I was sitting here for several hours typing what exactly I thought was good and what wasn't good about the final version, but in order to fully comprehend my mindset, I think just writing about it nearly doesn't do it justice. You should come to my house and play it start to finish so I could point out everything good and the things I despised.
Bioshock Infinite bugs me. This obviously has to do with me (my personality) but also with the media that surrounded it, espescially the 10- and 15-minute gameplay demo's that were released pre-launch. How come the games portrayed there looked better, more fun, more heartfelt, more storydriven, more challenging, more atmostpheric, more interactive, more beautiful and more creative than anything I saw in the full game that I bought? I am 100% logic driven, far from being a technical mind. So, with that mindset, the fifteen minute E3 GAMEPLAY DEMO was released in 2011. When you see a trailer, showing in-game footage that good, for a game that would be released in 2013, how is it possible that what I got was something so much weaker and so much more underwhelming?
Everything. Every single thing that was good about the trailers, even the story, got ripped out and replaced by something else or dumbed down. I developed more feelings for Elizabeth in 25 minutes of footage than most people ever had for three Half-Life games starring Alyx Vance (to Valve's credit, the games are very old now). The Elizabeth of v1.0 isn't the same of the trailers. And I'm not talking about her curves, I'm talking about how much more interactivity there was in the trailers. Yes, there is interactivity with her in the game but not nearly as much or as in-depth in the trailers. In the final product she is reduced to a glorified gimmick. She only sings a couple of songs and they get repetitive REALLY quick: "OMG An Automaton I can control.", "O there, medicine.", "There are some sniper rifles.", "I'm angry/ mildly annoyed at you because you kill people/ risk your life to protect me/ just overwhelmed by a surge of not-caring for you." Oh yeah, and I'll protect Comstock for no valid reason and when you'll want to make us happy, get a change of heart and want to take me to Paris I'll be all "meh" about it.
Which was a shame because the few microscopic crumbs of combat interactions Irrational kept was REALLY enjoyable, quickly handing me weapons and medicine to let the action flow nicely and I LOVED her character and personality in the first act (Beginning to Fink).
*explosion of fantastic visuals and art direction.*
"Wha..."
"Hallelujah." and then the subtle piano music.
I get goosebumps on my body and a shivering down my spine. Then a beautiful thought comes in your mind: "I'm actually playing the game I waited so long for." Bioshock Infinite could have been the perfect game for me. The perfect amalgamation of a deep story that teaches me something, a beautiful adventure, real emotions such as anger, hatred, love, humor, fear, happiness... and a heartfelt, almost tangible, unforgettable relationship with a fictional character.
I get this feeling people are so excited and putting Irrational on a bed of rosepetals because they made a decent game with a complicated plot just for the sake of being complicated, while in fact Bioshock Infinite could have been so much more, and I don't think it's wise to praise a developer for that. It's as if I would make the first Avengers movie and I showed you all of the trailers that came out for it and all the final product had was Aquaman.
And also, thank you for not instantly calling me a troll in your reply.
Scientifically speaking, spoilers actually ENHANCE people's enjoyment of a piece of entertainment. [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/spoiler-alert-stories-are-not-spoiled-byspoilers.html]
unless it works different for videogames.
But since both games and films share a LOT of the same narrative and visual techniques I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't that different.
However, I know that...
a) I would have been hopping mad if someone had spoiled it for me.
b) I greatly enjoyed the experience of playing it blind and do not wish to deny other people that experience.
So no spoilers from me. If people want spoilers they can go find them.
I got the ps3 version.. played Infinite on medium and had a blast. The action was highly addicting and the ending blew me away.
Then I played the first one, which I hadn't done before, and while I am going to trudge through it just for the sake of it being something I bought so may as well use it, I am not having fun. Every goddamn enemy has professional aim, moves around far too much, and are bullet sponges to boot. Whereas your character is thin as paper and has weapons that feel incredibly underpowered. Even the plasmids feel lackluster and are mostly ineffective. So I'm not sure what all the praise for it was all about because it isn't very good
No spoilers; you'll either love or hate the ending, I personally loved it but I really don't quite know how to feel about it. It's very strange. Has to be experienced, do stay no spoilers on it.
