Why is Bioshock Infinite praised?

I beat the game on 1999, which was supposed to be a throwback to older shooters.

So why does this game have the same gameplay as every other crappy shooter released in the last 5 years? Two weapons at a time, regenerating shield, dumb AI, bland level design. I really liked the idea behind the hooks and tears, but both mechanics ended up being under-utilized and pretty bland. At the end of the day, the gameplay was just the same boring stuff we've all played so many times.

It was easy, shallow, linear; it was just totally mindless. I found myself bored most of the time. I didn't have to think about tactics, I didn't have to be careful, because the game was so easy and casual.

The story was decent. Not a masterpiece, but certainly original and the characters were all well acted. The actual "plot" was obfuscated and contrived, but the setting was original and the subject matter too.

Back in my day, video games couldn't get by with such crappy gameplay.

Bioschok is not stupid COD...
Art, design, atmosphere, concept, meaning, messages, story, feeling... emotions
Next time play it properly!

Blog it.

Also,

If you like Skyrim, Uncharted, Bioshock Infinite, the DMC reboot, and other such games, you're part of the problem.

Big_Red_Button

You sound like an elitist hipster.

Blog it.

Also, [QUOTE="Big_Red_Button"]

If you like Skyrim, Uncharted, Bioshock Infinite, the DMC reboot, and other such games, you're part of the problem.

The_Stand_In

You sound like an elitist hipster.

If not liking garbage casual games makes me a hipster then butter me up and call me a hipster.

Bioschok is not stupid COD...
Art, design, atmosphere, concept, meaning, messages, story, feeling... emotions
Next time play it properly!

V3rciS

None of the things you mentioned concerned gameplay...

Since when was the "game" part of "video game" optional? A CoD clone has a flashy story and nice visual design and suddenly it's AAA GOTYAY? Sounds pretty dumb to me.

To answer your question in a rational way. It's praised mostly because of two things: The ending and the world. Very few people who love it will call the gameplay anything more than average.

I actually agree for the most part. Yeah the skyhooks were a cool feature and the game had a unique setting and some interesting enemies, but it still felt like a lot of the other shooters I've played this generation. In fact, towards the latter half of the game I was almost getting bored of the combat and was rushing through to advance the story further, which led to an ending I did not care for. 

 

None of the things you mentioned concerned gameplay...

Since when was the "game" part of "video game" optional? A CoD clone has a flashy story and nice visual design and suddenly it's AAA GOTYAY? Sounds pretty dumb to me.

Big_Red_Button

I like a lot of people think the game play and story are great. My opinion 

it is one of my favorite series.

Why is a sunset good? Why is a tree good?

This topic is desperate for attention.

Bioschok is not stupid COD...
Art, design, atmosphere, concept, meaning, messages, story, feeling... emotions
Next time play it properly!

V3rciS

"Bu-buu---TEH ART DESIGN!!"

A different art style doesn't make a game more "sophisticated."

Bioshock has always been a generic, rehashed, linear shooter.

There's nothing groundbreaking about it.

The art direction is nice. But the gameplay feels very bland and uninspired. It doesn't do much to set itself apart.

Am I the only one here that likes the weapon limit? This is a evolution of the genre and forces devs to balance weapons and gameplay according based on player choices.. Instead of being a walking gun swiss army knife able to pop out every dozen guns in the game, doom style, at a moments notice.sSubZerOo

I like it.

It adds more depth and thinking into the game. Only being able to cary two weapons forces the player to think more about what to carry.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Bioschok is not stupid COD...
Art, design, atmosphere, concept, meaning, messages, story, feeling... emotions
Next time play it properly!

GeoffZak

"Bu-buu---TEH ART DESIGN!!"

A different art style doesn't make a game more "sophisticated."

Bioshock has always been a generic, rehashed, linear shooter.

There's nothing groundbreaking about it.

The art direction is nice. But the gameplay feels very bland and uninspired. It doesn't do much to set itself apart.

[QUOTE="Big_Red_Button"]

I beat the game on 1999, which was supposed to be a throwback to older shooters.

So why does this game have the same gameplay as every other crappy shooter released in the last 5 years? Two weapons at a time, regenerating shield, dumb AI, bland level design. I really liked the idea behind the hooks and tears, but both mechanics ended up being under-utilized and pretty bland. At the end of the day, the gameplay was just the same boring stuff we've all played so many times.

