It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'm so sick of people saying Bioshock Infinite is shit, because it's not. It's really not. I think it's funny that as of Titianfall people are worrying about the death of single player FPS games when it's clear we don't wont them.

Okay, I get that you can't force someone to like what you like. I don't think Duke 3D has good combat for instance (That shotgun sucks) But I'm tried of people saying that it's bad like there's no way that an intelligent person could disagree with them whilst giving no facts to back up there opinion. So I'm going to give ten reasons as to why I liked Bioshock Infinite.

1. Choice: I liked the fact that rather than just being stuck with Stats weapons and powers as they are you could alter them according to your playstyle. You're given a shield near the start of the game but rather than being forced to rely on it you could totally ignore it in favour of putting all your stats into health. if a weapon felt good but had to slow a reload time you could always upgrade it to make it more affective. between vigour traps and a sold melee attack there are pros to both rushing straight into to thick of it or waiting for the enemy to come to you.

2. Skylines: This was a feature that was heavy hyped up before realise and feel short as a game changer. But for me at least that doesn't change the fact that it's just plain fun to use. Finding secrets or little tactically advantageous spots with them has it's charm. Pulling off a Skyline strike has never lost it's appeal for me, Particularly if the guy on the other guy never saw it coming. Taking out enemies who are on the skyline and seeing the plummet to earth or into the abyss always makes me smile.

3. Combat: when people say Infinite has terrible combat I'm left baffled as to whether they played the same game as me. While there are FPS games with better combat Infinite is way better than most. You have the option of iron sites for more powerful shots but unlike most modern shooters you aren't penalised for not using them, your guns still work fine when free aiming. Deferent vigors affect different enemies. Some are fire-proof, others shrug off electricity but each one has a weakness.
Weapons all have their uses defined by ware you are.
The shotgun is a beast up close but getting there is hard. The grenade launcher requires even ground but will kill almost anything. Mowing down five enemies with the crank gun is near as satisfying as using the BFG 9000.
At all times you have a choice between guns, vigors, tears and mêlée combat meaning that you're really out of creative options.
Be it Bioshock, Bulletstorm or Shadow Warrior There's nothing I like more than having a host of options and needing to make use of them all.

4. Customisation: It's a small point but I do love picking up gear and seeing all the different affects they can have. The one that freezes your shield when mounting the skylines can be a life savoir but the one that randomly turns ammo flaming or electrical is such fun to watch.

5. Enemies: A good fps gives you interesting enemies to fight and Infinite delivers. While you have petty grunts who are so easy to kill you almost feel sorry for them there are far more dangerous enemies who require certain strategies and your full attention to beat. And when you have these mixed together you need to think fast as to who you take down first. Each type is given a memorable into and they all have personality. I've become quite fond of them.

6. Story and Characters: Well this is the big one. It's been years since I enjoyed a non-horror story this much. Largely because unlike most modern adventure fiction the characters don't permanently talk in snark to seem "mature" or "edgy". The are both visually and narratively distinctive, with clear motivations beyond "I'm evil because the plot needs a bad guy". Booker Dewitt probably the most well crafted protagonist in an fps game yet (Though to be fair, most of his competition are mutes) and even when doing the wrong things it's hard not to feel sympathy for him. I love the Bioshock story method of working from the inside out. Getting to know an interesting protagonist and then using him to show case an interesting world. Rather than the Hollywood tactic of saying "Here's a total prick who you must root for because his character arc (to be slightly less of a prick) will take up most of the running time"

7. Audio logs: If you belong to the Totalbiscuit school of thought that gameplay is that matters in a game and everything else is a waste of time you of course hate audio logs. But As some one raised on audio books finding these thing are a joy to me. it's like having a great audio book inside a great game, They are all extremely well acted. They can be funny, sad or down right chilling.
And unlike some games (Doom 3) each one has it's role it the plot.

