Posted by Letter11 (29 posts) -

The first thing I need to get out of the way here is that I love BioShock Infinite, totally, and completely. Whatever faults it has, have become similar to the endearing quirks in a person that you adore. They make them who they are. You accept them as part of the whole.

Press any key, to have a great time.

Now if you asked me to point out the "character flaws" inherent in BioShock Infinite, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you. Because I don't really see them anymore, if they are even there. I just see a game that captivated me from start to finish, and a narrative that left me lost in thought for days.

Videogames however, like all art forms, are subjective. I can have an experience and perspective that completely differs from yours, and thus we arrive at two entirely different conclusions. The thing is though, for some reason with other mediums I don't find myself getting as defensive when someone takes the harsh scalpel of criticism to my pronounced object of affection.

Some would I suppose, dub this the "fanboy effect".

This article went up on Kotaku, and I found myself extremely irked by it.

http://kotaku.com/the-problem-with-bioshock-infinites-combat-468530143

It was as if someone was attempting to undermine my enjoyment of the game, and the wonderful feelings I felt during my play through. I began to question myself and my ability to discern good game mechanics from bad ones. But fortunately, I took a deep breath and started thinking.

Seriously Elizabeth, you're the best.

Perhaps with videogames especially, the subjectivity found in all mediums is intensely amplified. Many modern games have so many variables creating emergent experiences, that coupled with the individual and their playing style can lead to drastically different perspectives. What about that moment when I was backed into a corner, shields down, barely alive, and Elizabeth throws me salts at just the right moment to launch a life saving assault of murderous birds straight out of a Hitchcock film. What if that was the moment that solidified my love for the game? What if you didn't experience it?

When there is a film I'm rather partial to, I can always point to a scene and tell you why the mood, or visuals or dialogue make it something that I'm fond of. And if you don't see the same thing as I do when we look at that moment, I can reconcile that by simply telling myself our viewpoints are different. But with a game these moments are so fleeting, so ephemeral, how can I bring myself to understand your point of view when honestly we may not even have experienced the same thing? It makes me angry, and it makes me defensive. Was I wrong? Is my opinion foolish?

I've always wondered why we get so irate about attacks on our favorite games and maybe if I can understand what makes me feel this way, I can better accept the multitude of varying opinions out there.

What you do you think? Do you ever get upset when someone disparages something you like?

Thanks for reading, this is my first ever attempt at the blog format.

#1 Edited by John1912 (1854 posts) -

It depends. Sometimes shit just rubs you the wrong way. I think usually when people miss the core of the experience that you enjoyed, or dismiss something you love out right.

I did enjoy Infinite, but sadly I think it was my least fav out of the 3. Story was good, pulled together with a great ending. My problem with the game was in many ways it didnt feel like a Bioshock game. The combat and the pacing felt much more rushed then the past games. It felt too much like a run of the mill FPS.

It was hard seeing Tonics/Vigors really taking a back seat when they were so key to the downfall of Rapture, as well as who the people were. Tonics played no part in the story what so ever. They felt thrown in because they had to be there.

It felt off too in that the people and the city were not really what I would call a core experience to the game. It didnt help that time lines were changing making them both feel rather faceless in the end. Some of that goes back to the tonics as well. The people were deformed, and crazy. The people you were fighting were actual citizens of Rapture in the who had a background, and a personality. In Infinite its just run of the mill faceless troops.

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive. It didnt feel right in Infinite.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3630 posts) -

Kotaku will write anything for page hits. It's why I no longer visit that site.

#3 Edited by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

Just embrace it dude, I enjoyed the combat and that's all that matters to me. Some people have this negative stigma attached to FPS's where it has to be doing at least ten amazing things at once in order to be considered "good."

