Support NeoGAF

[Ein Bear]

Two questions!

Are there no subtitles for the audio logs on ps3 this time around?

I was supposed to receive Bioshock 1 and some form of preorder incentive for buying the game at zavvi.com. But where is it? There was nothing in the box and no email codes or anything (I've tried contacting them today, no response yet).

If you ordered it from Zavvi, I assume you're in Europe? The BioShock 1 thingy was just a US promotion, which disappointed me on launch day too :/

 

[electricpirate]

Fuck yea, 1999 playthrough took down

Spoiler

lady comstock

in one life.

Using a slightly modified Shawn combo, I did some work .

Also brought down the handyman right before then sans cheesing. Hit and run on skyrails, distract him with the decoy, slam him with a devils Kiss and fired rockets like crazy. Brought him down with my last RPG.

 

[DryvBy]

After finishing the game last night, I must say that I really enjoyed most of the game. The only few things I didn't like was the very end, some of those fire fights. And

Spoiler

the ghost boss fights

. They actually gave me a headache how difficult they were. None of my guns did any damage and I was constantly out of ammo. I dunno how I'm going to go through 1999 mode now.

 

[electricpirate]

For anyone who's played it, what do you think of 1999 mode? Better than the main mode? Worth playing the game again just for it?

Because at the moment, after beating Normal, I feel no desire to play such a linear game again.

It's awesome. It's balanced really well so you have to make some tough decisions about how to build your dewitt, but there's a ton of viable paths.

Do this though: don't reload every time you die. Eat the penaltie, get better, proceed with diminished resources. It's a harsh mistress, but the balance feels right.

 

[Karak]

I am done.
The thing that stuck with me the most is...why did the prisoners in some of the cells not talk just a bit.
1 guy has bullets
1 guy has the gun
1 guy has the lockpick.

Repeat a good number of times. So odd that it kept breaking me out of the game.

However, that being said, it was all together pretty fun though I also had a hard time with picking up so much and the scavenging aspect. I am not sure HOW they could have done that differently but I wish they had.

 

[tiny raptor]

It's awesome. It's balanced really well so you have to make some tough decisions about how to build your dewitt, but there's a ton of viable paths.

Do this though: don't reload every time you die. Eat the penaltie, get better, proceed with diminished resources. It's a harsh mistress, but the balance feels right.

That's cool. I'll definitely play it in 1999 if I feel the urge to dive back in.

 

[EatChildren]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design. I can't help but imagine people sitting behind cover, popping out with a pistol or rifle to tediously potshot enemies, or running in with a shotgun and hoping they don't die.

When you can, use the rails. Keep moving. Use the goddamn tonics. Combine tonics. Possesses a dude then set him on fire to turn him into a walking inferno. Bronko a pack of dudes into the air and hit them with electricity, frying them all. Set your birds on fire or give them an electric charge. Melee dudes while they're electrocuting, immobilised, or whatever.

With BioShock I felt like I was wrestling with a combat system that was inherently just...not very fun. Weird damage ratios leading to bullet sponges. Unsatisfying plasmids. Poor feedback on hitboxes and damage. Weak sounding and animating weapons. Dull AI and enemy diversity. No sense of control or power over using plasmids during encounters. Just this weird mess of combat idiosyncracies that worked on a functional level but wasn't a whole lot of fun to me. As if it was designed as a visual idea, and not a very good mechanical one.

Infinite is the polar opposite. 99% of what I disliked about BioShock's combat has had blanket improvements and overhauls. I still think damage stacking is horseshit, and feedback on hitting weakpoints is basically nonexistent (and thus poor), but everything else is top shit. Guns are satisfying to shoot, and hitting enemies feels good. Tonics are smartly designed, along with weapon performance, allowing for greater diversity in combat tactics. And more satisfying tactics at that. The game cleanly and precisely communicates the functions of tonics and weapons, especially in function, allowing you to act your tactics in an instantly recognisable and responsive manner. In a split second I can think to myself "okay, possess that turret to keep those two guys to my left occupied, then bronko the pack of dudes to my right and follow up with the shotgun", and implement this tactic with not a moment to spare and have everything go just as I predicted.

 

[Torraz]

Is there some way to know if you have all the collectibles (such as the voice recordings) before moving on to the next area?

 

[SmithnCo]

Is there some way to know if you have all the collectibles (such as the voice recordings) before moving on to the next area?

Not that I know of. Some are hidden pretty well so it might be worth using a spoiler-free guide if you want to get 'em all.

 

[conman]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design.