8. Music: while the combat music is underwhelming the rest of the game has a wonderful sound design that feels legitimately old-school. That would be enough but the game as several "de-makes" of note worth pops songs made to fit the 1912 era. A concept I'd always wanted to "see" tried out. That would have been enough just as a fun experiment but there is even a in story explanation for the anachronistic music that ties into the main plot. I love it!

9. Exploration: This one probably raised a few eyebrows. And yes while sadly this game is too linear for it's own good that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy every second of exploration this game had to offer. Whether it was scavenging for cash and heath, finding audio logs, reading the posters, eavesdropping on the people of Columbia or finding weird secrets like the dolls tea party I enjoyed every second I spent searching out the stuff that wasn't straight in front of you. My greatest regret with this game was that it couldn't be open world.
It sounds like Ken Levine might have taken the criticism of Infinite's linearity on-board. Hopefully his next game will have more exploration.

10. Graphics and Design: "Graphics don't make a bad game good", I agree. That's why I'm putting it at the end ;)
I normally don't let graphics affect my judgement (or try not to) but that doesn't change the fact that Infinite looks gorgeous. It's one of the best looking FPS games out there. Not just thanks to the graphics but due to it's art style that manages to be stylised without making the characters look inhuman. The baptismal church makes me shiver a little every time. Graphics and style can't save a game but with the exception of text adventures all games have to be looked at and Infinite is a game I love to look at.


One more thing. Please don't tell me to play System Shock 2, I have. I enjoyed it, but after all the hype from comments I read saying how it wipes the floor with Bioshock I found the game rather disappointing.
I can't respect the "depth" of a game where most enemies can be beaten with the starting wrench. SS2's depth is the same as Bioshock's, just way fiddlier and more restrictive.



I can't make you like Bioshock Infinite any more than you can convince me that Hexen wasn't a dull, monotonous grind for me that I had almost no fun with.
I know this game isn't perfect. but I love it. What flaws it has feel small and irrelevant and to me.
But I hope I've convinced some of you that it is possible to like Bioshock Infinite without first suffering severe brain damage!

Thanks for reading?
The only bad thing about it for me was how linear they made the levels. Bioshock was already more linear than System Shock, so making Infinite much more linear on top of that was a real bummer.

Other than that I thought it was pretty good, but there are countless linear shooters out there. By becoming more linear it also became less special.
I hate Bioshock Infinite's story but I love everything else about the game. The combat is amazing.
avatar
Johnmourby: I'm so sick of people saying Bioshock Infinite is shit
Who does? All I ever see is people saying that it's THE shit.
I'm playing Bioshock Infinite right now (only the base game), I think I'm near the end.

Does the first post contains spoilers? :)
Post edited March 26, 2014 by GabiMoro
avatar
monkeydelarge: I hate Bioshock Infinite's story but I love everything else about the game. The combat is amazing.
***Slight spoiler***

Funnily enough, it's the other way around for me. I love the story - it was one of the best in gaming for a long time, and certainly one of the best to ever be seen in an FPS - but I found the gameplay rather meh. With the exception of the use of the skyhook for melee combat, which was terribly fun, most of it was fairly generic, and by the time I got near to the endgame (the Asylum), it just started to drag on and I was wishing that the gameplay would stop getting in the way of the story.
Post edited March 26, 2014 by jamyskis
I remember playing Bioshock some years ago, I thought say the first hour or more of the game was great, really varied and showed off the different facets of the game, the stealth, puzzles, the way the story was telegraphed via finding notes/logs. It just seemed that after that intro part, the game just devolved into a series repetitive shooting sequences in hallways.

