-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Eurogamer: Three years on, how does Bioshock Infinite hold up?
- Thread starter Enter the Dragon Punch
- Start date
EmCeeGramr
Member
The final fight with the waves on enemies on the blimp made me briefly wish I could use Elizabeth's powers to go back in time and prevent the invention of first person shooters.
Has Tevis Thompson's excellent critique of Bioshock Infinite (and meta analysis of its reviewers) been linked yet? It's a great piece. Here's one excerpt:
Psychoward
Banned
Truth
Garrett Hawke
Member
Scalding tea tbh.
Schweinehund
Member
Pretty game and good story, not much else going for it. Gameplay wise, I thought it was a few steps back from Bioshock 1.
CharminUltra
Member
TLoU is overrated as fuuuuck, but hey, at least I liked it enough to beat it.
BI on the other hand...
BI on the other hand...
its a game about a utopia run by the 1912 analogue of donald trump. how would it not have racism
Yep, they took out multiple ammo types, instead of actually changing how your plasmids acted, they just had a linear damage increase and charge function applied which was a huge step back in terms of pure variety and being able to customize your playstyle to the situations.
I see what you mean. At least to me, the combination of vigors & the incredibly fun skyhook far outweighed any issues I had with the gunplay.
I'll agree with this. Dual wielding is just so damn satisfying.
Somehow I have completely forgotten about Bioshock 1's ammo types. That was a pretty nice feature, having to hoard certain ammo types for specific enemies. Facing a big daddy with no armor piercing rounds was that little bit more intense & difficult.
Has the best level design, too. The game doesn't hit Fort Frolic levels until the end--something I like as Bioshock (just like SS2 before it) peaked much too early--the level design is intricate and layered in a way that BS1 wasn't. The added, layered vertical dimensions to the levels really set it apart from the other games in the series. Personally, I think by the time BS2 hits Dionysus Park the game had completely eclipsed BS1 in every way. Fontaine Futuristics and Persephone are both better than anything found in BS1.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
I thought the combat was fine. It served to string you along while you got drawn into the characters, and world of Columbia. I think the moment Booker pushed opened the doors and walked into the town square perfectly encapsulates the appeal of the game to me.
I disagree with Tevis Thompson's critique here. Historically speaking, when the oppressed people "rise up" against their oppressors, we get some of the worst, most horrific actions in human history. Like, hey, Russia was pretty bad off when the Czar was in power, but the revolutions that came after were far worse. Same with China. They literally had musicals about how it was your duty to kill your landlord, because people shouldn't own land, only Mao. That was a crazy thing to watch.
So to be like "hey racism is bad but it's unfair to portray victims as bad" is missing the point. Bioshock Infinite's "everything is just shades of grey" is monkees level philosophy, and they had the opportunity--and missed it completely--to talk about how revolutions create monsters.
So... basically I'm saying Thompson is arguing in the wrong direction. The game should equated Daisy to Mao and Pol Pot and Lenin and all the other great monsters of humanity, and then it should have said "this is what oppression creates." It was historically correct to portray her as bad; the problem was that it didn't explain how the people who oppressed her were at fault and how she was so much worse than anything they did because that's how human nature works.
I had some friends trying to revise history the other week telling me that Bioshock 2 had nothing good going for it, but if you look at most of the reviews around that time, everyone was saying that the biggest thing going for it was its gameplay.
They were all wrong about story and stuff, but they're dumb.
These are just plot holes, though. Nothing to do with feigning being smart, and I also still have a hard time seeing what people who like to parrot the phrase actually mean.
brandonh83
Banned
My only problem with the game. I have a few nitpicks but outright dislike that battle.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
I think infinite did something right if people are discussing it 3 years later
No, those aren't plot holes, that's literally just forcefully inserting deus ex machina into the plot's asshole given every chance to do so.
We discuss ET 30some years later...
Yes.
Psychoward
Banned
It's a perversion of 1920's American nationalism,I don't see how including 1 or 2 scenes where characters are racist are tacky, it's just exposition of Columbia being a racist city. Should Mass Effect Andromeda not include racism towards aliens or humans unless Bioware plans on making meta commentary with it?
The storytelling devices are just that Ken Levine wanted to add some time travel and multiple realities to add some uniqueness and pop to the story, I don't see how it being linear changes anything? It made it more enjoyable to me that I was seeing the effects of time traveling than it would have been if it was just a standard romp through Columbia.
The biggest irk to me personally was that BS2 was literally right there and handled a socialist revolution after the fall of a rightist dystopia so much better. BSI tries to roll both BS1 and BS2s plots into the first three quarters of the game and just falls flat on its face in the attempt.
HyperCroutons
Member
I was more disappointed by Infinite rather than outright hating it, I really wanted the game to be more like the E3 gameplay videos like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_DSfjAdhlU.
