WTF is... Bioshock Infinite? - General

[QUOTE=striker453;40204205]What the hell are you on about... the world has soo much to do with the story...[/QUOTE] Not at all. The same story could happen in a communists wet dream on the moon or in a colony of the mole people. All of the great design of the world, the racism, the patriotism, the religion, the fact that the city flies, plays no role at all for the story. It would be different if Booker was black but he isn't.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40202652]the combat owned in this game, total biscuit is an annoying cunt[/QUOTE] I liked the combat, but it was definitely the weakest part of the game. There's literally no denying that. Whether or not you enjoyed the combat, it's simply the least appealing part of the game because everything else is amazing.

[QUOTE=mixshifter;40204358]I liked the combat, but it was definitely the weakest part of the game. There's literally no denying that. Whether or not you enjoyed the combat, it's simply the least appealing part of the game because everything else is amazing.[/QUOTE] I LOVED the combat. I think it might've been the weakest part of the game, but the game doesn't have many weak parts. I'm not saying this out of praise, but Bioshock Infinite is a wonderful game and an amazing shooter. I've never had this fun playing a game before. Also TB's playstyle is so boring in this video, it's like he's not even trying.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40204221]Not at all. The same story could happen in a communists wet dream on the moon or in a colony of the mole people. All of the great design of the world, the racism, the patriotism, the religion, the fact that the city flies, plays no role at all for the story. It would be different if Booker was black but he isn't.[/QUOTE] Have we been playing the same game or did I pull the themes of religious corruption, dangers of fanatism out of my ass?

[QUOTE=Novangel;40204463]Have we been playing the same game or did I pull the themes of religious corruption, dangers of fanatism out of my ass?[/QUOTE] They were not influencing Booker and Elli in any way apart from delivering a motive to dislike Comstock. Any other motive could play that role. In BS1 the failed Rapture was a wonderfull hyperbole of the story, failed total social and industry liberties versus failed personal liberties/freedom. In BS I, tell me, what connection does Bookers story have to the racism, the religious corruption, the fanatism? How do they relate to the story progression on a more than physical level? [sp]Ápart from Booker being the one introducing them but that's another dimension so connecting them would be the same as saying Mao has a deep relation to protection of human rights - in another universe.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Killuah;40204601]They were not influencing Booker and Elli in any way apart from delivering a motive to dislike Comstock. Any other motive could play that role. In BS1 the failed Rapture was a wonderfull hyperbole of the story, failed total social and industry liberties versus failed personal liberties/freedom. In BS I, tell me, what connection does Bookers story have to the racism, the religious corruption, the fanatism? How do they relate to the story progression on a more than physical level? [sp]Ápart from Booker being the one introducing them but that's another dimension so connecting them would be the same as saying Mao has a deep relation to protection of human rights - in another universe.[/sp][/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of this crazy thing called a subtext in stories?

[QUOTE=JesterUK;40199869]it's very hard to sum up all he pros and cons of something with a number[/QUOTE] I think it's just easier to use the number scale to rate enjoyability and if the game delivered on what was intended.

He complains a lot about the gunplay, but I personally always liked the feel of the Bioshock series. Stuff felt really solid, like classic shooters.

After watching the whole thing and playing the game myself I agree fully with everything he said and when I was playing it I felt that way. It's sad because it is a great game but half-way through it and the combat gets repetitive and dull. I played on normal and I really never even used vigors. Speaking of vigors I think he forgot to mention how out of place vigors were. It seemed like he was going to early in the video but just forgot. Also the whole food thing was just the same in Bioshock 1 so I don't know why everyone is acting like it so out of place.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;40203115]I'm done watching the entire thing and wow, the entire gameplay got simplified hard. Bioshock: Halo, much? Walk around with your own personal item dispenser throwing you shit to regenerate all your bars but your shield bar, which regenerates by itself And for an audience who gets mad and makes shitty jokes about entire games being brown, grey or blue there was not much of a mention at how Infinite is blindingly red/orange The game is really not deserving of the bioshock title at all, it's completely different from the first two, it would have been better as a new IP or something[/QUOTE]i'm sorry but bioshock is basic as fuck, the city and atmosphere is lovely but the gameplay is absolutely terrible. i don't know how you can say that about this game then not say that bioshock is just a simplified version of system shock 2.

