[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50726645]Can you explain why you prefer it? Speaking strictly in terms of gameplay, what do you feel it does better than the previous two?[/QUOTE]
In short - god it's so much faster.
I didn't like the RPG elements in Bio1 at all... They were really poorly implemented and mostly served to basically just slowly make you OP, there was no point in taking different upgrades. The actual shooting wasn't fun either, you just walked down corridors and mowed people down, plasmids kinda spiced it up but it was still meh. Infinite was actually much the same except the gunplay was fast, fun and vertical with much more immediate options to take, with not only vigors and guns (both more varied than bio1, even if you could carry only two guns at a time) but also skyrails and tears, and the double healthbar+liz throwing whatever you need is actually really handy for getting in the enemies' face without dying. Some of the passive bonuses from clothes were also really quite cool and pushed you to do fun things, like the one where you reload your gun whenever you jump skylines. Infinite just felt like a fresh oldschool fast-paced shooter, Bio1 was a slog.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50726449]I'm curious as to the proportions of people who enjoyed Infinite's gameplay that also played the previous games, vs the number of people who didn't that also played the previous games.[/QUOTE]
From what I've gathered the vast majority of Bioshock Infinite fans liked the first game at the very least.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Infinite and 2 were good games but the original Bioshock is just legendary.
This game really fucked up the weapon churn model. What's the point of a weapon limit if you only ever run into mother fuckers with like three max gun types at any given time? There's a reason why games like Gears and Halo rush you with enemies that carry a variety of weapons every encounter.
[QUOTE=Skyward;50726694]To show that Columbia is a gated society? That you can't just rocket up and hang out and need some kind of pass? Who cares if its not some pointless puzzle 2 minutes in to the game? What would a puzzle do there besides fuck up the pacing? Its like two whole seconds of the intro and takes nothing away from the game, the fact that people get so hung up on an utterly harmless part of the game baffles me. There are [B]plenty[/B] of actual genuine complaints to have about the game, and there there's this nitpick-y horseshit. Yet that dumbass video shows up every time the game gets talked about like it's some epic zinger and ultimate indictment of the game's "awful" quality.[/QUOTE]
I don't get why you're so angry about it, that video's hilarious whether or not people take it as a "serious" criticism of the game.
What confuses me about it is why it was made to be interactive in the first place. I get the intent, it's as you said, but it comes off as pointless and condescending, could've easily been handled as a cutscene.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50727275]I don't get why you're so angry about it, that video's hilarious whether or not people take it as a "serious" criticism of the game.
What confuses me about it is why it was made to be interactive in the first place. I get the intent, it's as you said, but it comes off as pointless and condescending, could've easily been handled as a cutscene.[/QUOTE]
The video is obviously an overexaggerated joke and mocking the wholesale praise and dicksucking the game got when it was released, people don't get that as much as they think everyone doesn't get the shit about not being a puzzle.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50725755]When things take too long to die, it removes any sort of visceral action or sense of momentum, and you might as well be playing some hotkey MMO.[/QUOTE]
Just to clarify I don't mean those kinds of enemies when I mean spongy enemies. It's why I hated Borderlands 2. It's just that for some reason, people seem to be going overboard when labeling enemies spongy recently, as enemies from Half-Life, Bioshock Infinite, and Wolfenstein: The New Order have been called spongy despite the fact that they are nowhere near the level of something like Borderlands or Destiny.
Who the fuck called wolfenstein enemies spongy? People who exclusively shoot them in the feet?
Do you guys think the lighthouse thing would have been less laughable if it would have been a cutscene of booker solving it rather than the player "solving" it?
[QUOTE=Ardosos;50728489]Do you guys think the lighthouse thing would have been less laughable if it would have been a cutscene of booker solving it rather than the player "solving" it?[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what makes it "laughable" in the first place so fucked if I know.
It's about as worthy of a discussion as whether you pressing E to hop into HEV suit doesn't make Half-Life a QTE-ridden series and everyone who plays it an idiot.
Man this thread is like a simulation of the actual post B:I release!
Minus all the CIA Spoiler tags.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50726612]I've played both 1 and 2 to completion, and I still like Infinite the best. I never played any at release, and tbh the gameplay in 1 hasn't aged the best, 2 is leagues above it in that department, and I feel that Infinite is above 2 there.
i dont speak for everyone, but infinite is definitely my favorite in the series, even after having played 1 and 2.[/QUOTE]
amen to that, brother. but when it comes to the bioshock games i like all the games for different reasons. 1 had the best story and setting for me (i dont remember if the gunplay was considered good at release, but it hasnt aged well since then), 2 had the best overall balance of gameplay/gunplay, story and setting (although still being in rapture), and infinite had the best gunplay. you can add characters to that too, i feel like i cared more for them in infinite than the other games. they all still had good gameplay, settings and stories, but some shine over the others in certain areas imo
[editline]18th July 2016[/editline]
i still love infinite though and feel it was a good sendoff from levine. i wouldnt mind more bioshock from other devs if it meant they would be as good as 2 was
[QUOTE=bdd458;50726424]Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who enjoyed Infinite thoroughly.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it, played it about eight months after I originally played the original 1 & 2 games both of which took up (And still do) the top spots on my top ten games list even to this day. I shamelessly admit I've played through the game in its entirety ten times by now and while it doesn't beat the first two it still occupies the third place on my greatest games of all time. I think the exceptional level design, old school FPS gameplay and sheer thought put into the setting and story make it rightfully deserve its place up there.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50725640]Even though I didn't really find Bioshock Infinite's enemies to be very spongy, I still don't get why people hate spongy enemies in general. More sponge means more gun, and more gun means more fun.[/QUOTE]
An enemy should have health relative to the complexity of their attacks and how much effort you make to dodge them. If you have an enemy who has 6 different attacks, alternating them and changing the dynamic of how you're supposed to attack and avoid them, they yeah they should take a good few minutes to defeat. If the enemy at is to just stand still and shoot a rocket at your current position, which can easily be avoided bywalking left or right, then they shouldn't take several minutes.
Bullet sponge enemies also bring out lazy game design, meaning devs didn't give a fuck while making their game more difficult because all they did was change a few numbers and call it a day instead of reevaluating the enemy and changing its ai to make it more interesting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
