HOME | DD
Goldsickle β Bioshock Finite (CONTAINS ENDING SPOILERS)
Published: 2013-06-22 10:31:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 33529; Favourites: 590; Downloads: 273
Redirect to original
Description
After all the stuff I was able to do back in the first two Bioshock games, it was a little disappointing that a lot was taken out of the gameplay in Bioshock Infinite.Games nowadays seem to be given high scores and ratings based on it's story, art direction and narrative, which I think goes against the whole point of "video games".
Related content
Comments: 137
I don't think there are any New Game+ in the previous Bioshock games either.
It's probably due to the gameplay mechanic, since part of the challenge is not having enough points to obtain all the abilities and upgrades.
I would actually like to see a New Game+, though.
And not the "one time only" kind of New Game+ as seen in Batman Arkham City or Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.
π: 0 β©: 1
Old comment, but there is New Game+ in the remastersΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
I guess I should buy it =0
π: 0 β©: 0
I hadn'tΒ thought of it like that, but it's so true.
π: 0 β©: 0
I would be in Heaven if there was 3 Elizabeths in blue gowns grabbing my hands.
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
It's these reasons that I think Bioshock 2 is the better game.
π: 1 β©: 1
nice idea ^^ ... I like the comic
I enjoyed playing all 3 games sooo much 
π: 0 β©: 0
OH DEAR GOD SOMEBODY HE- *GURGLING SOUDNS* - I KEEP TELLING YOU I'M NOT BO- *GURGLING SOUNDS*
π: 0 β©: 0
I can't wait to get play Bioshock Infinite in the collection because I don't know about the game. I'm on Bioshock 2.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Start at 44:10 of this video to understand why Infinite is the way it is in regards to it's gameplay:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7DVOwβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't really buy "analysis articles/videos" from fans.
I'd rather hear from the developers themselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok.
Then let's hear from Square Enix about the 'Squall is dead' theory, or why exactly lucasarts cancelled Kotor 3.
Let's hear from other development studios on other theories/development cycles about their games while we're at it.
Development studios will never talk about their games' development and/or why they chose what they did put in it after they come out, unless the development itself was interfered with or handeled rather poorly on the whole.
The closest you'll get is the tweets from bioware devs about the Indoctrination Theory.
Maybe if you know a few people in the industry, you might get a story or two, but until then all we have to go on are our own views and breakdowns of what has been presented to us by the developers.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can always find out the staff's intentions if you know where to look.
Sometimes, Q&A articles can be found in art books, strategy guides, magazines or widely available in online interviews.
I'd rather hear it from the staff themselves than possibly inaccurate conclusions drawn by people who aren't involved in a game's development.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Damn you, Ken Levine!
But that's partly why I started writing this crossover, "Goggles and the Tears", to fix that ending and make it better.
π: 0 β©: 0
haha^^ .... thatΒ΄s so genius done 
π: 0 β©: 0
For me, games without memorable characters, beautiful worlds & an engaging narrative are just mindless button-bashing, & simply boring. The whole point of video games, indeed any game, is for the player to enjoy the experience. The actual gameplay for me in Bioshock I, II & Infinite was just like virtually every other shooter out there. You can add on all the little additions you want, but it's still just waves of enemies which have to be defeated, with the occasional boss thrown in. Yawn. But the world, characters & narrative made all the tedium worthwhile. Bioshock (particularly & especially Infinite) is an experience I will remember long after I have forgotten all the other drivel. Without the world, characters & narrative, Bioshock is just the same tired old formula that has been trotted out far too many times. I am at the point now where I will refuse to buy a game that has either a mute protagonist (Yes, Bioshock I & II, I'm looking at you), instantly forgettable characters, or an uninspired narrative. It also helps a lot if the game-world is drop-dead gorgeous as it is in the Bioshock trilogy. Game-play is important, but it's not everything.
π: 0 β©: 0
your argument may have been truth ............in the 80s
π: 0 β©: 0
The autosave system is indescribably annoying, but I actually found the combat mechanics to be the most fluid of all three Bioshock games. Β I found myself hitting that sort of nirvana of game combat where you just go into this perfect trance of shoot, vigor, charge, skyline, shoot, melee, and never even stopping to reload. Β That trance is something I've only felt about two or three times, and it generally means that I'm having far too much fun committing acts of brutal and random violence upon animated characters.
