Bioshock Infinite was extremely ambitious, it is so clear based on the really early "gameplay" that they had to give up on a lot of goals. Columbia went from open-ish city to a Disney-esque facade of what it wanted to do.
I thought Bioshock did a good job with it's commentary on Objectivism; almost every new character or area represents in some way the impacts of objectivism by showing the sort of people that profit the most from it, and what sorts of problems festered beneath the surface due to the ideas. All of the regular people ended up getting fucked over while only the extremely talented reached any measure of success, and the lack of ethical constraints created a ruined utopia filled with addicts covered in tumors driven insane and killing for their next fix of Adam. Not exactly subtle but an actual commentary on Objectivism nonetheless,
There's also the fact that your character in that first game is actually an unrecognized bastard child Ryan essentially gave away in secret just so he wouldn't have to see you again after he'd killed his wife for having you again in secret. Puts his final conversation with you in a different perspective doesn't it?
"Real things that real people would do. They're effective. Grounded. Honest." Elizabeth's Disney Princess moment where she hands an apple to an orphan hiding under the stairs while singing to Booker's pickup guitar is none of those things.
Yeah, as far as this kind of RNG Helper Girl character goes? Elizabeth is an overcooked cliche, when compared to any of the Persona Navigators. Fuuka? Rise? Futaba? Those are what "Effective. Grounded. Honest." versions of that character function look like.
What makes Bioshock Infinite disappointing is the failure to take advantage of the setting. Violence isn't what's wrong with the game; Columbia is a White Supremacist police state that owes its continued existence to excessive repressive violence under a veneer of utopian wonder. But, while Rapture was a rotting corpse haunted by humanoid monsters and megalomaniacs, Columbia is a living breathing city with a functioning populace. And yet, we cant meaningfully interact with anyone aside from slinging lead and crows at them. Instead of characterizing Comstock, Fink, and Fitzroy throughout the story, we're forced to collect Voxophones to fully understand their motivations. We could've eavesdropped on a Founders Sermon to learn the details of their ideology, or witness the violent police repression of Finkton residents protesting for the right to vote. We could have been given the choice to do Fink's dirty work, or to aid the Vox uprising to gain contacts, safe-houses, weapons, vigors, and deeper incite into what makes Fitzroy tick or the origin of Vigors instead of shoehorning it into the DLC (of course, the narrative would have to converge before the end.) The game would have been much better if it were characterized with long, tense calms punctuated with moments of extreme violence directed at the player, or Columbian citizens, as we kept our nose down navigating the city. If Booker said or did the wrong thing, or walked into the wrong building we'd find ourselves not only dealing with hostile police, but armed civilians (all males in Columbia are militarized from a young age and machine guns advertisements are abundant). If the shootout lasts too long, the Songbird would arrive and force a hasty retreat. Irrational Games had removed most of the RPG and stealth mechanics of the Shock series when they should have been the primary aesthetic of play in this title instead of the gunplay.
Sorry to dig into a 4 years old comment but what you say at then end of your last paragraph (entering somewhere and doing something weird then a gunfight starts) is exactly what the original game was (remember those gameplay trailers ?).
Old comment but whatever I feel like that was absolutely the intention. There was notoriously a HUGE level of input and influence from the executives, and it's clear from playing that there's an enormous level of tonal dissonance, even moreso than the original bioshock.
I'm not a big 'gamer', so I had thought that my dislike of the game's mechanics was simply because I was inexperienced and wanted to get the killing over with so I could explore. When the game came out, I had also thought it was amazing but then I began seeing the problems with how it sort of dropped you a 'message' of racism/nationalism vs. bloodthirsty revolution but Booker is against both. I didn't like the violence on either side, but I had so much empathy for the Vox and yet you're forced to kill Daisy because she's "just as bad" as Comstock? As an artist and history enthusiast, the art design and architecture was amazing to me. As someone who's been learning about systemic oppression, the game fell flat on such a big message. The relationship between Booker and Elizabeth was interesting, but not enough to justify why you had to violently go through waves and waves of enemies.
I didn't particularly like Elizabeth as a character, or should I say, how they went about making her likeable. I fairly doubt someone who had been trapped for years, with little to no human contact would be a care free and confident as she comes across. She would be more paranoid/anxious and afraid, yet she comes across like a complete extrovert who is in touch with the normal world right from the get go. And why? Because making a paranoid, anxious, untrusting girl would be far harder to make likeable than a girl who smiles, dances, shows compassion and empathy and generally just seems like the cute girl next door. For the sake of effort, they took the easy route, and shat all over any sort of realistic character depth.
StopAskingMeToChangeMyName I don't disagree with you, but I'm reminded of all the books she would be stuck in, living in a tower by herself for years. Essentially living in fictitious worlds where she has some grasp of an ideal on how a young, energetic woman "should" act.
ladenswallow09 Honestly I think she was inspired by Bell from the Disney Beauty and the Beast- not much contact with people due to her obsession with books, but still, well, her. I guess that isn't a good explanation, but I did still enjoy her as a character.
+joesatmoes the issue is that Bell still had contact with the human world she engaged in conversation with a loving father and she was well loved by her community. She performed an act of self-isolation with her books. Here Elizabeth just does not grow up under these conditions and as such her extroverted nature makes little to no sense. Still a fun game.
but you have to remember that she was locked in that tower not because she wanted to but because Comstock had her locked in there, you could see right from the beginning that she was always fascinated by the life outside of that tower.
Bioshock Infinite seems to be a love it or hate it kind of game. I personally loved it, but I have seen reviews that did a poor job trying to explain why the reviewer hated the game. Those reviews insulted the people who enjoyed that game and called the developers idiots which is a big no no unless you're going for a more comedic approach. You on the other hand explained your reasoning for disliking the game perfectly. This is a terrific review and its rare for me to enjoy watching a review that criticizes something I love. Errant Signal, you deserve a medal.
Actually, most of the reviews were more critical of Elizabeth as a character and the fact that the game play is a step down from the original bioshock games.
I had the exact same experience. I loved this game and this video isn't changing my mind. But they laid out their points in a clear way and I completely see where they are coming from. I don't even think they are wrong. I just like what the game does right enough that I can overlook what it does poorly
Heck, even "Bioshock 2" wasn't much more of a shooter than the original and it still kept much of what was good about the gameplay. At least there it tried to fix, what I thought, were some of the problems that the original had such as clunky combat with the addition of being able to duel wield plasmids and weapons, reworking the boring and contextually weird hacking system, made researching enemies a lot less tedious, and all while keeping everything else gameplay wise that was good about the original. As for "Bioshock Infinite" they weren't even BOTHERED to try and tweak these gameplay mechanics and decided to just throw everything out the window. At least "Bioshock 2" tried.
It seems a lot of people here disagree because of a misunderstanding, i.e equating mindless combat with violence. My take on the matter is that mindless combat is just a filler in a game which major selling point is its story. It's basically "Here comes 14 mooks that want to kill you for X reason. You don't want to die so kill them." That would have been fine if your character reacted in any way at all, but you just shrug it off and move to the next pack of mindless mooks which happily rushes you, especially when the combat mechanics are so basic. Just "Shoot with this gun, use this vigor, combine those." which is a step back from the System Shock 2's (and Bioshock 1-2 to some extent) different kinds of ammunitions which were good against certain enemies, but crap against others, and vigors taking a step back from plasmids from Bioshock 1-2, from combining and playing the enemies against each other, to just being magical attacks that does immidiate damage, damage over time or crowd controlls, or a combination of those. In essence, my beef with Infinite is that it stripped so much from the previous games, taking out everything from different ammunitions, and hacking to being able to explore the surroundings, and not just running along the path that the game indicates as the correct one. A good story is a poor substitute for bad/repetitive gameplay.
"It thinks that by presenting an idea, it's commenting on or engaging with that idea" - see also every Obsidian game ever (but with an extra insulting "yoo gotta think fur yurself, maaaaan!" thrown in from an author self-insert character).
I think what this game needed is a sense of morality and repercussions to your actions. Maybe you could have seen how Booker became evil, cruel and more Comstock-like if you senselessly killed everything that walked, or engaged in combat unnecessarily when there were other actions. BioShock 1 and 2 had a morality system which affected the ending and messed with your emotions and empathy toward the Little Sisters -- so it's strange that this aspect is completely absent from Infinite. I agree with most of your points. I did really enjoy this game when it was released, but the disconnect between your actions and the story were really startling. There is a definite level of difference between racists throwing stuff at some black people and tearing the throats off of a dozen people with a grinder. How would Elizabeth REALLY react to the hundreds of people you murder throughout the game, and why would a "mostly peaceful" city in the sky be equipped with gun vending machines at every corner? As many have pointed out, fantastic concepts, beautiful world, thought-provoking storyline set against quirky but unfitting first person shooter mechanics.
If you watch some of the pre-release trailers that had the developers talk about features of the game. They had a more "ludonarrative harmony", an example from an early tech demo had Booker and Elizabeth walking past a crowd of Vox Populi who are about to execute a mailman. It was framed as something akin to the ADAM/Little Sister choice in the first Bioshock. The Gear system in the game was going to be part of a very similar alternate universe counter-part of the Gene Tonics called the "Nostrums". The game in concept was going to be more interesting and ambitious: The Siren was going to be akin to the Big Sister's who would - at least initially - randomly appear to harass the player and resurrect the dead. A similar concept was goingo to be be employed in regards to the Songbird. Even the Boys of Silence were going to be reactive enemies who would be peppered around the gamespace and remove noise and sounds while acting as a mobile alarm system
There was actually a great moment to reflect moral choice like you're talking about. SPOILER When you're separated from Elizabeth, and find her in the far future, she could have acted differently depending on how violent or otherwise moral you were. She would then send you to a different final level, depending on the ending.
I was really disappointed with infinite, and this is video sums up how I feel well. The series never really built upon itself. What aggravates me most is that there was a lot of potential here. There was no reason the shooting and vigor aspects couldn't have been improved. (Also I hate the vigors. Plasmids were central to bioshock, but vigors feel tacked on to infinite) There is no reason we couldn't have had interesting villains you can relate to, or looked at issues like American exceptionalism, nationalism, states rights, racism or religious extremism. But they squandered it and focused on making a bunch of set-pieces and spectacle moments, and they feel cheap. The characters are cartoonish and the game is afraid to say anything about issues of importance. The entire game exists to lead up to a moment the writer thought was cool. If I wanted a set-piece shooter I can do better. I did like some of it though, pieces were excellent. I mean I beat the game twice. The Lutece Twins were a major high point for me. there are a few areas that are just beautiful, and the couple times you get to just wander around are pleasant if a bit lifeless. The story just has so many hints that it could have been something more, and a game with lost potential is way more infuriating than a bad game.
It's so interesting to sort the comments by newest and see people completely and utterly miss every last thing that was said in the video...even a decade after the fact. Really impressive, gaming massive, really impressive.
I always seemed to think that, at least pertaining to the "citizens bumrushing you", it was explained with their love of Comstock, their lord and savior, telling them that there was a "false shepherd", going around attempting to teach them false prophecies conflicting with Comstock's own ideals.
mm the problem wasnt the gore, the problem was that try to be a generic shooter while the city and characters tells RPG-FPS, the peace moments were useless you cant interact with citizens or do shit in the city and then the game transforms in call of duty
I'm inclined to agree. It's easy to start with "goring is boring" (which it really is in this game) and assume the inverse is also true, treating all the nonviolent sections as worthwhile, just because they aren't the filler combat. The sad truth is that even if you cut out all the combat, only half the game you had left would be meaningful, although that would at least still be a massive improvement to the concentration of quality.
I actually disagree with the whole violence doesn't fit in argument to be honest. To me the entire point is that it's all a facade. Columbia is beautiful and gorgeous, but underneath it all is all blood and death. Furthermore, the entire point of Booker committing genocide even though he regrets his Pinkerton years is because that is his nature. He learned to live with it. Just like Slater tells him, he is a murder, and he can't change it. Elizabeth on the other hand, when you play as her in Burial at Sea 2, chooses to neutralize enemies over killing them. So I find violence to be in place with the world and the characters.
I seriously fucking love you. Really appreciate the amount of consideration you put into your criticism, even if having to wait like a month for new videos is killing me.
A Critique of the game that isn't a complete subjective rant filled with hateful slurs and nitpicks? Well Done. I love the game dearly but I respect this video. I appreciate it when someone who dislikes Infinite actually dislikes it for well-explained reasons instead of just "lul pretentious and convoluted."
I agree partly with this statement but I don't think there's anything wrong with being subjective or having opinions. To me this video still seems very much rooted in this guys personal opinions, his take, his experience and there's nothing wrong with that. I watch videos like this to see things from another perspective, to hear other opinions. I personally loved Bioshock Infinite and disagree with many points raised in this video, but the points he made were considered, valid and respectable.
+Ryan Morton There isn't anything wrong with being subjective to an extent. This video presented it's arguments well, they were actual arguments that could be taken as real flaws, and he didn't waste his time on nitpicks, he went straight for the throat and presented his arguments very well. MatthewMatosis's video was the perfect example of how not to do it, he spent a good 90% of his video focusing on nitpicks and the whole time sounding deeply offended by the game instead of sounding like a rational human being, Plus MatthewMatosis is wrong about a number of things, he doesn't understand the game nearly as much as he thinks he does. And Like I said, I loved Bioshock Infinite and disagree with what this video says but I respect it, unlike MatthewMatosis's video.
***** I feel the same way about this video. Well, mostly. While I thought 90% of the video was thoughtful (even if I disagreed about everything), I think he trips up at *the end* of the video. Him feeling that racism in the game simply said "All white people are bad!" seems stupid to me. This game made me feel bad for my enemies, even if they were part of a white supremacist society. How is that heavy handed or clumsy?
***** ...that's not what the game was saying at all. Personally, I felt that the game was trying to portray people as the *flawed* creatures we really are. Win or lose, people like Daisy are worshiped and idolised by many for her heroic deeds, and almost _none_ of those worshipers want to see her as a human being. An actual persons with flaws and weaknesses and prejudices. It's the same with any famous leader in history (Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, etc). They were all incredibly flawed people who are worshiped for the deeds they did, but..almost always _not_ portrayed for the flawed people they really were. If I said the SAME things Abraham Lincoln said, people would call me a racist, but..it's OK for him because he was a *product of his time*. So was Daisy Fitzroy. Because _Bioshock:Infinite_ wanted to portray fictional "icons" _before_ they would go on to be famous and idolised and worshiped figures of history.
As for the violence dissonance argument that I see all of the time. It doesn't make sense to me. It's a dark game about how the events of the game changes these two characters and the relationship that forms between them. It's an Odyssey, it's about Booker and Elizabeth, their relationship, how they change each other throughout the game. The violence is the catalyst for the change that the characters undergo, and without it I don't exactly know what the game would even contain. It didn't take away from the story at all, it's what changes the characters.
I've tried to be patient and listen to the critics who truly felt there was ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock:Infinite, but in the end all I can say is that their *argument sounds stupid*. It truly makes no sense to me. Do we really want to play a non-violent point-and-click adventure game as Booker DeWitt, a man known for his *talent for violence*? What's the point of playing a violent character in a game with little to no violence? I agree with you. Violence is an important part of Biosock:Infinite.
Paradox Acres There are legitimate criticisms to Infinite, but the Ludonarritive dissonace one is false. It got stirred up by the so called "Intellectual gaming community" who wanted to sound way more intelligent then they actually are, they failed to understand the meaning of the phrase. And the majority of people who disliked the game immediately took it as fact without thinking about it at all, and now Infinite's in the situation it's in right now, surrounded by false criticism and unjust hatred.
***** Agreed. There's a lot to criticize about Infinite, but the violence is definitely not one of them. Ludonarrative dissonance is such a silly thing to complain about a video game, anyway. I tried to understand but couldn't take it seriously. I find it both funny and sad that people seem to view Infinite as some *threat* to the video game industry. The Bioshock games, even though AAA, were never very lucrative. No one is going to make "Bioshock clones", because no one is going to think these games have a "winning formula" that will make publishers tons of money. That Bioshock:Infinite even exists is a miracle, as I can't imagine it sounded like a "good investment". We will never get another Bioshock:Infinite.
My problem with Infinite is that most of the violent set pieces do indeed feel like filler. A story that is about cultural/political issues and emotional struggles and violent uprisings, yet has gameplay that is 95% violent, seems like a huge inconsistency. I agree with him that the infrequent moments of solace and contemplation, as much as I like them generally, are so short/optional to make an impact. I don't think Errant was trying to imply that violent games are never saying anything meaningful, I think he is saying that Bio: Infinite can't make transitions properly between most, not all but most of its narrative elements and gameplay mechanics. I am not sure just how many FPS games do suffer from this dissonance or inconsistency issue, but imo Infinite is one of them, at least for most of the time. I mean seriously, I liked the ending but what does it have to do with bullets and gore?
Jason Bissainthe I disagree. There are moments in Infinite that are *just gameplay* while other moments are *just story*, but I think it all melds together organically. It feels like they struck a nice balance, something other games either don't bother attempting, or have long cutscenes as the "quite moments". What's the point of playing a man like Booker DeWitt, whose *only* talent in life is violence, if you're not forced into violent situations? I like how it was done in the game: Booker wouldn't go looking for a fight and he'd always try to reason with people, try to make "a deal" of some sort even if he felt that he'd probably get betrayed, anyway. The violence was part of that world and part of Booker's life. Also, I feel like this game was more about guilt and the choices that people make. It was about how dangerous people in power can be, regardless if their power comes from the people, or religion or money. Booker is the most dangerous soldier in that world, but nowhere near as dangerous as Fink, Fitzroy or Comstock.
