Bioshock Infinite Catch-All

Demosthenes wrote:
Malor wrote:

From what I know of the time period, you basically couldn't graduate from college back then without a pretty good working knowledge of Latin. There would be a large pool of folks who would know that motto was wrong.

I would have assumed too much knowledge outside of the power base was not encouraged in Columbia.

Interestingly, one of the book titles shown when Booker finds Elizabeth is The Odyssey. I personally have a hard time believing that the powers that be didn't know. At the same time, I completely believe that those outside the ruling class in Columbia wouldn't realize that there was an error. The number of people who went to college in the late 19th century is far lower than those who go today.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I'm not saying this is a bad game, for the record. I'm saying it's a pretty average shooter with a pretty compelling narrative.

I just finished it and felt I had to vent my dissappointment with the game but this pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I guess the high review scores and the impression that there would be lot to think about after the ending left me with high expectations that the game couldn't live up to.

Somehow I was under the impression that the game's narrative and critique was a real mindbender. But it turned out to be pretty straight forward.

MEATER wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I'm not saying this is a bad game, for the record. I'm saying it's a pretty average shooter with a pretty compelling narrative.

I just finished it and felt I had to vent my dissappointment with the game but this pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I guess the high review scores and the impression that there would be lot to think about after the ending left me with high expectations that the game couldn't live up to.

Somehow I was under the impression that the game's narrative and critique was a real mindbender. But it turned out to be pretty straight forward.

I think this game really highlights how useless number values on reviews are.

Is it the best shooter (mechanically)? Not a chance. It's not 10/10 for the shooty bits.

Is it the best game story? Not by a mile. So it's not 10/10 for story.

Is it the best game visually? Getting warmer.

Is it the best story, which is told within the limitations of a shooter, that also looks very good? Now I think we're at least getting closer to what 10/10 must actually mean to reviewers.

For a lot of reviewers, it seems like B:I added up to more than the sum of its parts. For me, it added up to less than.

I think that, also, it really helps going in cold in games. I know that's hard to do and especially if you want to gauge how "worthy" a game is of your money and time then you'll want to read reviews and get other opinions. Unfortunately, that also tends to raise expectations and apply other people's philosophies and preferences to your decision-making - which isn't always what's best for you.

I'd love to see if someone can come up with a review format that's similar to some film reviews that gives away the general gist of "worthiness" without spoiling the game or setting the expectations too high. I've not really seen any in the wild though but perhaps someone, somewhere is doing it?

gore wrote:

I think this game really highlights how useless number values on reviews are.

Is it the best shooter (mechanically)? Not a chance. It's not 10/10 for the shooty bits.

Is it the best game story? Not by a mile. So it's not 10/10 for story.

Is it the best game visually? Getting warmer.

Is it the best story, which is told within the limitations of a shooter, that also looks very good? Now I think we're at least getting closer to what 10/10 must actually mean to reviewers.

For a lot of reviewers, it seems like B:I added up to more than the sum of its parts. For me, it added up to less than.

Sounds like an 8.

Duoae wrote:

I think that, also, it really helps going in cold in games. I know that's hard to do and especially if you want to gauge how "worthy" a game is of your money and time then you'll want to read reviews and get other opinions. Unfortunately, that also tends to raise expectations and apply other people's philosophies and preferences to your decision-making - which isn't always what's best for you.

I'd love to see if someone can come up with a review format that's similar to some film reviews that gives away the general gist of "worthiness" without spoiling the game or setting the expectations too high. I've not really seen any in the wild though but perhaps someone, somewhere is doing it?

Going in cold is usually the best way to experience anything, but it's infeasible for most people who have limited time and money, so reviews are kind of a necessary evil.

The way they poison the conversation afterwards is kind of tedious though. After you've experienced something, conversations about worth are basically the least interesting ones you could have. Who gives a flying f*ck if it's a seven or nine? I've already made my investment. Let's talk about what it does that's cool or doesn't work about it instead, without worrying about if it's 1.5 points better or worse than another game.

Just to carify what I wrote, "worth" was meant as whether you enjoy the game or not... Not sure if you were addressing that in your post, ALG. Otherwise we basically have the same points.