#4 Edited by Milkman (16618 posts) -

I mean, as long as you don't attack people or anything like that, I don't think there is anything wrong with being passionate about a game you really like. The balance is making sure you don't cross the line between being passionate and being an asshole. But it's perfectly natural to be defensive when you feel that something you love is being attacked. Personally, outside of a couple exceptions, I liked the combat a lot and don't really agree with the Kotaku article either but that's fine.

It's also healthy to sometimes read criticism about things you love, even if it does make a little angry. For example, I read this article criticizing a lot of Infinite today. I don't agree with all of it. Hell, I don't agree with most of it and I even felt the tone comes off as a bit obnoxious at times. But despite that, parts of it allowed me to look at Infinite in a different way, specifically the part criticizing the game's handling of the Vox Populi. I won't get into specifics because I don't want to spoil anything but looking back, I do think that the Vox Populi and the subject of racism is really poorly handled throughout the game. It's something I never considered or even really thought about while playing the game. I still love BioShock Infinite but sometimes recognizing the flaws within something you feel strongly about can give you a better perspective of these outside criticisms.

#5 Posted by probablytuna (3600 posts) -

I'm currently playing through the game and I'm having a hard time with the controls. The gunplay and movements do not feel good to me, especially when I have played shooters like Farcry 3 where the combat is equally fast yet much better designed.

@john1912 said:

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive.

I actually like the hacking from Bioshock, I thought it broke up the pacing of the game and allowed players to actually have something else to do rather than murder dudes. Hacking in that game meant you could turn some enemies into allies, and also reduce prices in vending machines. In Infinite, I'm restricted to having to spend salt to possess vending machines so it spits out money (which results in me exploiting the salt dispenser machine every time I use the vigor) and also I'm desperately searching for more lock picks because apparently some safes require five lock picks in order to open. In this regard, Infinite just feels like a major step back.

#6 Edited by prapin (32 posts) -

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

#7 Edited by MEATBALL (3158 posts) -
@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Sweet argument.

Online
#8 Posted by StarvingGamer (8128 posts) -

It depends on tone. If it's an "I didn't like it, and here's why" sort of thing, great. I appreciate the different perspective. If it's more "You shouldn't like it, and here's why" or worse "You shouldn't like it because it sucks that's why" then I can get a little riled up. Unfortunately on the internet it seems much easier to get the latter rather than the former.

#9 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5352 posts) -

@letter11 said:

The first thing I need to get out of the way here is that I love BioShock Infinite, totally, and completely. Whatever faults it has, have become similar to the endearing quirks in a person that you adore. They make them who they are. You accept them as part of the whole.

Bad or middling gameplay can't be construed as "charming" particularly when over half the game is combat sequences and there's a large section of the middle that says "haha fuck you, you want story? Here's more combat! AND MORE COMBAT!" Though to be fair the original Bioshock had that too, but the combat didn't feel as exhausting or time consuming. Now severely underrated gameplay that's a different thing entirely; I've started playing Trinity: Souls of Zill O'll, possessor of a 55 score on metacritic and it has great music, impressive graphics, and utterly superb gameplay. But you won't see a legion of fanboys praising that game, chances are you've never even heard of it.

#10 Posted by prapin (32 posts) -

@meatball said:
@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Sweet argument.

OP had no argument either so there's nothing to say here.

His feelings are just ravaged because other people do not have his biased views.

Nothing we can do.

#11 Edited by ahab88 (239 posts) -

If you have to ask the question, then the answer is yes.

#12 Edited by John1912 (1854 posts) -

@probablytuna said:
@john1912 said:

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive.

I actually like the hacking from Bioshock, I thought it broke up the pacing of the game and allowed players to actually have something else to do rather than murder dudes. Hacking in that game meant you could turn some enemies into allies, and also reduce prices in vending machines. In Infinite, I'm restricted to having to spend salt to possess vending machines so it spits out money (which results in me exploiting the salt dispenser machine every time I use the vigor) and also I'm desperately searching for more lock picks because apparently some safes require five lock picks in order to open. In this regard, Infinite just feels like a major step back.