... you've stated exactly my thought process while i played this game. The only difference is, its less thats the "tits and gore" is an outright bad thing, but that its meaningless and boring. The original bioshock and bioshock 2 certainly wasn't overly world-shattering in terms of raw gameplay, but i think the devs accomplished what every game developer should accomplish, and thats engagement. Infinite shat itself trying to get me invested in the shooting aspect, it was flat, uninteresting, and worst of all a downright chore to slog through. Of course the ending sequence, visuals, and lutece twins were wonderful. But everytime the game asked me to gun another hundred soldiers down, or crack down at another off-brand Big Daddy, or showed me another dead-end door i couldn't explore, it felt awful. Overall a very taxing experience.
Interesting analysis. I bought Bioshock Infinite after all the glittering critical reviews. However I found the game somewhat underwhelming. Beyond the lack of actual discussions regarding themes presented in the game (as pointed out by Campster), the fact that at midpoint through the game the supposed hero jumps to an alternate reality essentially renders all efforts that came before moot. It's like building a house half-way then abandoning it for a different house. It doesn't really matter what you did or did not do on the first house since it's now effectively gone. And I think that's why some people (including me) don't find the ending particularly enticing: none of it really matters. An infinite number of Bookers are doing an infinite things. Like the myriad of players who played this game, so what if you managed 100% headshot count? Out there are players who can't score a hit if he (or she) used that Luttece coin as projectile.
Bioshock infinite is both art house and grind house, though some may see a fault in this contrast I think it works well. My question to everyone is why can't violence be art?
Because in order to be seen as art we need to be pretentious and full of our selves. And to do THAT we need to stick our noses in the air and scoff at the violence that is only for those measly commoners.
didsheaskaboutme Oh no. I was being sarcastic. This idea that an interesting story can't be violent is infuriating to me and whenever I see people calling it out, those are the thoughts that fill my head. I sincerely believe people like Campster think that being pretentious is the key to being artful.
GameCat16 Isn't it ironic that a pretentious prick like Campster hates a pretentious game like Bioshock:Infinite? ;) Seriously, though. I think he was mostly respectful and articulated when it came to voicing his opinions. They were silly, of course, but I kinda enjoyed his video. I guess I'm just so used to disagreeing with critics (even ones I love) that I can just laugh it off. I think BI is the only FPS game that makes my silly list of Most Favourite Games Ever. =)
thank you for your commentary on the two warring factions. i was honestly disappointed that they seemed to be trying to say that, well, if your a colored person and oppressed, tough luck! cuz your revolutionaries are gonna be shitty! have fun going from the oppressed to the evil! i was honestly upset that i had to start killing fitzroy's people after i went through so much shit to do good things for them, and having so much desire to right for them. but i couldnt even reflect on it because of the long ass fight scenes (and they were dressed almost identical to the original enemies....) i just hate when games bring up issues, then ignore them ;/ bioshock 1 had an excuse: just splicers were living there. infinite had no excuse. it choked hard. you either go all the way, or dont go there at all. as for combat, idgaf about violence. i just want it to be /fun/. infinite was not fun. it was tedious. thus, it made the violence seem much more drawn out and in your face. if they trimmed the amount of time it took to kill, then i doubt many people would be commenting on violence.but because we spent HOURS AND HOURS shooting the same guys over and over again, this is what happens....
This is simply how I felt while playing the game: getting on the wrong side of *powerful* people will get you killed. It doesn't matter if they're cause is just or unjust; powerful people are dangerous. I feel like maybe people take Bookers opinion, on how Fitzroy & Comstock "are the same", a little too seriously. Booker is a *man of his time*. Sure, he doesn't "indulge" in racism, but he isn't politically-correct either. He acts like how a white man of 1912 might act. Elizabeth, on the other hand, readily accepts his view because she is naive and barely understands how the world works. That's how I see it, anyway. I felt sad, too, when I had to fight the rebels. But I understood that there was barely anything Booker & Elizabeth could do. It was bad luck and bad timing. Killing Fitzroy was not a "victory" at all, but was presented as a turning point for Elizabeth. It was tragedy, not victory.
@@paradoxacres1063 Except that Booker's the games POV character. We're MEANT to see things from his perspective. And even still, you can't exactly have a character make a super gross comment like that without challenging them. There's really no reason to include Booker being racist unless you're actually going to addresss Booker's racism in the story. He's a completely fictional character. He can act however the hell you want him to act.
@@ravenfrancis1476 _"We're MEANT to see things from his perspective"_ No, the game makes it very clear early on that Booker is (at best) a *morally grey* person. He's apathetic towards other people's struggles, one of those "both sides" type of white men..then he's told to kill himself at the end. Because that's what "both sides" type of white men deserve 🤷♂️ Basically, the Ending tells us that even if you kill baby Hitler you don't get to avoid having to face the Evil Within yourself.
Paradox Acres Except that literally nobody actually challenges his beliefs. He’s still the same obnoxious hypercentrist dumbass when the game ends that he is when it begins.
I feel like at least to an extent, the game's world feeling artificial is part of the point. It's supposed to look like a facade because Colombia itself is putting on a facade of beauty and purity, but the citizens will bum rush you with suicidal fervor, enact heavy segregation and mistreat its working class. In this way, this game is an effective criticism of this idea in America, and indeed our country's long history of sweeping its dark side under the rug. Still, for the most part I can agree with the gist of the video, although I do genuinely believe that you're being way, WAY too harsh, while I feel like the game's most blatant flaw is with the story: much more could have been done to integrate the violence more into the thematic elements of the story.
exactly. to criticize it for looking like a facade is to not understand what the world IS: it IS a wannabe-wonderland that wants to SELL itself as good, by LOOKING good. that is what a facade is. also, the violence and gore is supposed to make the contrast between this facade and the ugly truth bigger. plus this violence just showcases booker. he is a violent guy. which is part of the story, more than once. also, the greated part and theme of the game (for me, that is) is the time/dimension-travel, the whole multiverse-theme.
He seems a bit butthurt at the end when it came to the racism in the game. I understood the rest of the video, which I felt was thoughtful, but his problem with how racism was portrayed is ridiculous. I'm with TotalBiscuit on this one: the game managed to portray racism pretty well.
Random Guy Oh, that's right! Yeah, I remember. We typed walls and walls of text on Yahtzee's video, I think lol Anyway, what did you think about Bioshock:Infinite? Ludonarrtive dissonance? Or Lugoscababib Discobiscuits? (as Jim Sterling called it)
Paradox Al Eh. I remember one time I killed a civilian in the middle of a convo with Elizabeth. Honestly, I think it worked out because of her betrayal at the blimp. If I was walking around with what I thought was a psychopath, I'd probably keep quiet until my first real chance at escape. Ludonarrative dissonance? Probably. While I do think they could've done more than they did, they can't do everything.
One thing to notice about projectile vs. hitscan is that Wolfenstein 3D had all hitscan enemies yet it also had winding, labyrinthine level design, deliberately simple AI, an incapacitating stun animation every single time an enemy was hit by your guns, and long, obvious wind-up animations for most enemy attacks. So a skilled player could still avoid damage by kiting, AI manipulation, stun-locking, rapid reactions, and good timing, and the game had a rhythmic, dance-like quality as you exploited the behaviors of the enemies to kill them without giving them a chance to hurt you back. And getting hit in Wolfenstein was extremely punishing--you had no armor and no health regeneration and a point-blank shot could take off up to 64% of your health. So there are more factors than just hitscan vs. projectile. I'd really like to see a modern game tackle hitscan enemies the same way. Duke3D sort of did it, but that was 1996 and the enemies were way too tough, too hard to stunlock, and too fast on the draw, making combat against numerous pig cops or enforcers frustrating without frequent saving and reloading.
It's my understanding that this game went through a major and rather hasty redesign late in development, hence why some trailers barely resemble the finished game.
I personally loved the combat system, so much more so than the Last of Us which felt so bad I gave up on the game half way through. The story in this game felt so much more engaging and impactful too... I honestly don't get why people hate on it.
It sucks that BioShock Infinite is so vapid and meaningless, because if there's one thing America needs, it's more criticism of it's own jingoism and sense of moral rectitude.
i feel as just a game, bioshock infinite is a pretty good game. The first bio/system shock games where amazing survival horror fps games. Bioshock Infinite wanted to be a modern "guns Blazing" fps, and it was pretty good. Its problem came from wanting to keep the philosophical discussion that made the originals memorable. This leaves the game with an unsatisfied feeling of "ludo-narritave dissanace". The gameplay was pretty good, the story was prety good, but they don't fit togetherr.
Wooo. First time I actually have a lot to say about one of your videos (other than excellent as always.)TL;DR - you made a lot of points I hadn't heard before, changed my position on the violence debate, and just holy shit great video. 1. Violence: I've seen a lot of hate aimed at this game over the violence which I never understood. Most of it boiled down to "super violence = not art", which I felt was lacking. To me, the violence played a clear purpose - it's contrasted with Booker's constant whining about how bad he is to show, throughout the game if you pay attention, that he will never change. He can't - (insert tons of summary of main plot here) - and will always be the kind of awful person who does the things the player does to people in this game. Your video was the first I saw that actually hammered home the point that while that could be true, the game does nothing to make you understand that, and basically uses the violence as entertainment anyways. In addition, your commentary on how empty the justifications for battles/battles themselves felt (mindless guards, empty gunplay, etc) definitely hit home for me. Awesome. 2. I agree entirely with your point on the game's politics, and I've taken to referring to the series as "Bioshock is to political commentary as mudscratching is to realism" - you're making an attempt, sure, but it's not going to remembered as much besides "early attempts". 3. I enjoyed the game because of its meta-commentary on games - the idea that true choice isn't possible in games, etc - and this made me excuse the hyper-violence and linear levels as part of that message. I haven't changed my mind on this, but your video does a good job of explaining why it wasn't done *well*. To me, games like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us are interesting because they're the industries first attempts (in my memory, which is admittedly really fucking short due to age) at making really "meaningful games" that "say deep things" the way that indie titles consistently have in my life. They're empty and clumsy and dominated by hyperviolence as a result, and we're nowhere near where we need to be. Thank you for being one of the people out there who criticize games for not living up to what they could be - your videos are great.
I finally found someone who's opinion on this game matches my own; an opinion I was almost afraid to type aloud in the face of all the hype and gushing reviews. A decent game, but ultimately tiresome and shallow, and certainly not a masterpiece as all the accolades indicated.
After watching this video several times, I have a couple things to say. Yes this video may be old and your opinions may be changed, but this is what I watched so this is what I'm commenting about. First of all, your comment on the mindless gore and blood and how it doesn't fit in the game. It actually does fit in a very significant way, the main character himself. Look at Booker's past, he did horrible things at Wounded Knee, he scalped Indians of all ages and genders, her burned tee pees with children inside them, even though their were not hostiles. He earned the nickname the White Injun of Wounded Knee. He went to a baptism but refused it because of his own beliefs. He lost his wife to childbirth, and then sold the child to pay off a gambling and drinking debt he had gained over the years. Does this not speak violence? Does this not speak of a man who, when going up against people trying to kill him, would slaughter them as you do in the game? Besides, if you did these horrible things, had these happen to you, if you lived Booker's past, would you not feel the game, would you not avoid talking about it unless the situation requires it. In this way he is just like Joel in the early sections of the Last of Us. He doesn't care about killing, he focuses on the job at hand, and when something bad happens, he says to his partner "We don't TALK about it." The other point of this is the time period. In 1912, would you question racism, when it was so popular. Would you talk about the racist view of America. There is an entire section of Columbia dedicated to the man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Why does the game not speak of this. Well why would it? At the time would be people protesting in speaking when Columbia and Comstock are such religious extremists? The game does not speak, it shows. It shows you just how far we have come, it shows you just how bad things were in the past. It lets you step in the shoes of a person in a time where all these things, all there horrible terrible things are common in everyday lives. There is a scene where Elizabeth asks Booker "Why is one bathroom for colors and one for whites." and Booker replies "It just is." THAT is how this game shows the racism, the politics, it shows it. Now for the main comment, the comparisons between Bioshock 1 and Bioshock: Infinite. I would like to ask while you were playing the game another time, did you happen to notice the similarities between Columbia and Rapture. It's far, far more then "There's always lighthouse, there's always a man, there's always a city." Look at it, Comstock and Ryan, Fiztroy and Fontaine, Elizabeth and the Little Sisters, Songbird and the Big Daddies, the Splicers and the Columbian Police, even the vigors. Shock Jockey and Electrobolt, Devils Kiss and Incinerate. So many similarities, yet not the same. Ken Levine himself said Bioshock 1 was an "Exploration of the extremes of Objectivism," but Bioshock Infinite is another exploration of extremes. Look at Columbia and Rapture's political, philosophical, religious, and social views. Are they not mirror opposites of each other? Is Columbia different from Rapture, by all means yes, but will this place be familiar to those that have played the previous games. By all means yes as well. And now for the gameplay. I could talk for hours on the gameplay. Elizabeth says during the end, "We all swim in different oceans but end on the same shore." This is Bioshock Infinite's gameplay. You aren't given all the weapons, but you would you be given them all. Have all weapons available at times, why would someone do that. Would that not remove a choice on the player's part? You can not be given ALL the tools, you must CHOOSE which one you use. You went through Hand Cannon and Machine Gun, well I went through Sniper Rifle and Rocket Launcher. Did we both play the same game? Yes. Is there a problem with this? No. Then why does everyone say there is? You used Shock Jockey most of the time, I used Possessions. did we both play the same game? Yes. Is there a problem with this? No. Then why does everyone say there is? You went straight during the end sequence, or you took the left stairwell, well I went the other way, and we both ended up in the same place. Is this not variety? Is this not a player's own experience of a game? As for lack of playing with the game's systems. Ever heard of Vigor Combos? Ever heard of trying out different weapons, using different tears, using different Vigors. Going to different areas of a level to snipe enemies, or rushing them head on with a shotgun. Is this not player variety? Is this NOT playing the systems? Bioshock Infinite contains MORE combat variety then the originals, but we all said, and we all wanted, the same thing. We wanted another Bioshock 1. When in reality, you got something more. And then there is the choices in the game, how the choices you do get to make don't impact the story, well yes they do. The Raffle, the Ticket Booth, Slate, all of these impact the story. They impact it on the player's part. Did you make the choice to shoot Slate, spare him from the horrors of the Columbian Prisons, even though he used to be one of your friends. Did you make the choice to throw the ball at the couple just to blend in, or did you throw it at Fink in anger. Did you demand your tickets from the man even though there are obvious signs of a conflict, or did you draw your gun and truly demand them. These all are choices that impact the story. They impact the player's own experience of the game. Elizabeth says in the ending "Constants and Variables. I can see through all the doors, and what's behind all the doors." Behind one of those doors is your playthrough, behind one is mine. A constant and a variable. The constant is the story we experience, the variable is how we experienced it. To me, Bioshock Infinite suffers from what I call the sequel curse, we all looked at the old games, and then look at Infinite and say, "it's not the same, it's not what I wanted from the game." But WHY would they make a Bioshock Infinite with the SAME gameplay as Bioshock 1? WHY would they do this. Would it make sense, no! Would it work in the world, no! Would it please the players, maybe. Just look at Call of Duty, same gameplay, over and over again, and players still complain about it. Then look at this, different gameplay, and players still complain about it. Can we agree on anything anymore?
I just watched this video. You make a very good counter argument to the one this video represents .Which plays out more like a rant then anything. To which most of the points you bring up I agree with, even with the main one, the violence. There is even a part in the game where Booker mentions how easy killing is and it also indicated that he is horrified by how much he enjoys killing. I feel that almost everything in infinite has been meticulously chosen. yes columbia is supposed to feel like a racist disneyland. no the game does not run a commentary on the various issues it displays, because as you say, it doesnt need to. It shows them. That is how america was like in those days. and those days were violent. Infinite is telling a story SET IN the early 1900s. it is NOT..telling a story ABOUT the early 1900s. or running a commentary on that period. If the player looks there is, however ALLOT on how various factions feel about the world as you have also said. Also as to why everyone is shooting at you, I am sure they stated this quite often: Columbia is a battleship disguised as a city for the most part. Look at Soldiers field, duke and dimwit!: all about creating child soldiers under the pretention that its harmless child fun that gets the children out of the mothers hair for a few hours. This is all for Comstock to achieve his vision: drown in flame the mountains of man. If anything the game is a commentary of how the oppressors rewrite history to make them look like the oppressed. I do agree that more of the world should have been shown, atleast places of where some of the civilians lived (we got some of this in the columbia rooftops area and a little in boardwalk section but none in the shantytown area, infact there was a deleted entire shantytown home village that I really wish made it into the full game). I have tried this and it works: drain the colour from your tv and play infinite in black and white and suddenly the violence totally feel like a part of the narrative. Also if you turn the sound effects down. I feel like the sound of all the shooting does kinda overwhelm some players. It also lessons the critical dissonance. when you pay more attention to the music you realise how the music is also speaking to what is happening. horrific music beats happen everytime you kill or hit someone. also with the sound effects turned down and you hear the voices of everyone, the world does come alive allot more. you also make some good points how because the gameplay is different to bioshock, it sucks in the eyes of many fans. While I do dislike the in your face, throw everything at you style of infinite. It has grown on me, once you get used to picking and choosing it becomes allot of fun. I really love the charge vigor. with that vigor I can end the final airship fight REALLY fast!. If you haven't already, you should check out Noah Caldwells analysis of Bioshock. Its the best analysis so farr.
