Bioshock Infinite and Mass Effect 3/ Valve and EA

[Somanto]

After finally finishing Infinite and sitting on the ending for a week I found myself thinking of the similarities between this game and one of last year's most wanted, Mass Effect 3.
Think about it:

-Came out in March
-Third in a series
-Sheds light on entire series
-Boss Battle teased throughout entire game
-No ending Boss Battle
-Dissatisfaction with choices and consequences*
-WTF interpretive ending**
-Glimpse of Hero survival
-Doomed Sequel***

I'm sure I have missed a few but my point is essentially they are similar but at the same time different enough for people not to think so, just like EA and Valve. People like Valve with a passion while there is the occasional odd man out who does not(Infinite), people hate EA and get very heated making their argument while some question that this due to it being the cool thing to do(ME3). They both want the same thing (cash) but go about in different ways different levels of success. I think it all comes down to how they were implemented.What do you think?


*(Choices made in the game don't have a great effect on overall story as expected or desired)
**(Ending was later changed due to fan dissatisfaction)
***(Personal opinion Infinite makes a direct sequel hard to accomplish as does ME3)

 

[shrekfan246]

-Came out in March
-Third in a series
-Sheds light on entire series

A lot of games come out in March, are third in a series, and/or shed light on the series.

-Boss Battle teased throughout entire game
-No ending Boss Battle

Spoiler: Bioshock Infinite spoilers

Any actual fight against Songbird or Comstock would've either been terrible or completely out of place with the tone of the game.

-Dissatisfaction with choices and consequences*

*(Choices made in the game don't have a great effect on overall story as expected or desired)

Yeah... half of the point of the game was that no matter what choice Booker makes, he's going to end up in the same location over and over again no matter what small discrepancies there may be. That's why the cycle needed to be broken by such drastic measures.

But then, I'm tired of all the complaining about "player choice in video games" these days. All paths lead to the same ending; It's not the destination that matters, but the journey.

-WTF interpretive ending**

**(Ending was later changed due to fan dissatisfaction)

I've seen a lot of people confused by the ending, but I thought it was pretty forward considering it decided to suddenly say

Spoiler

"Oh yeah, quantum mechanics and the multiverse. Have fun with that."

-Glimpse of Hero survival
-Doomed Sequel***

***(Personal opinion Infinite makes a direct sequel hard to accomplish as does ME3)

Who says any more Bioshock games would be direct sequels to Infinite? Infinite was only tangentially related to Bioshock, and Bioshock 2 was made by a completely different development team.

I'm sure I have missed a few but my point is essentially they are similar but at the same time different enough for people not to think so, just like EA and Valve. People like Valve with a passion while there is the occasional odd man out who does not(Infinite), people hate EA and get very heated making their argument while some question that this due to it being the cool thing to do(ME3). They both want the same thing (cash) but go about in different ways different levels of success. I think it all comes down to how they were implemented.What do you think?

I'm not sure how this whole thing really ties in with Valve and EA, though. Beyond "are big names in the gaming industry" and "have digital distribution platforms", there aren't really many similarities between Valve and EA. At least, not any more so than with practically every other publisher in the market.

 

[Innegativeion]

*snip*

I'm glad somebody else already said everything I was going to touch upon FOR me!

To add something to that already comprehensive response, I'd say this OP's statements are quite presumptuous of others' opinions.

Yes, some people have decried "confusion!" "pretense!" and "sloppy writing!" at BSI's ending, but I've found far more people were either quite satisfied with it or praising it. You also seem to be in a small minority when it comes to expecting a sequel. BSI itself pretty much establishes that Irrational Games can make as many bioshocks as they want, without having to directly tie their stories.

I also don't know how many people were actually expecting a "choice-consequence" system, considering the original bioshock's only real choice system results in one of three 2 minute endings. Player choice (at least in narrative) was never a substantial part of it.

