are like four instances in the whole game you have to fight, every other time you can just run to the next gate and all the enemies die.

 

[jakonovski]

Kinda funny seeing some reactions to Bioshock Infinite here. "Stop talking about this game like that!"

Anyhoo, despite BI being one of the best games in a long time, I feel it's a step down from the original Bioshock, which was a step down from System Shock 2 (which was a step down from System Shock, don't kill me please).

Luckily the Steam preorder included Bioshock (my original 360 copy of Bioshock went to the bowels of Gamestop), so I can experience it with a new perspective to make sure it's not just nostalgia.

 

[AngryMoth]

I'd love to know what Ken Levine feels is the primary goal for the game, telling a good story or being a fun shooter, because that's really the crux of the issue with all these threads I feel. If it's the former then the gameplay probably shouldn't be about repeatedly killing dudes and if it's the latter then there probably shouldn't be so much time and focus placed on a story which has little to do with what's going on in the gameplay. To me personally I felt that the story was by far the most compelling part of the game to the point where even though I could appreciate the combat was well designed it felt like a frustrating chore getting in the way of the narrative, but clearly there are a lot of people who felt differently.

 

[Marcel]

I'm not sure changing it into a more exploration-based game would have made it better. Mind you Bioshock Infinite isn't terrible or anything, but everything about the game speaks to sitting in the oven for too long. The

Spoiler

jumps in time and space

, retreading through the same maps forward and backward, the very padded second act, and the messiness of the story (heavily "borrows" from Fringe, a piece of media that executed

Spoiler

alternate universe

stuff well).

It's a game that (I think) uses the

Spoiler

many worlds/universes plot as a meta commentary on the game's own troubled development cycle. While that could work in the right hands, it comes off as cheap given BI's weaknesses in other areas.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The four categories on which all games are judged.

I'm holding off on gameplay, which is why I used the world almost. Both games play alike except for the whole skyline traversing. I'm already abusing the raven+shotgun combo just like how I abused the ice+shotgun combo in the first.

 

[sonicmj1]

Ico + Mirror's Edge. That would be my favorite game of all time.

But those designs are basically antithetical to each other.

Mirror's Edge is about constant forward movement. Looking back slows you down. You try and navigate the environment as quickly as you can. Ico requires you to move cautiously, and to always be aware of Yorda. If you leave her unattended in your puzzle solving, she runs the risk of being taken away.

Why would you mix those two things? How can you have a breakneck platformer where you also have to be constantly concerned that you left Elizabeth behind? That just sounds frustrating.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing games, but we should try to stay within the limits of what the game set out to achieve. Your shifts in emphasis would transform the entire focus of the game.

Bioshock is a very shooty shooter, and it can get a little bloodthirsty for my tastes, but it actually is pretty well-justified in the narrative, even beyond the elemental "self-defense" motivation. I wouldn't mind reducing the frequency of combat, but minimizing it would fundamentally transform Booker's character.

I'm all for more games like Mirror's Edge or Ico, and I'd love to see different genres used with Bioshock's brand of worldbuilding and exploration, but Bioshock Infinite was never built to be that game, from the moment it was unveiled onwards.

 

[EvaristeG]

Bioshock Infinite should have been whatever the hell Ken Levine wanted it to be, and it is. It's an outstanding achievement as is, and works just fine as a shooter.

This. I mean it's not like this series has ever been anything but a shooter.

 

[Klendathu Club Owner]

I'd love to know what Ken Levine feels is the primary goal for the game, telling a good story or being a fun shooter, because that's really the crux of the issue with all these threads I feel. If it's the former then the gameplay probably shouldn't be about repeatedly killing dudes and if it's the latter then there probably shouldn't be so much time and focus placed on the story. To me personally I felt that the story was by far the most compelling part of the game to the point where even though I could appreciate the combat was well designed it felt like a frustrating chore getting in the way of the narrative, but clearly there are a lot of people who felt differently.

Here you go:

Which makes you think about pushing beyond Infinite. Is the future still, for Levine and Irrational at least, a narrative one? What about the shooter side, which may offer bankability but severely limits the types of games and concept you can work with? Levine pauses. "I like making... to me the FP is more important than the S, right? The first-person is very powerful. It is at the end of the day where interactive experiences, where the ultimate goals, lie, because that's what our experience is."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-11-would-the-real-ken-levine-kindly-stand-up

 

[Currygan]

What are you comparing it to?

I'm not comparing it to anything

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Well, we don't know that at all, Skyrim sold ten million copies. It's not as if FPS is the only genre you can sell huge.

You still kill tons of stuff in Skyrim, which seems to be people's biggest contention with Infinite. It's simply replacing a gun with a sword.

 

[daveo42]

There's actually a voxophone/audio diary early on that says (minor spoilers, so minor it's not even anything specific but better safe than sorry)

Spoiler

that the people that are after you have been warned not to hurt/touch Elizabeth, because Comstock's told them that if any harm comes to her they'll be killed.

So it makes sense in context of the game why it's not specifically an escort mission and why you don't have to "protect" her in the usual sense.

I know you're explaining missed opportunities and what-not, but I think in the context of the story it fits better that you DON'T have to worry about Elizabeth.

Came here specifically to say this. There was always a specific reason why no one ever went after her and you didn't need to worry about protecting her. Well done sir.

Bioshock Infinite should have been whatever the hell Ken Levine wanted it to be, and it is. It's an outstanding achievement as is, and works just fine as a shooter.