π: 0 β©: 0
Very nice tongue-in-cheek critique! Seems the format of "interactive film" is becoming very popular in contrast to more traditional games. Take Heavy Rain and Two Souls, and the titles from Telltale Games, for example. They are literally visual novels not really "games." It doesn't take away from the excellent way these titles are presented, it's just very different from what would be considered engaging game play.
π: 0 β©: 0
They were trying to go in a new direction, that is why there are so many different things and That it's called bioshock infinite and not bioshock 3
π: 0 β©: 0
I understand where you're coming from, but I kinda like the changes. The reason the last boss in the first game was so disgustingly easy was because you were a plasmid throwing, guns blazing demigod of unstoppable power. BioShock infinite was significantly more difficult than the other two games, even on easy. This makes it more satisfying when you complete a challenge. I hope you understand.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even on 1999 mode, it wasn't too difficult.
I used a combination of upgraded Undertow and Shock Jockey to grab and kill three enemies at a time.
Any enemies that didn't die from the two hit combo gets finished off with a shotgun to the face.
This is what I used for the final battle.
π: 0 β©: 0
True, I also noticed that.
But yeah, maybe they wanted to put the player in a disadvantage situation? (I mean, if you have seen the ending, you know how "mean" they can be 
But games not really like quick save all the time. But it's true, they should also give ratings on other things like also how a PLAYER likes the game WHOLE.
AND I LOVE THIS *A* the style is so lovely ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
I share the same opinion, shouldn't had taken out a lot of the other two games...Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice artwork, I do especially like the expressions of the Elizabeths in the last frame.Β Good idea to put a warning about SPOILERS on it btw.Β
And I agree with your comments.Β IMO 'Infinite' lookedΒ fantastic and it played very well, but ultimately I preferred 'BioShock' and 'BioShock 2'Β All the games in the series were clever, but I felt that 'Infinite' slipped into being "clever-clever." AndΒ my realising that, ultimately,Β my actions had virtually zero impact on the game was a bit of a downer.
Ah well.Β I will have try out some of the DLC for it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hahaha! honestly, even though I love the game, I agree with most of your points. I really miss carrying multiple weapons (Why is that so taboo now a days?). I will argue that I think most of the choices surrounding these mechanics (or lack thereof), were to help drive the story and create the characters and it didn't diminish too much from the experience.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's better than rating a game solely on graphics or whizz-bang explody backstabby one-path-allowed set pieces.
Beyond that, I guess it's to add more challenge to the game. And hacking in both of the previous Bioshocks were flawed in different ways, so I don't really miss that.
π: 0 β©: 0
The stocking up of health is redundant with the implementation of infusions and shields. As the game goes on the difficulty ramps up, but assuming you play well so do your shields/health.
Result is stocking up on health kits would make an already easy game easier.Β
The single ending was a little annoying, but it drummed the point that sometimes choices just don't matter. Remember all the choices in the early part of the game that had no real bearing on events, like choosing the bird or the cage in BS Bay. Also black and white moral endings would've been sh**.
Hacking = possession. It's quicker, easier and generally faster paced, which fits infinites style a lot more. Besides I never really saw the appeal of hacking bots and only did it out of necessity.
2 guns i;m neutral on as well. One hand it's a limiting factor, but on the other the only time I ever wish I could have more is when I find an RPG and don't take it due to ammo limit. Also with ammo being so much more common having more than two weapons would be overkill, whereas in the first 2 it was sometimes necessary to switch to guns you didn't like using because you'd emptied your shotgun.
Checkpoints are so common quick saving is redundant.
π: 0 β©: 1
If they're gonna have Elizabeth toss health items and Salt at me randomly, might as well have me carrying them from the start, so I can decide when and where I use them.
It's fucked up that Booker carries lock picks for Elizabeth to use while Elizabeth carries health and Salts for Booker, who would be using them.
Nothing justifies this bizarre arrangement.
Possession is a poor replacement for hacking.
In the last two games, I was gradually turning the city and its vending machines against my enemies.
Especially in the first game, I can revisit certain areas, knowing that the bots and turrets have my back.
Here, what possession can do is very limited.
I remember back when I hacked health stations to kill anyone other than me trying to use them.
Having some vending machines spit out coins isn't a good replacement.
π: 0 β©: 0
well to be fair
when it comes to hacking.. that's what the possetion plasmid or vigor is for -_-
i will give you that it kinda sucks there's only one ending and you can only carry enough health to get you back up to full
but as far as only 2 guns that is sort of neutral, it has it's good points, and it's bad, but really i only use 2 guns in Bioshock anyway
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem with Possession is that it's temporary for Automatons.