Also the game's world was amazing too, to bad we didn't get a chance to explore more of it or at least have more freedom to explore it. Its basically a game I'm glad I played and experienced but wouldn't put it anywhere in my list of top games I ever played or even in a top shooter list really.
Also the game's world was amazing too, to bad we didn't get a chance to explore more of it or at least have more freedom to explore it. Its basically a game I'm glad I played and experienced but wouldn't put it anywhere in my list of top games I ever played or even in a top shooter list really.
That's not a plothole, that's being wrong about the solution to your conflict because you don't understand the topic you are using.
Edit: Or put another way, it's a plothole but plotholes are a big deal in stories like Infinite's because the entire conflict resolution depends on the logic working.
The sad part is, its because of infamy, not being famous. Perfect example of how NOT to waste 7 years of development time and what was most likely a super huge budget. Its no wonder Irrational got closed down right after.
Bloodporne
Member
I can't talk about the story as I wasn't far enough into it but I found the gameplay mechanics and enemy placement/encounters so tedious and irritating, I returned my used copy two days later.
A massive letdown after Bioshock and even that didn't age that well in the gameplay mechanics department for me. Even Bioshock 2 is superior to Infinite in my book.
Infinite felt like it was extremely pretentious and in love with its world to the point of neglecting the fact it was a damn video game and was supposed to be fun to play.
A massive letdown after Bioshock and even that didn't age that well in the gameplay mechanics department for me. Even Bioshock 2 is superior to Infinite in my book.
Infinite felt like it was extremely pretentious and in love with its world to the point of neglecting the fact it was a damn video game and was supposed to be fun to play.
Yup.
So here's the thing. When a game gets announced and people go "ah, but the last one was perfect, there's no need for a sequel," that's a sure sign that they didn't like the last one. Like, sure, everyone's all "wow" at Bioshock's atmosphere and world, but it doesn't play well, so there's no real reason to go back and play it. Its wow factor was in the presentation, and that can only carry it so far.
So Bioshock 2 comes along, and it's smarter and better in every respect, and a bunch of people ignored it because "Bioshock was enough," which really meant "Bioshock wasn't that good and I don't want a sequel," so the actual great game in the series gets ignored.
Then along comes Infinite, and people are like "see, only Levine can do this," but really, it's just them going "wow, a Wholly New Place To Go To" and getting excited at the presentation all over again.
Someone could make a new Bioshock and they'll likely go "ah but without Levine, it won't be as good," and it could be made by the greatest FPS designer of all time, and people would still go "it's not as good" if it doesn't do the whole New Environment thing.
It's not a spoiler when the game came out in 2013 or whatever. That was three years ago.
And no, they don't. That's the problem with the game. It says no reality matters, which means no ACTION matters, which means THE ACT OF PLAYING THE GAME is meaningless. And nobody's really talked about this to my knowledge. It's the worst part about the game and I don't think a single person has ever talked about how this is the worst part of the game, because it absolutely is. It says that games don't matter because they're not real; it's a direct follow-up to Bioshock, which said developers didn't have to work hard on games because they're not real. Everything about Bioshock and Infinite is "games aren't real," which is the most boring bullshit in video game discourse.
It's just such a poorly designed fight.
Unless you watched that E3 trailer from back in the day where they show it off, you'll have no way of knowing the game wants you to jump on a skyhook and manually take down two zeppelins, something that only happened one time in the entire game leading up to that point and as a scripted set piece.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
My feelings about it are complicated
I appreciate its ambition. It wants to be a Great Game. Sometimes earnestly, sometimes more cynically
I feel like, following System Shock 2, returns diminished consistently w/KL
Still, it gets a lot right
Minerva's Den is actually the best of the whole lot
I appreciate its ambition. It wants to be a Great Game. Sometimes earnestly, sometimes more cynically
I feel like, following System Shock 2, returns diminished consistently w/KL
Still, it gets a lot right
Minerva's Den is actually the best of the whole lot
EmCeeGramr
Member
I've always thought that the biggest problem is that the imagery and moral is meant to evoke reigns of terror following a popular revolution like Russia or France, but the circumstances behind Fitzroy's revolt are quite different: she's not a Lenin or other educated middle class ideological firebrand, and the downtrodden of Columbia aren't mere serfs or peasants. She's a former servant as part of an explicit racial caste. It has far more in common with the attempted and sometimes successful slave revolts in the Americas. When you see the upper classes of Columbia fleeing in terror on skiffs, I'm supposed to be seeing innocent well to do people running from the guillotine, but instead I feel like I'm seeing 1800s Americans pointing to Haiti as proof that you need to clamp down on rebellious slaves.
ShipTheCheese
Member
As soon as concepts like time travel and infinite universes get added to ANY plot, there's always a loose thread that, when pulled, unravels the entire thing.