It was easy, shallow, linear; it was just totally mindless. I found myself bored most of the time. I didn't have to think about tactics, I didn't have to be careful, because the game was so easy and casual.

The story was decent. Not a masterpiece, but certainly original and the characters were all well acted. The actual "plot" was obfuscated and contrived, but the setting was original and the subject matter too.

Back in my day, video games couldn't get by with such crappy gameplay.

dvader654

What FPS are you playing right now that has so much better gameplay. The gameplay is excellent in the game. There is no way you got through 99 mode without tactics, you walk out into the open and you are dead.

Well, the older Rainbow Six games are pretty great. I've always liked Painkiller, Serious Sam, Quake, Unreal Tournament, the older Rainbow Six games, the SWAT series (especially 4, co-op is so much fun), that sorta stuff.

Right now I'm doing a Master run of STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. I've beaten the game a few times and it never gets old. Now there's a fantastic shooter. Smart AI that plays defensively, knows how to flank and works together. You take just a couple hits and you're dead, or one grenade. Fantastic open level design with lots of nooks and crannies to explore, which you need to do since supplies are so scarce. It does have regenerating health, but it regenerates at a rate of about 1% per 10 seconds, so you can't rely on it at all.

You wanna talk atmosphere? STALKER is one of the most atmospheric games you'll ever play. The painstakingly remodelled Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has an unreal amount of detail put into it. The graphics are so-so, not fantastic, but the sound design is top notch. With a good pair of headphones you can hear every minute detail in your environment, which is important because you need to be sneaky in order to avoid enemies killing you at the drop of a hat.

B:I on 1999 is about equivelant to STALKER on the normal (stalker) difficulty settingm, I'm playing on master.. After games like STALKER modern shooters just feel easy.

Am I the only one here that likes the weapon limit? This is a evolution of the genre and forces devs to balance weapons and gameplay according based on player choices.. Instead of being a walking gun swiss army knife able to pop out every dozen guns in the game, doom style, at a moments notice.sSubZerOo

I hear that a lot, it's a total fallacy.

It would make sense if you could choose your loadout based on what you'd be fighting later on. Problem is, you have no idea what you'll be fighting later on, so instead of "choosing the best two weapons for the situation" you're just choosing whatever guns are best (carbine and pistol for people who can aim.)

When you carry all of your weapons at a time, but have scarce ammo for each of them, things become much more interesting. My tactical options are wider but I have to make every single shot count.

Do you wanna know why the 2 weapons at a time limit exists? It's not because it improves gameplay, it's because games now are designed for a console audience. Having 10 inputs to map each weapon, or a weapon wheel, is simply too complex for your average console player. Their tiny brains start to overheat when they have more than one weapon button, so they reduce the weapon button to simple "switch weapon" between A and B. 

How is bioshock a COD clone.? i'd like to point out the reason it's so well received is that it is innovative and steps away from the COD formula (which is quite awful these days). And also how are Uncharted, Skyrim, and Bioshock Garbage casual games? No casual gamers I know can tell me who nathan drake is and even if they do appeal to casual gamers they are still magnificent...justiceadams23

[QUOTE="Big_Red_Button"]

 

None of the things you mentioned concerned gameplay...

Since when was the "game" part of "video game" optional? A CoD clone has a flashy story and nice visual design and suddenly it's AAA GOTYAY? Sounds pretty dumb to me.

V3rciS

Skyrim: I love the Elder Scrolls games. Beautiful world, fantastic writing, deep RPGs with good character advancement. Skyrim? Not so much. Everything about the game is a simplified, crappy version of its predecessors. Armor reduced to four pieces, no attributes, removed accuracy and most status effects from combat, quests just involve following an arrow, yawnorama. Oblivion had the same problem, but not quite as bad. They ruined the lore, all the quests and characters are 100% stock generic fantasy crap, the world is completely lifeless and doesn't react to you at all. Morrowind was a truly immersive and unique world, the quests were incredibly well written, character progression was deep and meaningful, faction choices mattered, and the world reacted to you. Oblivion as well, to a lesser extent. Skyrim was just a bad action game with stats. That's not an RPG.

Uncharted: It's barely a game. Same crappy generic shooter gameplay I hate, but the game is too obsessed with its "cinematic" moments to care about its gameplay. Platforming is just hitting the jump button until you get to the end of a sequence. Shooting is just the same mindless gunplay in every other crappy mainstream shooter since CoD got huge.