Well said. I don't agree with everything in the gameplay department because I was often frustrated out of my mind at the sometimes sparse gun selection, the health/shield issues discussed in the video, and the very commonplace feeling of a handyman or fireman fight. I do, however, completely agree with the display of racism. I would say that the game takes a stance to be anti-racism, but the opinions you have of the people a society are entirely of your own because the game simply displays them for you to interpret. And I don't think there's anything wrong or shallow about that. Also, I agree with the aestheticization of violence in the game. it felt like a Tarantino movie, critiquing the culture of violence while actively being very gory. It felt rather like a complication of Booker's personality. He hasn't changed from the nasty war veteran. And after all the dust has settled at the end of the game, you can understand why Booker had the potential to become Comstock. All it takes in some realities is just a slight decision and he tips over that edge. In my opinion, Infinite is a flawed game, but I really do think that it means something. It critiques the culture of violence, racism, and idealism without blatantly taking a stance at every given point. And I think there's something more subtle and nuanced in that.
Thank you, God. i couldn't think of the name of this channel for like 6 months, finally found it again. subscribed so i won't have to worry again. Bar none, best videogame reviewer i've ever watched.
Sir, thank you. You have provided a reasonable and logical elaboration over some of the issues in this game. I have my own to voice out, but since I have only finished the game an hour or two ago, I needed a bit of summation and revision. But that's just my bit of advantage here. I like the emphasis you put on the combat mechanics bit. It's well researched and not a simple matter of "rabble rabble combat sucks rabble rabble". Overall, I hope you're happy with another subscriber.
The last of us portrayed violence as a brutal and unnerving, but also justified and necessary. This game is a nonstop shooting fest that while aesthetically pleasing, was horribly repetitive and poorly paced. I can't begin to express how disappointing the ending was too.
Ok, I thought the gunplay in Bioshock Infinite was pretty awesome. Can you explain what makes it bad? People give Fallout 3 a lot of crap for it's bad shooting, but they say Fallout 4's are much better, but they seem mostly the same to me. This is something that's been confusing me for a while now. I remember all but the first 3 basic plasmids being all but useless. I think there was one or two times I used one of those other plasmids but otherwise they didn't seem to come in handy much. Kind of like mines, they are almost never worth the amount of time it takes to set them up.
+Disthron Using Fallout 3 as example, this ties into what Errant said about the other Shock games in regards to combat. While the actual gunplay was only about above average in Fallout 3, that never really mattered, because there were more interesting mechanics and other types of gameplay to back it up. In Fallout 3, the gunplay was backed up by tons of exploration, inventory management, sidequests with many different types of NPCs, crafting systems, bartering, etc. If shooting had been all there was to Fallout 3, it would have been a very mediocre game. And that's where Infinite fails: it takes all of the inventory/resource management, exploration, and varieties in weaponry and plasmids (or psyonics in System Shock's case) that made the other Shock games actually interesting and fun and boils that down to a two weapon limit and completely interchangeable vigors with zero inventory management. At least Fallout 3 let you carry more than two weapons at a time.
***** Ok, but what makes Bioshocks shooting mechanics worse than say COD, witch are apparently the best in the business. They all seem pretty much the same to me.
Disthron COD has the best shooting mechanics? That's debatable; I'd say games like Painkiller or Shadow Warrior 2013 have far better shooting mechanics precisely because they have more weapon and enemy variety, have no regenerating health or shields, and no weapon carry limit. Like COD, the only thing Infinite's mechanics have going for it is the controls are at least fluid and responsive, contrasted to the original Bioshock's very floaty gunplay. But at least for COD, the game is actually designed with its mechanics in mind. While you can only carry two weapons and a couple grenade types, you can A: carry a lot of ammo for each one, B: enemies die fairly quickly so you don't have to expend a lot of ammo fighting them, and C: enemies actually carry ammo for the guns you have, so it's very unlikely that you're going to just run out of ammo midway through a gunfight like you frequently do in Infinite. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending CoD's gameplay. Far too much of the game is spent hiding behind cover waiting for your health to regenerate, and that makes the gameplay very repetitious. Infinite's mechanics just don't match it's gameplay for the reasons Campster gave. The two weapon-limit just is not fit for the type of game Infinite wants to be. It breaks weapon upgrades since you're constantly dropping weapons for ones more situationally useful. It also means running out of ammo is frequent since enemies soak up a lot of damage and often don't carry ammo for the guns you're carrying. Most of the vigors are little more than different grenade types contrasted to earlier plasmids which had a wide variety of practical applications outside of direct damage dealing. And even if vigors were more useful, that use would be hampered since you can't carry salt-restoring items on your own anymore, so you'll run out of salts with no reliable way to refill them.
***** *COD has the best shooting mechanics?* Well.... that's what people tell me. Like I said, I played fallout 3 recently, witch apparently has terrible mechanics and they seemed fine to me. Infinite did have problems but I still really enjoyed the gun play in it. A LOT more than most shooters from recent years.
I LOVE YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE ULTIMA UNDERWORLD INFLUENCE!!! Not enough people recognise the unfluence of UU (esp. UU2) on looking glass's later game, SS1. The ice world in UU2 in particular really paved the way for the kind of atmosphere and narrative development looking glass developed in SS1.
I think something during the development of infinite went horribly wrong and this enraged ken levine, bioshock infinite isnt anything like what he wanted it to be its not even semi open world and a lot of feautures have been scratched and the style has been changed a number of times i think that is why irrational has been closed and just like there an infinite number of dimensions there are an infinite amount of bioshock infinite versions. Maybe even better ones
Lololol, another plot twist xD Just imagine it: 'HEY GUYS, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER BIOSHOCK INFINITE FROM ANOTHER UNIVERSE! THERE'S MORE RPG IN IT NOW! ALSO A MORE OPEN GAMEWORLD!' That'd be like the best marketing strategy ever.
I don't think it's fundamentally flawed to combine high art with extreme violence, especially as that pretty much defined one of the most important parts of the same era of early 20th century: World War One. So much important art, poetry and literature came directly out of such incredibly almost unfathomable levels of violence of a type almost unimaginable. As lurid as "vigours" and mech-suits are, so too were poison gas, submarines, battle tanks and Zeppelin bombers, not too awe inspiring to us today but are vigours therefore an update to have the same impact on 2010's audiences? So you have something to work with but I think the game failed to follow that inspiration. But WW1 confers a lot on the violence, repeatedly throughout the war there were mutinies of soldiers refusing to fight each other, the Christmas Truce being the largest one. It took constant effort by the chain of command of each side to keep them in line and keep them fighting to maintain or advance respective territory. That could have been a hugely important mechanic, how the people of Columbia only fought and KEPT FIGHTING Booker by the actions of "officers" or commissars or whatever who constantly whipped them up into a frenzy and if they were taken out and with the right diplomacy options Booker may get a free pass. But with such an element being SO RARE it looks like they are just driven by nothing more than their simple AI routines of attack attack attack. This game obviously draws A LOT from Halo (two weapon limit, rebounding shield, emphasis on accurate hip-fire) but clearly missed the mechanic of grunts retreating when their command element was taken out, their reticence to advance without some sort of obvious motivation. Less than polishing graphics it needed more audio clues, the suicidal charges could have still been there, been exactly the same but needed context dialogue like someone shouting "It's now or never boys, we all charge him at once or he'll kill us one by one!" or someone crying "this is for Charlie, you son of a bitch!" as they charge or "hold your line Dammit, if he breaks through we're done for!". Just a few things like showing mooks who run away from you being called cowards and shot by their own side. Because we know for a fact that in the First World War there was such capacity for wanton violent confrontation, it fails to show their logic, even as flawed as it was.
+Treblaine of course artistic value and violence aren't incompatible. But the violence has to be used in a meaningful way. (see the video about spec ops)
Maxime Teppe I think violence can be for the sake of violence, just the cathartic release we all need in a controlled consequence free environment. I don't ascribe to the view that playing violent games makes people criminally violent any more than reading sad books leads to depression related self-harm or suicidal tendencies. Arguably we should be more concerned about the latter, self-harm costs more lives than violence between people. I don't think it's a good idea to hijack a combat fantasy with moral guardian grandstanding. Not that you were actually suggesting that, but certainly there's no shortage of New Moral Guardians out there to lecture us on our wicked ways. Spec Ops the Line may be a critic's darling but I think it tries to have its cake and eat it, it doesn't really reconcile how we should pay for enjoy and appreciate this game yet the game try to swing around with the message that you shouldn't be doing this, take the game back and demand a refund. Go play a nice game like cooking Mama. I went back to play Bioshock Infinite again, I didn't find the actions of the antagonists to be as jarring as the review makes out, even remembering this analysis. Yes, they were extremely belligerent but not to the point of being illogical. Though Bioshock Infinite still feels half-baked, like the ideas weren't properly rounded, I'd love it if mod tools were released for the game as I seriously think it could be saved in the edit.
Treblaine well you were talking about "high art" and violence, so i thought as violence as commentary on something. Although violence as catharsis sure is valuable, i am less of a fan, mainly because i think we're pretty much done exploring that kind of catharsis. this said we can always find new ways to provide it, and make it new and interesting again. and as you say, the spec ops "don't play this game" is intersting, but just once. Still, i am sure there is a whole world of games using violence as a meaningful narrative mechanic without bashing you in the head. just as there is a whole universe of games to make about non binary moral systems.
Maxime Teppe I went to such high art examples not to show a lower limit but an upper limit. If it works there for something that is unequivocally art then there's no reason it shouldn't work for any other art forms. I don't know what you mean by not being a fan of catharsis, the appear in that is inherent regardless of novelty or critical exploration of it. As it is, despite how action packed games are hardly a new thing, I think there has been a lack of exploration of the hows and whys of it. Lots of talking around it and speculation on false premise. I don't think there has to be such profound meaning or message, I see that as a propagandist's view of society, one that I see them foisting on everyone in all quarters. They are very good at acting like that is the way all art is, it's the Begging The Question fallacy. Everywhere there is the agenda of "what is this trying to get you to change your mind on" well what if it isn't? What if it's just trying to elicit a feeling, a tone, a certain sense of presence. And why should it have to? What does Beethoven's 5th symphony have the actually SAY!?!? It doesn't, it doesn't have any lyrics. Even songs that do have lyrics they don't have as much importance as the song itself. Games need narrative like music needs lyrics, even if it is there it doesn't even need to make all that much sense. You're going to get narrative whether you like it or not, just as songs are going to have meaning regardless of lyrics or lack thereof.
Treblaine interesting I'm not saying i'm not a fan of catharsis, i'm saying i feel like there are already enough games out there that explore violence for it's own sake and the sake of catharsis. also, personal tastes: you just won't attract me by claiming that game X is ultra violent and does gore excellently well. That said, exploring the hows and why of this catharsis is already having a larger discourse, to me. But there might be a bias, brutality and bloodlust aren't regarded as noble in general, so games that try to provoke those aren't seen as art? But you shouldn't see my opinions as a condemnation: i am personnaly thinking Art as a word to loose to be useful. it is mostly used to segregate creations you like from those you won't. it validates elitism. so, to me, me not liking something doesn't prevent it from being "artful", or rather, interesting, valuable, meaningful or powerful.
I agreed with you until recently. I think the violence of the game works to make the point that violence always leads to more violence. Booker regrets his violent past, but approaches every situation by more violence, regardless how much you might think the antagonists are. The violence of the game gives the justification for Booker choosing to die at the end.
"Who actually liked the hacking of Bioshock?" People who like to approach situations with an option that isn't just screaming yolo and shooting everyone.
Ah, man, this game always serves as a sick reminder to me to NEVER preorder/buy super-hyped games at launch. Haven't touched this disappointment in such a long time that it's gathering dust.
Thank you for being the first reviewer I've seen/heard to actually recognize there was a game called System Shock. I've seen the odd review here or there touch on System Shock 2 as a source of inspiration for the BioShock series (if not labelling BioShock as being completely derivative of the former), but nowhere else has anyone I've seen or heard even acknowledged the existence of the original game which started it all, let alone included mention of its contributions. IMHO, System Shock (the first) was a fantastic game which pushed new ground for its time and completely demolished the walls of whatever the "box" for the genre was then. System Shock 2 improved upon that model in many ways, sure, but it wasn't nearly the revolutionary game which was, and will always be, the original. (you just earned yourself a subscriber)
This is why I think Bioshock Infinite's DLC Burial at sea is the ideal bioshock game, deep narrative weight, compelling characters and combat that's justified, and oftentimes avoidable and non-lethal.
And they brought back the weapon wheel and med kits you can carry with you, even, almost as a way of acknowledging that the game was worse off without them. Wish they'd had the sense to patch them into the base game.
Right? You could almost hear the game apologizing over and over again for those core mechanics programmed into it that they couldn't really do anything about.
and personally I really enjoyed the combat on its own. Running around, dodging shots, getting up close and blowing away enemies with the shotgun, ect. I also really enjoyed combat in previous games, I've never really heard that people didn't like bioshock's combat (the first two games that is). I don't have an issue with the combat so much as the constant arena fights that get tiresome and the fact that the violence and combat doesn't really fit with the story. If anything, the story tends to act like the violence and combat sections aren't really there or at least not as long and intense as they actually are.
crisis8v88 The ending of this game ruined it for me. I understood it and was well aware of the multiverse theory but they just used it as a way to cover up cheap writing. And I absolutely hated what they did to Elizabeth after that final level.
I actually really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite when I played it, much more than Errant Signal, for two main reasons. One, I actually enjoyed the shooting and vigors a fair amount. Two, those flashes of humanity, style, and color the game showed really carried it for me throughout. Yes, I know its a very flawed game, but I'm glad I played it, and feel like it at least tried to throw more out there than most AAA games nowadays. I was able to look past the ludonarrative dissonance and see what the game was trying for. Knowing the game had a troubled development, I can see how the ambitions of the team outpaced their ability to deliver on these ambitions...but at least it had those ambitions. I could see them shining through, and that really elevated the game for me above most AAA shooter schlock out there.
Came here as a remedy to Yahtzee embarrassing himself over this game. You hit on everything about this game that, for me, was made so much worse by the fawning reviews of it: linearity, lack of variety of combat, combat-as-set-piece, the "AI" of Elizabeth (how anyone can call an invincible ally's behaviour "AI" is a bit beyond me), the lack of meaningful exploration, the sameness of the powers, the theme-park feel, and the profound violence that starts for no reason most times. Also, it was interesting to note that despite the constant refrain of "hey, maybe slavery is a really bad thing" and "hey, maybe profound classism is really a bad thing" that to me felt like it was constantly stating the obvious as loudly and blatantly as possible, the tumblr Social Justice Warrior community was taking the pro-classist and pro-racist imagery of the game's world to make a point that the game was promoting racism. So, even when you're as subtle as a bull in a china shop, it's too subtle for some people to comprehend. Ah well. That none of the professional gaming reviews gave this anything but glowing praise on Metacritic actually caused me to re-examine how I use that site. From then on, I have to ignore all critical reviews since they are too frequently peppered with conflict of interest and to-short playtime before review, and ignore all of the POSITIVE user reviews. The only way I can get any meaningful use out of metacritic is to stick solely to the negative user reviews, and focus only on those that make meaningful, well-thought-out points, and decide which of those points matter for me, personally. In Bioshock Infinite, it seemed everyone else was waiting in line to dump more meaningless praise on it simply because it was pretty.
I agree with what you say in general, but there's one thing that I must object to. Positive reviews and negative reviews have nothing to do with the actual quality of the game. I mean, if you look at the Metacritic score of Gone Home, it basically says that the game is junk, and the negative reviews are not very substantial. In any case, I think the best reviewer for a game is yourself. Maybe this is one of those games that you play and think "Wow! This is awesome!" and then later that year you reflect and think "Wow, that game was actually boring as crap." Opinions are very subjective and, especially with famous opinions, can easily lead to a blind leading the blind situation, where many people are easily swayed by people like Yahtzee or AngryJoeShow and will therefore have a seemingly different view on it. An example of this is with the 9/10 GTA5 review. The game was so heavily praised that people could not accept anything else. Not to say that reviews are a bad thing. The point is that they give an insight into the game, what the game is and isn't, where it thrives and fails. And this is important because it gives high-profile games like COD:Ghosts the backhand slap it needs while uplifting obscure low-budget masterpieces. If reviews didn't exists, then (and this is entirely speculation here) the imbalance between high budget and low-budget games would be even greater; people would blindly buy big titles because they think it'll be good, while ignoring the smaller ones because they're unknown and potentially unsatisfying. Of course, people are faulted, and therefore, reviewers are faulted. It's easy to be distracted by flashy lights and ignore the combat, but, as with any profession, reviewers have to work to their hardest not to be suckered in by these things and view the game holistically and not just superficially. /rant
If the solution is to review every game yourself, that negates the value of game review generally. There simply isn't enough time or attention in the world for everyone to play everything. As I said, my system isn't about positive reviews versus negative reviews, but whittling down those reviews in a way that allows me to get more useful input as to whether the game will appeal to me or not. The positive reviews in particular are almost never useful in this regard.
I rationalized Elizabeth's invincibility by assuming Comstock put out some sort of pamphlet telling his soldiers and automatons not to kill his daughter, as he was hoping to use her for future religious demagoguery. Of course, I shouldn't have to make that assumption, and it's even harder to hold that assumption when she stands in the path of a missile, unaffected.