Great theme, fun twists, but for me the shooting wasn't terribly fun. The story (to me) seemed to devolve into more of an episode of sliders rather than the deeper narrative on racism, religion and patriotism that I was led to expect.

And although I enjoyed the mechanics of Elizabeth (never got in the way, was an interesting companion) the mechanics of her constantly tossing things your way seemed a bit like a bribe to make more of a connection with her. Was it just me, or was she finding coins/ammo/salt in places where there were none? I'd find that she'd have a tendency to throw me coins right after or before I made it to a vendor, regardless of coins being around in the environment. That seemed to "pull the curtains aside" of her positive reinforcement mechanic; maybe the Psychologist in me is reading a bit too much into it, but it felt like a bit too much like blatant manipulation.

And although there were some excellent little story bits, the overall experience left me a bit wanting after I was able to digest all the twists and turns.

So, for me, it was just a fun game with average (and sometimes downright frustrating) shooting with a beautiful setting and an uneven story.

Was it just me, or was she finding coins/ammo/salt in places where there were none?

I assumed she was pulling them out of parallel universes, and looked extra hard when she saw you might need money.

gore wrote:
MEATER wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

I'm not saying this is a bad game, for the record. I'm saying it's a pretty average shooter with a pretty compelling narrative.

I just finished it and felt I had to vent my dissappointment with the game but this pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I guess the high review scores and the impression that there would be lot to think about after the ending left me with high expectations that the game couldn't live up to.

Somehow I was under the impression that the game's narrative and critique was a real mindbender. But it turned out to be pretty straight forward.

I think this game really highlights how useless number values on reviews are.

Is it the best shooter (mechanically)? Not a chance. It's not 10/10 for the shooty bits.

Is it the best game story? Not by a mile. So it's not 10/10 for story.

Is it the best game visually? Getting warmer.

Is it the best story, which is told within the limitations of a shooter, that also looks very good? Now I think we're at least getting closer to what 10/10 must actually mean to reviewers.

For a lot of reviewers, it seems like B:I added up to more than the sum of its parts. For me, it added up to less than.

It is one of the best single player shooters I have played and that includes games from the Doom, Half Life, Halo, and Call of Duty series. Its high scores put it in the company of some classic, well-loved games and I think it deserves to be in that company. It is one of the best designed games I have had the pleasure to experience and the story got me to play through twice.

I'm playing through a second time now (on 1999 mode). It's harder and I'm playing remarkably better than I did the first time. Being strategic and relying more on weapons than vigors. For anyone who plays it on hard and enjoys it- if you're considering it, I do recommend playing it on 1999 mode. I find the mechanics stand up remarkably well.

Finally got the game, finally started playing it. I'm "four hours in", which could mean anything since it depends on how meticulous you are when exploring Columbia or how straight-forward you are in following the objective. Basically, I just killed people in front of Elizabeth for the first time and am in the next area after.

One thing I'm going to say (and yes I skipped this entire thread for fear of spoilers or other such notes) is that there are enough minor changes in the game's design that I'm afraid comparisons to the original Bioshock, while inevitable, are also going to be doing it a disservice. The approach to Columbia is completely different than the approach to Rapture. In Rapture, every section was segregated and felt like its own self-contained section. There was a bit of Metroidish design in some of the levels, and each area was given its own identity, but it was a very specific location in Rapture. Columbia doesn't have that same sort of feeling to it. It's much more open feeling, even if it is actually more linear, and the entire thing feels connected somehow. It's all an illusion, but I don't think "Okay, now I'm in Arcadia, now Fort Frolic, now Neptune's Bounty", etc. It's all Columbia, and it is all tied together.

The game also feels to be much more action oriented than Bioshock. In Bioshock it felt a lot more like you stumbled upon people going about their daily lives that turned hostile, or fell into traps, or similar styles of encounter. While there are a couple moments like this in Bioshock Infinite, it is clearly a more traditional shooter focused on establishing encounters with foes.