I thought it was good enough to pass the time. I mainly bashed on it a bit as most people seem think it was worthless. I think it slowing the game down, and adding a change to the tone of the game was its best part as well. The tone esp. It did just enough to make 1-2 not feel like a standard shooter. That really made no hacking, picks, and using the charm vigor on the machines that much worse. I really hated the picks, and handing that off to Anna.Hated not scaveging for Atom as well. The whole upgrade system in Infinite felt soo off to me from the other 2.

#13 Posted by cmpLtNOOb (195 posts) -

It depends on tone. If it's an "I didn't like it, and here's why" sort of thing, great. I appreciate the different perspective. If it's more "You shouldn't like it, and here's why" or worse "You shouldn't like it because it sucks that's why" then I can get a little riled up. Unfortunately on the internet it seems much easier to get the latter rather than the former.

@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Huh.

#14 Edited by Letter11 (29 posts) -

Hey everyone, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post. It means a lot to me. I want to respond to everyone so here goes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@john1912 said:

It depends. Sometimes shit just rubs you the wrong way. I think usually when people miss the core of the experience that you enjoyed, or dismiss something you love out right.

I did enjoy Infinite, but sadly I think it was my least fav out of the 3. Story was good, pulled together with a great ending. My problem with the game was in many ways it didnt feel like a Bioshock game. The combat and the pacing felt much more rushed then the past games. It felt too much like a run of the mill FPS.

It was hard seeing Tonics/Vigors really taking a back seat when they were so key to the downfall of Rapture, as well as who the people were. Tonics played no part in the story what so ever. They felt thrown in because they had to be there.

It felt off too in that the people and the city were not really what I would call a core experience to the game. It didnt help that time lines were changing making them both feel rather faceless in the end. Some of that goes back to the tonics as well. The people were deformed, and crazy. The people you were fighting were actual citizens of Rapture in the who had a background, and a personality. In Infinite its just run of the mill faceless troops.

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive. It didnt feel right in Infinite.

I think you made a point that rings to the core of what normally can stir up the fanboy in me. The complete and outright dismissal of something I have great affection for really riles me up. This is usually represented by an anonymous hyperbolic internet comment like "that shit sucks", but I've known people in the physical world to completely trash something without even taking a moment to understand why someone might appreciate it. The article I referenced is well thought out critique though, so kudos to it's author.

Unfortunately I haven't played BioShock 2 so I can't comment on that, but your point about Vigors taking a back seat to the plot in contrast to the other games I completely agree with. I think this was because in BioShock much of the narrative was delivered passively. The story was found in the recovered tapes and exploration of new areas. In this way the discovery of a new Tonic to feel like a new pillar to the story. However with Infinite because Columbia was still very much alive when you got there, it was always meant to be a character driven plot line. More of the story is delivered to you through Elizabeth and other characters so the Vigors became more about adding the improvisational nature to the combat, than to be the crux of the plot. The downfall of Columbia would have happened with or without vigors, but in Rapture the tonics are arguably what caused the whole mess. The trade off to me, was a worthy one. I simply found BioShock Infinite's story to be more compelling.

The splicers and big daddies were extremely interesting foes, I can't argue with that at all. And I think that stems from the plot which centered around the Tonics as we discussed, but I think Infinte takes some fantastic steps to make your enemies interesting as well. The Vox Populi to me are fascinating in that, for much of the game I was rooting for them, only to see them succumb to the madness of power lust. Every time I killed them I felt conflicted, a feeling I never encountered in my battles with the splicers. The general motivations of the extremely devout police force were interesting to me, though I would concede there may not have been as much characterization as the original Bioshock's foes. I think even Ken Levine realized this and placed some very intriguing voxophones, like the woman who snares you in the trap in Battleship Bay (immediately after the beach sequence) to give some of them a personal touch.

I really enjoyed the hacking mini games too, but I think it was a conscious decision to have Elizabeth lock pick for you to help make her more endearing to you as a player. Whether or not the trade off of this game mechanic was a worthy sacrifice is a matter of personal opinion, and well, you already know what I think.