I've actually very recently started doing the same. The games which get scores from 9 and above in particular, really don't seem to match up with mine or player's of reasoned critiques views on the games. People seem to be very bad at explaining why they liked something and pin the "it was all excellent" badge on every part of the game, almost exclusively because graphics/art direction and grand set-pieces with allusions to maturity so easily titillated them. By reading more in depth systems critiques and people who are more balanced I can see what is considered a flaw about the game and decide if that if going to be something that might effect me. This is exactly as you said. Someone who says more than "it's amazing" or "that was rubbish" about a feature, actually give genuine context to why I should think the same. It's interesting how increasingly I rely on "nobodies" for real information. I find it almost always has something to do with "mature themes" and this goal of "cinematic" that gets the highest praise, which usually doesn't contend well with my ideals as a gamer and game designer. Cause, y'know, a game is meant to be PLAYED after all. Keep being critical brother!
A million times this. I bought a 360 specifically to play the original Bioshock and that game is still my favorite ever. I almost cried the first time I saved a Little Sister, and that was about 10 minutes into the game. Infinite was supremely described here. It's like shooting a peashooter into a bullet sponge.
You really made me think about a game that I've given so much praise. One thing I feel like I should say is that the violence fits with Booker's character. No matter how much he wants to be a good person (even through his alternate dimension's rewritten history) he still is a killer, and a skilled one at that.
I liked infinite. More than I liked BioShock. Maybe I'm just simping for Elizabeth. By no means is it a perfect game. That ghost lady was such an unfun fight. I kept dying and running out of ammo. Smh.
I think this game would be slightly better if the game itself wasn't so fucking pretentious. It's so stuck up it's own ass, it feels that it can explain theories, and show the product in action, and get away with it only because it's using polysyllabic words.
snipaxthebulldog How about not, and say we did? Either choice seems to increase your ego, and I don't have the time to plunder through the rancid cyst that is called the "comment section."
The one thing that really bothers me is when people complain about this game (not to say that it doesn't have problems that need to be addressed), is the problem some have with the "moral equivalence" between Comstock's and Daisy's followers. While I will contend that both sides are taken to cartoonish extremes, I think that was necessary to get the point across - going to extremes, regardless of the justification, will certainly end in tragedy for everyone. The way I saw it, the divergent sides were characatures of the political right and left. Comstock was the worst view the Left has of the Right - fanatically religious, patriotic, and nationalistic to the point of racism and fascism. The opposite is true of Daisy's group - all on the Left are violent communists that will kill, destroy and even endanger children if it will get them closer to their goals. While I am a religious and patriotic conservative, i can't for the life in me justify anything Comstock does. He is a villain without question, and I can see him as the shadow anthitasis of everything I hold dear. He is the reminder to be that I should be more reflective and open to the view of others, even if I disagree. What disturbed me is how far to many either justified Daisy's actions, or just refused to believe that any of her actions were even possible, despite the fact history has shown how popular uprisings have failed because they went to the very extremes we saw in the game. I think all of this stems from the fact that we have been told for so long to not criticize minorities or unions or other favored groups of the Left that we have lost any sense of objectivity in judging the morality of their actions. For some, the ends truly justified any means, and if it doesn't, we pretend it didn't happen. The point is this - while it is ok to view those on the Right as pseudo Christian Nazis, the idea that black gender-bent Che Grivaria might just be a wee bit wrong in her approach causes the world to blow up. People need to gain some perspective.
Ryan Gatts please dude, I played all irrational games including system shock. At this point they were just milking the series. Bioshock should have ended at number 2.
Wolfgang Icarus I didn't say you weren't familiar with the series; I said you didn't play enough games. I don't care whether you've played System Shock, and I don't intend to make the argument that Infinite was great (though, I did like the game quite a bit). If Bioshock Infinite is the worst game you've ever played, you haven't played enough games. You don't know the medium. You lack context. To have never played a game worse than Bioshock Infinite, you must not have played much of the Call of Duty series, or Zelda, or Mario, or Final Fantasy, or Soulcalibur, or Sonic, or Gears of War, or any number of other incredibly influential series that have shitty games in them. It means you haven't played many flawed but daring indie games. It means your gaming palette is underdeveloped and shows a lack of understanding for the medium. To confuse mere competence with abject failure betrays a disturbing underappreciation for the artform. It's okay to dislike Bioshock Infinite, and we should all expect better, but you're hardly in a position to deliver trite condemnations.
Ryan Gatts The out-and-out gainsaying of your original comment had me interested at first, but now you're boring me. All of the reasons one could think that a particular artwork is the worst example of its kind are so many as to be innumerable, and if the person is evaluating it specifically as a work of art then we're obviously dealing with more than just its "mere competence" as a piece of software designed for entertainment purposes; were dealing with the values it projects (again I say) _as a work of art_. We're also dealing with people's own subjective experience of a game which is informed by _their_ own values. Your comment leads me to conclude that you think Infinite and other games can only be evaluated in a particular, not-very-human way: technical competence, features etc. (i.e. "objectively," as many politics-averse gamers apparently say), and that's why you assume that Wolfgang and I haven't played enough games to decide that Infinite is a particularly bad one. Instead of asking "why," you go straight to this "gamer cred" nonsense. Here we have a game which egregiously mishandles serious issues of history, racism, class, religion, metaphys- dammit, literally every single issue it takes on as a theme of its narrative- while also featuring meaningless ultra-violence and a logically self-inconsistent plot that's surely as convoluted as the intestine from which it was extricated. If I'm going to be contradicted for calling something like that pretentious and inferior then I expect to have to defend my actual reasons for saying that, and not be accused of simply not knowing what I am talking about.
This is the first time I have seen such a detailed and in-depth video game review. This not just nice job, this is INSANE amount of work. I might disagree with an opinion or two, but I take my hat off for the quality of this review. Errand -YOU are the reviewer modern game industry needs!
it's strange to me why people love bagging on this game, as it is sooo much better than a lot of other mainstream, AAA games out there. -it has well though out, creative and involving story with interesting characters, themes and sub-plots -it has decent gameplay, with fun skyline sections and somewhat creative enemies which comes from the strong art-direction. though it is apparent that it was not meant to be a straight up FPS from the beginning, judging from the E3 demos and multiple development difficulties. -It has an incredible art-style with glorious open vistas of a steam-punk styled flying city mixed with the creepy imagery of the many pro-racist propaganda posters. -and, in contrast the the review, I thought the racial undertones in the game were handled perfectly. they weren't ham fist-idly shoved into the gamers face by one of the main protagonists, stating "we have got to stop this. it's wrong" or something of that nature. It was more used to set the tone and the period of the game, where racism was a normal occurrence, as well as being used to further antagonize Comstock and his regime in the player's eyes. It would also make sense that both Comstock's regime and Fitzroy's rebellion would be percieved at the end as both antagonists, because Daisy's motivation are that of the same as Comstock's. She only hungers conquest and power, not equal rights. she manipulates her followers the same way as Comstock , just for different, equally maniacal purposes. Also, if the writers were to make us choose a side to root for, the story would become unfocused. The struggles of the good Vox Populi in there quest to take back their freedom in Columbia would have no effect on the main story in any way, as the only two people that matter in the story are Booker and Elizabeth, who aren't required to take sides in order for the story to advance. I think this game fully deserves the praise that it got. The gameplay may not have been as complex as games, but it was defiantly servicable at the least. It is staggeringly beautiful to look at, and has a very complex and interesting story as well, with an ending much improved over the likes of Bioshock 1. I would give this game an "A-"
+Girolamo Esposito Really could have benefited by being a tad more objective. I feel like his emotions got in the way of the actual review. Then again I liked the review. Just can't help myself but disagree.
Just wanna say thanks for making this. On one hand, I really did love the game; it was immersive, inspiring, exciting, and awe/wonder-inducing, and I'm looking forward to going online for more narrative exposition and closure. At the same time, I appreciate your ability and willingness to stop us at times and say "No." I didn't seem to dislike it as much as you, but it's nice to have someone who's willing to be the grownup for us. Great closing statements. You're awesome.
Nice video Campster, I would think Bioshock Infinite could do a lot better as a story told through the classic mediums such as a TV series, a movie or, better yet, a book.
What is wrong with Errant Signal? A game cant be both intelligent and violent? I am kind of hooked to his videos as they are absurdly dumb but tries to be very intellectual. Often he misinterpret games to fit his own world view and I love how patronizing and snarky he can be about games with "bad ideas".
i have a problem with what bioshock infinite is that what infinite pretends to be and what it is are two totally different things. infinite acts like its some wonderful and deep game, artful and meaningful. when in reality its a dumb corridor shooter totally dependent on its twist ending to evoke meaning to the 8 hours of shootin n' killin'.
hector estrada Yes, yes. You and Errant Signal are very clever for dissecting that. First off: The game does not pretend to be anything. It is what it is. Its the game reviewer afterwards that has said the game was this and that. Secondly: I find it fascinating how you say what Errant Signal says word for word. Thirdly, the game is more than what you reduce the game to be. It is in fact artful and has meaning even if the game genre still is a first person shooter. It is undeniable that the game has astonishing aesthetics. The city feels alive and real even in the most surreal of settings. To me the game doesnt even have a twist ending as the ending fit perfectly with what was told before. This is not my favorite Bioshock game (in fact it is my third) but the complaints in this video and what you just said is nonsense. Its a city in the sky. How much free roaming do you think there would be? Not every game in this world has to be a sandbox game to qualify for quality.
Andy Ace " It is in fact artful and has meaning even if the game genre still is a first person shooter." and that is......? a twist? yeah this game has no greater meaning then a twist. such a shame unlike bioshock 1 "The city feels alive and real even in the most surreal of settings." the city becomes completely dead fast within 2 hours of game play also columbia doesn't hold a candle to Rapture. columbia was a boring liner "city". adding racist purely for shock valve just made it worse. not "art bioshock one was a masterpiece, infinite was a painful game to play. the best parts of the game are when you are not playing. bottom line infinite is dumb corridor shooter more similar to COD then bioshock 1. also i thought infinite was crap long before i saw this review. at this point ken levine should just start a new IP, but he wont and we'll get bioshock modern warfare soon and everyone will eat it up. "OMG WHAT TWIST LOL" there is just so much wrong in this game. just compare the major villain of bioshock 1 Andrew Ryan and infinite's comstock. Ryan was a visionary trying to defend what was left of his great city against what he believed was a threat. comstock was an a**hole..... a racist religious zealot who's plan was that of a saturday mourning cartoon villain's i.e. im gonna destroy the world cuz im the bad guy!!!
hector estrada Bioshock 1 had a clear view on a specific ideology and philosophy that any idiot could understand. It was more explisit. This game is more vague, ambivalent and implicit. You may be interested in sci-fi or something since all you got was infinite alternate dimension twist. But the game was about a lot more. The main reason why Errant Signal dont like it is that its start of as a critique of american exceptionalism and imperialism (people with his views love that) but then muddering the waters when the opposition is shown not to be any better. There are many "twists" in this game. You just reduce them to the last one. I played Red Dead Redemtion and love that game but it dont address a lot of the issues that was very pressing at that time. Black people and white people are seen working, laughing and playing side by side. That is historical false hood. As I said, I loved RDR and it doesnt bother me. If I were you though, and wanted to trow fits on something, I would rather be angry that a relatively realistic "American Frontier in the year 1911" didnt address this issue rather than a game actually addressing it. You see it´s not shock value! This was how it worked. You thought that Comstock was just "im gonna destroy the world cuz im the bad guy!!!"? Wow, you didnt get alot out of this game did you?
Andy Ace "infinite has not of meaning you just don't get it, so i wont explain" yep that was totally not a cop out...... "The main reason why Errant Signal dont like it is that its start of as a critique of american exceptionalism and imperialism" did you even see the video? he disliked mainly due to the awful AWFUL combat. no matter what you want to believe about the stupid plot and story IT DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT INFINITE IS A BRO SHOOTER. man this game is so brooding and deep now wait for me to kill every living thing to open the next door where i will be forced to murder everyone to open the next room...... this is a clearly made game for intellectuals. yep.... "rumbles about RDR" what you said has nothing to do with anything..... oh im sorry im meant comstock becomes a born-again christian which turns him racist and gives him the desire to burn the world........ oh wait that's still stupid. dont worry your little head about anything infinite sold well its shallow gameplay proved to be a winner. in no time we should have Bioshock modern warfare to help remove anything left of the "shock" games and just keep the good stuff like head shots, mindless henchmen, corridors, gorely melee kills (gotta keep those for the artsy types) and guns, more guns but gotta make them boring. gotta make sure the COD crowd is pleased
***** I just am sick of everyone praising a video game with bland game play and a story line full of plot holes that throws so many ideas at you it makes you think its deeper then it really is, then praising it as a master piece.
Bioshock Infinite is one of my favourite games, but the fact that it was chopped up, changed around, rewritten and rewritten again really, really shows, and the dissonance between the deep, engaging and heartfelt story, and the almost arcade-like core gameplay stands out. If I recall correctly, when the game was first announced, it was very different, featuring a more open, transversible world with multiple paths through the story and optional side details. Better explained powers with more interesting uses. In one early gameplay preview, we saw Booker stop an artillery shell in midair, control a shotgun from a distance and combine a lightning bolt attack with a windstorm conjured by Elizabeth to make a localised thunderstorm. And the game had a lot more "strangeness" to it throughout, keeping an air of mystery to the things that happened and lending a more surrealist tone to the action. But in the end, I think the reason they gave for tightening it down into a linear story was because it just got too complex too fast and ended up breaking more often than not. With mechanics like Elizabeth's A.I and the open world causing narrative glitches and sequence errors. But when they shortened it down to a linear game, they kept a lot of the old mechanics, which makes them feel highly out of place. I do object to the idea that the game cannot have a deep story and "video-gamey" violence side by side, though. But I will say that Infinite doesn't do it well. The two feel at odds but this is never addressed in-universe. Nobody even mentions it, it's just how things are. And that's why it doesn't work. At the end of the day, though, I still love the game to bits and it will always be one of my favourites.
As a person who has never played bioshock and watch your videos because I think your interesting the beginning of the video seemed a bit repetitive, the end thought was one your best. Keep up the good work and keep making memorable endings to interesting videos.
Great review. The OP here has hit the nail on the head from the Disney references to the way he feels about the frustrating lackluster combat. I was gifted this game on Steam after I was deliberating between it and Far Cry 3...glad I didn't have to spend my money on this title. For what it's worth I do find it enjoyable because I went it to it expecting nothing. I did my homework and had a basic idea that I was getting into a pretty corridor shooter.
Wow I am SO glad I found this video. I just finished Infinite for the first time and was left feeling like, um, did I miss something or am I actually relieved to be rid of this, finally. I couldn't put my finger on it, I just felt... Nothing. By the end I was furious with the continuous murder and mayhem loop.
Bioshock Infinite was extremely ambitious, it is so clear based on the really early "gameplay" that they had to give up on a lot of goals. Columbia went from open-ish city to a Disney-esque facade of what it wanted to do.
I thought Bioshock did a good job with it's commentary on Objectivism; almost every new character or area represents in some way the impacts of objectivism by showing the sort of people that profit the most from it, and what sorts of problems festered beneath the surface due to the ideas. All of the regular people ended up getting fucked over while only the extremely talented reached any measure of success, and the lack of ethical constraints created a ruined utopia filled with addicts covered in tumors driven insane and killing for their next fix of Adam. Not exactly subtle but an actual commentary on Objectivism nonetheless,
There's also the fact that your character in that first game is actually an unrecognized bastard child Ryan essentially gave away in secret just so he wouldn't have to see you again after he'd killed his wife for having you again in secret. Puts his final conversation with you in a different perspective doesn't it?
In regards to halo, halo not only had regenerating shields, it also gave the covenant weapons that had non-hitscan projectiles
"Real things that real people would do. They're effective. Grounded. Honest."
Elizabeth's Disney Princess moment where she hands an apple to an orphan hiding under the stairs while singing to Booker's pickup guitar is none of those things.
Yeah, as far as this kind of RNG Helper Girl character goes? Elizabeth is an overcooked cliche, when compared to any of the Persona Navigators. Fuuka? Rise? Futaba? Those are what "Effective. Grounded. Honest." versions of that character function look like.
@@Volvagia1927That is some master level comment necromancy
What makes Bioshock Infinite disappointing is the failure to take advantage of the setting. Violence isn't what's wrong with the game; Columbia is a White Supremacist police state that owes its continued existence to excessive repressive violence under a veneer of utopian wonder. But, while Rapture was a rotting corpse haunted by humanoid monsters and megalomaniacs, Columbia is a living breathing city with a functioning populace. And yet, we cant meaningfully interact with anyone aside from slinging lead and crows at them.
Instead of characterizing Comstock, Fink, and Fitzroy throughout the story, we're forced to collect Voxophones to fully understand their motivations. We could've eavesdropped on a Founders Sermon to learn the details of their ideology, or witness the violent police repression of Finkton residents protesting for the right to vote. We could have been given the choice to do Fink's dirty work, or to aid the Vox uprising to gain contacts, safe-houses, weapons, vigors, and deeper incite into what makes Fitzroy tick or the origin of Vigors instead of shoehorning it into the DLC (of course, the narrative would have to converge before the end.)