Right, the game just does not work with it. It's half-assed. The details aren't there to make it compelling. It just kinda has a revolt without understanding why revolts happen, how they happen, and what we can learn from their happening. It's not meaningful, it's just "well the rich got overthrown, I guess this happens."
For a game that borrows so much from Metropolis, you'd think it'd understand this stuff better. As pa22word pointed out above, Bioshock 2 literally does all of this and does a GREAT JOB OF IT TOO.
Uhhhhhhh
No, you're right, thought you were talking about a different thing. It's 4am so, you know.
I still think the feigning smart criticism is weird and sort of condescending, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding what people mean by it. I'm not a native speaker and like I said, it's almost morning. Should get to bed.
Neuromancer
Member
I thought it was a bad game then and I'm sure it's equally bad now. It's good to see other people finally coming to their senses though.
they don't? ending was open ended as could be (i.e. the cut away to the crib)
maybe because of your actions there's a reality where booker raises liz. maybe there isn't. maybe the two co-exist. i guess you could argue that's a cop out but you're just interpreting it one way
I disliked the game sure, but...that's going way too far, and i don't even generally understand where the rant is going at some points.
Giving GTA5 a meaningless score of 4 out of 10 because....it stars a white guy? What?
This is a good point and another missed opportunity for the game: violence is the legacy of oppression and often passed on from the oppressor to the oppressed. Still, i feel it doesn't take away from Tevis' point that the game makes a false equivalence between institutionalised oppression and the violence that can result from standing up to that oppression.
I detect no lies in this post.
The game had wonderful art direction and graphics, great voice acting and even interesting gameplay. It's just too bad that every combat encounter in the game voided down to a shooting arena. In BS1 and 2, each encounter felt meaningful. In Infinite, it felt like the FPS version of random JRPG battles and this becomes especially true when you play the game on Hard. The game had so much potential and basically pissed it away.
BUNTING1243
Banned
I agree with a lot of this, but I'd rather play a game that tries (and frequently fails!) to grapple with themes explored in Infinite than a game that doesn't engage with them at all, which is basically every other game.
I really want to know specifics of what was cut though.
I really want to know specifics of what was cut though.
bustleinyourhedgerow
Neo Member
I loved being disappointed with this game, start to finish.
It's ambition got the best of it.
Neat to see critics dial the day one hype back a bit with some perspective.
It's ambition got the best of it.
Neat to see critics dial the day one hype back a bit with some perspective.
VeryGooster
Banned
I'm glad the author touched on that part because when I initially got to it in the game I was like:
Ummm....yes you can get good and get better at criticism. Too many bought into the hype which they should be above that.
Hmm I really like infinite or atleast I remember really liking it. But I'm struggling to remember what it was that made me like it so much that year, whereas I can remember specifically what I loved and loathed about 1.
I'm curious if I'll rediscover why or flip my opinion like the author when the remasters come out.
I'm curious if I'll rediscover why or flip my opinion like the author when the remasters come out.
The ending says "anything that can happen does happen in other realities" therefore nothing matters.
If the writers of a bad Justice League movie can understand this, it shouldn't be hard to see why it's so fucking stupid that a video game presents this as some kind of profound idea.
What I feel like Thompson is saying there is "they should not have been portrayed as bad people, they were merely oppressed," and I think that's a mistake. I believe oppression creates really bad people. Like, Pol Pot is not absolved just because he grew up in poverty in a small fishing village, nor is he absolved because he failed his studies THREE TIMES. He still ended up butchering lots of people.
I read Thompson's thing, and I've seen other, similar stuff, and it all comes across to me like "it's bad form to portray the oppressed as bad," like these people want them to be seen as heroic, but that's not right either.
I feel like the most historically accurate, honest thing would have been to go "Daisy Fitzroy, the greatest monster of Columbia, is the tragic result of a racist society."
I feel like people who object want her to be a hero, and I think she needs to be MORE of a villain.
I'm glad the author touched on that part because when I initially got to it in the game I was like:
I don't think this is that weird because it's a different reality version of her. We go through like five Daisy Fitzroy's. She's literally not the same person as the person we met. Nobody is.
Bioshock 2 is the best game in the series, though.
It says a lot about the growing-up that critics still need to do, but thankfully a lot of that is coming from smaller voices these days and discussions are more measured all-around. Like others have said, review scores last generation were inflated, and at least some of it had to do with a climax in the "games are legitimate art" discussion.
As to not trusting people's opinions on future games, don't trust anyone's. The games aren't fucking out yet.
I'm sort of with you here in some regards. Seeing a game this full of hype waver is so much more interesting than playing some trash pumped out by a trashy studio. I'm much more interested in watching an 18-wheeler turn too hard and barrel-roll across a highway than I am watching a sedan coast into a stop sign.
I will be super interested to see someone sit down and play through B1, B2, MD, BI, and the BaS DLCs all for the first time in 2016.
I like my opinion better.