Bioshock Infinite

**FirstBlood** · 03 Apr 2013, 03:59 PM

Why are you judging people's reactions to spoilers that you don't understand.

God you're the worst.

**Tain** · 03 Apr 2013, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Well... it's a different game. It's much more straight action where the first one tried the be more of a simulation, with complex AI that did stuff with or without you. This one just has waves of enemies that spawn and swarm you and can see you 1000 feet away. It also suffers from that Ludonarrative dissonance thing where the first didn't so much.

It does a lot of things better than the first, but they're both great games in their own way.

Talking with some friends today and reading this made me realize that I have forgotten a lot of things about the original Bioshock, lol. I still think they're plenty comparable and all of them are pretty straightforward action games with light amounts of exploration and character management, but there's definitely a shift in focus. The prior two had you often not upsetting the big daddies, approaching enemies preoccupied with other things, going through more consistently open environments.

**Rumpy** · 03 Apr 2013, 05:29 PM

I missed the weapon variety in Infinite that 1 and 2 had. Two of each type of weapon is lazy, and made upgrading needlessly spread out. I really missed the trip wires, but I can see taking out the mines for the secondary vigor function. I also missed the upgrades physically changing the guns.

**JefmcC** · 03 Apr 2013, 06:55 PM

Finished it, and while I liked it, the game left me underwhelmed. Bioshock 1 and 2 are better games and overall "experiences".

The rails were the best and boldest idea in the game. Problem is they were very underutilized.

The game seems to go out of it's way to take you out of the immersion they tried so hard to create. Why is the game world seemingly made of steel reinforced concrete? At the very least, some boxes and crates should have basic physics to them, or be able to be blown up. 1 and 2 were the same way, but this should have been added for Infinite.

It's cool having Elizabeth chase you around and throw stuff at you, but dam, the Alex Vance did that YEARS ago! And just as good, if not better.

Again, I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm just not getting the "most important video game ever!" vibe that was all over the net a few weeks ago.

I guess this EDGE article sums up what I felt about Infinite...
http://www.edge-online.com/features/...-so-important/

**Joust Williams** · 03 Apr 2013, 07:31 PM

So because he doesn't know that people often use one oar each, the opening makes no sense? OK.

**JefmcC** · 03 Apr 2013, 08:04 PM

LOL. OK, that's not the bit I agree with.

**bbobb** · 03 Apr 2013, 08:45 PM

I can't pick up every single thing I see everywhere in the game!!!!!

WORST GAME EVER

**Cowutopia** · 03 Apr 2013, 08:56 PM

I get what Edge is saying. And he is right to a point. I wish more things were "interactive" even if the only result is flavor dialogue. And yeah, it's "gamey" right off the bat with coins to pick up, but I don't mind that. It is in my nature as a gamer to check the corners anyway, and I prefer it when games have the decency to reward my natural explorative tendencies with rewards beyond flat background art. Why make an area you can go to without some reason for you going there? They could have narrowed your pathway, but whatever. This guy is silly for calling a game out on being a game. I thought the opening was awesome. All the way through to the lottery.

Half life 1 is what I compared this game to. Hl1 is probably still a stronger game.

The other point made by TNL is more important. Enemy ai in bioshock was a lot more interesting. I don't know if infinite lost out because there are a LOT MORE npc's here, but bioshock with its wandering characters acting all on their own interests musing their business was better at that aspect than infinite, for sure. It's STILL ok though. The games are a little different. Infinite is much more of a fast paced thrill ride. I'm good with that.