The game would have been much better if it were characterized with long, tense calms punctuated with moments of extreme violence directed at the player, or Columbian citizens, as we kept our nose down navigating the city. If Booker said or did the wrong thing, or walked into the wrong building we'd find ourselves not only dealing with hostile police, but armed civilians (all males in Columbia are militarized from a young age and machine guns advertisements are abundant). If the shootout lasts too long, the Songbird would arrive and force a hasty retreat. Irrational Games had removed most of the RPG and stealth mechanics of the Shock series when they should have been the primary aesthetic of play in this title instead of the gunplay.
Sorry to dig into a 4 years old comment but what you say at then end of your last paragraph (entering somewhere and doing something weird then a gunfight starts) is exactly what the original game was (remember those gameplay trailers ?).
And there are a couple of moments like that, where nobody's shooting at you and then you give yourself away and suddenly they are. They're just rare.
You are the one that understands.
Old comment but whatever
I feel like that was absolutely the intention. There was notoriously a HUGE level of input and influence from the executives, and it's clear from playing that there's an enormous level of tonal dissonance, even moreso than the original bioshock.
@@MasutaPanda you know nothing of the original then
I'm not a big 'gamer', so I had thought that my dislike of the game's mechanics was simply because I was inexperienced and wanted to get the killing over with so I could explore. When the game came out, I had also thought it was amazing but then I began seeing the problems with how it sort of dropped you a 'message' of racism/nationalism vs. bloodthirsty revolution but Booker is against both. I didn't like the violence on either side, but I had so much empathy for the Vox and yet you're forced to kill Daisy because she's "just as bad" as Comstock?
As an artist and history enthusiast, the art design and architecture was amazing to me. As someone who's been learning about systemic oppression, the game fell flat on such a big message. The relationship between Booker and Elizabeth was interesting, but not enough to justify why you had to violently go through waves and waves of enemies.
I didn't particularly like Elizabeth as a character, or should I say, how they went about making her likeable. I fairly doubt someone who had been trapped for years, with little to no human contact would be a care free and confident as she comes across. She would be more paranoid/anxious and afraid, yet she comes across like a complete extrovert who is in touch with the normal world right from the get go. And why? Because making a paranoid, anxious, untrusting girl would be far harder to make likeable than a girl who smiles, dances, shows compassion and empathy and generally just seems like the cute girl next door. For the sake of effort, they took the easy route, and shat all over any sort of realistic character depth.
StopAskingMeToChangeMyName I don't disagree with you, but I'm reminded of all the books she would be stuck in, living in a tower by herself for years. Essentially living in fictitious worlds where she has some grasp of an ideal on how a young, energetic woman "should" act.
ladenswallow09 Honestly I think she was inspired by Bell from the Disney Beauty and the Beast- not much contact with people due to her obsession with books, but still, well, her. I guess that isn't a good explanation, but I did still enjoy her as a character.
+joesatmoes the issue is that Bell still had contact with the human world she engaged in conversation with a loving father and she was well loved by her community. She performed an act of self-isolation with her books. Here Elizabeth just does not grow up under these conditions and as such her extroverted nature makes little to no sense. Still a fun game.
Wexter0083 fair enough
but you have to remember that she was locked in that tower not because she wanted to but because Comstock had her locked in there, you could see right from the beginning that she was always fascinated by the life outside of that tower.
Bioshock Infinite seems to be a love it or hate it kind of game. I personally loved it, but I have seen reviews that did a poor job trying to explain why the reviewer hated the game. Those reviews insulted the people who enjoyed that game and called the developers idiots which is a big no no unless you're going for a more comedic approach. You on the other hand explained your reasoning for disliking the game perfectly. This is a terrific review and its rare for me to enjoy watching a review that criticizes something I love. Errant Signal, you deserve a medal.
Actually, most of the reviews were more critical of Elizabeth as a character and the fact that the game play is a step down from the original bioshock games.
I had the exact same experience. I loved this game and this video isn't changing my mind. But they laid out their points in a clear way and I completely see where they are coming from. I don't even think they are wrong. I just like what the game does right enough that I can overlook what it does poorly
Heck, even "Bioshock 2" wasn't much more of a shooter than the original and it still kept much of what was good about the gameplay. At least there it tried to fix, what I thought, were some of the problems that the original had such as clunky combat with the addition of being able to duel wield plasmids and weapons, reworking the boring and contextually weird hacking system, made researching enemies a lot less tedious, and all while keeping everything else gameplay wise that was good about the original.
As for "Bioshock Infinite" they weren't even BOTHERED to try and tweak these gameplay mechanics and decided to just throw everything out the window. At least "Bioshock 2" tried.
It seems a lot of people here disagree because of a misunderstanding, i.e equating mindless combat with violence.
My take on the matter is that mindless combat is just a filler in a game which major selling point is its story.
It's basically "Here comes 14 mooks that want to kill you for X reason. You don't want to die so kill them."
That would have been fine if your character reacted in any way at all, but you just shrug it off and move to the next pack of mindless mooks which happily rushes you, especially when the combat mechanics are so basic. Just "Shoot with this gun, use this vigor, combine those." which is a step back from the System Shock 2's (and Bioshock 1-2 to some extent) different kinds of ammunitions which were good against certain enemies, but crap against others, and vigors taking a step back from plasmids from Bioshock 1-2, from combining and playing the enemies against each other, to just being magical attacks that does immidiate damage, damage over time or crowd controlls, or a combination of those.
In essence, my beef with Infinite is that it stripped so much from the previous games, taking out everything from different ammunitions, and hacking to being able to explore the surroundings, and not just running along the path that the game indicates as the correct one.
A good story is a poor substitute for bad/repetitive gameplay.
"It thinks that by presenting an idea, it's commenting on or engaging with that idea" - see also every Obsidian game ever (but with an extra insulting "yoo gotta think fur yurself, maaaaan!" thrown in from an author self-insert character).
I think what this game needed is a sense of morality and repercussions to your actions. Maybe you could have seen how Booker became evil, cruel and more Comstock-like if you senselessly killed everything that walked, or engaged in combat unnecessarily when there were other actions. BioShock 1 and 2 had a morality system which affected the ending and messed with your emotions and empathy toward the Little Sisters -- so it's strange that this aspect is completely absent from Infinite.
I agree with most of your points. I did really enjoy this game when it was released, but the disconnect between your actions and the story were really startling. There is a definite level of difference between racists throwing stuff at some black people and tearing the throats off of a dozen people with a grinder. How would Elizabeth REALLY react to the hundreds of people you murder throughout the game, and why would a "mostly peaceful" city in the sky be equipped with gun vending machines at every corner?
As many have pointed out, fantastic concepts, beautiful world, thought-provoking storyline set against quirky but unfitting first person shooter mechanics.
If you watch some of the pre-release trailers that had the developers talk about features of the game. They had a more "ludonarrative harmony", an example from an early tech demo had Booker and Elizabeth walking past a crowd of Vox Populi who are about to execute a mailman. It was framed as something akin to the ADAM/Little Sister choice in the first Bioshock. The Gear system in the game was going to be part of a very similar alternate universe counter-part of the Gene Tonics called the "Nostrums". The game in concept was going to be more interesting and ambitious: The Siren was going to be akin to the Big Sister's who would - at least initially - randomly appear to harass the player and resurrect the dead. A similar concept was goingo to be be employed in regards to the Songbird. Even the Boys of Silence were going to be reactive enemies who would be peppered around the gamespace and remove noise and sounds while acting as a mobile alarm system
The gun stores make sense, it *is* and American city after all
There was actually a great moment to reflect moral choice like you're talking about.
SPOILER
When you're separated from Elizabeth, and find her in the far future, she could have acted differently depending on how violent or otherwise moral you were. She would then send you to a different final level, depending on the ending.
I was really disappointed with infinite, and this is video sums up how I feel well. The series never really built upon itself. What aggravates me most is that there was a lot of potential here. There was no reason the shooting and vigor aspects couldn't have been improved. (Also I hate the vigors. Plasmids were central to bioshock, but vigors feel tacked on to infinite) There is no reason we couldn't have had interesting villains you can relate to, or looked at issues like American exceptionalism, nationalism, states rights, racism or religious extremism.
But they squandered it and focused on making a bunch of set-pieces and spectacle moments, and they feel cheap. The characters are cartoonish and the game is afraid to say anything about issues of importance. The entire game exists to lead up to a moment the writer thought was cool. If I wanted a set-piece shooter I can do better.
I did like some of it though, pieces were excellent. I mean I beat the game twice. The Lutece Twins were a major high point for me. there are a few areas that are just beautiful, and the couple times you get to just wander around are pleasant if a bit lifeless. The story just has so many hints that it could have been something more, and a game with lost potential is way more infuriating than a bad game.
It's so interesting to sort the comments by newest and see people completely and utterly miss every last thing that was said in the video...even a decade after the fact. Really impressive, gaming massive, really impressive.
I'm inclined to disagree with you. But I understand your points. They are well made.
I actually loved the game for everythig he just say
Okay, but I think we can all agree that a calliope version of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" is something we all needed in our lives.
I always seemed to think that, at least pertaining to the "citizens bumrushing you", it was explained with their love of Comstock, their lord and savior, telling them that there was a "false shepherd", going around attempting to teach them false prophecies conflicting with Comstock's own ideals.
Shocked that when this came out I didn't agree with you... Glad ten years made me less stupid.
Hindsight tends to be 20/20
mm the problem wasnt the gore, the problem was that try to be a generic shooter while the city and characters tells RPG-FPS, the peace moments were useless you cant interact with citizens or do shit in the city and then the game transforms in call of duty
I'm inclined to agree. It's easy to start with "goring is boring" (which it really is in this game) and assume the inverse is also true, treating all the nonviolent sections as worthwhile, just because they aren't the filler combat. The sad truth is that even if you cut out all the combat, only half the game you had left would be meaningful, although that would at least still be a massive improvement to the concentration of quality.
I actually disagree with the whole violence doesn't fit in argument to be honest. To me the entire point is that it's all a facade. Columbia is beautiful and gorgeous, but underneath it all is all blood and death. Furthermore, the entire point of Booker committing genocide even though he regrets his Pinkerton years is because that is his nature. He learned to live with it. Just like Slater tells him, he is a murder, and he can't change it. Elizabeth on the other hand, when you play as her in Burial at Sea 2, chooses to neutralize enemies over killing them. So I find violence to be in place with the world and the characters.
Exactly.
YES! Finally someone who gets it! 👍👍👍
I seriously fucking love you.
Really appreciate the amount of consideration you put into your criticism, even if having to wait like a month for new videos is killing me.
Thank god this is a video.I thought that I was the only person how had the options voiced in the video.
A Critique of the game that isn't a complete subjective rant filled with hateful slurs and nitpicks? Well Done.
I love the game dearly but I respect this video. I appreciate it when someone who dislikes Infinite actually dislikes it for well-explained reasons instead of just "lul pretentious and convoluted."
I agree partly with this statement but I don't think there's anything wrong with being subjective or having opinions. To me this video still seems very much rooted in this guys personal opinions, his take, his experience and there's nothing wrong with that. I watch videos like this to see things from another perspective, to hear other opinions. I personally loved Bioshock Infinite and disagree with many points raised in this video, but the points he made were considered, valid and respectable.
+Ryan Morton There isn't anything wrong with being subjective to an extent. This video presented it's arguments well, they were actual arguments that could be taken as real flaws, and he didn't waste his time on nitpicks, he went straight for the throat and presented his arguments very well.
MatthewMatosis's video was the perfect example of how not to do it, he spent a good 90% of his video focusing on nitpicks and the whole time sounding deeply offended by the game instead of sounding like a rational human being, Plus MatthewMatosis is wrong about a number of things, he doesn't understand the game nearly as much as he thinks he does.
And Like I said, I loved Bioshock Infinite and disagree with what this video says but I respect it, unlike MatthewMatosis's video.
***** Seems as though we're in agreement then.
***** I feel the same way about this video. Well, mostly.
While I thought 90% of the video was thoughtful (even if I disagreed about everything), I think he trips up at *the end* of the video. Him feeling that racism in the game simply said "All white people are bad!" seems stupid to me. This game made me feel bad for my enemies, even if they were part of a white supremacist society. How is that heavy handed or clumsy?
***** ...that's not what the game was saying at all.
Personally, I felt that the game was trying to portray people as the *flawed* creatures we really are.
Win or lose, people like Daisy are worshiped and idolised by many for her heroic deeds, and almost _none_ of those worshipers want to see her as a human being. An actual persons with flaws and weaknesses and prejudices.
It's the same with any famous leader in history (Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, etc). They were all incredibly flawed people who are worshiped for the deeds they did, but..almost always _not_ portrayed for the flawed people they really were.
If I said the SAME things Abraham Lincoln said, people would call me a racist, but..it's OK for him because he was a *product of his time*. So was Daisy Fitzroy. Because _Bioshock:Infinite_ wanted to portray fictional "icons" _before_ they would go on to be famous and idolised and worshiped figures of history.
As for the violence dissonance argument that I see all of the time. It doesn't make sense to me. It's a dark game about how the events of the game changes these two characters and the relationship that forms between them. It's an Odyssey, it's about Booker and Elizabeth, their relationship, how they change each other throughout the game.
The violence is the catalyst for the change that the characters undergo, and without it I don't exactly know what the game would even contain. It didn't take away from the story at all, it's what changes the characters.
I've tried to be patient and listen to the critics who truly felt there was ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock:Infinite, but in the end all I can say is that their *argument sounds stupid*. It truly makes no sense to me. Do we really want to play a non-violent point-and-click adventure game as Booker DeWitt, a man known for his *talent for violence*? What's the point of playing a violent character in a game with little to no violence?
I agree with you. Violence is an important part of Biosock:Infinite.
Paradox Acres There are legitimate criticisms to Infinite, but the Ludonarritive dissonace one is false.
It got stirred up by the so called "Intellectual gaming community" who wanted to sound way more intelligent then they actually are, they failed to understand the meaning of the phrase.
And the majority of people who disliked the game immediately took it as fact without thinking about it at all, and now Infinite's in the situation it's in right now, surrounded by false criticism and unjust hatred.
***** Agreed. There's a lot to criticize about Infinite, but the violence is definitely not one of them. Ludonarrative dissonance is such a silly thing to complain about a video game, anyway. I tried to understand but couldn't take it seriously.
I find it both funny and sad that people seem to view Infinite as some *threat* to the video game industry. The Bioshock games, even though AAA, were never very lucrative. No one is going to make "Bioshock clones", because no one is going to think these games have a "winning formula" that will make publishers tons of money. That Bioshock:Infinite even exists is a miracle, as I can't imagine it sounded like a "good investment". We will never get another Bioshock:Infinite.
My problem with Infinite is that most of the violent set pieces do indeed feel like filler. A story that is about cultural/political issues and emotional struggles and violent uprisings, yet has gameplay that is 95% violent, seems like a huge inconsistency. I agree with him that the infrequent moments of solace and contemplation, as much as I like them generally, are so short/optional to make an impact. I don't think Errant was trying to imply that violent games are never saying anything meaningful, I think he is saying that Bio: Infinite can't make transitions properly between most, not all but most of its narrative elements and gameplay mechanics. I am not sure just how many FPS games do suffer from this dissonance or inconsistency issue, but imo Infinite is one of them, at least for most of the time. I mean seriously, I liked the ending but what does it have to do with bullets and gore?
Jason Bissainthe I disagree. There are moments in Infinite that are *just gameplay* while other moments are *just story*, but I think it all melds together organically. It feels like they struck a nice balance, something other games either don't bother attempting, or have long cutscenes as the "quite moments".
What's the point of playing a man like Booker DeWitt, whose *only* talent in life is violence, if you're not forced into violent situations? I like how it was done in the game: Booker wouldn't go looking for a fight and he'd always try to reason with people, try to make "a deal" of some sort even if he felt that he'd probably get betrayed, anyway. The violence was part of that world and part of Booker's life.
Also, I feel like this game was more about guilt and the choices that people make. It was about how dangerous people in power can be, regardless if their power comes from the people, or religion or money. Booker is the most dangerous soldier in that world, but nowhere near as dangerous as Fink, Fitzroy or Comstock.
... you've stated exactly my thought process while i played this game. The only difference is, its less thats the "tits and gore" is an outright bad thing, but that its meaningless and boring. The original bioshock and bioshock 2 certainly wasn't overly world-shattering in terms of raw gameplay, but i think the devs accomplished what every game developer should accomplish, and thats engagement. Infinite shat itself trying to get me invested in the shooting aspect, it was flat, uninteresting, and worst of all a downright chore to slog through.
Of course the ending sequence, visuals, and lutece twins were wonderful. But everytime the game asked me to gun another hundred soldiers down, or crack down at another off-brand Big Daddy, or showed me another dead-end door i couldn't explore, it felt awful. Overall a very taxing experience.
It felt like a 10 hour shooting gallery, honestly. A beautiful looking 10 hour shooting gallery.
Interesting analysis. I bought Bioshock Infinite after all the glittering critical reviews. However I found the game somewhat underwhelming.
Beyond the lack of actual discussions regarding themes presented in the game (as pointed out by Campster), the fact that at midpoint through the game the supposed hero jumps to an alternate reality essentially renders all efforts that came before moot. It's like building a house half-way then abandoning it for a different house. It doesn't really matter what you did or did not do on the first house since it's now effectively gone.
And I think that's why some people (including me) don't find the ending particularly enticing: none of it really matters. An infinite number of Bookers are doing an infinite things. Like the myriad of players who played this game, so what if you managed 100% headshot count? Out there are players who can't score a hit if he (or she) used that Luttece coin as projectile.
Bioshock infinite is both art house and grind house, though some may see a fault in this contrast I think it works well. My question to everyone is why can't violence be art?