To be fair, the Vigors do seem a little out of place; their origins aren't explained all that well from what I've seen. In the Rapture BioShocks we learned they were formulated from totipotent stem cells from a sea slug, which is processed into ADAM; however Infinite doesn't seem to explain how they work. Whilst I don't have any "solid" theories as to how the Vigors would work, I do have a theory concerning the Salts; they are some sort of salt (obviously) that can be charged with the "potential dimensional energy" leaking from Tears, then the energies transfer to the human body when the Salts enter the body, releasing their energies as they are digested. The energies are then used to power the abilities granted by Vigors. As for Vigors, whilst I don't have anything solid on them, my guess is that maybe the secrets of the Vigors originated in an alternate universe. Perhaps in an alternate universe, an advanced culture discovered how to manipulate interdimensional energies and weave "patterns" into memory. Said patterns would allow the user to weave the energies into certain forms or open rifts in the fabric of reality (in the case of crows; IDK how you'd be able to fabricate crows out of thin air). Maybe the scientists who studied the Tears (there must've been scientists) "reverse-engineered" the methods of manufacturing powers, making it so that the powers could be suspended in some sort of digestible liquid? This is all WMG by the way, since I have yet to see if it's been explained; maybe the truth will be revealed in DLC?

[QUOTE=ironman17;40205871]To be fair, the Vigors do seem a little out of place; their origins aren't explained all that well from what I've seen. In the Rapture BioShocks we learned they were formulated from totipotent stem cells from a sea slug, which is processed into ADAM; however Infinite doesn't seem to explain how they work. Whilst I don't have any "solid" theories as to how the Vigors would work, I do have a theory concerning the Salts; they are some sort of salt (obviously) that can be charged with the "potential dimensional energy" leaking from Tears, then the energies transfer to the human body when the Salts enter the body, releasing their energies as they are digested. The energies are then used to power the abilities granted by Vigors. As for Vigors, whilst I don't have anything solid on them, my guess is that maybe the secrets of the Vigors originated in an alternate universe. Perhaps in an alternate universe, an advanced culture discovered how to manipulate interdimensional energies and weave "patterns" into memory. Said patterns would allow the user to weave the energies into certain forms or open rifts in the fabric of reality (in the case of crows; IDK how you'd be able to fabricate crows out of thin air). Maybe the scientists who studied the Tears (there must've been scientists) "reverse-engineered" the methods of manufacturing powers, making it so that the powers could be suspended in some sort of digestible liquid? This is all WMG by the way, since I have yet to see if it's been explained; maybe the truth will be revealed in DLC?[/QUOTE] Afaik, [sp]Vigors were made by reverse-engineering Plasmids and ADAM from Rapture (by looking/visiting it through tears). Same goes for Songbird, which was inspired by Big Daddys.[/sp]

Totalbiscuit should make a video called "WTF is... the point in my existance?"

[QUOTE=Dead Madman;40206097]Totalbiscuit should make a video called "WTF is... the point in my existance?"[/QUOTE] Not licking the balls of every critically acclaimed game? [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=maqzek;40205994]Afaik, [sp]Vigors were made by reverse-engineering Plasmids and ADAM from Rapture (by looking/visiting it through tears). Same goes for Songbird, which was inspired by Big Daddys.[/sp][/QUOTE] Theres really no reason their use would be accepted. It would have been more original and believable if vigors were a Vox thing that they used to have a fighting chance against Comstock and his god fearing true blooded american followers. In Rapture it was an example of power gone mad, the average Columbian citizen would see it as wizardry because they already have everything they will ever need.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;40206199]Not licking the balls of every critically acclaimed game?[/QUOTE] Naah he just seems to come across as the kind of guy who is the "overlord of game development" however I'm yet to see him actually make a game that meets to his very over-confident expectations.