And finally, I do think the scavenging of supplies in the original Bioshock contributed to its post-Rapture atmosphere, but in any game I play I like to collect items in general so it didn't really impact my experience regardless of the new setting. Besides, I think watching Columbia fall is just as intriguing if not more so than exploring the ruins of the once great Rapture.

On to the next one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kotaku will write anything for page hits. It's why I no longer visit that site.

They do seem to have a penchant for sensationalist journalism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just embrace it dude, I enjoyed the combat and that's all that matters to me. Some people have this negative stigma attached to FPS's where it has to be doing at least ten amazing things at once in order to be considered "good."

You're absolutely right. I will embrace it. I think in reading the responses, I'm getting better at internalizing another person's opinion does not invalidate my own, even when we're talking about game mechanics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@milkman said:

I mean, as long as you don't attack people or anything like that, I don't think there is anything wrong with being passionate about a game you really like. The balance is making sure you don't cross the line between being passionate and being an asshole. But it's perfectly natural to be defensive when you feel that something you love is being attacked. Personally, outside of a couple exceptions, I liked the combat a lot and don't really agree with the Kotaku article either but that's fine.

It's also healthy to sometimes read criticism about things you love, even if it does make a little angry. For example, I read this article criticizing a lot of Infinite today. I don't agree with all of it. Hell, I don't agree with most of it and I even felt the tone comes off as a bit obnoxious at times. But despite that, parts of it allowed me to look at Infinite in a different way, specifically the part criticizing the game's handling of the Vox Populi. I won't get into specifics because I don't want to spoil anything but looking back, I do think that the Vox Populi and the subject of racism is really poorly handled throughout the game. It's something I never considered or even really thought about while playing the game. I still love BioShock Infinite but sometimes recognizing the flaws within something you feel strongly about can give you a better perspective of these outside criticisms.

I totally agree, personal attacks are childish and put a negative spin on being a fan. But yeah, I think my first response is always to be a little defensive when someone has a different view, but I suppose that's just human nature?

I'm found myself in profound disagreement with the article you linked to, but it was an interesting read none the less. Her points about the game handling the issue of racism to me felt off.

"When your super-liminally racist society ends up being destroyed by the only black characters in the game, who are depicted as violent, white-people-hating, child-murdering savages, you’re just confirming the racist white peoples’ ideas about black people and presenting them as true."

Firstly, the society of Columbia wasn't destroyed by the 'only black characters in the game', it was destroyed by the questionable tenets on which it was founded. Even if there were no black people in Columbia it would have fallen at the hands of the disenfranchised, it's only human nature. Racism is one of the most abhorrent examples of discrimination and was unquestionably prominent during the games setting, so it's only natural to use it in the story of Columbia. Not to mention there are many white members of the Vox Populi.

Perception is fascinating thing. And sometimes I feel like the more we grow as a society in improving tolerance and stamping out bigotry some of us get a little overzealous, and see racism in places where they do not exist. I happen to be black, and I can tell you some of family members do this all the time.

"This cop pulled me over for no reason, he said I was speeding, but I know the real reason why."

"Were you going over the speed limit?"

"Well yeah but, clearly he was a racist."

Perception is fascinating thing. I'm not saying that we've eradicated racism, clearly it's still out there, but sometimes even I see it when it's really not the case.

Daisy Fitzroy isn't crazy because she's black. She's crazy because of everything that happened to her because she happened to be black. The distinction is clear to me. Not to mention there are many white members of the Vox Populi. And if a racist white person happened to be playing Bioshock Infinite, and found solidarity in their beliefs that black people are dangerous savages, there was no hope for them to begin with.

"Centering a story about people of color fighting against racist oppression on a white person and making that white person the agent of the fight’s success is racist."