Because in order to be seen as art we need to be pretentious and full of our selves. And to do THAT we need to stick our noses in the air and scoff at the violence that is only for those measly commoners.
I respect your thoughts and I'm glad you took the time to answer my question. I don't think being pretentious is necessary but to each his own.
didsheaskaboutme Oh no. I was being sarcastic. This idea that an interesting story can't be violent is infuriating to me and whenever I see people calling it out, those are the thoughts that fill my head. I sincerely believe people like Campster think that being pretentious is the key to being artful.
Oh true. I think that's the mind set most people have today.
GameCat16 Isn't it ironic that a pretentious prick like Campster hates a pretentious game like Bioshock:Infinite? ;)
Seriously, though. I think he was mostly respectful and articulated when it came to voicing his opinions. They were silly, of course, but I kinda enjoyed his video. I guess I'm just so used to disagreeing with critics (even ones I love) that I can just laugh it off. I think BI is the only FPS game that makes my silly list of Most Favourite Games Ever. =)
thank you for your commentary on the two warring factions. i was honestly disappointed that they seemed to be trying to say that, well, if your a colored person and oppressed, tough luck! cuz your revolutionaries are gonna be shitty! have fun going from the oppressed to the evil! i was honestly upset that i had to start killing fitzroy's people after i went through so much shit to do good things for them, and having so much desire to right for them. but i couldnt even reflect on it because of the long ass fight scenes (and they were dressed almost identical to the original enemies....) i just hate when games bring up issues, then ignore them ;/ bioshock 1 had an excuse: just splicers were living there. infinite had no excuse. it choked hard. you either go all the way, or dont go there at all.
as for combat, idgaf about violence. i just want it to be /fun/. infinite was not fun. it was tedious. thus, it made the violence seem much more drawn out and in your face. if they trimmed the amount of time it took to kill, then i doubt many people would be commenting on violence.but because we spent HOURS AND HOURS shooting the same guys over and over again, this is what happens....
This is simply how I felt while playing the game: getting on the wrong side of *powerful* people will get you killed. It doesn't matter if they're cause is just or unjust; powerful people are dangerous.
I feel like maybe people take Bookers opinion, on how Fitzroy & Comstock "are the same", a little too seriously. Booker is a *man of his time*. Sure, he doesn't "indulge" in racism, but he isn't politically-correct either. He acts like how a white man of 1912 might act. Elizabeth, on the other hand, readily accepts his view because she is naive and barely understands how the world works. That's how I see it, anyway.
I felt sad, too, when I had to fight the rebels. But I understood that there was barely anything Booker & Elizabeth could do. It was bad luck and bad timing. Killing Fitzroy was not a "victory" at all, but was presented as a turning point for Elizabeth. It was tragedy, not victory.
@@paradoxacres1063 Except that Booker's the games POV character. We're MEANT to see things from his perspective. And even still, you can't exactly have a character make a super gross comment like that without challenging them. There's really no reason to include Booker being racist unless you're actually going to addresss Booker's racism in the story. He's a completely fictional character. He can act however the hell you want him to act.
@@ravenfrancis1476 _"We're MEANT to see things from his perspective"_
No, the game makes it very clear early on that Booker is (at best) a *morally grey* person. He's apathetic towards other people's struggles, one of those "both sides" type of white men..then he's told to kill himself at the end. Because that's what "both sides" type of white men deserve 🤷♂️
Basically, the Ending tells us that even if you kill baby Hitler you don't get to avoid having to face the Evil Within yourself.
Paradox Acres Except that literally nobody actually challenges his beliefs. He’s still the same obnoxious hypercentrist dumbass when the game ends that he is when it begins.
I feel like at least to an extent, the game's world feeling artificial is part of the point. It's supposed to look like a facade because Colombia itself is putting on a facade of beauty and purity, but the citizens will bum rush you with suicidal fervor, enact heavy segregation and mistreat its working class. In this way, this game is an effective criticism of this idea in America, and indeed our country's long history of sweeping its dark side under the rug. Still, for the most part I can agree with the gist of the video, although I do genuinely believe that you're being way, WAY too harsh, while I feel like the game's most blatant flaw is with the story: much more could have been done to integrate the violence more into the thematic elements of the story.
exactly. to criticize it for looking like a facade is to not understand what the world IS: it IS a wannabe-wonderland that wants to SELL itself as good, by LOOKING good. that is what a facade is.
also, the violence and gore is supposed to make the contrast between this facade and the ugly truth bigger.
plus this violence just showcases booker. he is a violent guy. which is part of the story, more than once.
also, the greated part and theme of the game (for me, that is) is the time/dimension-travel, the whole multiverse-theme.
This video perfectly sums up most of the gripes I had about the game. It's nice to finally see someone who agrees for a change.
He seems a bit butthurt at the end when it came to the racism in the game. I understood the rest of the video, which I felt was thoughtful, but his problem with how racism was portrayed is ridiculous. I'm with TotalBiscuit on this one: the game managed to portray racism pretty well.
Hey Paradox! Remember me!
Random Guy I'm not sure, but I think we've talked before. Care to refresh my memory?
Paradox Al You asked me why I thought TLoU's stealth was annoying.
Random Guy Oh, that's right! Yeah, I remember. We typed walls and walls of text on Yahtzee's video, I think lol
Anyway, what did you think about Bioshock:Infinite? Ludonarrtive dissonance? Or Lugoscababib Discobiscuits? (as Jim Sterling called it)
Paradox Al Eh. I remember one time I killed a civilian in the middle of a convo with Elizabeth. Honestly, I think it worked out because of her betrayal at the blimp. If I was walking around with what I thought was a psychopath, I'd probably keep quiet until my first real chance at escape. Ludonarrative dissonance? Probably. While I do think they could've done more than they did, they can't do everything.
One thing to notice about projectile vs. hitscan is that Wolfenstein 3D had all hitscan enemies yet it also had winding, labyrinthine level design, deliberately simple AI, an incapacitating stun animation every single time an enemy was hit by your guns, and long, obvious wind-up animations for most enemy attacks. So a skilled player could still avoid damage by kiting, AI manipulation, stun-locking, rapid reactions, and good timing, and the game had a rhythmic, dance-like quality as you exploited the behaviors of the enemies to kill them without giving them a chance to hurt you back. And getting hit in Wolfenstein was extremely punishing--you had no armor and no health regeneration and a point-blank shot could take off up to 64% of your health. So there are more factors than just hitscan vs. projectile. I'd really like to see a modern game tackle hitscan enemies the same way. Duke3D sort of did it, but that was 1996 and the enemies were way too tough, too hard to stunlock, and too fast on the draw, making combat against numerous pig cops or enforcers frustrating without frequent saving and reloading.
Excellent summation. Unreal how bad Infinite was and especially in light of how much great work Levine and co. had behind them
It's my understanding that this game went through a major and rather hasty redesign late in development, hence why some trailers barely resemble the finished game.
i actually remember very little of Bioshock infinite. says somthing
The modern game - kill hordes of people to get little driblets of story. boo
this video made me genuinely angry i hadn't started watching you sooner. well done.
"These are emotionally charged scenes that seem like real things that real people would do"
Stopped listening there. Had a giggle tho
you nailed it. 100% agreed.
I personally loved the combat system, so much more so than the Last of Us which felt so bad I gave up on the game half way through. The story in this game felt so much more engaging and impactful too... I honestly don't get why people hate on it.
Gameplay isn't that good.
The Last Of Us blew this away.
7 years later and yeah The Last of Us was better gameplay and story wise. Bioshock Infinite hasn’t influenced anything
Completely agree, I was confused why so many people praised the gameplay. It's repetitive and gets dull.
Agree or disagree, i wish we had more of this type of educated game critic, well done
Thank you for this insightful commentary on brackets.
It sucks that BioShock Infinite is so vapid and meaningless, because if there's one thing America needs, it's more criticism of it's own jingoism and sense of moral rectitude.
i feel as just a game, bioshock infinite is a pretty good game. The first bio/system shock games where amazing survival horror fps games. Bioshock Infinite wanted to be a modern "guns Blazing" fps, and it was pretty good. Its problem came from wanting to keep the philosophical discussion that made the originals memorable. This leaves the game with an unsatisfied feeling of "ludo-narritave dissanace". The gameplay was pretty good, the story was prety good, but they don't fit togetherr.
Wooo. First time I actually have a lot to say about one of your videos (other than excellent as always.)TL;DR - you made a lot of points I hadn't heard before, changed my position on the violence debate, and just holy shit great video.
1. Violence: I've seen a lot of hate aimed at this game over the violence which I never understood. Most of it boiled down to "super violence = not art", which I felt was lacking. To me, the violence played a clear purpose - it's contrasted with Booker's constant whining about how bad he is to show, throughout the game if you pay attention, that he will never change. He can't - (insert tons of summary of main plot here) - and will always be the kind of awful person who does the things the player does to people in this game.
Your video was the first I saw that actually hammered home the point that while that could be true, the game does nothing to make you understand that, and basically uses the violence as entertainment anyways. In addition, your commentary on how empty the justifications for battles/battles themselves felt (mindless guards, empty gunplay, etc) definitely hit home for me. Awesome.
2. I agree entirely with your point on the game's politics, and I've taken to referring to the series as "Bioshock is to political commentary as mudscratching is to realism" - you're making an attempt, sure, but it's not going to remembered as much besides "early attempts".
3. I enjoyed the game because of its meta-commentary on games - the idea that true choice isn't possible in games, etc - and this made me excuse the hyper-violence and linear levels as part of that message. I haven't changed my mind on this, but your video does a good job of explaining why it wasn't done *well*. To me, games like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us are interesting because they're the industries first attempts (in my memory, which is admittedly really fucking short due to age) at making really "meaningful games" that "say deep things" the way that indie titles consistently have in my life. They're empty and clumsy and dominated by hyperviolence as a result, and we're nowhere near where we need to be. Thank you for being one of the people out there who criticize games for not living up to what they could be - your videos are great.
Holy crap, I loved this game, but you tore it up! I will have to think more about it, but you bring up a lot of good points
Wow, it's been some time, but I finally hear clone enough explanation of how I feel about this game. Thank you for that.
I finally found someone who's opinion on this game matches my own; an opinion I was almost afraid to type aloud in the face of all the hype and gushing reviews. A decent game, but ultimately tiresome and shallow, and certainly not a masterpiece as all the accolades indicated.
After watching this video several times, I have a couple things to say. Yes this video may be old and your opinions may be changed, but this is what I watched so this is what I'm commenting about.
First of all, your comment on the mindless gore and blood and how it doesn't fit in the game. It actually does fit in a very significant way, the main character himself. Look at Booker's past, he did horrible things at Wounded Knee, he scalped Indians of all ages and genders, her burned tee pees with children inside them, even though their were not hostiles. He earned the nickname the White Injun of Wounded Knee. He went to a baptism but refused it because of his own beliefs. He lost his wife to childbirth, and then sold the child to pay off a gambling and drinking debt he had gained over the years. Does this not speak violence? Does this not speak of a man who, when going up against people trying to kill him, would slaughter them as you do in the game? Besides, if you did these horrible things, had these happen to you, if you lived Booker's past, would you not feel the game, would you not avoid talking about it unless the situation requires it. In this way he is just like Joel in the early sections of the Last of Us. He doesn't care about killing, he focuses on the job at hand, and when something bad happens, he says to his partner "We don't TALK about it." The other point of this is the time period. In 1912, would you question racism, when it was so popular. Would you talk about the racist view of America. There is an entire section of Columbia dedicated to the man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Why does the game not speak of this. Well why would it? At the time would be people protesting in speaking when Columbia and Comstock are such religious extremists? The game does not speak, it shows. It shows you just how far we have come, it shows you just how bad things were in the past. It lets you step in the shoes of a person in a time where all these things, all there horrible terrible things are common in everyday lives. There is a scene where Elizabeth asks Booker "Why is one bathroom for colors and one for whites." and Booker replies "It just is." THAT is how this game shows the racism, the politics, it shows it.
Now for the main comment, the comparisons between Bioshock 1 and Bioshock: Infinite. I would like to ask while you were playing the game another time, did you happen to notice the similarities between Columbia and Rapture. It's far, far more then "There's always lighthouse, there's always a man, there's always a city." Look at it, Comstock and Ryan, Fiztroy and Fontaine, Elizabeth and the Little Sisters, Songbird and the Big Daddies, the Splicers and the Columbian Police, even the vigors. Shock Jockey and Electrobolt, Devils Kiss and Incinerate. So many similarities, yet not the same. Ken Levine himself said Bioshock 1 was an "Exploration of the extremes of Objectivism," but Bioshock Infinite is another exploration of extremes. Look at Columbia and Rapture's political, philosophical, religious, and social views. Are they not mirror opposites of each other? Is Columbia different from Rapture, by all means yes, but will this place be familiar to those that have played the previous games. By all means yes as well.
And now for the gameplay. I could talk for hours on the gameplay. Elizabeth says during the end, "We all swim in different oceans but end on the same shore." This is Bioshock Infinite's gameplay. You aren't given all the weapons, but you would you be given them all. Have all weapons available at times, why would someone do that. Would that not remove a choice on the player's part? You can not be given ALL the tools, you must CHOOSE which one you use. You went through Hand Cannon and Machine Gun, well I went through Sniper Rifle and Rocket Launcher. Did we both play the same game? Yes. Is there a problem with this? No. Then why does everyone say there is? You used Shock Jockey most of the time, I used Possessions. did we both play the same game? Yes. Is there a problem with this? No. Then why does everyone say there is? You went straight during the end sequence, or you took the left stairwell, well I went the other way, and we both ended up in the same place. Is this not variety? Is this not a player's own experience of a game? As for lack of playing with the game's systems. Ever heard of Vigor Combos? Ever heard of trying out different weapons, using different tears, using different Vigors. Going to different areas of a level to snipe enemies, or rushing them head on with a shotgun. Is this not player variety? Is this NOT playing the systems? Bioshock Infinite contains MORE combat variety then the originals, but we all said, and we all wanted, the same thing. We wanted another Bioshock 1. When in reality, you got something more. And then there is the choices in the game, how the choices you do get to make don't impact the story, well yes they do. The Raffle, the Ticket Booth, Slate, all of these impact the story. They impact it on the player's part. Did you make the choice to shoot Slate, spare him from the horrors of the Columbian Prisons, even though he used to be one of your friends. Did you make the choice to throw the ball at the couple just to blend in, or did you throw it at Fink in anger. Did you demand your tickets from the man even though there are obvious signs of a conflict, or did you draw your gun and truly demand them. These all are choices that impact the story. They impact the player's own experience of the game. Elizabeth says in the ending "Constants and Variables. I can see through all the doors, and what's behind all the doors." Behind one of those doors is your playthrough, behind one is mine. A constant and a variable. The constant is the story we experience, the variable is how we experienced it.
To me, Bioshock Infinite suffers from what I call the sequel curse, we all looked at the old games, and then look at Infinite and say, "it's not the same, it's not what I wanted from the game." But WHY would they make a Bioshock Infinite with the SAME gameplay as Bioshock 1? WHY would they do this. Would it make sense, no! Would it work in the world, no! Would it please the players, maybe. Just look at Call of Duty, same gameplay, over and over again, and players still complain about it. Then look at this, different gameplay, and players still complain about it. Can we agree on anything anymore?
Sorry for the massive wall of text.
I just watched this video. You make a very good counter argument to the one this video represents .Which plays out more like a rant then anything. To which most of the points you bring up I agree with, even with the main one, the violence. There is even a part in the game where Booker mentions how easy killing is and it also indicated that he is horrified by how much he enjoys killing. I feel that almost everything in infinite has been meticulously chosen. yes columbia is supposed to feel like a racist disneyland. no the game does not run a commentary on the various issues it displays, because as you say, it doesnt need to. It shows them. That is how america was like in those days. and those days were violent. Infinite is telling a story SET IN the early 1900s. it is NOT..telling a story ABOUT the early 1900s. or running a commentary on that period. If the player looks there is, however ALLOT on how various factions feel about the world as you have also said. Also as to why everyone is shooting at you, I am sure they stated this quite often: Columbia is a battleship disguised as a city for the most part. Look at Soldiers field, duke and dimwit!: all about creating child soldiers under the pretention that its harmless child fun that gets the children out of the mothers hair for a few hours. This is all for Comstock to achieve his vision: drown in flame the mountains of man. If anything the game is a commentary of how the oppressors rewrite history to make them look like the oppressed. I do agree that more of the world should have been shown, atleast places of where some of the civilians lived (we got some of this in the columbia rooftops area and a little in boardwalk section but none in the shantytown area, infact there was a deleted entire shantytown home village that I really wish made it into the full game).
I have tried this and it works: drain the colour from your tv and play infinite in black and white and suddenly the violence totally feel like a part of the narrative. Also if you turn the sound effects down. I feel like the sound of all the shooting does kinda overwhelm some players. It also lessons the critical dissonance. when you pay more attention to the music you realise how the music is also speaking to what is happening. horrific music beats happen everytime you kill or hit someone. also with the sound effects turned down and you hear the voices of everyone, the world does come alive allot more.
you also make some good points how because the gameplay is different to bioshock, it sucks in the eyes of many fans. While I do dislike the in your face, throw everything at you style of infinite. It has grown on me, once you get used to picking and choosing it becomes allot of fun. I really love the charge vigor. with that vigor I can end the final airship fight REALLY fast!. If you haven't already, you should check out Noah Caldwells analysis of Bioshock. Its the best analysis so farr.