Edit: Plug in a controller, any controller, and turn off the god damned auto-aim that I swear turns you 45 degrees and is on by default even if you use a mouse and keyboard, has to be turned off for controller to turn off. Or you could find and edit the config file.
Length for peeps?
First playthrough took me 21 hours (probably a couple from being paused and a shit load from exploration).
Yeah, game's fucking good. I love the heavy involvement of Elizabeth in combat, and how she helps a lot without ever getting in the way. You can tell the devs tried hard to make the player like her, and they did not fail. I also have a lot of fun using the skylines strategically in combat.
Unfortunately, my disc got trashed, so it'll be a couple days before I can play again. Need to pick up a replacement copy. :/
Outstanding game. I thought the shooting was a bit weak and I didn't like most of the weapons. Otherwise, the skyline was really fun and the story blew me away. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the ending was excellent.
Personally, I wouldn't call the game itself awesome. There are too many niggling little problems (the Halo weapon loadout, general ineffectiveness of un-upgraded explosives, getting stuck to scenery, extremely contextual skyhook activation that's bound to the frickin' jump key yet can't be used mid-jump) that made gameplay disappointing for me. Sure, there were winning vigor/weapon combos, but unless you figure it out, things are gonna be very difficult, especially during the final "boss" fight.
That said, the story is moving, and the ending seems well thought out, especially in retrospect. They didn't just pull this out of their collective asses. If they did, it's one hell of an ass-pull.
I was sitting here for several hours typing what exactly I thought was good and what wasn't good about the final version, but in order to fully comprehend my mindset, I think just writing about it nearly doesn't do it justice. You should come to my house and play it start to finish so I could point out everything good and the things I despised.
Bioshock Infinite bugs me. This obviously has to do with me (my personality) but also with the media that surrounded it, espescially the 10- and 15-minute gameplay demo's that were released pre-launch. How come the games portrayed there looked better, more fun, more heartfelt, more storydriven, more challenging, more atmostpheric, more interactive, more beautiful and more creative than anything I saw in the full game that I bought? I am 100% logic driven, far from being a technical mind. So, with that mindset, the fifteen minute E3 GAMEPLAY DEMO was released in 2011. When you see a trailer, showing in-game footage that good, for a game that would be released in 2013, how is it possible that what I got was something so much weaker and so much more underwhelming?
Everything. Every single thing that was good about the trailers, even the story, got ripped out and replaced by something else or dumbed down. I developed more feelings for Elizabeth in 25 minutes of footage than most people ever had for three Half-Life games starring Alyx Vance (to Valve's credit, the games are very old now). The Elizabeth of v1.0 isn't the same of the trailers. And I'm not talking about her curves, I'm talking about how much more interactivity there was in the trailers. Yes, there is interactivity with her in the game but not nearly as much or as in-depth in the trailers. In the final product she is reduced to a glorified gimmick. She only sings a couple of songs and they get repetitive REALLY quick: "OMG An Automaton I can control.", "O there, medicine.", "There are some sniper rifles.", "I'm angry/ mildly annoyed at you because you kill people/ risk your life to protect me/ just overwhelmed by a surge of not-caring for you." Oh yeah, and I'll protect Comstock for no valid reason and when you'll want to make us happy, get a change of heart and want to take me to Paris I'll be all "meh" about it.
Which was a shame because the few microscopic crumbs of combat interactions Irrational kept was REALLY enjoyable, quickly handing me weapons and medicine to let the action flow nicely and I LOVED her character and personality in the first act (Beginning to Fink).
*explosion of fantastic visuals and art direction.*
"Wha..."
"Hallelujah." and then the subtle piano music.
I get goosebumps on my body and a shivering down my spine. Then a beautiful thought comes in your mind: "I'm actually playing the game I waited so long for." Bioshock Infinite could have been the perfect game for me. The perfect amalgamation of a deep story that teaches me something, a beautiful adventure, real emotions such as anger, hatred, love, humor, fear, happiness... and a heartfelt, almost tangible, unforgettable relationship with a fictional character.