[QUOTE=striker453;40203851]I don't get whats wrong the combat. It seems everyone choose different weapon combinations and vigors so its not funneling you in it just your play style and even if 2 weapon system is limited i don't see how you can't just pick up the multitude of guns on the floor and spread around the level to fit your situation. I personally feel the combat is good and there nothing to really bolster as it streamlines the bioshock system instead of pausing constantly and switching ammo types when really the other ammo types are basically plasmid bullets.[/QUOTE] People only don't like the combat because it's not like Bioshock 1 where you had many different combos of plasmids and unique weapon upgrades and other fancy stuff that encouraged you to play creative ...even though it's not supposed to be like Bioshock 1 in that sense and if you judge infinites combat on its own merits its not bad at all, if anything it felt very HL2-esque but with the added bonus of elizabeth, skylines, and powers. It supposed to be like BS1 except faster, and more intense instead of like BS1 where combat is slower but your options are larger. AKA people who expect games to never deviate from an established formula continue to never enjoy games for an arbitrary reason. I liked what infinite did, and bioshokc did for different reasons. LITERALLY the same exact fucking thing happened when BS1 came out that people were bitching that it wasn't like SS2. No shit! It's because SS2 isn't BS1, just inspired by. And Infinite isn't BS1, just based off of it's foundations. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jacob_sword;40205457]After watching the whole thing and playing the game myself I agree fully with everything he said and when I was playing it I felt that way. It's sad because it is a great game but half-way through it and the combat gets repetitive and dull. I played on normal and I really never even used vigors. Speaking of vigors I think he forgot to mention how out of place vigors were. It seemed like he was going to early in the video but just forgot. Also the whole food thing was just the same in Bioshock 1 so I don't know why everyone is acting like it so out of place.[/QUOTE] You owe yourself to play on hard/1999 The game is literally designed in a way that normal is meant to be really easy and for people who normally don't care for challenge but don't mind feeling the heat a little bit to expeirence the story. 1999 mode was a whole lot of fun and it felt like dark souls in the sense that I had to do trial and errror with vigor combos and playstyles in order to get past certain areas. Hard is similar but there is less penality for death among other things. AKA if you are looking for enjoyable gameplay the game pretty much straight up tells you to play on hard/1999 if you are an experienced gamer...

Why is there such a "spectacle" around Bioshock Infinite? Really don't get it. Everyone seems to say it's a good game. I loved it. Those who criticize it like Totalbiscuit and the guy in that other thread all say it's a good game. What is there to argue about? Who's opinion is right and who's wrong?

Actually, you still do have many different combos of vigors and unique weapon upgrades and other fancy stuff that encourages you to play creative. Except for some reason people can't arse themselves to play creative, which is weird since they apparently could in Bioshock 1. Maybe it has something to do with a larger number of enemies which forces them to pick the most efficient solution and never deviate, forming a stereotype all by themselves. Then the areas are more open and more action-packed, so you may not have time to like, switch weapons, and in the end you'd stick with the long range ones (carbine, machine gun) and never use the close range ones (like shotgun). I really hate how there are essentialy four types of the same gun (machine gun, repeater, carbine, burst gun) - I know they all play differently, but in the end, they're all (semi-)automatic long range headshot spammers. The game really needed more close range weapons, that would also force people to move around the battlefield, unlike here Mr. Totalbiscuit who hides behind crates and spams his machine gun from there, killing all potential fun he could have.

