• Bioshock creator's new project will be based on Logan's Run
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ycap5;41090661]I thought everyone liked Bioshock Infinite?[/QUOTE] Many people do, but it doesn't change the fact that they cut out tons of gameplay fetures and dumbed it down to a hallway-corridor-hallway-optional room with a recording-battle arena-hallway shooter, with 2 weapon slots, Elizabeth downgraded to a Dispenser role, no boss battles, weapon mods are not visible. And the story was ass too, the infinite reality thing was simplified and is just wrong, and also, the Vigors. A walking plot-hole. The first two games were about how Plasmids fucks you over, and how it needs tons of resources, but decades earlier they figure it out too, by looking into the future and seeing Rapture, but now it's safe for everyone to use! Seriously they planned to have splicer like enemies again, but, whoops, they got cut. It wasn't bad, it was just dissapointingly medicore, even more so if you compare it to Bioshock 1.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41087006]I think Infinite's ending is mostly a setup for future Bioshock games. Once you go to a scale that big it would be simply a disappointment if a future game wouldn't mention it at all. Infinite showed us that you *can* in way tamper with these rules and causality itself, and where there's room for manipulation there's room for a villain. They just have to be able to juggle things on a scale that big without losing the player. Only thing I didn't like about the ending, aside from the railroading that was only part of its point, was how Elizabeth went the last big step from [i]"A choice is better than none, Mr. DeWitt. No matter the outcome"[/i] to [i]"yo imma take your baptism choice away and wipe out my world along with everything tears ever connected it to (because now they don't make sense either) for the benefit of nobody alive to appreciate it. Hell, even in the best case scenario where I'd create a new timeline where you didn't become evil or gave me away (but are still some drunken gambling war psycho with none of Infinite's char development to possibly redeem it...), the universe still demands there's a city/lighthouse/man/rescue in it like in all Bioshocks comes with its own apocalypse potential - so really, I just move the problem to some other poor tosser! Annihilation of infinite worlds for the benefit of the very small minority that is two people! That's such a step up from my father's plan to destroy/conquer one world for the benefit of a single city!"[/i] Yo, Old Elizabeth, you sent me back in time too late. Alternatively, damn that revolutionist lady's death causing her to snap. Alternatively alternatively, damn the DeWitts for having piss-poor decision making skills ingrained into their DNA or something. /rant[/QUOTE] I was thinking of how they could do another Bioshock sequel. Maybe there's some sort of common relic to each of these cities and when they're all combined, it creates some next-level shit that could be used to do many things, destroying all these universes included. You'd go to Rapture, Columbia and whatever cities they might think up next following the footsteps of a villain who's collecting them
[QUOTE=ZuXer;41091812]Many people do, but it doesn't change the fact that they cut out tons of gameplay fetures and dumbed it down to a hallway-corridor-hallway-optional room with a recording-battle arena-hallway shooter, with 2 weapon slots, Elizabeth downgraded to a Dispenser role, no boss battles, weapon mods are not visible. And the story was ass too, the infinite reality thing was simplified and is just wrong, and also, the Vigors. A walking plot-hole. The first two games were about how Plasmids fucks you over, and how it needs tons of resources, but decades earlier they figure it out too, by looking into the future and seeing Rapture, but now it's safe for everyone to use! Seriously they planned to have splicer like enemies again, but, whoops, they got cut. It wasn't bad, it was just dissapointingly medicore, even more so if you compare it to Bioshock 1.[/QUOTE] I like how "dumbing down"'s definition has expanded for gamers so much now that it pretty much includes every gameplay change between two games Why would those things be considered dumbing down? I hate it when people say Infinite is dumbed down from the first when it isn't at all, it's just different. It's like saying HL2 is a dumbed down STALKER, it literally doesn't make sense even when you consider the fact that they are apart of the same series. What exactly about making it a "hallway-corridor-hallway-optional room" shooter (which isn't even close to being correct at all, and it confuses me how you could possibly simplify the entire level design of Infinite into that even if you were grasping for straws) makes it dumbed down? To bring up HL2 again, a generally critically acclaimed shooter - its much MUCH more linear in level design than what Infinite provides, and it doesn't make it any "dumber" of a game compared to other shooters. That's the biggest problem with Infinites gameplay is that a select few people played it and expected it to be a carbon copy of Bioshock 1 (but in the sky), and it isn't. It's a different style of game entirely, but still related in key mechanics. Just because it is a different style of design doesn't make it any "dumber", and its incredibly short sighted to assume that it does. I'm not saying what Infinite did gameplay wise was perfect, but it was damn close to being it for me and I loved that they didn't completely copy the design of Bioshock 1 for infinite. Also, how are vigors a walking plot hole? Just because they didn't copy-paste splicers into Infinite? Seriously, that's your reasoning for it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.