It works fine as a shooter, I just feel there was a bit too much emphasis on the gunplay aspect this time around.

 

[Dylan]

Bioshock 2 had plasmids with 3 levels of charge plus awesome atypical weapons such as the Rivet gun, Spear gun and drill hand (to name a few). Then the weapons themselves had varying ammo types to diversify them even further. Infinite scrapped ammo types completely.

I can't tell you how much fun I had laying trap rivets all over an area, shooting a mob of bad guys with machine gun bullets that ricochet to lead them through the traps and hitting them with chain lightning as we went along.

Compare that to what we have in Infinite. Pistol, Machine gun, Shotgun, Sniper rifle. Then the vigors were just variations on what we had in the previous Bioshock games. Which isn't to say any of this is bad per se', just very safe and standard.

I can see your point but I didn't find myself missing ammo types at all in BI. In the original Bioshock, you could just pick your favourite weapon and rely on the different ammo types to handle any situation. In BI, from what I can tell, they designed encounters so that you'd constantly have to be switching guns on the fly in order to respond to whichever situation was at hand. I much preferred this because it meant I never really got accustomed to any particular weapon, I just relied on my vigor combos and used whatever guns were available in the environment to finish enemies off.

Maybe it's just a matter of, I don't find gunplay that fun in any game really, it's just Duck Hunt to me, so taking emphasis off them in BI was a welcomed decision.

 

[FloatOn]

But those designs are basically antithetical to each other.

Mirror's Edge is about constant forward movement. Looking back slows you down. You try and navigate the environment as quickly as you can. Ico requires you to move cautiously, and to always be aware of Yorda. If you leave her unattended in your puzzle solving, she runs the risk of being taken away.

Why would you mix those two things? How can you have a breakneck platformer where you also have to be constantly concerned that you left Elizabeth behind? That just sounds frustrating.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing games, but we should try to stay within the limits of what the game set out to achieve. Your shifts in emphasis would transform the entire focus of the game.

Bioshock is a very shooty shooter, and it can get a little bloodthirsty for my tastes, but it actually is pretty well-justified in the narrative, even beyond the elemental "self-defense" motivation. I wouldn't mind reducing the frequency of combat, but minimizing it would fundamentally transform Booker's character.

I'm all for more games like Mirror's Edge or Ico, and I'd love to see different genres used with Bioshock's brand of worldbuilding and exploration, but Bioshock Infinite was never built to be that game, from the moment it was unveiled onwards.

What I'm envisioning here for the game is a flow that goes something like this:

Crazy overwhelming situation happens that forces you and Elizabeth run for safety jumping, sliding and riding rails while maybe taking a couple shots while in motion. You both make it to a brief respite of safety, narrative happens perhaps a room puzzle happens. You make it to the next section and there are a few extremely tough enemies that require you and Elizabeth to work together to bring down, they are just as interested in apprehending/hurting Elizabeth as they are you.

It works. It's just different.

 

[Tobor]

Is it though? I feel the game was forced into this to recouperate the costs. If he catered to gamers such as a lot of GAF (and from what I understand, Ken himself) the game would be a very different beast, probably more akin to his earlier games. Shooters sell, this game needed to sell, ergo make it a shooter. I find myself enjoying the down time the game offers, but not much else (outside the wonderful art and presentation) and constantly widhing I was playing a different game, it feels incredibly compromised.

Yes, it is. I really enjoyed the shooting. It's a great shooter! Most of the complaints about the gameplay are either overblown or plain wrong. I see a ton of people complaining about the two weapon system, for example, but it added tension and a bit of strategy to the game that was very much needed.

 

[BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!]

What I'm envisioning here for the game is a flow that goes something like this:

Crazy overwhelming situation happens that forces you and Elizabeth run for safety jumping, sliding and riding rails while maybe taking a couple shots while in motion. You both make it to a brief respite of safety, narrative happens perhaps a room puzzle happens. You make it to the next section and there are a few extremely tough enemies that require you and Elizabeth to work together to bring down, they are just as interested in apprehending/hurting Elizabeth as they are you.

It works. It's just different.

So you want Uncharted 2 basically.

 

[FloatOn]

So you want Uncharted 2 basically.

I've never played it so I couldn't say. I hear it's really great though, so maybe?

 

[Marcel]

So you want Uncharted 2 basically.

Uncharted 2 doesn't have tough, memorable encounters (which is what I believe RealityExists is trying to speak to). Unless you consider running in a circle shooting exploding blue fruit (or whatever it was) memorable.

 

[AkuMifune]

So you want Uncharted 2 basically.

No, he wants to play that segment he described, not watch it.

 

[Dylan]

What I'm envisioning here for the game is a flow that goes something like this:

Crazy overwhelming situation happens that forces you and Elizabeth run for safety jumping, sliding and riding rails while maybe taking a couple shots while in motion. You both make it to a brief respite of safety, narrative happens perhaps a room puzzle happens. You make it to the next section and there are a few extremely tough enemies that require you and Elizabeth to work together to bring down, they are just as interested in apprehending/hurting Elizabeth as they are you.

It works. It's just different.

Mirror's Edge had a very simplistic aesthetic for a reason; you can't design a game where you are constantly running through a vast environment and have it also be filled with lush details; you really have to pick one or the other. Bioshock is all about having a sense of place and really getting to know your environment.