Yet the game also takes its time, and that's what I like about it. While there was a long stretch of going from encounter to encounter, broken up only by exploring a few side passages and doors, there are plenty of moments where you're just left to enjoy Columbia. The entire opening sequence took me over an hour before combat was initiated, all because I was exploring every little thing. The implementation of tutorials was also not only clever narratively, but offered the player rewards for doing well, encouraging new players to try multiple times and improve before shoving them into a real conflict.

You get to listen to the conversations of the people of Columbia. You get moments to see what daily life is like. "The beach" was a nice break-up of all the action, and the game allowed me to take as long as I wanted instead of thinking "Oh sh*t, the player hasn't shot anyone for five whole minutes! Quick, initiate a combat sequence!" When I finally get to the next encounter, it has a sense of narrative tension. I'm anticipating it, which causes me to dread it. Anticipation is different than expectation.

But, sadly, some of the dialogue is honestly very...I dunno. Hokey? The way some of the NPC's discuss colored and Irish citizens, or Asian citizens, just sounds so...did people really talk like that? It seems so superficial and trite. Then you walk into some people's homes and they seem to barely react. Even if they're not against you, they don't seem to respond.

Booker is also not a very interesting protagonist, which is curious since I never had the same thought about Jack in the original Bioshock. It turns out a protagonist that speaks but has little worth saying is not better than a protagonist that says nothing.

On the whole, though, I'm having a blast. I'm easy to please when it comes to FPS combat, so while others aren't a fan I'm having plenty of fun with it.

Booker is also not a very interesting protagonist, which is curious since I never had the same thought about Jack in the original Bioshock. It turns out a protagonist that speaks but has little worth saying is not better than a protagonist that says nothing.

Hate to say this, but give it some time. A museum of sorts is where Booker finally started feeling interesting to me.

Demosthenes wrote:

Hate to say this, but give it some time. A museum of sorts is where Booker finally started feeling interesting to me.

Seconding this. They'll peel back the layers on Booker soon enough. Give it time.

shoptroll wrote:

What's interesting is that despite the modern mechanics Infinite also hews a lot closer to the original premise of Bioshock as was laid out in the original design doc. Go to an island, meeting interesting religious zealots, rescue the girl kept prisoner there. Yadda yadda yadda.

Wait, what? Wasn't the old Bioshock meant to be in an abandoned WW2/cold war bunker with all kinds of strange genetic experiments and environments, that you needed to adapt/evolve yourself to work in.

Scratched wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

What's interesting is that despite the modern mechanics Infinite also hews a lot closer to the original premise of Bioshock as was laid out in the original design doc. Go to an island, meeting interesting religious zealots, rescue the girl kept prisoner there. Yadda yadda yadda.

Wait, what? Wasn't the old Bioshock meant to be in an abandoned WW2/cold war bunker with all kinds of strange genetic experiments and environments, that you needed to adapt/evolve yourself to work in.

I think that's one of the revisions made in a later document. I updated my post with a link to the doc from 2002, which is the pitch document not the design doc (my bad). I also said "premise" but didn't mention I meant it in regards to the plot. The gameplay is a lot different between Infinite (or even the original Bioshock) and the old pitch doc.

Thanks for linking that doc - I really want to play the game they outlined there!

ccesarano wrote:

One thing I'm going to say (and yes I skipped this entire thread for fear of spoilers or other such notes) is that there are enough minor changes in the game's design that I'm afraid comparisons to the original Bioshock, while inevitable, are also going to be doing it a disservice.

There's also a lot of comparisons to Dishonored which were also inevitable and probably more a disservice than comparisons to Bioshock. I'm very much "different strokes for different folks" on all three, although Infinite I think is a much more streamlined/modern take on what they were doing with Bioshock. I also feel that Arkane and Irrational are going for very different experiences with their games which is why I think the Dishonored comparisons are apples to oranges. Sure it'd be nice to do a pacifist run in Infinite, but you really couldn't do it either in BioShock or 90% of the games on the market. It's very much in the style of complaining you can't "talk to the monsters" in Doom after playing Ultima Underworld.