Infinite does have "tighter" and more polished combat, but that doesn't make it better (or even especially good). IMO the combat is so polished that it's bland. It's been whittled down so far that there's not a lot of strategy or experimentation involved. Whatever happened to the idea of "play" in video games?

And even though the skylines are an incredible addition, the weapons, vigors, and enemies are all dull as rocks. Sure, everything works, but that doesn't make it fun. The highlights in Infinite were almost all in the art design. And whoever designed the skylines needs a raise. A big one.

 

[electricpirate]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design. I can't help but imagine people sitting behind cover, popping out with a pistol or rifle to tediously potshot enemies, or running in with a shotgun and hoping they don't die.

When you can, use the rails. Keep moving. Use the goddamn tonics. Combine tonics. Possesses a dude then set him on fire to turn him into a walking inferno. Bronko a pack of dudes into the air and hit them with electricity, frying them all. Set your birds on fire or give them an electric charge. Melee dudes while they're electrocuting, immobilised, or whatever.

With BioShock I felt like I was wrestling with a combat system that was inherently just...not very fun. Weird damage ratios leading to bullet sponges. Unsatisfying plasmids. Poor feedback on hitboxes and damage. Weak sounding and animating weapons. Dull AI and enemy diversity. No sense of control or power over using plasmids during encounters. Just this weird mess of combat idiosyncracies that worked on a functional level but wasn't a whole lot of fun to me. As if it was designed as a visual idea, and not a very good mechanical one.

Infinite is the polar opposite. 99% of what I disliked about BioShock's combat has had blanket improvements and overhauls. I still think damage stacking is horseshit, and feedback on hitting weakpoints is basically nonexistent (and thus poor), but everything else is top shit. Guns are satisfying to shoot, and hitting enemies feels good. Tonics are smartly designed, along with weapon performance, allowing for greater diversity in combat tactics. And more satisfying tactics at that. The game cleanly and precisely communicates the functions of tonics and weapons, especially in function, allowing you to act your tactics in an instantly recognisable and responsive manner. In a split second I can think to myself "okay, possess that turret to keep those two guys to my left occupied, then bronko the pack of dudes to my right and follow up with the shotgun", and implement this tactic with not a moment to spare and have everything go just as I predicted.

That's really well put.

I haven't played on normal, so maybe at the lower difficulties you can just get through playing int like COD, mostly just popping out of cover and using ADS/sniper rifles? On Hard/1999 you really have to move, or else you run out of ammo/salts, or get over-run pretty quickly. Also, efficient use of vigors and tears can allow you to save money, so the game rewards efficient play.

To your complaints, I'd add that enemies need some damn footsteps. Melee dudes always sneak up on me because I can't hear them, even though I'm playing with headphones. In terms of feeback, I turn on combat information, which helps with the whole "Did I land a headshot issue?" It helps, as much as I detest throwing UI elements when gameplay cues should do.

Infinite does have "tighter" and more polished combat, but that doesn't make it better (or even especially good). IMO the combat is so polished that it's bland. It's been whittled down so far that there's not a lot of strategy or experimentation involved. Whatever happened to the idea of "play" in video games?

And even though the skylines are an incredible addition, the weapons, vigors, and enemies are all dull as rocks. Sure, everything works, but that doesn't make it fun.

What makes them dull?

 

[The Librarian]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design. I can't help but imagine people sitting behind cover, popping out with a pistol or rifle to tediously potshot enemies, or running in with a shotgun and hoping they don't die.

When you can, use the rails. Keep moving. Use the goddamn tonics. Combine tonics. Possesses a dude then set him on fire to turn him into a walking inferno. Bronko a pack of dudes into the air and hit them with electricity, frying them all. Set your birds on fire or give them an electric charge. Melee dudes while they're electrocuting, immobilised, or whatever.

With BioShock I felt like I was wrestling with a combat system that was inherently just...not very fun. Weird damage ratios leading to bullet sponges. Unsatisfying plasmids. Poor feedback on hitboxes and damage. Weak sounding and animating weapons. Dull AI and enemy diversity. No sense of control or power over using plasmids during encounters. Just this weird mess of combat idiosyncracies that worked on a functional level but wasn't a whole lot of fun to me. As if it was designed as a visual idea, and not a very good mechanical one.