I get this feeling people are so excited and putting Irrational on a bed of rosepetals because they made a decent game with a complicated plot just for the sake of being complicated, while in fact Bioshock Infinite could have been so much more, and I don't think it's wise to praise a developer for that. It's as if I would make the first Avengers movie and I showed you all of the trailers that came out for it and all the final product had was Aquaman.
And also, thank you for not instantly calling me a troll in your reply.
Maybe this is the result of too much expectation? I thought the game was really, really good, I play a lot of games and Infinite is one of the few that stand out for me. That said, I always, always refuse to see trailers, videos and ANY pre-release info for games (and movies) I'm interested in. I prefer to just experience it when it's available, without forming too much expectation beforehand.
If Irrational took out some additional interaction it was probably because it worked on demos, but did not work well in the full game.
Of course, you have every right to think it's average.
Hence, extremely contextual skyhook activation. Compare, if you will, to Arkham City's grapple gun. Yeah, it was contextual too, but it had a relatively large radius, and its own button. Hence, you couldn't screw it up into a jump or another action.
Another example of how contextual movement/controls can be better than Bioshock Infinite's: still in Arkham City, only this time, let's talk about jumping and gliding. Both these actions are bound to the Run button. The reason they work so well in AC is because the default action of the button is run. If you held it down when you came to a jump-off point, then your movement would immediately change to a jump and/or glide.
Brilliant game. Elizabeth is one of the most "lovable" female characters I've ever seen, and come to think of it, is one of my favorite characters in video games full stop. Booker was excellent as well, Comstock was a good villain.
Also, I have to say this goes right into my top 3 best looking/sounding games ever. The moment when a lady starts singing a certain classic rock song made me poo my pants out of sheer glee.
One thing that I found odd: it was not a manly tears ending for me, unlike mass effect. I'm not saying the ending wasn't fucking brilliant, because it was, but I was a tiny bit surprised that I did not get all emotional like a little girl.
There we go; I know, dirty cyberpunk Untermensch, off too the camps with me.
Okay, first of TLDRers, this review isn't for you. I don't know if you'll like the game or not. The shooting bits are fun but actual challenge is few and far between. But it is pretty, so if you like shooty fun with pretty vistas and stuff, buy it.
If you're like me and need a bit of meat; it's there, but not in the places all the reviews are saying. Still it's got my recommendation, if only so you can add your voice to mine.
From here on in, anything with a spoiler tag is heavy spoilers, like ridiculously so. Don't click them if you haven't played the game.
Alright, so its a good game; but is it ten outta fukken ten? Hell no. The amount of praise that this has gotten around the industry feels more like the quality starved pleas rather than legitimate praise.
I have played it, before we start. I've pretty much denied myself the hype so I went into it blind.
From a mechanical stand point I know that we all hate escort missions; but the fact that Elizabeth is completely ignored by the enemy is a bit off putting. It's a bit like she wasn't there. we could attribute to her abilities but still; it felt off. I'd rather not have one long escort mission but it would be nice if the enemy NPCs would at least acknowledge her existence and give one or two shots in her direction once in a while; Then I could at least pretend that I was protecting her. But, as it was, Elizabeth's existence in the world felt a little disjointed.
The problem escort missions isn't that you have to worry about someone; its more that that someone has poor AI, is unhelpful, or we don't care about them at all and the escort mission has no emotional weight. Or some combination of the three. Now I didn't care about Elizabeth, that's another issue entirely, but the fact that the combat AI ignored her broke the immersion. This is a shame as the game play has some really solid, unique ideas in it too.
This took most of the tension out of the game, and created a disjoint between game play and narrative, which, again, is such a shame as they nailed it in other places. I know, "shitty escort mission", but it would have been a lot more tense if you had to keep her in your peripheral vision. The way you do a good escort mission is make us care about the character we're protecting and don't make them stupid. If Tell Tail's The Walking Dead had been in a similar format I don't think any of us would mind escorting Clementine around; 'specially if she chucked us ammo when we needed it.
I felt there was a bit of a peculiar pacing when it came to Character Arcs that really dropped me out of the game.