That's a ton of words to defend a game even the creator has never seemed particularly proud of.
Antiform "OPINION"
Well said. I don't agree with everything in the gameplay department because I was often frustrated out of my mind at the sometimes sparse gun selection, the health/shield issues discussed in the video, and the very commonplace feeling of a handyman or fireman fight.
I do, however, completely agree with the display of racism. I would say that the game takes a stance to be anti-racism, but the opinions you have of the people a society are entirely of your own because the game simply displays them for you to interpret. And I don't think there's anything wrong or shallow about that.
Also, I agree with the aestheticization of violence in the game. it felt like a Tarantino movie, critiquing the culture of violence while actively being very gory. It felt rather like a complication of Booker's personality. He hasn't changed from the nasty war veteran. And after all the dust has settled at the end of the game, you can understand why Booker had the potential to become Comstock. All it takes in some realities is just a slight decision and he tips over that edge.
In my opinion, Infinite is a flawed game, but I really do think that it means something. It critiques the culture of violence, racism, and idealism without blatantly taking a stance at every given point. And I think there's something more subtle and nuanced in that.
I guess you've never seen any Quentin Tarantino movies. XD
Thank you, God. i couldn't think of the name of this channel for like 6 months, finally found it again. subscribed so i won't have to worry again. Bar none, best videogame reviewer i've ever watched.
Sir, thank you. You have provided a reasonable and logical elaboration over some of the issues in this game. I have my own to voice out, but since I have only finished the game an hour or two ago, I needed a bit of summation and revision. But that's just my bit of advantage here.
I like the emphasis you put on the combat mechanics bit. It's well researched and not a simple matter of "rabble rabble combat sucks rabble rabble". Overall, I hope you're happy with another subscriber.
The last of us portrayed violence as a brutal and unnerving, but also justified and necessary. This game is a nonstop shooting fest that while aesthetically pleasing, was horribly repetitive and poorly paced. I can't begin to express how disappointing the ending was too.
Ok, I thought the gunplay in Bioshock Infinite was pretty awesome. Can you explain what makes it bad? People give Fallout 3 a lot of crap for it's bad shooting, but they say Fallout 4's are much better, but they seem mostly the same to me.
This is something that's been confusing me for a while now.
I remember all but the first 3 basic plasmids being all but useless. I think there was one or two times I used one of those other plasmids but otherwise they didn't seem to come in handy much. Kind of like mines, they are almost never worth the amount of time it takes to set them up.
+Disthron Using Fallout 3 as example, this ties into what Errant said about the other Shock games in regards to combat. While the actual gunplay was only about above average in Fallout 3, that never really mattered, because there were more interesting mechanics and other types of gameplay to back it up. In Fallout 3, the gunplay was backed up by tons of exploration, inventory management, sidequests with many different types of NPCs, crafting systems, bartering, etc. If shooting had been all there was to Fallout 3, it would have been a very mediocre game.
And that's where Infinite fails: it takes all of the inventory/resource management, exploration, and varieties in weaponry and plasmids (or psyonics in System Shock's case) that made the other Shock games actually interesting and fun and boils that down to a two weapon limit and completely interchangeable vigors with zero inventory management. At least Fallout 3 let you carry more than two weapons at a time.
***** Ok, but what makes Bioshocks shooting mechanics worse than say COD, witch are apparently the best in the business. They all seem pretty much the same to me.
Disthron
COD has the best shooting mechanics? That's debatable; I'd say games like Painkiller or Shadow Warrior 2013 have far better shooting mechanics precisely because they have more weapon and enemy variety, have no regenerating health or shields, and no weapon carry limit. Like COD, the only thing Infinite's mechanics have going for it is the controls are at least fluid and responsive, contrasted to the original Bioshock's very floaty gunplay.
But at least for COD, the game is actually designed with its mechanics in mind. While you can only carry two weapons and a couple grenade types, you can A: carry a lot of ammo for each one, B: enemies die fairly quickly so you don't have to expend a lot of ammo fighting them, and C: enemies actually carry ammo for the guns you have, so it's very unlikely that you're going to just run out of ammo midway through a gunfight like you frequently do in Infinite. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending CoD's gameplay. Far too much of the game is spent hiding behind cover waiting for your health to regenerate, and that makes the gameplay very repetitious.
Infinite's mechanics just don't match it's gameplay for the reasons Campster gave. The two weapon-limit just is not fit for the type of game Infinite wants to be. It breaks weapon upgrades since you're constantly dropping weapons for ones more situationally useful. It also means running out of ammo is frequent since enemies soak up a lot of damage and often don't carry ammo for the guns you're carrying. Most of the vigors are little more than different grenade types contrasted to earlier plasmids which had a wide variety of practical applications outside of direct damage dealing. And even if vigors were more useful, that use would be hampered since you can't carry salt-restoring items on your own anymore, so you'll run out of salts with no reliable way to refill them.
*****
*COD has the best shooting mechanics?*
Well.... that's what people tell me. Like I said, I played fallout 3 recently, witch apparently has terrible mechanics and they seemed fine to me.
Infinite did have problems but I still really enjoyed the gun play in it. A LOT more than most shooters from recent years.
Disthron
I wouldn't say Fallout 3's mechanics are terrible; just compared to other games that focus entirely on shooting, they aren't nearly as good.
The critic in the end made me think how much Undertale may have done to the industry
What do you mean?
Undertale uses gameplay to convey it's story.
*Critique
I'd love to see you and matthewmatosis team up. You two are the best game commentators I know of. Listening to yous talk is really beautiful
I LOVE YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE ULTIMA UNDERWORLD INFLUENCE!!! Not enough people recognise the unfluence of UU (esp. UU2) on looking glass's later game, SS1. The ice world in UU2 in particular really paved the way for the kind of atmosphere and narrative development looking glass developed in SS1.
This video is dead-on. I'm a massive fan of the original Bioshock but Bioshock Infinite is easily one of the most overrated games I've ever played.
I think something during the development of infinite went horribly wrong and this enraged ken levine, bioshock infinite isnt anything like what he wanted it to be its not even semi open world and a lot of feautures have been scratched and the style has been changed a number of times i think that is why irrational has been closed and just like there an infinite number of dimensions there are an infinite amount of bioshock infinite versions. Maybe even better ones
Lololol, another plot twist xD Just imagine it:
'HEY GUYS, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER BIOSHOCK INFINITE FROM ANOTHER UNIVERSE! THERE'S MORE RPG IN IT NOW! ALSO A MORE OPEN GAMEWORLD!'
That'd be like the best marketing strategy ever.
yes that would be awesome! xD
I don't think it's fundamentally flawed to combine high art with extreme violence, especially as that pretty much defined one of the most important parts of the same era of early 20th century: World War One. So much important art, poetry and literature came directly out of such incredibly almost unfathomable levels of violence of a type almost unimaginable. As lurid as "vigours" and mech-suits are, so too were poison gas, submarines, battle tanks and Zeppelin bombers, not too awe inspiring to us today but are vigours therefore an update to have the same impact on 2010's audiences? So you have something to work with but I think the game failed to follow that inspiration.
But WW1 confers a lot on the violence, repeatedly throughout the war there were mutinies of soldiers refusing to fight each other, the Christmas Truce being the largest one. It took constant effort by the chain of command of each side to keep them in line and keep them fighting to maintain or advance respective territory. That could have been a hugely important mechanic, how the people of Columbia only fought and KEPT FIGHTING Booker by the actions of "officers" or commissars or whatever who constantly whipped them up into a frenzy and if they were taken out and with the right diplomacy options Booker may get a free pass.
But with such an element being SO RARE it looks like they are just driven by nothing more than their simple AI routines of attack attack attack. This game obviously draws A LOT from Halo (two weapon limit, rebounding shield, emphasis on accurate hip-fire) but clearly missed the mechanic of grunts retreating when their command element was taken out, their reticence to advance without some sort of obvious motivation.
Less than polishing graphics it needed more audio clues, the suicidal charges could have still been there, been exactly the same but needed context dialogue like someone shouting "It's now or never boys, we all charge him at once or he'll kill us one by one!" or someone crying "this is for Charlie, you son of a bitch!" as they charge or "hold your line Dammit, if he breaks through we're done for!". Just a few things like showing mooks who run away from you being called cowards and shot by their own side.
Because we know for a fact that in the First World War there was such capacity for wanton violent confrontation, it fails to show their logic, even as flawed as it was.
+Treblaine of course artistic value and violence aren't incompatible. But the violence has to be used in a meaningful way. (see the video about spec ops)
Maxime Teppe I think violence can be for the sake of violence, just the cathartic release we all need in a controlled consequence free environment.
I don't ascribe to the view that playing violent games makes people criminally violent any more than reading sad books leads to depression related self-harm or suicidal tendencies. Arguably we should be more concerned about the latter, self-harm costs more lives than violence between people.
I don't think it's a good idea to hijack a combat fantasy with moral guardian grandstanding. Not that you were actually suggesting that, but certainly there's no shortage of New Moral Guardians out there to lecture us on our wicked ways.
Spec Ops the Line may be a critic's darling but I think it tries to have its cake and eat it, it doesn't really reconcile how we should pay for enjoy and appreciate this game yet the game try to swing around with the message that you shouldn't be doing this, take the game back and demand a refund. Go play a nice game like cooking Mama.
I went back to play Bioshock Infinite again, I didn't find the actions of the antagonists to be as jarring as the review makes out, even remembering this analysis. Yes, they were extremely belligerent but not to the point of being illogical.
Though Bioshock Infinite still feels half-baked, like the ideas weren't properly rounded, I'd love it if mod tools were released for the game as I seriously think it could be saved in the edit.
Treblaine well you were talking about "high art" and violence, so i thought as violence as commentary on something.
Although violence as catharsis sure is valuable, i am less of a fan, mainly because i think we're pretty much done exploring that kind of catharsis.
this said we can always find new ways to provide it, and make it new and interesting again.
and as you say, the spec ops "don't play this game" is intersting, but just once. Still, i am sure there is a whole world of games using violence as a meaningful narrative mechanic without bashing you in the head.
just as there is a whole universe of games to make about non binary moral systems.
Maxime Teppe I went to such high art examples not to show a lower limit but an upper limit. If it works there for something that is unequivocally art then there's no reason it shouldn't work for any other art forms.
I don't know what you mean by not being a fan of catharsis, the appear in that is inherent regardless of novelty or critical exploration of it. As it is, despite how action packed games are hardly a new thing, I think there has been a lack of exploration of the hows and whys of it. Lots of talking around it and speculation on false premise.
I don't think there has to be such profound meaning or message, I see that as a propagandist's view of society, one that I see them foisting on everyone in all quarters. They are very good at acting like that is the way all art is, it's the Begging The Question fallacy.
Everywhere there is the agenda of "what is this trying to get you to change your mind on" well what if it isn't? What if it's just trying to elicit a feeling, a tone, a certain sense of presence.
And why should it have to?
What does Beethoven's 5th symphony have the actually SAY!?!?
It doesn't, it doesn't have any lyrics.
Even songs that do have lyrics they don't have as much importance as the song itself.
Games need narrative like music needs lyrics, even if it is there it doesn't even need to make all that much sense. You're going to get narrative whether you like it or not, just as songs are going to have meaning regardless of lyrics or lack thereof.
Treblaine interesting
I'm not saying i'm not a fan of catharsis, i'm saying i feel like there are already enough games out there that explore violence for it's own sake and the sake of catharsis.
also, personal tastes: you just won't attract me by claiming that game X is ultra violent and does gore excellently well.
That said, exploring the hows and why of this catharsis is already having a larger discourse, to me.
But there might be a bias, brutality and bloodlust aren't regarded as noble in general, so games that try to provoke those aren't seen as art?
But you shouldn't see my opinions as a condemnation: i am personnaly thinking Art as a word to loose to be useful.
it is mostly used to segregate creations you like from those you won't. it validates elitism.
so, to me, me not liking something doesn't prevent it from being "artful", or rather, interesting, valuable, meaningful or powerful.
I agreed with you until recently. I think the violence of the game works to make the point that violence always leads to more violence.
Booker regrets his violent past, but approaches every situation by more violence, regardless how much you might think the antagonists are. The violence of the game gives the justification for Booker choosing to die at the end.
"Who actually liked the hacking of Bioshock?"
People who like to approach situations with an option that isn't just screaming yolo and shooting everyone.
finally a good review of this game
Ah, man, this game always serves as a sick reminder to me to NEVER preorder/buy super-hyped games at launch. Haven't touched this disappointment in such a long time that it's gathering dust.
My thoughts exactly. BI crumbles under its own weight. Brilliant analysis.
Thank you for being the first reviewer I've seen/heard to actually recognize there was a game called System Shock. I've seen the odd review here or there touch on System Shock 2 as a source of inspiration for the BioShock series (if not labelling BioShock as being completely derivative of the former), but nowhere else has anyone I've seen or heard even acknowledged the existence of the original game which started it all, let alone included mention of its contributions.
IMHO, System Shock (the first) was a fantastic game which pushed new ground for its time and completely demolished the walls of whatever the "box" for the genre was then. System Shock 2 improved upon that model in many ways, sure, but it wasn't nearly the revolutionary game which was, and will always be, the original.
(you just earned yourself a subscriber)
This is why I think Bioshock Infinite's DLC Burial at sea is the ideal bioshock game, deep narrative weight, compelling characters and combat that's justified, and oftentimes avoidable and non-lethal.
And they brought back the weapon wheel and med kits you can carry with you, even, almost as a way of acknowledging that the game was worse off without them. Wish they'd had the sense to patch them into the base game.
Right? You could almost hear the game apologizing over and over again for those core mechanics programmed into it that they couldn't really do anything about.
and personally I really enjoyed the combat on its own. Running around, dodging shots, getting up close and blowing away enemies with the shotgun, ect. I also really enjoyed combat in previous games, I've never really heard that people didn't like bioshock's combat (the first two games that is). I don't have an issue with the combat so much as the constant arena fights that get tiresome and the fact that the violence and combat doesn't really fit with the story. If anything, the story tends to act like the violence and combat sections aren't really there or at least not as long and intense as they actually are.
The emotional and touching scenes are so well written. Why did everything else have to be such a pile of floating garbage?
crisis8v88 The ending of this game ruined it for me. I understood it and was well aware of the multiverse theory but they just used it as a way to cover up cheap writing. And I absolutely hated what they did to Elizabeth after that final level.
Still my favorite game ever. But yeah it has it's problems for sure.
I actually really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite when I played it, much more than Errant Signal, for two main reasons. One, I actually enjoyed the shooting and vigors a fair amount. Two, those flashes of humanity, style, and color the game showed really carried it for me throughout. Yes, I know its a very flawed game, but I'm glad I played it, and feel like it at least tried to throw more out there than most AAA games nowadays. I was able to look past the ludonarrative dissonance and see what the game was trying for. Knowing the game had a troubled development, I can see how the ambitions of the team outpaced their ability to deliver on these ambitions...but at least it had those ambitions. I could see them shining through, and that really elevated the game for me above most AAA shooter schlock out there.
I agree with a lot of what is said here. I knew I couldn't be the only one who thought this game didn't deserve any of the praise it got.
It's a shame the game gets so boring when it's not focusing on its story.
Came here as a remedy to Yahtzee embarrassing himself over this game. You hit on everything about this game that, for me, was made so much worse by the fawning reviews of it: linearity, lack of variety of combat, combat-as-set-piece, the "AI" of Elizabeth (how anyone can call an invincible ally's behaviour "AI" is a bit beyond me), the lack of meaningful exploration, the sameness of the powers, the theme-park feel, and the profound violence that starts for no reason most times.
Also, it was interesting to note that despite the constant refrain of "hey, maybe slavery is a really bad thing" and "hey, maybe profound classism is really a bad thing" that to me felt like it was constantly stating the obvious as loudly and blatantly as possible, the tumblr Social Justice Warrior community was taking the pro-classist and pro-racist imagery of the game's world to make a point that the game was promoting racism. So, even when you're as subtle as a bull in a china shop, it's too subtle for some people to comprehend. Ah well.
That none of the professional gaming reviews gave this anything but glowing praise on Metacritic actually caused me to re-examine how I use that site. From then on, I have to ignore all critical reviews since they are too frequently peppered with conflict of interest and to-short playtime before review, and ignore all of the POSITIVE user reviews. The only way I can get any meaningful use out of metacritic is to stick solely to the negative user reviews, and focus only on those that make meaningful, well-thought-out points, and decide which of those points matter for me, personally. In Bioshock Infinite, it seemed everyone else was waiting in line to dump more meaningless praise on it simply because it was pretty.
Agreed. I mean fuck, even AngryJoeShow heaped shit loads of praise on it.
I agree with what you say in general, but there's one thing that I must object to. Positive reviews and negative reviews have nothing to do with the actual quality of the game.
I mean, if you look at the Metacritic score of Gone Home, it basically says that the game is junk, and the negative reviews are not very substantial.
In any case, I think the best reviewer for a game is yourself. Maybe this is one of those games that you play and think "Wow! This is awesome!" and then later that year you reflect and think "Wow, that game was actually boring as crap."
Opinions are very subjective and, especially with famous opinions, can easily lead to a blind leading the blind situation, where many people are easily swayed by people like Yahtzee or AngryJoeShow and will therefore have a seemingly different view on it. An example of this is with the 9/10 GTA5 review. The game was so heavily praised that people could not accept anything else.