Infinite is the polar opposite. 99% of what I disliked about BioShock's combat has had blanket improvements and overhauls. I still think damage stacking is horseshit, and feedback on hitting weakpoints is basically nonexistent (and thus poor), but everything else is top shit. Guns are satisfying to shoot, and hitting enemies feels good. Tonics are smartly designed, along with weapon performance, allowing for greater diversity in combat tactics. And more satisfying tactics at that. The game cleanly and precisely communicates the functions of tonics and weapons, especially in function, allowing you to act your tactics in an instantly recognisable and responsive manner. In a split second I can think to myself "okay, possess that turret to keep those two guys to my left occupied, then bronko the pack of dudes to my right and follow up with the shotgun", and implement this tactic with not a moment to spare and have everything go just as I predicted.

I tried Minvera's Den for a bit (Sunday I think), and I was surprised how much less I was enjoying the combat than in Infinite. I felt so restricted.

Infinite does have "tighter" and more polished combat, but that doesn't make it better (or even especially good). IMO the combat is so polished that it's bland. It's been whittled down so far that there's not a lot of strategy or experimentation involved. Whatever happened to the idea of "play" in video games?

There's as much experimentation and strategy as you're willing to put into it. If the game is bland, it's because you're playing it blandly.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design. I can't help but imagine people sitting behind cover, popping out with a pistol or rifle to tediously potshot enemies, or running in with a shotgun and hoping they don't die.

When you can, use the rails. Keep moving. Use the goddamn tonics. Combine tonics. Possesses a dude then set him on fire to turn him into a walking inferno. Bronko a pack of dudes into the air and hit them with electricity, frying them all. Set your birds on fire or give them an electric charge. Melee dudes while they're electrocuting, immobilised, or whatever.

With BioShock I felt like I was wrestling with a combat system that was inherently just...not very fun. Weird damage ratios leading to bullet sponges. Unsatisfying plasmids. Poor feedback on hitboxes and damage. Weak sounding and animating weapons. Dull AI and enemy diversity. No sense of control or power over using plasmids during encounters. Just this weird mess of combat idiosyncracies that worked on a functional level but wasn't a whole lot of fun to me. As if it was designed as a visual idea, and not a very good mechanical one.

Infinite is the polar opposite. 99% of what I disliked about BioShock's combat has had blanket improvements and overhauls. I still think damage stacking is horseshit, and feedback on hitting weakpoints is basically nonexistent (and thus poor), but everything else is top shit. Guns are satisfying to shoot, and hitting enemies feels good. Tonics are smartly designed, along with weapon performance, allowing for greater diversity in combat tactics. And more satisfying tactics at that. The game cleanly and precisely communicates the functions of tonics and weapons, especially in function, allowing you to act your tactics in an instantly recognisable and responsive manner. In a split second I can think to myself "okay, possess that turret to keep those two guys to my left occupied, then bronko the pack of dudes to my right and follow up with the shotgun", and implement this tactic with not a moment to spare and have everything go just as I predicted.

I agree 100% I put the control scheme to (call of duty mode) I can't remember what its called and the controls and combat and vigor all sing! the game is a ton of fun just go play.

 

[Wilester]

Why are Bioshock 1 and 2 £13.99 each on Steam? You'd think they'd have a sale or something to encourage sales of Infinite.

I want to play the originals first

 

[EatChildren]

Infinite does have "tighter" and more polished combat, but that doesn't make it better (or even especially good). IMO the combat is so polished that it's bland. It's been whittled down so far that there's not a lot of strategy or experimentation involved. Whatever happened to the idea of "play" in video games?

And even though the skylines are an incredible addition, the weapons, vigors, and enemies are all dull as rocks. Sure, everything works, but that doesn't make it fun. The highlights in Infinite were almost all in the art design. And whoever designed the skylines needs a raise. A big one.

But that's where I disagree. The tighter, polished combat allowed for more responsive and smarter experimentation. I derived little to no satisfaction from experimenting in BioShock as I found majority of the plasmids boring in design and execution, and the combat unsatisfying. In Infinite I can apply experimentation and tactic to an encounter via a diverse use of tonics and weapons and get a satisfying result.

You say "what happened to the idea of play in video games", but that's largely my point. I thought the "play" in Infinite's combat was really very good, and a lot of fun. And the "play" in BioShock a good bit of bollocks.

EDIT: One thing I loved with Infinite's combat was that guns were almost exactly as accurate fired from the hip, on the move, as they were down iron sights. It called back to run-and-gun shooters where mobility went hand in hand with aiming and shooting, versus modern stop-and-pop shooters that enforce movement restrictions if you want to hit something. It didn't matter if it was the rifle, the shotgun, the hand cannon, or the crank gun. I could keep moving, aiming, shooting, and throwing out vigors without the need to stop and manually line up a shot. That, combined with the skyline, was a lot of fun to me.