Dewitt get's Liz to follow him by finding out she has "Dreams of seeing Paris", bit cliche, but okay, its 1912 and all naive educated young girls from 1912 want to run away to Paris. Then over the course of a few chapters Dewitt does actually explain that he's in debt with some people, he explains that these people have hired him to get her out. Now, Elizabeth is not stupid; in fact they go out of their way to make this quite clear. She's naive but she's a fast learner. Was she really surprised when Dewitt set a course for New York?
I did like the crocodile tear bit; "wow, stellar voice acting!" I said as Dewitt moved over to comfort Elizabeth... and then she smacks Dewitt with a wrench, "huh, so it was meant to sound fake, there you go!".
Now we could write it off as she did know and was playing Dewitt the whole time, but the issue that you have there is that you've characterised this person as naive and for good reason, she's had little contact with any other human being. There should have been little signs if nothing else that she was doubting Dewitt's intentions because she'd be a poor liar, you've got the VA talent to pull it off, you've put half your animation budget into Elizabeth's eyes... you know? Considering how subtle you are (that's sarcasm) with the themes of the game, you could of helped us out any more if that was you intent.
Whatever the reason the character shift seemed so jarring, be it failure to show it in the animations and voice over or because the writers can't write a rational character arc it seemed it was contrived all for one cliche line of dialogue.
"You are a thug Mr Dewitt"
At that moment my immersion was irrevocably dropped, and because Elizabeth was now a tool for cliche set pieces and combat I just stopped caring about her as a person and started thinking of her as something akin to the motion tracker in Halo.
What initially seemed like "subtle"(I use the word losely) symbolism, like in the original Bio Shock, became insultingly overt. I'll admit that the Objectivist Libertarian Dystopia of the original Bio Shock went over my head because I was doing Lit and was sick of plot analysis at the time, but who's the target audience of this? A lot of the exposition about the symbolism happens when you hang around an area as well, so its like the designers of these exposition pieces were like.
Focus Tester: "Hey rather than let the player come to his own conclusion about what we're alluding to, lets just tell them!"
World Builder: "Well, what if they just move on? I mean we can't break gameplay for my metaphorical self gratification."
FT: "Then he's probably just into the gameplay and not into the themes we're trying to explain."
WB: "But the guy who's hanging around gets exposition, the guy who's trying to take this world I've created, and soak it all up?"
FT: "Well we have to make sure they all get your message!"
WB: "By telling them what to think about what we're showing them? Do you get the subtext? Are you being meta or something?"
Character Writer: "Hey, we could make Elizabeth make the observations! It would re-enforce that she's educated hey!"
The Ubermensch: "You get out, I've already explained why you're a failure. Just go"
WB: "Do what you think, you have my notes, just give me my money."
My example is the Battle Bay chapter. First warning sign was when tweedledee and tweedledum offer you the choice of broach Elizabeth puts on her collar, "The bird or the cage?". Why I do say chaps; how subtle and deep! Elizabeth then says "Which one Mr Dewitt? I like the bird but there's something about the cage I really like!". Elizabeth's dialogue wasn't that bad; it showed that while she was glad to get out, she was already nostalgic for that gilded cage. I do like the couple lost in space time too, they were one of the highlights of the game. And by it's self it wasn't that bad, it was quite overt but it wasn't spelt out.
I chose bird, and granted given there could be an in game metaphor about caging the metal bird, but at that stage the robot bird hadn't been established enough, and while I haven't seen what happens if you pick "Cage" if the argument is that some dialogue changes and Elizabeth doesn't ask you to kill her if she's about to be taken again... well that's a bit of a poor position.
But you know what would be good; if the dialogue during that scene changes depending on whether or not you kill the captain guy. If you killed him; Dewitt says "yes" with out any hesitation, if you spared him Dewitt avoids giving a solid answer.
Later, when Fink power orb fails just after the lock picking tutorial, you're wandering around an exhibit and there is a little mock up display of Columbia. Elizabeth says something along the lines of "Teach the children war and duty and even in their old age they will fight for you". It felt like the writers were going "LOOK, LOOK AT THIS! THIS IS FASCISM! FUKKEN 'MURICA! LOOK HOW DEEP WE'RE BEING!"