Bioshock to me is like Lionheart, interesting idea and varied gameplay at the beginning (like Barcelona), then the rest of the game devolves into mindless combat.
FWIW arent 99% of FPS games supposed to be mindless+linear? (i have the whole bioshock series but only dipped my toes in briefly like i do most games...)
Post edited March 26, 2014 by Niggles
avatar
Niggles: FWIW arent 99% of FPS games supposed to be mindless+linear?
Mindless? Perhaps. Linear? Maybe if you mean that "doing one level and then progressing to the next level" is linear, but in my view any good FPS has reasonably open map design, ie stuff like this:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061119200337/doom/images/d/dd/E1M6dots.png
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070128082129/doom/images/2/2e/E1M7dots.png

Also Bioshock was marketed as being the spiritual heir to the System Shocks, where puzzles and emergent gameplay were important.
avatar
Crosmando: Mindless? Perhaps. Linear? Maybe if you mean that "doing one level and then progressing to the next level" is linear, but in my view any good FPS has reasonably open map design, ie stuff like this:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061119200337/doom/images/d/dd/E1M6dots.png
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070128082129/doom/images/2/2e/E1M7dots.png
I believe there is a bit of nostalgia filter going on with those "open maps"

you tend to run around from one side of the map to another... pick the key here so you can open the door there, go back so you can pick another key which was hidden behind the door and backtrack to open another door. it was linear to the max. do a, then do b, then do c. that's linear design of the map even if the map allows you to go back to a or b at any point. it just reuses the same rooms over and over again as you run from one objective to another.

this kind of map design is not as open as one believes...
There is a reason why we moved away from them... and not because they are harder or more costly to produce. Because they suck nowadays. we have much better ways to present the game.
Instead of reusing the same rooms over and over again we create new rooms. like cod or half life does. giving players new challenges, new areas to see and fight in instead of doing the same battle in the same room like in doom.
or we make the map open world ala far cry. many objectives, various ways to tackle them, skippable content, hidden secrets.


just for information....
cod ghosts hardly a good singleplayer game can be beaten in 6 hours
http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=14322

doom 2 can be beaten in 8
http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=2711

so doom 2 does not provide a lot of extra playthrough. while cod gives you constantly new areas to explore and conquer in doom you are repeating your fights. crossing the same rooms over and over again in order to find those darn keys.

doom map design was good 20 years ago. it is not good by today's standard.
avatar
Crosmando: Mindless? Perhaps. Linear? Maybe if you mean that "doing one level and then progressing to the next level" is linear, but in my view any good FPS has reasonably open map design, ie stuff like this:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061119200337/doom/images/d/dd/E1M6dots.png
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070128082129/doom/images/2/2e/E1M7dots.png
avatar
lukaszthegreat: I believe there is a bit of nostalgia filter going on with those "open maps"

you tend to run around from one side of the map to another... pick the key here so you can open the door there, go back so you can pick another key which was hidden behind the door and backtrack to open another door. it was linear to the max. do a, then do b, then do c. that's linear design of the map even if the map allows you to go back to a or b at any point. it just reuses the same rooms over and over again as you run from one objective to another.

this kind of map design is not as open as one believes...
There is a reason why we moved away from them... and not because they are harder or more costly to produce. Because they suck nowadays. we have much better ways to present the game.
Instead of reusing the same rooms over and over again we create new rooms. like cod or half life does. giving players new challenges, new areas to see and fight in instead of doing the same battle in the same room like in doom.
or we make the map open world ala far cry. many objectives, various ways to tackle them, skippable content, hidden secrets.

just for information....
cod ghosts hardly a good singleplayer game can be beaten in 6 hours
http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=14322

doom 2 can be beaten in 8
http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=2711

so doom 2 does not provide a lot of extra playthrough. while cod gives you constantly new areas to explore and conquer in doom you are repeating your fights. crossing the same rooms over and over again in order to find those darn keys.

doom map design was good 20 years ago. it is not good by today's standard.
You cannot compare those two games in how length they are...or in anything really, COD all of them are corridors shooters, if you walk out from the area that the developers wants you to stay, you die.