Similar to Bulletstorm, really. My heart is in shooters that give merit to athletics and motion of the player, not shooting galleries and stop-and-pop.

 

[Riposte]

The game's combat takes quite awhile to heat up and at the start, it is not really interesting at all. Rails, tears, and a multitude of vigors and certain enemy types are introduced later than they should have been.

 

[Guevara]

Combat in Infinite seemed like a solid step backwards to me.

Instead of hacking machines permanently for low cost in B1 (not to mention all the tonics than made hacking quicker cheaper and easier), we got

Spoiler

temporary Possession that was rarely worth the price. For the first third of the game I never had enough salt for more than 2-3 uses. Really possession is more like Big Daddy hypnotize than actually hacking.

Instead of telekinesis that worked on everything from projectiles, to items, to random junk, to corpses as shield we got

Spoiler

return to sender, which is cool but can't be used on anything but bullets. In B1 I would often use Telekinesis to get items out of reach, or if I suspected a trap, no dice in Infinite. In fact many of the puzzles work because you don't have telekinesis; the game can show you the reward for opening a lock, then you go in and pick it up.

Instead of Natural Camouflage/Wrench Lurker/Sports Boost etc, which were really cool in concert and allowed you to surprise most splicers we got

Spoiler

basic % boost type gear, sometimes with an elemental kicker. Much less exciting although effective.

These are just off the top on my head, but in most cases it seems like Infinite felt like B1 lite.

 

[televator]

I'm surprised to see people down on the combat. BioShock I can understand, because I too thought it was kind of poo, but Infinite is a billion fold smarter and tighter in combat design. I can't help but imagine people sitting behind cover, popping out with a pistol or rifle to tediously potshot enemies, or running in with a shotgun and hoping they don't die.

When you can, use the rails. Keep moving. Use the goddamn tonics. Combine tonics. Possesses a dude then set him on fire to turn him into a walking inferno. Bronko a pack of dudes into the air and hit them with electricity, frying them all. Set your birds on fire or give them an electric charge. Melee dudes while they're electrocuting, immobilised, or whatever.

With BioShock I felt like I was wrestling with a combat system that was inherently just...not very fun. Weird damage ratios leading to bullet sponges. Unsatisfying plasmids. Poor feedback on hitboxes and damage. Weak sounding and animating weapons. Dull AI and enemy diversity. No sense of control or power over using plasmids during encounters. Just this weird mess of combat idiosyncracies that worked on a functional level but wasn't a whole lot of fun to me. As if it was designed as a visual idea, and not a very good mechanical one.

Infinite is the polar opposite. 99% of what I disliked about BioShock's combat has had blanket improvements and overhauls. I still think damage stacking is horseshit, and feedback on hitting weakpoints is basically nonexistent (and thus poor), but everything else is top shit. Guns are satisfying to shoot, and hitting enemies feels good. Tonics are smartly designed, along with weapon performance, allowing for greater diversity in combat tactics. And more satisfying tactics at that. The game cleanly and precisely communicates the functions of tonics and weapons, especially in function, allowing you to act your tactics in an instantly recognisable and responsive manner. In a split second I can think to myself "okay, possess that turret to keep those two guys to my left occupied, then bronko the pack of dudes to my right and follow up with the shotgun", and implement this tactic with not a moment to spare and have everything go just as I predicted.

The thing for me was the combat seemed to require some intuitive knack that most people especially in this age of gaming aren't really conditioned to have.

Sure the combat was tighter and sleeker than in BS1, but I felt like this in any encounter with any non-standard enemy.

I felt there was actually too many variables in the combat and I felt totally overwhelmed. I had no strategy, nor did any strategy ever become apparent even after many of the encounters were done with. Nor did it ever occur to me that Vigor combos were actually a thing in this game and it turns out those things are a rather large boost to level things in your favor with the heavy hitting enemies... here I was thinking Vigors were nerf'd plasmids...

I really just could not get comfortable with any combination of weapons and Vigors because it just felt like I died all the same anyway. So yeah, I get that the combat was better. It was just over my head.

 

[conman]

What makes them dull?

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality." Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002. Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

There's as much experimentation and strategy as you're willing to put into it. If the game is bland, it's because you're playing it blandly.

I've defended the combat in the first Assassin's Creed ad nauseum with much the same claim. The difference is that in AC, it's all new, fun, and exciting. Sure, it's busted in some ways, but you have to take some risks to achieve something truly innovative and experimental. But in BI, because you have to choose what to upgrade, the game encourages you to stick to just a few things. It requires multiple playthroughs in order to give each vigor/weapon combination its due. That severely limits experimentation IMO and is a fundamental design flaw. If you want people to "experiment," you don't ask your players to commit to specific upgrade paths.