These games are "part of the problem" because rather than their focus being on depth, interactivity, choices, or the things that make games GAMES they focus on scripting, simplified and reduced player input, and "cinematic" moments. They do all these things to the detriment of actual gameplay.

Skyrim: I love the Elder Scrolls games. Beautiful world, fantastic writing, deep RPGs with good character advancement. Skyrim? Not so much. Everything about the game is a simplified, crappy version of its predecessors. Armor reduced to four pieces, no attributes, removed accuracy and most status effects from combat, quests just involve following an arrow, yawnorama. Oblivion had the same problem, but not quite as bad. They ruined the lore, all the quests and characters are 100% stock generic fantasy crap, the world is completely lifeless and doesn't react to you at all. Morrowind was a truly immersive and unique world, the quests were incredibly well written, character progression was deep and meaningful, faction choices mattered, and the world reacted to you. Oblivion as well, to a lesser extent. Skyrim was just a bad action game with stats. That's not an RPG.

Big_Red_Button

I have to agree with you on this one. Morrowind was unlike any game I had played before and made me truly feel immersed in it's world. Oblivion came close but wasnt quite as engrossing. I skipped Skyrim because I just had a bad feeling about it despite all the praise it's garnered.

Bioshock Infinite is a fantastic title which allows the player any number of choices within combat, utilizing sky-hooks, vigors and gunplay to their fullest against a varied group of enemies results in an incredibly versatile gameplay experience.

Blog it.

Also, [QUOTE="Big_Red_Button"]

If you like Skyrim, Uncharted, Bioshock Infinite, the DMC reboot, and other such games, you're part of the problem.

The_Stand_In

You sound like an elitist hipster.

chana game looks good imo.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Am I the only one here that likes the weapon limit? This is a evolution of the genre and forces devs to balance weapons and gameplay according based on player choices.. Instead of being a walking gun swiss army knife able to pop out every dozen guns in the game, doom style, at a moments notice.Big_Red_Button

I hear that a lot, it's a total fallacy.

It would make sense if you could choose your loadout based on what you'd be fighting later on. Problem is, you have no idea what you'll be fighting later on, so instead of "choosing the best two weapons for the situation" you're just choosing whatever guns are best (carbine and pistol for people who can aim.)

... That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.. It's based on play style in which you can choose how you want to play.. 

When you carry all of your weapons at a time, but have scarce ammo for each of them, things become much more interesting. My tactical options are wider but I have to make every single shot count.

This is utter horse sh!t if I have ever seen it.. The old games were not like that.. What we had was a 2 to 3 primary weapons more or less that were plentiful, then "special" weapons that you rarely used..  There was nothing superior with the old system.. Nor did it make it more hardcore or thought provoking..  FPS's, though fun, are one of the shallowest of all the gaming genres out there.

Do you wanna know why the 2 weapons at a time limit exists? It's not because it improves gameplay, it's because games now are designed for a console audience. Having 10 inputs to map each weapon, or a weapon wheel, is simply too complex for your average console player. Their tiny brains start to overheat when they have more than one weapon button, so they reduce the weapon button to simple "switch weapon" between A and B. 

Wrong and this is coming from a pc gamer.. You can easilly use a context menu that instantly pauses the game to immediately switch a weapon on the fly to what you want.. They have done it before.. 

I beat the game on 1999, which was supposed to be a throwback to older shooters.

So why does this game have the same gameplay as every other crappy shooter released in the last 5 years? Two weapons at a time, regenerating shield, dumb AI, bland level design. I really liked the idea behind the hooks and tears, but both mechanics ended up being under-utilized and pretty bland. At the end of the day, the gameplay was just the same boring stuff we've all played so many times.

It was easy, shallow, linear; it was just totally mindless. I found myself bored most of the time. I didn't have to think about tactics, I didn't have to be careful, because the game was so easy and casual.

The story was decent. Not a masterpiece, but certainly original and the characters were all well acted. The actual "plot" was obfuscated and contrived, but the setting was original and the subject matter too.

Back in my day, video games couldn't get by with such crappy gameplay.

Big_Red_Button

The irony is that your critique of this game, which is actually a subversive critique of contemporary game design as a whole, is as generic and uninspired as the software you are lambasting.

Worse, you traffic in vagaries and half-thoughts, many of which don't necessarily even align factually with what this game actually delivers to the player.

Now, for the purposes of full disclosure, I'll freely admit my copy of this game is currently sitting in my shelf unopened but regardless, many of the things you have written don't mesh with everything else I've read about Bioshock Infinite.

