*Sighs* it would be nice play a "****Shock" game where you can actually explore/fight/appreciate the amazing setting BEFORE it's all gone to hell. Seriously! It would be alot more amazing if we had gotten to appreciate Rapture when it was all in one piece.
Bioshock: Infinite unveiled!
- Thread starter hearty0
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just watched the trailer, but it looked like everything was pristine and happy, with trouble lurking in the shadows. Perhaps this game will have you set in the middle of the downfall of Colombia, witnessing the following chaos and madness as the sky city turns to hell. I get this impression because I believe I read on the featured content that it will have a "Wild West" feel in that you don't know who's good or bad. So this might indicate that you'll run into perfectly sane people, those who've cracked, people following some cult/faction, ect. There are plenty of opportunities in that case to take advantage of a new environment. What would be great is watching as it falls.Dr.Nick said:
Wow, this forum is a fucking war zone. *runs away*
OT: the concept REALLY interests me, though the storyline would be the hard part. how in hell is the city floating on only balloons?
OT: the concept REALLY interests me, though the storyline would be the hard part. how in hell is the city floating on only balloons?
Hurray looks good and means we won't have to get a bioshock prequel that everybody seems to want despite complaining that bioshock 2 did nothing new (ignoring cynicism vs optimisme, parenting) and instead they should have retold the same story they spent the entirety of Bioshock telling.
So its basically Rapture but in the sky, and apart from the big daddy like thing and the plasmid the woman uses it could be a completely different game. Could still be interesting but it depends on how they excute it
I refer you to X-com as my main example where the game is set in a different period, is a different genre of game and completely unrelated, they simply used the name to generate famility and sales.EcoEclipse said:
Oh man...you are...so...Gods!I don't know if you joking but...dude...THAT ISN'T STEAMPUNK AT ALL!Actually the first form of Steampunk came...100 years before the 80's!Therumancer said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk
The clue to what Steampunk is, is not the name "Punk"...its the Steam part!
so if it is not in rapture and basically has nothing to do with the oringinal, why is it called bioshock? or am I interpreting it for more than "bioshock" really is because "bioshock" is the name of the series not of the setting of the first or second (and by the way it was gawd awful).WOW I just made a statement and then just tried to counteract it.
[edit] looking at the zeps and stuff it makes me hunger for the days I would own at Crimson Skies!I wish the disc never broke
[edit] looking at the zeps and stuff it makes me hunger for the days I would own at Crimson Skies!I wish the disc never broke
They talked about the demo on IGN and it sounds epic and far more actiony.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/111/1111864p1.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/111/1111864p1.html
I thought that this was the direction Bioshock should go. However, the sky city looks far too much like Rapture, it should look different!
This is one of those cases where Wikipedia is wrong to a massive degree, which is one of the reasons why it's not accepted more often as a credible source. What they are doing is reporting the common mis-use of the term as it's definition.oliveira8 said:
Of course it's hard to blame them, since Steampunk as a genere is almost impossible to pin down since it refers to like half a dozen obscure sources that in turn inspired other things. That and it works as a buzz word to try and make retro-future concepts seem cool, and it flows from the tongue better.
Steampunk is neither the "Steam" or the "Punk" but both having to go together. Both words are part of it for a reason, it refers to something very specific, and was intended specifically to get away from the works of say a "Jules Verne". People centuries ago who wrote about the future were simply science fiction authors, and doing something in their style is simply, "alternative history" or in cases where it's the future as people in the past would have envisioned it "retro-future" which is a term you might have heard, but doesn't carry much "buzz word" appeal.
Steampunk is when you take a retro-future concept in the spirit of say "Rober The Conquerer" or "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" (picked because of the games mentioned) and then basically say "now what if the author was a member of the punk counter-culture, what would it have looked like then?".
The origins come from back in the 1980s when you had "Punk" and the connected "New Wave" movement argueing in favor of their philsophy, and doing things like trying to envision how the world would have been differant had their way of thinking, acting, and dressing, been the norm at various time frames. Mostly this is connected to "arthouse punk" where you had people doing things like painting pictures of Jesus with a Mohawk, or the angelic scenes from The Sistine Chapel if the Christian Mythology had instead been invented by punks. These things were contreversial at the time when I was growing up, in the spirit of the old story "The boy who painted christ black" and invoked some of the sentiment you see today where people feel threatened over the possibility of computers being able to reconstuct the face of Jesus based on the imprints on "The Shroud Of Turin" (or whatever it was) because people are scared of what might happen if he went from being more of a concept into something that could actually be identified with that closely.
At any rate, with the exception of "Cyberpunk" (which is also heavily misused) one of the problems with 80s culture is that it was highly transient and disposable. Not to mention the fact that even from the beginning there were a lot of battles about a lot of the definitions because one of the defining charateristics of "Punk" is that it's about free expression, and that by trying to be "punk" and follow those conventions you can't be punk, because your going with a crowd (such as it is) rather than winding up there on your own. Many could argue that what passes as punk is actually the creation of Poseurs because one cannot label something punk and really have it be punk.... however this gets rather philsophical. The big point here being is that it can be very hard to actually find the things that were a big deal at the time, unless it's sitting in a museum someplace I very much doubt anyone knows where the picture of "Mohawk Jesus" that was being talked about and covered in school 'newsines' when I was like 11 or 12 is anymore. The graffiti that was such a big part of the culture at the time has likewise been painted over by artists with other attitudes, the chainsaw ice sculptures melted, and the steel artwork probably rusted into oblivion unless someone purchused it... assuming of course it was for sale to begin with. In some ways the lack of tangible remaining impact other than ideas is in of itself a profound statement about punk.