In the first two Bioshock games, it felt like you're slowly turning the city against your enemies with the hacking of the cameras, the turrets and even the health stations.
After all that, Possession feels like a cheap replacement.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeha and they're only temporary and you cna only do one at a time -_-
π: 0 β©: 0
I found this game to be superior in every facet.
The player character, Booker Dewitt, is an actual character unlike Jack who never spoke or had any opinions about anything. Booker gets frustrated, he gets afraid, he thinks to himself, and it makes me (the player) actually care about what's going on. Jack on the other hand, says not a single word from the moment he enters the lighthouse, to the moment he defeats Atlas. He's in this fantastic, spooky environment, and he can't even be bothered to ask a question. I think the scene with Andrew Ryan would have been twice as dramatic if we had actually known what Jack was thinking (honestly, if you were in Jack's position, wouldn't you have something to say?)
The back story and origins of Columbia and its characters are actually made clear, unlike in the first game, where if you didn't collect every single audio recording you would be totally in the dark about what's going on. I get the gist of what Rapture was, but I didn't really see why I should care that it fell apart.
There was no needless backtracking and there were no boring errands that forced you to collect a bunch of shit. I absolutely hated having to go find cures for things and having to scrounge for clues, because every time you cleared out an area of its Splicers, you'd come back 5 minutes later and there would be more. Eventually, the Splicers that were meant to be scary, became annoying. Β
The characters were actually, physically in the story, not talking to you over the radio the entire time. I understand that not having characters with you is supposed to create a feeling of isolation and vulnerability, but I actually found it boring. Also, the player's goal is much clearer. Stop Columbia from attacking the surface world, and rescue Elizabeth. In Bioshock 1, Jack (like I said) has no dialogue, so we never get a sense that he has a goal. With the exception of Little Sisters, every person alive in Rapture was a prick who deserved to suffer, so for me there was no real motive to save anything. I would have been totally happy to just leave everyone (little sisters included) underwater and call it a scratch.
Also, the ending of Bioshock Infinite was great because it kept the previous game's themes of choice, but presented them in a new fashion. Bioshock was about the power of choice. Infinite was about the illusion of choice.
All in all, I think Infinite delivered a better story, which in my mind resulted in a better game play experience. In the end, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, if you're not going to do anything of substance with them. That's not to say I don't think Bioshock had substance, just that Infinite had more.
π: 0 β©: 2
I couldn't agree more. The mute protagonists & lack of interaction with other characters left me feeling detached from the character I was playing & the world I was in. Frankly, I couldn't have cared less what happened to any of them. I got to know Booker. I got to know Elizabeth. They had personalities. I cared about those two deeply, to the point that at times it upset me deeply. As for the constantly re-spawning splicers, I have seldom found such an annoying thing in any game. When I finished Bioshock I, I liked the twist. That was good writing. When I finished Infinite, I sat there in stunned silence for longer than I care to admit. One of the most memorable ends to a game I know of, if not the most.
π: 0 β©: 0
While that was a very elaborate description, unfortunately, I put story & art direction on a much lower priority in video games.
In a video game, gameplay has to come first.
I couldn't care less about "human drama" or "bittersweet ending" when the gameplay is shallow.
All those would have been nice for a movie or novel but this is a different format altogether.
That is what my comic was focusing on: shallower gameplay that pales in comparison to what the series previously offered.
A good story is only a "bonus" in a video game.
It shouldn't be the core or the focus.
π: 0 β©: 1
See, for me, engaging story goes hand in hand with engaging game play. The amount of effort put into the story really makes me feel immersed in the experience, and it affects my gameplay. True, this doesn't work for every game (no one cares about the story of Mario games) but for something like Bioshock, I think it works. So they took out health stock ups and hacking. We get a great companion character in Elizabeth instead, and I thin that's way better.
π: 0 β©: 1
I get moved and carried away with engaging stories as well but the novelty wears off after a couple of playthroughs and I find myself skipping the cutscenes whenever I can.
In the end, what keeps me coming back isn't the "engaging story" but the gameplay.
It also doesn't help that in the end, the "human interaction" is limited by technology.
Elizabeth is at most, some sort of robotic A.I. companion, limited to a few speeches and motion capture.
She won't comment or react outside of what she was provided with.
It makes it worse that she's invincible and invisible to enemies.
It's done that way to make her less of a bother or chore to take care of but also weakens the whole illusion of her being a human companion you're set out to protect.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd still rather be stuck with her than a little sister.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>