Rant: On a larger note, I think character/weapon upgrades in a shooter are a terrible design trend. They cover over an endless number of shoddy combat design elements. By giving players artificial enhancements, you encourage min/maxing, discourage experimentation, and you can ditch good AI and combat design (because you want to facilitate the feeling of player "empowerment"). Good combat design should channel and "teach" players a skill set. As you get better, the enemies should, too. Instead, modern AAA shooter design just throws a bunch of unnecessary powers and bonuses at you so that you can mow down mindless enemies in poorly designed levels. Bioshock Infinite is the latest victim of that trend.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Infinite does have "tighter" and more polished combat, but that doesn't make it better (or even especially good). IMO the combat is so polished that it's bland. It's been whittled down so far that there's not a lot of strategy or experimentation involved. Whatever happened to the idea of "play" in video games?

And even though the skylines are an incredible addition, the weapons, vigors, and enemies are all dull as rocks. Sure, everything works, but that doesn't make it fun.

It wasn't superb or anything, but it was much more fun than Bioshock 1 for me, very fluid and dynamic, and with lots of different choices and options for approaching each encounter. I most definitely did play around with a lot of different possibilities.

If you got really reductionist, I could see handling everything in the entire game with the sniper and crows on Medium difficulty or something, but I think some fights would still require at least running around.

The enemies were pretty dumb, I'll give you that, but I really feel almost like I played a different game than you did. Maybe it's just that after playing Tomb Raider, this felt like a SRPG.

The game's combat takes quite awhile to heat up and at the start, it is not really interesting at all. Rails, tears, and a multitude of vigors and certain enemy types are introduced later than they should have been.

I think this is a large part of why I enjoyed the second half of the game a lot more than the first.

 

[NullPointer]

But that's where I disagree. The tighter, polished combat allowed for more responsive and smarter experimentation. I derived little to no satisfaction from experimenting in BioShock as I found majority of the plasmids boring in design and execution, and the combat unsatisfying. In Infinite I can apply experimentation and tactic to an encounter via a diverse use of tonics and weapons and get a satisfying result.

You say "what happened to the idea of play in video games", but that's largely my point. I thought the "play" in Infinite's combat was really very good, and a lot of fun. And the "play" in BioShock a good bit of bollocks.

I guess it depends what you're looking for. I had more fun using Bioshock's telekinesis in and out of combat far more than anything on hand in Infinite.

I'll admit though, I didn't put too many combinations together, but that's mostly because I was saving my salts - I stupidly didn't realize that infusions could be put towards health OR shields OR salts until maybe 75% of the way through the game, after I had maxed out my health upgrades. So I used them sparingly, where I'd get the best effect.

Will definitely give this game a second playthrough, purely to experiment more. But as it was, my first run-through was almost purely about Shotgun/MachineGun along with Devils' Kiss and Murder of Crows. I ignored most of the game's weaponry and tonics because I didn't see much difference to them, and wanted to stay focused with my upgrades.

 

[Divvy]

Combat in Infinite seemed like a solid step backwards to me.

Instead of hacking machines permanently for low cost in B1 (not to mention all the tonics than made hacking quicker cheaper and easier), we got

Spoiler

temporary Possession that was rarely worth the price. For the first third of the game I never had enough salt for more than 2-3 uses. Really possession is more like Big Daddy hypnotize than actually hacking.

Wut, Possession is crazy powerful once you level it up.

Anyways I found combat really enjoyable in Infinite. I only wish that money was more plentiful so I could have levelled up more vigors and used them all. I mainly stuck with possession, fire and rush.

 

[Guevara]

Wut, Possession is crazy powerful once you level it up.

That happened for me very late in the game.

 

[televator]

Wut, Possession is crazy powerful once you level it up.

How exactly? I powered that sucker up and those Washington automatons brushed it off in a couple of seconds.

 

[Divvy]

That happened for me very late in the game.

I think all the vigors are really good once you levelled them up. They all seem to have their options.

How exactly? I powered that sucker up and those Washington automatons brushed it off in a couple of seconds.

Once you get the upgrade to make it cheaper, you can spam it a lot more effectively, making pairs of automatons kill each other. Also once you possess say a person, everyone else starts aggroing him giving you some breathing room. If you have the possessed humans kill themselves after possession, it makes clearing groups pretty easy.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I guess it depends what you're looking for. I had more fun using Bioshock's telekinesis in and out of combat far more than anything on hand in Infinite.