[QUOTE=Dead Madman;40206307]Naah he just seems to come across as the kind of guy who is the "overlord of game development" however I'm yet to see him actually make a game that meets to his very over-confident expectations.[/QUOTE] you don't need to be a chef to tell you that your food is shit

[QUOTE=KorJax;40206324] You owe yourself to play on hard/1999 The game is literally designed in a way that normal is meant to be really easy and for people who normally don't care for challenge but don't mind feeling the heat a little bit to expeirence the story. 1999 mode was a whole lot of fun and it felt like dark souls in the sense that I had to do trial and errror with vigor combos and playstyles in order to get past certain areas. Hard is similar but there is less penality for death among other things. AKA if you are looking for enjoyable gameplay the game pretty much straight up tells you to play on hard/1999 if you are an experienced gamer...[/QUOTE] I was thinking of going back and playing 1999 mode. Maybe I will do that and see if some of the problems go away or get worse, guess I'll see.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;40206425]Why is there such a "spectacle" around Bioshock Infinite? Really don't get it. Everyone seems to say it's a good game. I loved it. Those who criticize it like Totalbiscuit and the guy in that other thread all say it's a good game. What is there to argue about? Who's opinion is right and who's wrong?[/QUOTE] Its because idiots want to believe its perfect. Its no doubt may favorite game in the past few years, but its not perfect. Nothing's perfect. It has flaws, but for whatever reason, people will fight to the death to claim it doesn't.

The only real flaw I see in Bioshock Infinite is that 50% of the players who have played through it say the gameplay sucked and 50% doesn't. I'm the latter 50%. I'm not saying it was a perfect game. I'm just saying that the gameplay was perfect for what it was meant to be and that it is a giant leap from Bioshock 1 which had significantly more flaws. The worst thing is how they made some boring design decisions. It's a bit like with Minecraft, the game throws you in an open world and doesn't tell you what to do. Some people need to be told what to do, otherwise they just fiddle around and then just quit the game like "no this game has absolutely nothing to offer, you just run around a blocky word!" Graphics and general hate for it being too popular aside. With FPS games it's a bit more tricky. The game tried to show you hints if you haven't turned them off, but that's not how it's done. You can't just tell someone "hey, dude, use vigors" or "hey dude don't snipe so much it's boring, trust me" and expect them to listen. You have to outright take the rifle away from them, give them the shotgun and throw them right into the action, but Bioshock Infinite never even attempted to do that (except for some short skyline travel events). They just gladly give you a carbine, throw a couple boxes in as a cover and let you bore yourself to death hiding there forever. In Bio1, for a period of time the game eventually shuffled between all sorts of plazmids you may have missed, and it was kinda fun since you were forced to improvise and stuff. So that was the biggest flaw. The game gave people an option not to enjoy it at all, and 50% of gamers chose that option. Then they were like "yeah the story was nice but gameplay sucked, i mean, you only cover behind boxes and click at heads, then a handyman comes along and kills me because I can't even run and shoot at once!"

idk I found myself running out of ammo a lot which forced me to switch guns, if only temporarily