Wait what? First and foremost the game is about Booker and Elizabeth. It's their story. Columbia and it's struggles regardless of their nature are the whirlwind they happened to be dragged into. Booker says it many times, he wants nothing to do with it. For the Vox Popluli he was just the right man at the right time. Daisy was only interested in him to begin with as a tool, nothing more.

It's weird because I'm happy that she's so adamant about these issues, but she needs to relax and enjoy the story a bit. Also Abraham Lincoln?

Phew, that was exhausting, let's move on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm currently playing through the game and I'm having a hard time with the controls. The gunplay and movements do not feel good to me, especially when I have played shooters like Farcry 3 where the combat is equally fast yet much better designed.

@john1912 said:

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive.

I actually like the hacking from Bioshock, I thought it broke up the pacing of the game and allowed players to actually have something else to do rather than murder dudes. Hacking in that game meant you could turn some enemies into allies, and also reduce prices in vending machines. In Infinite, I'm restricted to having to spend salt to possess vending machines so it spits out money (which results in me exploiting the salt dispenser machine every time I use the vigor) and also I'm desperately searching for more lock picks because apparently some safes require five lock picks in order to open. In this regard, Infinite just feels like a major step back.

I haven't played FarCry 3 yet, so I can't speak to that, but I suppose I just didn't have the same gripes. One thing that I love about the Bioshock series is how you have so many choices in how to engage in combat. FarCry 3 is a wonderful exception (I hear) because of it's open world, but the average shooter gives you a corridor and a gray color pallet to blast "tangos". Not to mention the sky rails and Elizabeth's tears add another dimension to many ways you can tackle an encounter.

I mentioned in my reply to john1912 that I also enjoyed the hacking mini games. However I feel like they were a necessary sacrifice to make Elizabeth more endearing. You need her skills to get what you want. Maybe it's manipulative, but I think it's brilliant. By the way has she found any lock picks for you yet? I love it when she does that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Heh, I think what I've learned from this experiment is that the article is right, you're right, and I'm right. To me, the combat is awesome. Also, I wonder if fanboy will always have to be a negative term?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It depends on tone. If it's an "I didn't like it, and here's why" sort of thing, great. I appreciate the different perspective. If it's more "You shouldn't like it, and here's why" or worse "You shouldn't like it because it sucks that's why" then I can get a little riled up. Unfortunately on the internet it seems much easier to get the latter rather than the former.

Well said. I find myself agitated by those who simply go, "this sucks!" without making any kind of point. I'm trying to learn to ignore them, but sometimes it's just so damn hard! As far as the article I linked to, he does offer a well reasoned argument for his view and I respect that. I mentioned it in a reply above, but I think I'm becoming more comfortable with the fact that someone else's opinion doesn't invalidate my own, even if it is someone with a proper soapbox. But yeah, a real exchange of ideas is hard to come by on the interwebs. Thanks for yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@letter11 said:

The first thing I need to get out of the way here is that I love BioShock Infinite, totally, and completely. Whatever faults it has, have become similar to the endearing quirks in a person that you adore. They make them who they are. You accept them as part of the whole.

Bad or middling gameplay can't be construed as "charming" particularly when over half the game is combat sequences and there's a large section of the middle that says "haha fuck you, you want story? Here's more combat! AND MORE COMBAT!" Though to be fair the original Bioshock had that too, but the combat didn't feel as exhausting or time consuming. Now severely underrated gameplay that's a different thing entirely; I've started playing Trinity: Souls of Zill O'll, possessor of a 55 score on metacritic and it has great music, impressive graphics, and utterly superb gameplay. But you won't see a legion of fanboys praising that game, chances are you've never even heard of it.

I've heard of it! My friend you're talking to someone who spends way to much time scouring the internet for gaming news. (But I haven't played it.) I love that you brought up a game that received some rough attention from the press because I think this is exactly what we need to talk about. You feel that the pacing is of BioShock Infinite is bogged down by the combat sequences, and I (well you already know) don't. Trinity took some hits from the critics but you found in it what you love, and I respect that. Does that make you a Trinity fanboy? Is there anything wrong with that? Does fanboy have to be a negative thing?