You can use this for a good example doom 3 vs cod ghosts, 13+6 (for the expansion) now that's a fair comparison :)
Post edited March 26, 2014 by GastonArg

you tend to run around from one side of the map to another... pick the key here so you can open the door there, go back so you can pick another key which was hidden behind the door and backtrack to open another door. it was linear to the max. do a, then do b, then do c. that's linear design of the map even if the map allows you to go back to a or b at any point. it just reuses the same rooms over and over again as you run from one objective to another.
It's certainly preferable to shooters with no key items, where every door is open-able (or blast-able) and there's no need to actually search, backtrack to find keys or find secret locations with armor/ammo. It's a hell of a lot less "mindless" than the shooters of today.

so doom 2 does not provide a lot of extra playthrough. while cod gives you constantly new areas to explore and conquer in doom you are repeating your fights. crossing the same rooms over and over again in order to find those darn keys.
Yes, but those "constantly new areas" are just new corridors, it's just providing pretty new scenery to kill new enemies in. Doom map design are actually brilliantly designed because they are used to such great effect, finishing a level is not just killing the monsters, it's also beating the maze by finding the items.

In any event, the CoD model of new areas is ultimately doomed, because it relies of such expensive art assets to be constantly churned out, instead of using smart map design so areas are reused as the player must explore to find keys.

I honestly can't believe anyone would have such a terrible opinion on the matter, modern corridor shooters don't have mazes with items because the audiences doesn't have the attention span or the desire to do anything but keep shooting Russians with an occasional change of scenery.
Post edited March 26, 2014 by Crosmando
avatar
GastonArg: You cannot compare those two games in how length they are...or in anything really, COD all of them are corridors shooters, if you walk out from the area that the developers wants you to stay, you die.

You can use this for a good example doom 3 vs cod ghosts, 13+6 (for the expansion) now that's a fair comparison :)
and if you walk out from the area developers wants you to stay in doom you are wondering pointlessly.
so comparison is valid
avatar
Crosmando: It's certainly preferable to shooters with no key items, where every door is open-able (or blast-able) and there's no need to actually search, backtrack to find keys or find secret locations with armor/ammo. It's a hell of a lot less "mindless" than the shooters of today.
it is still mindless as you just need to search every part of the room. nothing challenging in that.


Yes, but those "constantly new areas" are just new corridors, it's just providing pretty new scenery to kill new enemies in. Doom map design are actually brilliantly designed because they are used to such great effect, finishing a level is not just killing the monsters, it's also beating the maze by finding the items.
how is brilliant? just redoing the same parts over and over again. nothing new. how often in doom you have to cross the same room, the same corridor in order to get where you want. beating the maze by searching every corridor, every room. nothing brilliant about that.

In any event, the CoD model of new areas is ultimately doomed, because it relies of such expensive art assets to be constantly churned out, instead of using smart map design so areas are reused as the player must explore to find keys.
yeah. reuse. reuse the same area, the same corridor by making you run back and forth. not really fun.

I honestly can't believe anyone would have such a terrible opinion on the matter, modern corridor shooters don't have mazes with items because the audiences doesn't have the attention span or the desire to do anything but keep shooting Russians with an occasional change of scenery.
so you want puzzle game or shooter? one plays fps to shoot stuff. dodge bullets, flank enemies. all doable in modern shooters, even in shitty cod games.

I abhor backtracking. I just can't stand it. If i die and have to redo last 2 minutes of game i get furious. playing the game where you constantly have to go through the maze in order to progress is just horrible, constantly backtracking just to check whether one missed a key or a door. doesn't add anything to the game. just pointless repetition.
plus you know... you do have open levels.... much more than whatever doom offered you. Or are you saying far cry? Crysis 2 is less open than Doom 1/2?
Imagine if far cry series and crysis series had those damn annoying Checkpoints!! I hate games where you can't save where ever the HELL you like! I hate having to do the same half hour segment again! I HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT!
Post edited March 26, 2014 by fr33kSh0w2012