 

[R.Nevermore]

I saw the game as a bit of a snide jab at the whole 'choices effect the ending' craze that's inexplicably going on. Everyone wants their own unique snowflake ending but can't people just enjoy the journey? That's what the game is about... Trapped by the overall event, choices making little differences.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I saw the game as a bit of a snide jab at the whole 'choices effect the ending' craze that's inexplicably going on. Everyone wants their own unique snowflake ending but can't people just enjoy the journey? That's what the game is about... Trapped by the overall event, choices making little differences.

Don't you know? Every game should have 50 different endings based off what cereal you ate for breakfast.

 

[scorptatious]

I actually sorta like how they handled the final section before the ending of Bioshock Infinite.

Spoiler

You get to sick Songbird on friggen zeppelins!

Go! My bird!

 

[RJ 17]

Yes, some people have decried "confusion!" "pretense!" and "sloppy writing!" at BSI's ending, but I've found far more people were either quite satisfied with it or praising it. You also seem to be in a small minority when it comes to expecting a sequel. BSI itself pretty much establishes that Irrational Games can make as many bioshocks as they want, without having to directly tie their stories.

While I do agree that the OP makes a lot of assumptions (the biggest being that he/she believes they're in the majority of thinking on this matter), though I do have to agree that making more Bioshock games after this one becomes....problematic (to put it in Mordin's words).

Spoiler: And here is why I say that.(Infinite Ending Spoilers Inside)

True, the ending to Infinite leaves us with literally infinite possibilities. Yet the cat's out of the bag, and Elizabeth is the one to point it out. "It's always the same. Costants and Variables. There's always a lighthouse, a city, and a man." And right there is where things become problematic. Sure, they COULD literally make as many Bioshocks as they want with cities placed in odd/fantastic settings........but the story will never change.

When you break down BSI's story to the core elements, it's essentially BS2's story only with different actors set in the sky (and I do believe that was FULLY intentional as it goes right along with the tie-in to Rapture at the end).

-Father Figure with demons in his past searching for a girl (Big Daddy Delta and Booker).
-Overseer of the city has a cult-like following of the people in the city (Lamb and Comstock).
-Overseer of the city has grand plans to use the captive girl to dramatically change the "normal" world that's been left behind (Lamb wants to take Eleanor to the surface and to spread Lamb's twisted idea of utopia, Comstock wants Elizabeth to literally rain fire and brimstone on the Sodom below).
-In the end, the girl is saved from a destiny that was chosen for her, allowing her to go on with her own life however she pleases (Eleanor deciding to bring her father's wrath to the surface or to become the bright shining hope for mankind's future, Elizabeth...being able to go anywhere/"anywhen" she wants).

There's a few more minor parallels, but those are the big ones as I see it. And that's the problem that they're going to run into. Again, as Elizabeth says it, "They're all the same, but different." That's how the Bioshock series would be from this point onward: just retelling the same ol' story just with different actors and setting. Because it's officially established canon now that the story will always be the same, no matter what reality it takes place in.

Now, whether you think that's a limiting factor or not is up for debate. Hell, Mario's been getting away with it for frickin' decades now. But I can't help but feel that in terms of Bioshock, it'd get a little bit old.

 

[jcfrommars9]

I saw the game as a bit of a snide jab at the whole 'choices effect the ending' craze that's inexplicably going on. Everyone wants their own unique snowflake ending but can't people just enjoy the journey? That's what the game is about... Trapped by the overall event, choices making little differences.

As the Luteces said, it's a matter of perspective. To me, Booker's choice to give up Anna for instance made all the difference in the world. It certainly made a difference in her life. In any case, can't people just enjoy the journey? Speaking for myself, no. I enjoyed the journey of Bioshock Infinite until the ending. Still do. But you can't fumble at the one yard line and call it a touchdown, I don't care how many and/or how well you ran the yards before you got there. Some of you saw a great, mind blowing ending, I saw a monotonous, pseudo-intellectual one.