I think maybe sometimes we're all a little to cynical. Why can I love a song completely, a movie completely, a painting wholeheartedly; but with a game, I need to step back and look seriously for its shortcomings. Why do we only do this with games? Why am I asking you so many questions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@prapin said:

@meatball said:
@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Sweet argument.

OP had no argument either so there's nothing to say here.

His feelings are just ravaged because other people do not have his biased views.

Nothing we can do.

Right, I wasn't really trying to argue a point as much as make us think about perception when it comes to games. I think of games as art, but for some reason with games we feel some kind of tendency to want a greater consensus on whether something is good or not. Whether it's collective scores on Metacritic or in the forums, if the masses deem it worthy then it is something we are allowed to enjoy. But first, we should think of how it makes us feel. Not to say that other opinions should be ignored, because they are all valid, but when we share our views, we should do it with the understanding that someone else could see it from an entirely different perspective.

Have you ever liked something that other people weren't partial to? Did you ever get defensive about it, regardless of realizing how foolish it is?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ahab88 said:

If you have to ask the question, then the answer is yes.

I'm not really sure I can argue with this logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@john1912 said:

@probablytuna said:
@john1912 said:

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive.

I actually like the hacking from Bioshock, I thought it broke up the pacing of the game and allowed players to actually have something else to do rather than murder dudes. Hacking in that game meant you could turn some enemies into allies, and also reduce prices in vending machines. In Infinite, I'm restricted to having to spend salt to possess vending machines so it spits out money (which results in me exploiting the salt dispenser machine every time I use the vigor) and also I'm desperately searching for more lock picks because apparently some safes require five lock picks in order to open. In this regard, Infinite just feels like a major step back.

I thought it was good enough to pass the time. I mainly bashed on it a bit as most people seem think it was worthless. I think it slowing the game down, and adding a change to the tone of the game was its best part as well. The tone esp. It did just enough to make 1-2 not feel like a standard shooter. That really made no hacking, picks, and using the charm vigor on the machines that much worse. I really hated the picks, and handing that off to Anna.Hated not scaveging for Atom as well. The whole upgrade system in Infinite felt soo off to me from the other 2.

Hmm, not sure how to respond this, but I'll say that although it lacks the hacking minigame, BioShock Infinite does a number of things with its combat to separate it from a generic shooter. Be it, sky rails, vigors, tears or what have you.

And in my opinion, even just the story alone can really make a game stand apart from it's gameplay mechanics. Look at Spec Ops: The Line. If your thumbs were your only way of perceiving a game, Spec Ops could win awards for most derivative combat system of time. But the addition of a compelling narrative brings a different feel to the entirety of the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@starvinggamer said:

It depends on tone. If it's an "I didn't like it, and here's why" sort of thing, great. I appreciate the different perspective. If it's more "You shouldn't like it, and here's why" or worse "You shouldn't like it because it sucks that's why" then I can get a little riled up. Unfortunately on the internet it seems much easier to get the latter rather than the former.

@prapin said:

Kotaku is the cess pit of the internet but this time they are indeed right.

Combat is the weak link of Bioshock Infinite.

If you can't recognise this because the story amazed you or something, you are indeed a fanboy.

Huh.

What?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks again everyone, I really appreciate the time to read, and those who wanted to respond. Take it easy!

(Thank God Giant Bomb has no character limits, this website is awesome.)