I was never "punk" being way too young, and arguably differant from the norm in quite a differant way at the time. However I was quite aware of it, and on some levels wished I was in a place where I could have lived it. I guess this sort of makes me like "Wild Card's" "Captain Tripps" but from a differant era and with a less extreme mode of dress and life style. It irritates me to see the term, and the various hybrids, misused, especially as corperate buzzwords to sell products.
Personally, I like this new direction. If we had another underwater bioshock sequel or prequel, even the best game would inevitably be too familiar and seem recycled. Undah dah sea times three? I think not.
Also, to those of you who think there should be a prequel, I disagree, partially for the reason above, but also because it would be difficult to turn a game so heavily based on combat into a story-driven game. It just wouldn't match up. What would there be to do, attend some first person senate meetings? Take part in the construction of rapture? Doesn't sound like something that would fit into a gunplay-based series. I guess a prequel could focus on the civil war in rapture, but that might end up being repetitive as well.
What I'm trying to get at is, I think a Bioshock prequel would be much better were it a movie. Normally, I'm not a big fan of video game movies, but movies are made specifically to be story-driven, which is exactly what a bioshock prequel would need. The building of the city, the rise of Ryan, Fontaine and the civil war, all of it would make for a great summer blockbuster (provided it didn't suck, but of course this is true for all movies, video game-based or not.) I was pretty sure there was already a bioshock movie in development; what ever happened to that?
Also, to those of you who think there should be a prequel, I disagree, partially for the reason above, but also because it would be difficult to turn a game so heavily based on combat into a story-driven game. It just wouldn't match up. What would there be to do, attend some first person senate meetings? Take part in the construction of rapture? Doesn't sound like something that would fit into a gunplay-based series. I guess a prequel could focus on the civil war in rapture, but that might end up being repetitive as well.
What I'm trying to get at is, I think a Bioshock prequel would be much better were it a movie. Normally, I'm not a big fan of video game movies, but movies are made specifically to be story-driven, which is exactly what a bioshock prequel would need. The building of the city, the rise of Ryan, Fontaine and the civil war, all of it would make for a great summer blockbuster (provided it didn't suck, but of course this is true for all movies, video game-based or not.) I was pretty sure there was already a bioshock movie in development; what ever happened to that?
EA owns the rights. It was even answered in the "Ask Irrational" thread they have. They can't do it until EA lets them. I'd be lying, though, if I said I hadn't had a lot of hopes banked on SS3 anyway.
BioShock is overpowering its System Shock parent lineage...I'd like to see more love for System Shock these days. Everyone likes to overlook it in favor of what I see to be its lesser children. Also, cyberpunk > steampunk, but that's just my preference. I liked SHODAN and the cyborg theme more than Atlas and the underwater-city theme. They still haven't matched her quality. Not to mention they left that huge cliffhanger, and I'd love to see what would happen should SHODAN be forced to act from her now weak and vulnerable human form -- dragged down to the level she once mocked.
Maybe one day it'll happen. Irrational's back, and I get the feeling they actually care about the community's wishes to some extent or another -- but there are lots of wishes, and EA has its own issues.
BioShock is overpowering its System Shock parent lineage...I'd like to see more love for System Shock these days. Everyone likes to overlook it in favor of what I see to be its lesser children. Also, cyberpunk > steampunk, but that's just my preference. I liked SHODAN and the cyborg theme more than Atlas and the underwater-city theme. They still haven't matched her quality. Not to mention they left that huge cliffhanger, and I'd love to see what would happen should SHODAN be forced to act from her now weak and vulnerable human form -- dragged down to the level she once mocked.
Maybe one day it'll happen. Irrational's back, and I get the feeling they actually care about the community's wishes to some extent or another -- but there are lots of wishes, and EA has its own issues.
You do know that System Shock 2 was a flop right?Skorpyo said:
As good and highly praised as it was no one bought it, and only later did it become a cult classic.
Anyways, Irrational Games can never make SS3 because the IP is owned by EA.
All me to Quote Yahtzee on the subject of Bioshock Sequels
Ahem, "The usual line at this point is, "If you liked BioShock 1, you'll like this, because it's pretty much just more it!" But I don't think that applies, because if you did really like BioShock 1, you'll understand that it works perfectly fine by itself, the story very tight and self-contained with no dangling plot threads. Our hero escapes, Rapture falls, and all the leaders are dead with 9-irons jutting out of their skulls. A sequel like BioShock 2, riddled with metaphorical stretch marks trying to squeeze in enough retcons to get another plot out, can only diminish the effect of the original."
He is right. Bioshock didn't need Bioshock 2, it was a good game but that untied a lot of plot points that were tied up. A Bioshock 3 is pretty much too much, and besides where is System Shock 3? Seriously guys, I want to kill Shodan, for the third time LOL
Ahem, "The usual line at this point is, "If you liked BioShock 1, you'll like this, because it's pretty much just more it!" But I don't think that applies, because if you did really like BioShock 1, you'll understand that it works perfectly fine by itself, the story very tight and self-contained with no dangling plot threads. Our hero escapes, Rapture falls, and all the leaders are dead with 9-irons jutting out of their skulls. A sequel like BioShock 2, riddled with metaphorical stretch marks trying to squeeze in enough retcons to get another plot out, can only diminish the effect of the original."
He is right. Bioshock didn't need Bioshock 2, it was a good game but that untied a lot of plot points that were tied up. A Bioshock 3 is pretty much too much, and besides where is System Shock 3? Seriously guys, I want to kill Shodan, for the third time LOL
Oh boy! Bioshock: Air Edition! Hopefully they build Air Rapture with less holes than Water Rapture! I'm kind of curious of how much they're going to change in this alternate history they've set up. In the next game is it revealed that Walruses are now the dominant species?