I think you can make a very strong case for using Bioshock and Bioshock: Infinite as bookends to modern shooter design. Bioshock 1 is very much rooted in older PC style FPS games while Infinite rolls with nearly every design mechanic that's come from effectively adapting the genre for consoles.

What's interesting is that despite the modern mechanics Infinite also hews a lot closer to the (much older) original premise of Bioshock as was laid out in the original design pitch doc. Go to an island, meeting interesting religious zealots, rescue the girl kept prisoner there. Yadda yadda yadda.

ccesarano wrote:

each area was given its own identity, but it was a very specific location in Rapture

You'll see more of that later on. But overall it's not nearly as pervasive or large-scale as in Rapture. Rapture felt a lot more "theme park" than Columbia.

ccesarano wrote:

It turns out a protagonist that speaks but has little worth saying is not better than a protagonist that says nothing.

He also doesn't grunt when he jumps, which is like the first FPS game I've played in a while that doesn't do that.

tboon wrote:

Thanks for linking that doc - I really want to play the game they outlined there! :)

I want to play something that has some of the systems they outline there. I think they either determined that some of them were too cumbersome (the weapon creation system) and had to streamline them or really disrupted the flow of the game (the environmental adaptations). I also think the gameplay would've had a harder time adapting to consoles which was important given the changes in the market that were occurring around that time.

Dishonored had a same feel as Bioshock to me, but I also don't get making comparisons in terms of which is "better" or not. Hell, I already care more about Booker than I did about Corvo, and more about Elizabeth than any of the characters in Dishonored.

Even if the gameplay in Dishonored is "better", the story was pretty droll. Both games feature interesting settings, but for different reasons.

If I were to make any sort of comparison with Infinite, it is more that I found Andrew Ryan more interesting than...than...crap, I already forgot his name. It began with a C.

But, again, this is also based on playing 4 hours of the game.

ccesarano wrote:

If I were to make any sort of comparison with Infinite, it is more that I found Andrew Ryan more interesting than...than...crap, I already forgot his name. It began with a C.

But, again, this is also based on playing 4 hours of the game.

Comstock is a lot less in your face than Ryan was. I think it's fair to say Ryan is more interesting since you get a better sense of his personality through the monologues. There's also no direct foil to Comstock as there was to Ryan.

My (superficial) bottom line opinion is that Bioshock: Infinite looks better and is better written than Dishonored, but Dishonored is much more mechanically interesting. I'd tend to agree with the apples to oranges thing.

(Note: I've not yet finished Dishonored, but I really need to)

shoptroll wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

If I were to make any sort of comparison with Infinite, it is more that I found Andrew Ryan more interesting than...than...crap, I already forgot his name. It began with a C.

But, again, this is also based on playing 4 hours of the game.

Comstock is a lot less in your face than Ryan was. I think it's fair to say Ryan is more interesting since you get a better sense of his personality through the monologues. There's also no direct foil to Comstock as there was to Ryan.

Sadly, more of the development for "Fontaine" was in the book... I would love to have seen more of that play out, but due to his con, you really couldn't in Bioshock.

Finally finished last night. I preordered the game and have been playing in small chunks since then, which is maybe not the best way to consume this thing.

I need to digest the game, but at the moment I am the process of simmering down some mixed feelings. I loved the art and audio/music. Schyman's score is terrific, and the anachronistic cover songs are really inspired. I loved the ending, and the beginning ranks among my all time favorite experiences in a game. I like a lot about the writing, and the ending has caused me to re-evaluate some of my mixed feelings about the middle 10 hours or so.

A few thoughts on those mixed feelings:

- I heard that the default difficulty was too easy, so I played on hard and got my ass handed to me pretty regularly. Maybe I am a giant baby that is no good at video games, but my overall impression of the combat was that it was less enjoyable than the previous Bioshock games, and oh boy is there a lot of it. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more with a more forgiving difficulty level that allowed a little more leeway for tactical experimentation.

- For me, the need to continually loot and forage for supplies really broke immersion, disrupted the momentum of the narrative, and kept me from enjoying the beautiful and lovingly detailed world as much as I wanted to.

- There has been much discussion on the dissonance between the way violence is treated in the narrative and in the gameplay. While I was playing, I found this quite grating, but the ending has actually caused me to revise my opinion of that.