#15 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5352 posts) -

@letter11: I suppose you could say I was a Koei fanboy at some point in the past, but even then it was just out of deference to them having good ideas but not really capitalizing on them; however their side efforts and the initial starts to series are almost universally pretty good (Samurai Warriors, Fist of the North Star, Strikeforce), so now I just kind of wait around for them to make a new IP and try those out instead. I haven't played a regular Dynasty Warriors game in over 5 years; also I'm not saying that Trinity is amazing but it is relatively skill based (moreso than almost any other Koei game), there's some degree of challenge, a lot of enemy variety (things lacking from Infinite), and while the story is mostly told through text it is fairly interesting/reasonably well written; the small amount of voice acting isn't great but you'll occasionally get some good spoken dialogue; I'd say it's around an 80 which could swing up or down 5 points. The level design and art design is superb even if the areas don't have anything to explain why they exist. Also the game is like 60+ hours and I'm only 15 hours in so hard to become a fanboy at this point.

I didn't buy it solely because the score was low, rather I bought it because the reviews said the gameplay is good and cried about how difficult the game was; almost universally a sign of a game being underrated (though some of the Bloodrayne Betrayal reviews were somewhat accurate; it is possible to have badly designed steep difficulty of course, just fairly rare).

#16 Posted by probablytuna (3600 posts) -
@letter11 said:

@probablytuna said:

I'm currently playing through the game and I'm having a hard time with the controls. The gunplay and movements do not feel good to me, especially when I have played shooters like Farcry 3 where the combat is equally fast yet much better designed.

@john1912 said:

While no one can say the hacking and what not from the past games were done well. It was kinda sad to see them go for the simple atmosphere they provided in slowing the pacing down/setting Bioshock apart from other FPS. I guess part of it too was the need to scavenge a broken city to survive.

I actually like the hacking from Bioshock, I thought it broke up the pacing of the game and allowed players to actually have something else to do rather than murder dudes. Hacking in that game meant you could turn some enemies into allies, and also reduce prices in vending machines. In Infinite, I'm restricted to having to spend salt to possess vending machines so it spits out money (which results in me exploiting the salt dispenser machine every time I use the vigor) and also I'm desperately searching for more lock picks because apparently some safes require five lock picks in order to open. In this regard, Infinite just feels like a major step back.

I haven't played FarCry 3 yet, so I can't speak to that, but I suppose I just didn't have the same gripes. One thing that I love about the Bioshock series is how you have so many choices in how to engage in combat. FarCry 3 is a wonderful exception (I hear) because of it's open world, but the average shooter gives you a corridor and a gray color pallet to blast "tangos". Not to mention the sky rails and Elizabeth's tears add another dimension to many ways you can tackle an encounter.

I mentioned in my reply to john1912 that I also enjoyed the hacking mini games. However I feel like they were a necessary sacrifice to make Elizabeth more endearing. You need her skills to get what you want. Maybe it's manipulative, but I think it's brilliant. By the way has she found any lock picks for you yet? I love it when she does that.

My point about the combat was about having linear areas or colour palette, it's more to do with the controls themselves. It feels like there's a certain delay to the movements which feel slow when compared to the quick and immediate responses I get from a shooter like Farcry 3. Having played more of the game now, I think I've mostly adjusted to it. Save for the odd mini-boss battle where you can't run away to dodge enemy attacks fast enough.

The lockpicks just feel like an arbitrary obstruction to certain areas. When it's clearly a locked door meant for story progress, no lockpick is required, instead only a "hairpin" is needed. Why can't Elizabeth use the same hairpin to unlock those other locks? I get that they're trying to maker her less of an escort and more of a partner but little tidbits like this annoy me.

#17 Posted by Letter11 (29 posts) -

@probablytuna: I guess I just didn't encounter the same problem with the controls as you, but I totally get where you're coming from. I like having an intelligent discourse even when we may not agree.

I think your complaint about the lock picking system is a valid one, but as I said before, I think it's a way to make Elizabeth a more interesting character to the player. In most FPS games I suppose it would be akin to the "wait for your escort" moments which I normally hate, but Elizabeth was so wonderful to me I always looked forward to hearing what she had to say when a "hairpin" lock needed picking. I'm willing to suspend disbelief because of that.

Thanks again for reading and commenting, I really appreciate it.

