It wasn't as good as Bioshock 1 because the story was inconsistent. Â It started off like Bioschock did - a "visualization" of political, moral and economic philosophies. Â Bioshock 1 had that same theme throughout the entire game, the big reveal was entirely devoted to the ideas explored during the game. Â
The world of columbia and the people in it were ALL representations of ideas that Ken Levine was showing. Â The entire POINT of the world was those ideas. Â Then all of a sudden about half way through, the writers almost entierly forgot about those ideas and pushed them into the background. Â Instead of those ideas being the driving force for the world and story, they ended up becoming secondary in importance to the tears and multiple universe's idea. Â
The story by the end of the game had absolutely nothing to do with the world and the story at the beginning of the game. Â I don't say its worse than the original bioshock because it is popular or whatever, I say it is worse because the story went from being "really good, better than Bioshock" to "what the heck is this crap story about multiple universes doing in Bioshock?" Â I honestly think Ken Levine couldn't think of a way turn the world and ideas he created into a workable story like he did with the Bioshock 1. Â I felt like the first made a statement, Infinite just had a generic story without any meaning. Â It started off good, but went downhill after the first hour or so. Â Â
Log in to comment