[QUOTE=Drury;40206587]The only real flaw I see in Bioshock Infinite is that 50% of the players who have played through it say the gameplay sucked and 50% doesn't. I'm the latter 50%. I'm not saying it was a perfect game. I'm just saying that the gameplay was perfect for what it was meant to be and that it is a giant leap from Bioshock 1 which had significantly more flaws. The worst thing is how they made some boring design decisions. It's a bit like with Minecraft, the game throws you in an open world and doesn't tell you what to do. Some people need to be told what to do, otherwise they just fiddle around and then just quit the game like "no this game has absolutely nothing to offer, you just run around a blocky word!" Graphics and general hate for it being too popular aside. With FPS games it's a bit more tricky. The game tried to show you hints if you haven't turned them off, but that's not how it's done. You can't just tell someone "hey, dude, use vigors" or "hey dude don't snipe so much it's boring, trust me" and expect them to listen. You have to outright take the rifle away from them, give them the shotgun and throw them right into the action, but Bioshock Infinite never even attempted to do that (except for some short skyline travel events). They just gladly give you a carbine, throw a couple boxes in as a cover and let you bore yourself to death hiding there forever. In Bio1, for a period of time the game eventually shuffled between all sorts of plazmids you may have missed, and it was kinda fun since you were forced to improvise and stuff. So that was the biggest flaw. The game gave people an option not to enjoy it at all, and 50% of gamers chose that option. Then they were like "yeah the story was nice but gameplay sucked, i mean, you only cover behind boxes and click at heads, then a handyman comes along and kills me because I can't even run and shoot at once!"[/QUOTE] Noone chooses to not enjoy the gameplay, thats a stupid statement. Its saying that is a [I]fact[/I] that the gameplay is good, and all of the 50% who didn't like just can't appreciate it. I hated the gameplay because the AI were bullet sponges with retarded accuracy and retarded reaction times. The moment a pixel of you appeared you'd start taking damage. I don't like that at all. I hate gameplay where its "kill them before your health drains away", I'm much used to and quite frankly prefer "kill them before they fire back." Half Life 2 more resembles the latter, so its not strictly a characteristic of COD like I can see some people saying from a mile away. And you know what, I didn't find the vigours all that interesting and for the vast majority useful. Does that mean I'm inept? stupid? not trying to make the most of my experience? No, no it does not. I'm among those that absolutely hated the Handymen. I died numerous times sprinting, turning around and pumping them full of grenades, due to their vast splash attack that breaks your shield and disorients you. They were bullet sponges that you had to slowly grind the health off. Eventually I just exploited Skyline strike by the second time I encountered one.

No, it doesn't mean you're stupid, not at all, it actually means you're clever enough to figure out the most efficient approach. Which happens to be the most boring one. And that's the main flaw of the game. EDIT: "Exploited" the skyline? Man, they're there for you to move around the battlefield and escape handymen, that's why they let you ride them for a bit before they electrocute it. Did you seriously like, ignore the skylines completely?

[QUOTE=Drury;40207036] EDIT: "Exploited" the skyline? Man, they're there for you to move around the battlefield and escape handymen, that's why they let you ride them for a bit before they electrocute it. Did you seriously like, ignore the skylines completely?[/QUOTE] Jump on skyline, skyline strike. Handyman is stunned. Blast with Rockets and Grenades. Rinse, repeat.

Yep, rinse and repeat. I mean, there are so many different ways to strike such a behemoth down, and he even has enough health to try absolutely everything the game has to offer, yet you repeat the same process over and over. That is exactly my point.

[QUOTE=Drury;40207275]Yep, rinse and repeat. I mean, there are so many different ways to strike such a behemoth down, and he even has enough health to try absolutely everything the game has to offer, yet you repeat the same process over and over. That is exactly my point.[/QUOTE] If the most efficient approach to killing an enemy is the most boring one, would that not be a failure of game design? If they realized people could do something to easily kill enemies but suck all the fun out of combat, why did the developers not take steps to fix the issue?

[QUOTE=Hinterlight;40208046]If the most efficient approach to killing an enemy is the most boring one, would that not be a failure of game design? If they realized people could do something to easily kill enemies but suck all the fun out of combat, why did the developers not take steps to fix the issue?[/QUOTE] thats like saying, GTA/saints row are shit games because the most efficient way of beating the game is to do missions nonstop which are mostly boring "go here and kill these guys" missions. bioshock has always been a "fuck around with differet types of power/weapons/equipment" and it still is but now adding a fuck load of mobility at times with the skyhook system. Honestly i loved syndicate because of the running and gunning aspect, is that the most efficient way of killing enemies or not dying? no its not, but it spices up the game to be more action based than cover cover based shooter.

[QUOTE=Hinterlight;40208046]If the most efficient approach to killing an enemy is the most boring one, would that not be a failure of game design? If they realized people could do something to easily kill enemies but suck all the fun out of combat, why did the developers not take steps to fix the issue?[/QUOTE] I've said it before, the game desperately needs to get rid of those long-range semi-automatic weapons. There are too many of them, and in the end they just force you to camp. Worst of all, the machine guns and repeaters are all over the place (since founders and vox use them) so sometimes you're forced to switch off the fun weapons and use those instead.