#18 Posted by probablytuna (3600 posts) -

@letter11 said:

@probablytuna: I guess I just didn't encounter the same problem with the controls as you, but I totally get where you're coming from. I like having an intelligent discourse even when we may not agree.

I think your complaint about the lock picking system is a valid one, but as I said before, I think it's a way to make Elizabeth a more interesting character to the player. In most FPS games I suppose it would be akin to the "wait for your escort" moments which I normally hate, but Elizabeth was so wonderful to me I always looked forward to hearing what she had to say when a "hairpin" lock needed picking. I'm willing to suspend disbelief because of that.

Thanks again for reading and commenting, I really appreciate it.

Instead of waiting for a "hairpin conversation", I would actually prefer it if I could have some control in when I talked to her. Either through pressing 'E' to talk to her directly or interacting with objects resulting in a conversation whilst exploring. That's another gripe I have with the game, sometimes I walk up to something and it triggers a conversation, but both characters would speak at the same time, so it's not even a conversation.

#19 Edited by Ramone (2960 posts) -

I think you make an interesting point about games having the ability to provide you with unique moments that no other player will experience. It does sometimes make games a particularly difficult medium to criticise as you are not able to directly compare your experience with another person's.

On your point of being a fanboy, who the fuck cares? Jut be one. I fucking love Steven Seagal movies, I mean I know they're mostly terrible (if someone disparages Out for Justice and Hard to Kill I will fight them) but I don't care. I enjoy them for what they are. I'm not going to go out of my way to attack others who don't like them, as long as I feel I have expressed my opinion on what I like about his movies properly I'm not really bothered what they think of them. If they hate them, great, they can go and watch whatever the fuck they want, if they are converted but what say then I have done God's work.

#20 Edited by Letter11 (29 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: I too, have a love hate relationship with Koei and mostly its Dynasty Warriors series. When I was younger, the idea of being the crucial competent to winning a battle of thousands was mind-blowing to me. But at some point I was expecting them to evolve the series and they really never did. Not to say that I wouldn't have some fun if I gave one of the most recent games a play through, but I guess I just want something more these days.

Mainly though, I wanted to say that I think it's crucial that you were willing to form your own opinion of Trinity. I think with gaming these days, there are many of us who say, "I won't play a game unless it gets above an 85 on Metacritic". Our need for validation for things we like gets so severe that we often rage at reviews which do not make us feel our opinion is the right one. So bravo to you sir. I'm a bit interested in trying the game out now, especially since as you pointed out one of the main outcries was the difficulty.

I've never played a Bloodrayne game, but I understand they have quite the cult following.

Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate it.

#21 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5352 posts) -

@letter11: Well usually ~95 and above on metacritic is actually pretty damn good, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Uncharted 2, and so on; but in the case of Bioshock, Oblivion, and MGS2, it's kind of absurd; Bioshock is so overrated that Infinite, a clearly superior game, is still 10 or so points off from being near the right mark. Though to be fair the original Bioshock had a decent beginning, great middle and a terrible end, and Infinite had a great beginning, decent end and terrible middle. Ocarina of Time and Arkham City are a bit too high as well but they're at least 90+ games and fairly seminal for different reasons; Arkham City is likely to have the best combat of any "character action" type game for quite some time.

Bloodrayne Betrayal is a platformer, I've never played the other games but it was free on PS+ and the graphics are really solid it just eventually turns into Battletoads with checkpoints. Quick Look and somewhat-off but still amusing Destructoid review. Note the combat is actually pretty smooth and intuitive so he's way off on that point; it's the platforming that gets ridiculous.

#22 Edited by SoldierG654342 (1758 posts) -

Being a fanboy requires a lack of self-awareness, of which you still seem to have some.

It's understandable that to take attacks of something you enjoy so much personal. What you like reflects on you, so an attack on what you like is sort of an attack on you. But you have to remember that there are people out there who dislike Infinite as much as you like it.

Online