I'll admit though, I didn't put too many combinations together, but that's mostly because I was saving my salts - I stupidly didn't realize that infusions could be put towards health OR shields OR salts until maybe 75% of the way through the game, after I had maxed out my health upgrades. So I used them sparingly, where I'd get the best effect.

Will definitely give this game a second playthrough, purely to experiment more. But as it was, my first run-through was almost purely about Shotgun/MachineGun along with Devils' Kiss and Murder of Crows. I ignored most of the game's weaponry and tonics because I didn't see much difference to them, and wanted to stay focused with my upgrades.

I can very well imagine this game might be really boring with no points in salts and without the Blood to Salt vest.

Personally went with Sniper + Shotgun + Shock Jockey + Charge most of the time.

 

[Guevara]

And here's the big problem: In B1 you have separate currencies for leveling up Plasmids and guns (Adam vs. cash) so you can level them up in parallel.

In Infinite it all comes from cash, so you have to decide whether to take an extremely expensive chance on a Vigor, or just upgrade the machine gun that's already working well.

 

[EatChildren]

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality." Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002. Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

I can pay this. In the grand scheme of things, Infinite could have done with more explicitly diverse enemy types and tonic functions that put greater emphasis on tactical play over free range experimentation. But I guess the "nothing new" thing didn't really bother me as what was there was satisfying enough.

A lot of this probably comes from this generation having taken a sharp turn towards stop-and-pop combat design. Which I enjoy, but seems to be the only way to design the entire genre if you were to look towards some developers. Growing up with games like Quake and Doom, I really miss shooters being about player motion and mobility just as much as shooting, with a good, chaotic mania to every encounter.

Infinite might not raise the bar of what first person shooter encounters can provide, but it did provide a lot of enjoyment to me, because what was there was designed more than well enough for me to have fun in the way I like to have fun with shooters. I didn't feel restricted to a certain style of play, and I felt I had a lot of options on hand. Even if the game does recycle variations of stun, the fact I can use stun in combination with other abilities and weapons on the fly made it exciting for me.

And again, this is why I enjoyed Bulletstorm so much as well.

The thing for me was the combat seemed to require some intuitive knack that most people especially in this age of gaming aren't really conditioned to have.

Sure the combat was tighter and sleeker than in BS1, but I felt like this in any encounter with any non-standard enemy.

I felt there was actually too many variables in the combat and I felt totally overwhelmed. I had no strategy, nor did any strategy ever become apparent even after many of the encounters were done with. Nor did it ever occur to me that Vigor combos were actually a thing in this game and it turns out those things are a rather large boost to level things in your favor with the heavy hitting enemies... here I was thinking Vigors were nerf'd plasmids...

I really just could not get comfortable with any combination of weapons and Vigors because it just felt like I died all the same anyway. So yeah, I get that the combat was better. It was just over my head.

That's fair, and I'll echo criticism of the vigor combination. I didn't know it could be done until I accidentally did it and an achievement let me know. The game could have done a better job of showing you the benefits of combining certain vigors.

Rant: On a larger note, I think character/weapon upgrades in a shooter are a terrible design trend. They cover over an endless number of shoddy combat design elements. By giving players artificial enhancements, you encourage min/maxing, discourage experimentation, and you can ditch good AI and combat design (because you want to facilitate the feeling of player "empowerment"). Good combat design should channel and "teach" players a skill set. As you get better, the enemies should, too. Instead, modern AAA shooter design just throws a bunch of unnecessary powers and bonuses at you so that you can mow down mindless enemies in poorly designed levels. Bioshock Infinite is the latest victim of that trend.

Vanquish's weapon upgrade system is the only one that comes to mind as working really well alongside highly skill driven combat fundamentals. But that's because the weapon upgrade system was ripped straight from a shmup, and thus worked very well within the confines of Vanquish's high speed gameplay.

And here's the big problem: In B1 you have separate currencies for leveling up Plasmids and guns (Adam vs. cash) so you can level them up in parallel.

In Infinite it all comes from cash, so you have to decide whether to take an extremely expensive chance on a Vigor, or just upgrade the machine gun that's already working well.

I hated that in BioShock because the balance curve pandered to gamers who didn't explore. It's obscenely easy to max out every weapon you'll ever use in BioShock and have plenty of points to spare. In fact, from memory, there were more upgrade stations in the game than there were weapon upgrades to buy.