Oh, but the really bit problem was it messed up the immersion set up by the tutorial level; which was amazing and I'll get to that. But one part in particular, just after you get out of the monastery theirs a large statue of the antagonist. In it's shade a mother was sitting with her boy and she says "It's not about whether or not you like it, it's your duty to go". It keeps building; you get a sense that these people are being dehumanised, living in a Steampunk Orwellian Dystopia. The fact that they outright had to say it I felt was an insult to my intelligence and I stopped paying attention to a lot of the world building. If they were just going to spell everything out for me why should I waste the effort?
Which was a real shame considering the world building was one of the best parts.
And I was right too.
The part at Fink industries? I called the ghetto the instant I saw that the animations on the men scrubbing the deck were in unison, and almost called word for word what one of Finks announcements were.
"If anyone tells you 'You're being taken for a ride' you turn around and you tell him; I ain't no fool! I'm a Fink man!"
Yes, I get it, this society is dehumanising people, thank you! You know what would work better? Like if everyone felt a little off, like they were all just a bit robotic, but not quite, firmly in the uncanny valley. You know, like you did in the TUTORIAL LEVEL. Who ever was in charge of that level, PUT THAT ON YOUR RESUME. You put the rest of the game to shame
Now on to the ending. Yes it was a Gainax ending, but Evangelion is my second favourite anime. Yes; the time shenanigans were a bit messy and it is my belief that Andrew Hussie should be the only one allowed to use aforementioned time shenanigans but they weren't that bad; I was a little peeved about how the time loop wasn't completed properly and the entire game's events became meaningless, but I'm to used to Hussie. There was also a bit of postmodernist meta philosophy there to, so I'd appreciate it if the writers had proved they had the right to wield it, like Hussie.
Have I told you about Homestuck?
Let me tell you about Homestuck;
BACK WHEN I PLAYED SGRUB, I SMOKED WEED ERRY DAY
I CHEATED EVERY QUEST
AND SNORTED ALL THE YAY
Thing is I had called what was going on, I knew Dewitt and Comstock were the same. After Dewitt smashed Comstocks head against the bird feeder, you know what the first thing I did after I got control back? Checked his hands for the AD scar. Now you could say that he had a robot hand or time shenanigans fixed it, but we're not told that and there is no precedence for realistic looking mechanical limbs so that really messed up the ending for me.
If I'm looking for these details and all you had to do was make it so Comstock wore gloves, you sir, are a strange man who doesn't want to be taken seriously. It is again, a shame because the game does a lot to put you in to Dewitt's head, and Dewitt is a man who looks for the truth in things. They could of had a moment where he's about to take off the glove but turns to cowardice; not wanting to know. It would have been obvious but its better than omitting that detail, and I have to think it was an on purpose omission, because as I said the world building has phenomenal detail, something like this would not be missed.
Perhaps it was a metaphor thing? Dewitt is responsible for Comstock's existence and they are connected ala Cloud Atlas/butterfly effect? If so murdering Comstock as a child would still end everything; Yes it's a bit morbid but you can't make the argument "There will be another!". Comstock was a special kind of lunatic.
Unfortunately that kind of lunatic has the seat of power in the western world, so again, Dewitts death in either case is futile.
Also the fact that your memories aren't actually your memories trope in Bioshock... It was good the first time; don't get me started on how much I love the scene where kill Ryan "A Man Chooses, A Slave Obeys!"... But it's over done now.
Now thats out of the way... the good things:
The gameplay is fun, AI's pretty smart, it's not as difficult as the escapist reviewer say's it is and the tension is dropped away because of the Bioshocks trademarked revive system.
Infact most tension I had was the fear of being dropped out of the game and having to sit through the symbolic exposition again! Yes, say what you want about my rig; 20 AI on the screen with DX 11 effects, running at ultra settings and getting 100 FPS, while walking down an empty corridor with about 20 assets on the screen it drops down to about 3 FPS? Yes, my rig, okay.
Wait, this was supposed to be the good part!
Gameplay's good! It's accessible! Even though it would still be accessible if people played it on easy but hey!
World building is phenomenal; you can tell the team that did it loved what they were doing.