- Two weapons at a time is a design choice, and not an inherently negative inclusion into the construct of this (or any) game. The effectiveness of such design is entirely predicated on how that decision is implemented throughout the full scope of the game and you never explain, in any detail, why such a design is detrimental to the overall experience.

- Regenerating health is another norm you fail to extrapolate upon beyond your own myopic distaste. Again, if you can specifically explain why regenerating health is an automatic strike against this game, I'd love to read it.

- Dumb AI.  Why is it dumb and how does it falter when compared to those games where the AI is supposedly superior?

- You claim the game is linear but also cite the use of hooks and tears, yet assert these elements are underutilized. Now again, I haven't had a chance to play my copy yet but your critique on this matter has been very different than the general consensus, which claims this game is fairly open-ended and that the hooks and tiers are employed copiously. For certain, none of it seems to be as standard and bland as you assert.

- You also call it shallow yet by all accounts it is no less complex than any number of other shooters, past or present, including some of the very games you venerate in a subsequent post in this very thread. You hurl pejoratives freely but you never seem to substantiate much of what you are actually stating.

- You state that the story was decent but then, paradoxically, claim it was contrived and obfuscated. (How was it hidden exactly?) You also place the word plot into quotations, no doubt as an insult, yet you should be aware that a plot is a series of events, loosely or tightly woven together, that make up a story thus, regardless of your mixed feelings, Bioshock Infinite contains a plot.

- You finish up with a nebulous statement about how games were better back in your day yet you never specify what that era was or why games from that time period were so much better than contemporary offerings. I've been gaming since the late 70's and I disagree entirely with that assertion; if anything, shooters have gotten far more complex and offer far more variety than ever before.

And your sig is just ridiculous. All of those games appeal to hardcore enthusiasts and specifically, DMC has actually been analyzed and deconstructed by some incredibly knowledgeable fans of the series and the general consensus is that it is a worthy entry into the franchise.

Understand, I am not refuting everything you are claiming but frankly, you don't make very detailed or compelling arguments. I am actually curious to read a more lengthy analysis because, as I have mentioned, I haven't played my copy yet but frankly, most of what you have written doesn't gel with what everyone else is saying about this game.

I love it how the only thing that apprently seperated the Doom generation from the Call of Duty generation is having a weapon limit. Practically everyone dissing modern shooters goes "ugh-hug it has 2 guns, casual CoD crap, it's not hardcore like Doom with 12 weapons" chaplainDMK

Don't forget if the game have a maze or linear level design. I still do not understand how wonderiong around a maze makes the shooter better?

I don't care about the gameplay. I wanted it to play like a Bioshock game and it certainly does. The game is all about Columbia, the characters, and the story.

Bioshock gets it's praised by two groups of people.

Group A:

People who praise Infinite to be Goty (already) and GoaT, to them the game has no faults, it's perfect in their eyes. With the few faults Infinite does have (and it does) these people blindly push them aside or don't notice them, even if it's staring at them a few feet away.

Group B:

These people know Infinite is a great game, but it lacks in a few categories namely the gunplay, there's no kick to weapons or spray (only the machine gun has slight spray).Your arsenal is the typical handgun,machine gun,sniper rifle,grenade launcher and rocker launcher, there's no variety in the weapons and the weapon upgrades are laughable at best (your typical +dmg, - recoil, + clip size). The character interaction between Elizabeth and Booker is 2nd to none, this is the core of the game along the beautiful art style and landscape Columbia has. Even with it's few faults (yes this game has faults) this game is amazing, I love FPS that gives your character life unlike a certain game *cough* Half Life 2 *cough*.

Overall the game does deserve it's praise cause Infinite brings us to a flying Rapture in the skies.

Probably because some people like the game. People rarely praise games they dislike.

the game is great. but it shows just how limited an FPS game is in aspects of new game design.

It was my most anticipated game of 2013 but I still haven't played it yet because from reviews and walkthrough vids I've watched, it doesn't look like the game I'd hope and thought it to be. The setting looks good at first but it seems that it's always bright; I like something that is a mix of the dark atmosphere of Rapture and Columbia; and the gunplay looks too hectic all the times without planning.

Deja f'n Vu. Didn't we already have this thread two weeks ago and I got all the bioshock fans up my arse because I said it was a arcade shooter? LOL. Again as in my other post, to that TC and this TC, what the hell were you expecting? Why even post crap about an arcade shooter when this game was always an arcade shooter? It's like complaining about basketball being basketball.