It's nice and all to upgrade everything, but my thumb rule in these situations is if I have to make choices, at least make the choice somewhat difficult, even if it's as simple as picking between vigors and weapons with my limited funds. Having choices and then trivialising them is so much worse.

 

[conman]

And here's the big problem: In B1 you have separate currencies for leveling up Plasmids and guns (Adam vs. cash) so you can level them up in parallel.

In Infinite it all comes from cash, so you have to decide whether to take an extremely expensive chance on a Vigor, or just upgrade the machine gun that's already working well.

Exactly. So the "experimentation" in combat comes at the point where you make a purchasing decision, not where you make a combat decision. In other words, the game encourages you to ask "what should I buy?" rather than "what should I fight with?"

 

[Orcastar]

I haven't played on normal, so maybe at the lower difficulties you can just get through playing int like COD, mostly just popping out of cover and using ADS/sniper rifles? On Hard/1999 you really have to move, or else you run out of ammo/salts, or get over-run pretty quickly. Also, efficient use of vigors and tears can allow you to save money, so the game rewards efficient play.

That's not true. My first playthrough was on hard and I spent like two thirds of the game sniping every chance I got, only using vigors and shotgun/machine gun when enemies got too close. At no point did I feel like enemies were about overrun me, every area in the game provided way too many opportunites for retreating and funneling enemies into easy killzones. The only fights that actually forced me to move about were the ones that involved handymen.

Then I discovered how powerful Return to Sender is and just tanked everything while shotgunning enemies in the face. Never ran out of salts, especially after getting that one piece of gear that has a 40% or so chance of replenishing some salts whenever you kill something.

At least in my experience, the game really doesn't force you to mix it up at all. Then again maybe my 1999 playthrough will be different.

 

[televator]

And here's the big problem: In B1 you have separate currencies for leveling up Plasmids and guns (Adam vs. cash) so you can level them up in parallel.

In Infinite it all comes from cash, so you have to decide whether to take an extremely expensive chance on a Vigor, or just upgrade the machine gun that's already working well.

Oh also on that note: I made the mistake of upgrading mostly only certain weapons that aren't commonly used by enemies... I regretted that in a certain section of the game...

Once you get the upgrade to make it cheaper, you can spam it a lot more effectively, making pairs of automatons kill each other. Also once you possess say a person, everyone else starts aggroing him giving you some breathing room. If you have the possessed humans kill themselves after possession, it makes clearing groups pretty easy.

Seems like that requires more attention on one enemy than the game often allowed. IDK.

 

[The Librarian]

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality."

Handymen and MPs are unchallening? Those two have personalities, plus the fire guys, the crow guys, and so on...

Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002. Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

I have no idea what the arena comment even means. Vigors are widely different. The only thing that's true for what you said about vigors is Shock Jockey and Devil's Kiss. The rest all do wildly different things. It doesn't matter if the weapons are standard fare as long as they're fun to shoot.

But in BI, because you have to choose what to upgrade, the game encourages you to stick to just a few things. It requires multiple playthroughs in order to give each vigor/weapon combination its due. That severely limits experimentation IMO and is a fundamental design flaw. If you want people to "experiment," you don't ask your players to commit to specific upgrade paths.

Not so with me. I hardly have enough to money to do a level 1 upgrade on all of them, but I'm using all of them for specific things. The only thing I find having trouble finding a use for is Charge.

Good combat design should channel and "teach" players a skill set. As you get better, the enemies should, too. Instead, modern AAA shooter design just throws a bunch of unnecessary powers and bonuses at you so that you can mow down mindless enemies in poorly designed levels. Bioshock Infinite is the latest victim of that trend.

But the game does that. It slowly introduces mechanics one by one until you can have all of them at once.

I guess it depends what you're looking for. I had more fun using Bioshock's telekinesis in and out of combat far more than anything on hand in Infinite.

BioShock's telekinesis was extremely awkward to use.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality." Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002.

Now that you mention it, maybe that's why I liked them.

Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

I don't think this is really true at all, unless you never used the <hold> version of any vigor.

I've defended the combat in the first Assassin's Creed ad nauseum with much the same claim. The difference is that in AC, it's all new, fun, and exciting. Sure, it's busted in some ways, but you have to take some risks to achieve something truly innovative and experimental. But in BI, because you have to choose what to upgrade, the game encourages you to stick to just a few things. It requires multiple playthroughs in order to give each vigor/weapon combination its due. That severely limits experimentation IMO and is a fundamental design flaw. If you want people to "experiment," you don't ask your players to commit to specific upgrade paths.