As I've said, the tutorial is perfect. So well designed I didn't even realise I was in a tutorial until I was just about done and said "Hang on, I just learnt the basics of combat and how Plasmids work in this game, good thing; it's been a while since I played Bioshock" (didn't know they were called vigors yet, well I did from the snake oil man, but hadn't made the connection).
Forgetting the light house, that wasn't all that special, aside from the notes probably being written by Tweeledee and Tweedledum. No the part is when you enter the monastery, the fact that the water covered steps were a bit unsafe looking did little... Basically, due to the themes of the game they used the fact that NPCs haven't left the uncanny valley quite well; it was all off putting and had a very Orwellian feel to it. Then you exit the river and after your baptismal, everyone's praying, chanting words. As a former Christian I found this very creepy. Pagan, before you start. You can blame the odd weather on me american's, I forgot to sacrifice a goat on the equinox.
You go out of the monastery and over hear a few conversations and you subtly get a feel for the politics in the world, the mother talking to her son; telling him it's his duty to serve, the guy talking about the state of affairs in Columbia.
Dewitt also has a bit of a monologue where he tells us he's an atheist, or rather doesn't worship god. Splendid, we're character building.
Then you come across a shop with some health items in it; there's a basket with a note saying "Honour system". This was brilliant because you have an opportunity to decide what kind of man Dewitt is. He's already noticed how dehumanised the inhabitants of Columbia are, does he accept this and steal from the basket? Does he just take what he needs and leave the basket? Or, and I tripped out when I saw this, does he put some money back in the basket? It was such a small thing but did a lot to attach me to the character, and helped me forget about Nathan Drake. Gold Star who ever decided to include that. Unfortunately; I ended up stealing out of the basket anyway because my new mouse wasn't set up properly, but that's my fault, not the games.
Companies that make their money off story, Bioware, Bethesda, Square Enix, I'm looking at you, this thing, detail, it's important.
Then we go to a fair; where you have the option of using guns and vigors to play games. There's even a tent that explains how record mechanic of exposition works, and for foreshadows one of the most annoying enemy's in the game. What I said about the tension being low is true aside from when a handy man was on the field.
You just taught me how to shoot, how the shooting mechanics work, and how vigors work; all while building the world and giving it character. Well done, I can't tell you how perfect this was.
Now the moral choices have gotten a bit of flak, mainly because they don't do anything in the game. I cannot stress that they are good BECAUSE of this. We're beyond binary interpretations of good and evil. There is a part where you throw the ball at the mixed race couple no matter what you choose a guard grabs you hand and points you out as the "False Shepard".
Sorry chaps, this was brilliant. They reinforced the fact that Dewitt had to blend in with the inhabitants through his monologue. There's about fifty brainwashed denizens surrounding you that, if you decide to go against their opinions, will descend upon you. In my very correct opinion, Dewitt was a logical man just wanting to get the job done. Yes, it was a little messy, but their fate was sealed; no point in risking myself.
So you decide to throw at the couple, and rationalise it quickly. As you pull back to throw a guard grabs you and accuses you of being the false "Shepard" by the scar on your hand and, as they say; shit goes tits up yo.
The way this happened was brilliant, because you knew that even if you chose differently the same thing was going to happen; it was the act of winding up for the throw that exposed you, not the throwing itself. This pulled the rational for throwing the ball at the couple from under your feet; and you have the potential for an intense moment of refection.
Let us move to the bird and the cage broach; you can decide, again, what kind of person Dewitt is. The cage pendant is made from gold and Liz expressed that she liked it, The bird is silver but symbolises freedom. Is Dewitt purely objective (By jobe, it's gold!) or does he have a sentimental side?
Shooting the Captain guy, again, is he Objective? What's his opinion on human life? We're also given a bit of context before this and we can take this into consideration if we choose.
Yes, you might only get a little bit of different dialogue out of it, and its undermined by A the choice in Voice Actor and B the sloppy character development, but who ever wrote the morality dilemmas, its not their fault. They did a very good job.
We're past light or dark side points now, we can make our own judgements about what's moral and what's not. Beyond Good and Evil.