Not to say that reviews are a bad thing. The point is that they give an insight into the game, what the game is and isn't, where it thrives and fails. And this is important because it gives high-profile games like COD:Ghosts the backhand slap it needs while uplifting obscure low-budget masterpieces. If reviews didn't exists, then (and this is entirely speculation here) the imbalance between high budget and low-budget games would be even greater; people would blindly buy big titles because they think it'll be good, while ignoring the smaller ones because they're unknown and potentially unsatisfying.
Of course, people are faulted, and therefore, reviewers are faulted. It's easy to be distracted by flashy lights and ignore the combat, but, as with any profession, reviewers have to work to their hardest not to be suckered in by these things and view the game holistically and not just superficially.
/rant
If the solution is to review every game yourself, that negates the value of game review generally. There simply isn't enough time or attention in the world for everyone to play everything. As I said, my system isn't about positive reviews versus negative reviews, but whittling down those reviews in a way that allows me to get more useful input as to whether the game will appeal to me or not. The positive reviews in particular are almost never useful in this regard.
I rationalized Elizabeth's invincibility by assuming Comstock put out some sort of pamphlet telling his soldiers and automatons not to kill his daughter, as he was hoping to use her for future religious demagoguery.
Of course, I shouldn't have to make that assumption, and it's even harder to hold that assumption when she stands in the path of a missile, unaffected.
I've actually very recently started doing the same. The games which get scores from 9 and above in particular, really don't seem to match up with mine or player's of reasoned critiques views on the games. People seem to be very bad at explaining why they liked something and pin the "it was all excellent" badge on every part of the game, almost exclusively because graphics/art direction and grand set-pieces with allusions to maturity so easily titillated them.
By reading more in depth systems critiques and people who are more balanced I can see what is considered a flaw about the game and decide if that if going to be something that might effect me. This is exactly as you said. Someone who says more than "it's amazing" or "that was rubbish" about a feature, actually give genuine context to why I should think the same.
It's interesting how increasingly I rely on "nobodies" for real information. I find it almost always has something to do with "mature themes" and this goal of "cinematic" that gets the highest praise, which usually doesn't contend well with my ideals as a gamer and game designer. Cause, y'know, a game is meant to be PLAYED after all.
Keep being critical brother!
A million times this. I bought a 360 specifically to play the original Bioshock and that game is still my favorite ever. I almost cried the first time I saved a Little Sister, and that was about 10 minutes into the game.
Infinite was supremely described here. It's like shooting a peashooter into a bullet sponge.
You really made me think about a game that I've given so much praise. One thing I feel like I should say is that the violence fits with Booker's character. No matter how much he wants to be a good person (even through his alternate dimension's rewritten history) he still is a killer, and a skilled one at that.
I liked infinite. More than I liked BioShock. Maybe I'm just simping for Elizabeth. By no means is it a perfect game. That ghost lady was such an unfun fight. I kept dying and running out of ammo. Smh.
I think this game would be slightly better if the game itself wasn't so fucking pretentious. It's so stuck up it's own ass, it feels that it can explain theories, and show the product in action, and get away with it only because it's using polysyllabic words.
awwww someone else didn't get the story.
snipaxthebulldog Aww, someone does not know of another defense mechanism to defend their shitty game.
SSoH
awww look at my other comments
snipaxthebulldog How about not, and say we did? Either choice seems to increase your ego, and I don't have the time to plunder through the rancid cyst that is called the "comment section."
Bagging on a great game seems to be increasing your ego, so why not?
The one thing that really bothers me is when people complain about this game (not to say that it doesn't have problems that need to be addressed), is the problem some have with the "moral equivalence" between Comstock's and Daisy's followers. While I will contend that both sides are taken to cartoonish extremes, I think that was necessary to get the point across - going to extremes, regardless of the justification, will certainly end in tragedy for everyone.
The way I saw it, the divergent sides were characatures of the political right and left. Comstock was the worst view the Left has of the Right - fanatically religious, patriotic, and nationalistic to the point of racism and fascism. The opposite is true of Daisy's group - all on the Left are violent communists that will kill, destroy and even endanger children if it will get them closer to their goals.
While I am a religious and patriotic conservative, i can't for the life in me justify anything Comstock does. He is a villain without question, and I can see him as the shadow anthitasis of everything I hold dear. He is the reminder to be that I should be more reflective and open to the view of others, even if I disagree.
What disturbed me is how far to many either justified Daisy's actions, or just refused to believe that any of her actions were even possible, despite the fact history has shown how popular uprisings have failed because they went to the very extremes we saw in the game.
I think all of this stems from the fact that we have been told for so long to not criticize minorities or unions or other favored groups of the Left that we have lost any sense of objectivity in judging the morality of their actions. For some, the ends truly justified any means, and if it doesn't, we pretend it didn't happen.
The point is this - while it is ok to view those on the Right as pseudo Christian Nazis, the idea that black gender-bent Che Grivaria might just be a wee bit wrong in her approach causes the world to blow up.
People need to gain some perspective.
bioshock infinite is the worst game I've ever played
It would certainly have to be the most pretentious.
ArsenalAgent Wolfgang Icarus You guys don't play nearly enough games...
Ryan Gatts please dude, I played all irrational games including system shock. At this point they were just milking the series. Bioshock should have ended at number 2.
Wolfgang Icarus I didn't say you weren't familiar with the series; I said you didn't play enough games. I don't care whether you've played System Shock, and I don't intend to make the argument that Infinite was great (though, I did like the game quite a bit). If Bioshock Infinite is the worst game you've ever played, you haven't played enough games. You don't know the medium. You lack context.
To have never played a game worse than Bioshock Infinite, you must not have played much of the Call of Duty series, or Zelda, or Mario, or Final Fantasy, or Soulcalibur, or Sonic, or Gears of War, or any number of other incredibly influential series that have shitty games in them. It means you haven't played many flawed but daring indie games. It means your gaming palette is underdeveloped and shows a lack of understanding for the medium. To confuse mere competence with abject failure betrays a disturbing underappreciation for the artform.
It's okay to dislike Bioshock Infinite, and we should all expect better, but you're hardly in a position to deliver trite condemnations.
Ryan Gatts The out-and-out gainsaying of your original comment had me interested at first, but now you're boring me.
All of the reasons one could think that a particular artwork is the worst example of its kind are so many as to be innumerable, and if the person is evaluating it specifically as a work of art then we're obviously dealing with more than just its "mere competence" as a piece of software designed for entertainment purposes; were dealing with the values it projects (again I say) _as a work of art_. We're also dealing with people's own subjective experience of a game which is informed by _their_ own values.
Your comment leads me to conclude that you think Infinite and other games can only be evaluated in a particular, not-very-human way: technical competence, features etc. (i.e. "objectively," as many politics-averse gamers apparently say), and that's why you assume that Wolfgang and I haven't played enough games to decide that Infinite is a particularly bad one. Instead of asking "why," you go straight to this "gamer cred" nonsense.
Here we have a game which egregiously mishandles serious issues of history, racism, class, religion, metaphys- dammit, literally every single issue it takes on as a theme of its narrative- while also featuring meaningless ultra-violence and a logically self-inconsistent plot that's surely as convoluted as the intestine from which it was extricated. If I'm going to be contradicted for calling something like that pretentious and inferior then I expect to have to defend my actual reasons for saying that, and not be accused of simply not knowing what I am talking about.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up everything I hated about Bioshock Inifinite. The original had so much more soul and cohesive vision.
This is the first time I have seen such a detailed and in-depth video game review. This not just nice job, this is INSANE amount of work. I might disagree with an opinion or two, but I take my hat off for the quality of this review.
Errand -YOU are the reviewer modern game industry needs!
it's strange to me why people love bagging on this game, as it is sooo much better than a lot of other mainstream, AAA games out there.
-it has well though out, creative and involving story with interesting characters, themes and sub-plots
-it has decent gameplay, with fun skyline sections and somewhat creative enemies which comes from the strong art-direction. though it is apparent that it was not meant to be a straight up FPS from the beginning, judging from the E3 demos and multiple development difficulties.
-It has an incredible art-style with glorious open vistas of a steam-punk styled flying city mixed with the creepy imagery of the many pro-racist propaganda posters.
-and, in contrast the the review, I thought the racial undertones in the game were handled perfectly. they weren't ham fist-idly shoved into the gamers face by one of the main protagonists, stating "we have got to stop this. it's wrong" or something of that nature. It was more used to set the tone and the period of the game, where racism was a normal occurrence, as well as being used to further antagonize Comstock and his regime in the player's eyes. It would also make sense that both Comstock's regime and Fitzroy's rebellion would be percieved at the end as both antagonists, because Daisy's motivation are that of the same as Comstock's. She only hungers conquest and power, not equal rights. she manipulates her followers the same way as Comstock , just for different, equally maniacal purposes. Also, if the writers were to make us choose a side to root for, the story would become unfocused. The struggles of the good Vox Populi in there quest to take back their freedom in Columbia would have no effect on the main story in any way, as the only two people that matter in the story are Booker and Elizabeth, who aren't required to take sides in order for the story to advance.
I think this game fully deserves the praise that it got. The gameplay may not have been as complex as games, but it was defiantly servicable at the least. It is staggeringly beautiful to look at, and has a very complex and interesting story as well, with an ending much improved over the likes of Bioshock 1. I would give this game an "A-"
That as well.
An objective review of Bioshock Infinite, the sky must be falling.
+Girolamo Esposito Really could have benefited by being a tad more objective. I feel like his emotions got in the way of the actual review. Then again I liked the review. Just can't help myself but disagree.
this isn't a review it's an analysis
Mohamed Hijazi Right, I don't know what I was smoking.
Girolamo Esposito some good shit
+Harper Sanchez I think you could really benefit from being a tad more objective.
in my eyes this game makes the biggest mistake a game can make.
ITS BORING
Just wanna say thanks for making this. On one hand, I really did love the game; it was immersive, inspiring, exciting, and awe/wonder-inducing, and I'm looking forward to going online for more narrative exposition and closure. At the same time, I appreciate your ability and willingness to stop us at times and say "No." I didn't seem to dislike it as much as you, but it's nice to have someone who's willing to be the grownup for us. Great closing statements. You're awesome.
Nice video Campster, I would think Bioshock Infinite could do a lot better as a story told through the classic mediums such as a TV series, a movie or, better yet, a book.
What is wrong with Errant Signal? A game cant be both intelligent and violent? I am kind of hooked to his videos as they are absurdly dumb but tries to be very intellectual. Often he misinterpret games to fit his own world view and I love how patronizing and snarky he can be about games with "bad ideas".
i have a problem with what bioshock infinite is that what infinite pretends to be and what it is are two totally different things. infinite acts like its some wonderful and deep game, artful and meaningful. when in reality its a dumb corridor shooter totally dependent on its twist ending to evoke meaning to the 8 hours of shootin n' killin'.
hector estrada Yes, yes. You and Errant Signal are very clever for dissecting that.
First off: The game does not pretend to be anything. It is what it is. Its the game reviewer afterwards that has said the game was this and that.
Secondly: I find it fascinating how you say what Errant Signal says word for word.
Thirdly, the game is more than what you reduce the game to be. It is in fact artful and has meaning even if the game genre still is a first person shooter. It is undeniable that the game has astonishing aesthetics. The city feels alive and real even in the most surreal of settings. To me the game doesnt even have a twist ending as the ending fit perfectly with what was told before.
This is not my favorite Bioshock game (in fact it is my third) but the complaints in this video and what you just said is nonsense. Its a city in the sky. How much free roaming do you think there would be? Not every game in this world has to be a sandbox game to qualify for quality.
Andy Ace " It is in fact artful and has meaning even if the game genre still is a first person shooter." and that is......? a twist? yeah this game has no greater meaning then a twist. such a shame unlike bioshock 1
"The city feels alive and real even in the most surreal of settings." the city becomes completely dead fast within 2 hours of game play also columbia doesn't hold a candle to Rapture. columbia was a boring liner "city". adding racist purely for shock valve just made it worse. not "art
bioshock one was a masterpiece, infinite was a painful game to play. the best parts of the game are when you are not playing. bottom line infinite is dumb corridor shooter more similar to COD then bioshock 1.
also i thought infinite was crap long before i saw this review. at this point ken levine should just start a new IP, but he wont and we'll get bioshock modern warfare soon and everyone will eat it up. "OMG WHAT TWIST LOL"
there is just so much wrong in this game. just compare the major villain of bioshock 1 Andrew Ryan and infinite's comstock. Ryan was a visionary trying to defend what was left of his great city against what he believed was a threat. comstock was an a**hole..... a racist religious zealot who's plan was that of a saturday mourning cartoon villain's i.e. im gonna destroy the world cuz im the bad guy!!!
hector estrada Bioshock 1 had a clear view on a specific ideology and philosophy that any idiot could understand. It was more explisit. This game is more vague, ambivalent and implicit. You may be interested in sci-fi or something since all you got was infinite alternate dimension twist. But the game was about a lot more. The main reason why Errant Signal dont like it is that its start of as a critique of american exceptionalism and imperialism (people with his views love that) but then muddering the waters when the opposition is shown not to be any better.
There are many "twists" in this game. You just reduce them to the last one.
I played Red Dead Redemtion and love that game but it dont address a lot of the issues that was very pressing at that time. Black people and white people are seen working, laughing and playing side by side. That is historical false hood. As I said, I loved RDR and it doesnt bother me. If I were you though, and wanted to trow fits on something, I would rather be angry that a relatively realistic "American Frontier in the year 1911" didnt address this issue rather than a game actually addressing it. You see it´s not shock value! This was how it worked.
You thought that Comstock was just "im gonna destroy the world cuz im the bad guy!!!"? Wow, you didnt get alot out of this game did you?
Andy Ace "infinite has not of meaning you just don't get it, so i wont explain" yep that was totally not a cop out......
"The main reason why Errant Signal dont like it is that its start of as a critique of american exceptionalism and imperialism"
did you even see the video? he disliked mainly due to the awful AWFUL combat. no matter what you want to believe about the stupid plot and story IT DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT INFINITE IS A BRO SHOOTER. man this game is so brooding and deep now wait for me to kill every living thing to open the next door where i will be forced to murder everyone to open the next room...... this is a clearly made game for intellectuals. yep....
"rumbles about RDR" what you said has nothing to do with anything.....
oh im sorry im meant comstock becomes a born-again christian which turns him racist and gives him the desire to burn the world........ oh wait that's still stupid.
dont worry your little head about anything infinite sold well its shallow gameplay proved to be a winner. in no time we should have Bioshock modern warfare to help remove anything left of the "shock" games and just keep the good stuff like head shots, mindless henchmen, corridors, gorely melee kills (gotta keep those for the artsy types) and guns, more guns but gotta make them boring. gotta make sure the COD crowd is pleased
Bioshock infinite is the most overrated game of all time.
*****
At least half life brought something new to the table for its time.
***** I like to think so too
***** I just am sick of everyone praising a video game with bland game play and a story line full of plot holes that throws so many ideas at you it makes you think its deeper then it really is, then praising it as a master piece.
It is still one of the most over rated games def the most in years 2010-2015
daidai907 ehhhh wut;
I've decided you are my spirit animal. GG WP.
Bioshock Infinite is one of my favourite games, but the fact that it was chopped up, changed around, rewritten and rewritten again really, really shows, and the dissonance between the deep, engaging and heartfelt story, and the almost arcade-like core gameplay stands out. If I recall correctly, when the game was first announced, it was very different, featuring a more open, transversible world with multiple paths through the story and optional side details. Better explained powers with more interesting uses. In one early gameplay preview, we saw Booker stop an artillery shell in midair, control a shotgun from a distance and combine a lightning bolt attack with a windstorm conjured by Elizabeth to make a localised thunderstorm. And the game had a lot more "strangeness" to it throughout, keeping an air of mystery to the things that happened and lending a more surrealist tone to the action.
But in the end, I think the reason they gave for tightening it down into a linear story was because it just got too complex too fast and ended up breaking more often than not. With mechanics like Elizabeth's A.I and the open world causing narrative glitches and sequence errors. But when they shortened it down to a linear game, they kept a lot of the old mechanics, which makes them feel highly out of place.
I do object to the idea that the game cannot have a deep story and "video-gamey" violence side by side, though. But I will say that Infinite doesn't do it well. The two feel at odds but this is never addressed in-universe. Nobody even mentions it, it's just how things are. And that's why it doesn't work.
At the end of the day, though, I still love the game to bits and it will always be one of my favourites.
As a person who has never played bioshock and watch your videos because I think your interesting the beginning of the video seemed a bit repetitive, the end thought was one your best. Keep up the good work and keep making memorable endings to interesting videos.
Sir, there are many "reviewers" out there; you are one of the few critics I have the pleasure to watch. Great videos
The bar basement singing scene becomes downright threatening if you got into a shootout with and killed the people upstairs.
Great review. The OP here has hit the nail on the head from the Disney references to the way he feels about the frustrating lackluster combat. I was gifted this game on Steam after I was deliberating between it and Far Cry 3...glad I didn't have to spend my money on this title. For what it's worth I do find it enjoyable because I went it to it expecting nothing. I did my homework and had a basic idea that I was getting into a pretty corridor shooter.
Wow I am SO glad I found this video. I just finished Infinite for the first time and was left feeling like, um, did I miss something or am I actually relieved to be rid of this, finally. I couldn't put my finger on it, I just felt... Nothing. By the end I was furious with the continuous murder and mayhem loop.
This is why I wished Infinite wasn't presented as a Bioshock game.
Thanks for the great video. Thought I'd be the only one not hyping the game and actually finding it somewhat dull at most times. :)