Ultimately, I think that Bioshock Infinite is a real achievement, and I hope that I am able to find time to revisit it soon.

Podunk wrote:

Finally finished last night. I preordered the game and have been playing in small chunks since then, which is maybe not the best way to consume this thing.

I need to digest the game, but at the moment I am the process of simmering down some mixed feelings. I loved the art and audio/music. Schyman's score is terrific, and the anachronistic cover songs are really inspired. I loved the ending, and the beginning ranks among my all time favorite experiences in a game. I like a lot about the writing, and the ending has caused me to re-evaluate some of my mixed feelings about the middle 10 hours or so.

A few thoughts on those mixed feelings:

- I heard that the default difficulty was too easy, so I played on hard and got my ass handed to me pretty regularly. Maybe I am a giant baby that is no good at video games, but my overall impression of the combat was that it was less enjoyable than the previous Bioshock games, and oh boy is there a lot of it. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more with a more forgiving difficulty level that allowed a little more leeway for tactical experimentation.

- For me, the need to continually loot and forage for supplies really broke immersion, disrupted the momentum of the narrative, and kept me from enjoying the beautiful and lovingly detailed world as much as I wanted to.

- There has been much discussion on the dissonance between the way violence is treated in the narrative and in the gameplay. While I was playing, I found this quite grating, but the ending has actually caused me to revise my opinion of that.

Ultimately, I think that Bioshock Infinite is a real achievement, and I hope that I am able to find time to revisit it soon.

I'd like to hear more about why your opinion changed regarding the violence.

I agree with your remarks. The looting really left a weird feeling. Many people have talked about the game-breaking quality of eating cake from trashcans, etc. For me, it was when I opened chocolate boxes and found cake and fruit. And this was in a chocolate shop!

I finished the game last night. I thought the world was beautiful that was underutilized in what became a straight-forward shooter (with trashcan-looting mechanics from the early 1990s). Overall, I am pretty underwhelmed. During the middle 5 hours or so, I was actually angry that they had built some a beautiful, imaginative floating world to wrap a mundane, poorly executed shooter; I felt they totally squandered a lot of solid creative work.

In the 3rd act, the interaction with Elizabeth was just bizarre: "hey here is a coin" interrupts very serious story-centric dialog; Totally ruined any chance at deep immersion. I half expected her to find a quarter in the river.

6 out of 10 stars...despite all of the creativity of Columbus.

I resold it to Gamestop this morning.

Edgar_Newt wrote:

I half expected her to find a quarter in the river.

The only thing more awesome than that would be if Booker then caught the coin and bit it to verify its authenticity before getting back to business. Or if Elizabeth independently raided trash cans for food at critical story junctures and then you had to wait for her to finish eating her trashcan cake before dialog could continue. There's so much untapped potential here.

Edgar_Newt wrote:

I finished the game last night. I thought the world was beautiful that was underutilized in what became a straight-forward shooter (with trashcan-looting mechanics from the early 1990s). Overall, I am pretty underwhelmed. During the middle 5 hours or so, I was actually angry that they had built some a beautiful, imaginative floating world to wrap a mundane, poorly executed shooter; I felt they totally squandered a lot of solid creative work.

In the 3rd act, the interaction with Elizabeth was just bizarre: "hey here is a coin" interrupts very serious story-centric dialog; Totally ruined any chance at deep immersion. I half expected her to find a quarter in the river.

6 out of 10 stars...despite all of the creativity of Columbus.

I resold it to Gamestop this morning.

What would trashcan looting mechanics from 2013 look like?

Tanglebones wrote:

What would trashcan looting mechanics from 2013 look like?

I am not sure I've seen 2013 mechanics; I am pretty sure the game design team opened up a "tear" to 1983 so they could import Booker's chocolate-box-diving cake habit.

Just a bizarre implementation and a total disservice to the overall creative vision.

Tanglebones wrote:

What would trashcan looting mechanics from 2013 look like?

I think ideally you would simply not have nonsensical, immersion-breaking trashcan looting in a game like Infinite.