And that's it. In conclusion this is the bare minimum we should expect from a story driven game. You should buy it but please stop proclaiming it as the Citizen Kane of games. Yes it's the most coherent narrative we've seen in a while, but the Citizen Kane of gaming will always go to Star Trek Voyager; Elite Force, and don't say "Well then it's the god father", because no, that goes to GTA4. Sleeping Dogs gets God Father two if its is better, which admittedly I have yet to play, Half Life gets Star Trek the Motion Picture (from me that's a complement) and Half Life 2 gets The Wrath of Khan.
Please, consumers, buy it but demand more. Only that way will we get the equivalent of Neon Genesis Evangelion for games.
In the video gaming industry that I want, it would get a 7 out of 10
I'll only be satisfied when video games reach the level where they can actively compete or even surpass film as an art form. This game is certainly above it's contemporaries but it's not even close to being beyond criticism as metacritic would have people believe. Overall I'm glad the game is scoring and selling so well but that's certainly no reason why we shouldn't try to hold it to a higher standard. I'm very pleased that there are others willing to do this.
I think the answer for everybody should be a game that doesn't exist....yet. Video games are only 40 years old, when movies were 40 years old it was the 1920's and they didn't even have sound. Movies were just getting to the point where they were becoming cohesive narratives which is what the video game industry is struggling to do now, to consistently evoke emotion and thought in a story-line without becoming cliche. If we compare Infinite to something like D.W. Griffith's Intolerance(which might even be a slight at Intolerance), we still have a long way to go if the medium grows at the same rate before we are really producing games that could arguably be called the best of all time, the ones that future generations will compare all others to.
But yeah, I think I've proved that I was paying attention and that I'm not stupid. If the narrative failed to convey that piece of information then I think I've shown that it's because a failing of the narrative, not me. Some one said; "well if you collect all the Voxiphones it makes sense" which isn't good enough for me because that was a criticle piece of information. Now I'm not saying that all games need to be quite overt in there explanations of what's going on, but if you're going to explain something like your deep symbolism too me then I expect you've put the same effort into telling your narrative too.
As I said, the only person who get's to use multi universes is Andrew Hussie, because every single other thing they've been used hasn't been good. Time Shenanigans not so much, but multi universes no.
But your right, Comstock is an alt Dewitt that took the baptism.
Loved the game, but you know, after finishing it, I thought how much better the ending would've been if...
... they did something like in the movie Oldboy ; )
Now, that would've been fan-fucking-tastic.
But that's probably just the sick bastard in me. In actuality that probably would've been too drastic a tonal change (the game is dark, but jesus not that dark)
Zhukov said:
Adam Jensen said:
Mr Mystery Guest said:
Has anyone else found the guitar yet? Elizabeth really can sing.
I didn't really think it was out of place. I thought it was meant to be a nice change of pace from all the fighting and chaos, and I appreciated it. That was probably my favorite part in the game. I like it when games/films/etc. include nice little character moments like that.
]I didn't really think it was out of place. I thought it was meant to be a nice change of pace from all the fighting and chaos, and I appreciated it. That was probably my favorite part in the game. I like it when games/films/etc. include nice little character moments like that.
Except I don't think it was a character moment. I'm pretty sure it was an easter egg for the benefit of anyone who happened to click on the guitar.
It was cute and all, but it made absolutely no sense for them to just sit down in a basement and start singing at that moment. It was out of character. All the more so since their wasn't any dialogue surrounding it.
I... was not that impressed by Bioshock Infinite...
It felt like the original game except you in a city above the sea level and not below it. The story... was interesting until I tried to figure out the plot specific tears and the logic didn't agree with my head. The game had atmosphere, but not as much as the original. The vigors are just plasmids, the upgrade mechanic is average. The gunplay is fine, but when I got to the 'Protect the ********' mission with special guest, and found out that the mechanic didn't work until you hear Elizabeth say that the guest has finished stretching their legs, it just went straight downhill. There was a part of conversation between Booker and Elizabeth that gets 'forgotten' by the characters early on which confused the hell out of me.
Better than average, but I am enjoying Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time much more than Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider (Farcry 3 with corridors with the main character that cannot climb over a cliff edge without the light bouncing of her arse in the most 'pleasant way')
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
![[Kira Must Die]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/68/68539.jpg?1620622912){kind=avatar}