Are you sure you didn't play on 1999? I had everything but Undertow and Devil's Kiss upgraded by the end and was trying all sorts of different things.

Rant: On a larger note, I think character/weapon upgrades in a shooter are a terrible design trend. They cover over an endless number of shoddy combat design elements. By giving players artificial enhancements, you encourage min/maxing, discourage experimentation, and you can ditch good AI and combat design (because you want to facilitate the feeling of player "empowerment"). Good combat design should channel and "teach" players a skill set. As you get better, the enemies should, too. Instead, modern AAA shooter design just throws a bunch of unnecessary powers and bonuses at you so that you can mow down mindless enemies in poorly designed levels. Bioshock Infinite is the latest victim of that trend.

Man, this is like reading me in the Tomb Raider thread. Did you play that?

 

[Zeliard]

Growing up with games like Quake and Doom, I really miss shooters being about player motion and mobility just as much as shooting, with a good, chaotic mania to every encounter.

--

And again, this is why I enjoyed Bulletstorm so much as well.

Are you me?

...

Wait, you're not, since I actually enjoyed the Handyman fights (precisely for those reasons actually - the huge emphasis on mobility and controlled chaos).

 

[conman]

I can pay this. In the grand scheme of things, Infinite could have done with more explicitly diverse enemy types and tonic functions that put greater emphasis on tactical play over free range experimentation. But I guess the "nothing new" thing didn't really bother me as what was there was satisfying enough.

A lot of this probably comes from this generation having taken a sharp turn towards stop-and-pop combat design. Which I enjoy, but seems to be the only way to design the entire genre if you were to look towards some developers. Growing up with games like Quake and Doom, I really miss shooters being about player motion and mobility just as much as shooting, with a good, chaotic mania to every encounter.

Infinite might not raise the bar of what first person shooter encounters can provide, but it did provide a lot of enjoyment to me, because what was there was designed more than well enough for me to have fun in the way I like to have fun with shooters. I didn't feel restricted to a certain style of play, and I felt I had a lot of options on hand. Even if the game does recycle variations of stun, the fact I can use stun in combination with other abilities and weapons on the fly made it exciting for me.

And again, this is why I enjoyed Bulletstorm so much as well.

Sounds good to me, and I would never attempt to tell someone what they should or shouldn't enjoy.

For me, Bioshock Infinite has been an interesting thought experiment. I'm constantly trying to figure out why a lot of it didn't work for me (including combat), despite some aspects being so incredible. Ever since finishing it, I've been working backwards from my reaction to discover why it left such a strange taste in my mouth. The first few hours were among the best experiences I've ever had in a game. But the rest was all over the place for me.

If nothing else, it's a fascinating game as much for its failures as for its successes.

 

[Divvy]

Oh also on that note: I made the mistake of upgrading mostly only certain weapons that aren't commonly used by enemies... I regretted that in a certain section of the game...



Seems like that requires more attention on one enemy than the game often allowed. IDK.

Not really, possess a bot or person, go deal with something else in the mean time.

My favourite was still using rush and shotgunning people in the face. Next playthrough I'm going to level up undertow as people have been commenting on how good it is.

 

[Guevara]

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality." Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002. Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

YES. Who cares whether you shock them or light them on fire, etc. Either way you do that, then shoot them to death.

 

[Divvy]

YES. Who cares whether you shock them or light them on fire, etc. Either way you do that, then shoot them to death.

That's not true at all. With fire, I treated it as a grenade, lobbed it and lit everything in an area on fire and the enemies would generally incinerate themselves to death. With shock, it was more of a stun that let me get in their face and melee or shotgun them. At their base level, they may be the same but once you levelled them up, they most certainly were not.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I really don't get the argument about the combat being boring, that's just me though. I however can't find another FPS out there that comes close to the fun I had in Infinite.

what was the last big FPS that came out Crysis 3?

zzzzzzzzzz.

its all opinion people.

 

[conman]

Man, this is like reading me in the Tomb Raider thread. Did you play that?

Ha. It's a big peeve of mine, too. The only way I could enjoy Far Cry 3 was to deny myself any weapon or skill upgrades. Would have been ten times the game if they'd just left upgrades out of it altogether. Haven't played the new TR yet, but it's good to have a heads up.

And I have to wonder how much better Infinite's combat would have been if they'd focused on an even smaller (but more substantially varied) set of vigors and weapons, and not bound your upgrades to purchases. I definitely prefer Metroid-style upgrade paths: upgrades add complexity and open up levels/combat in new ways that complicate your strategy rather than limit it. And most equipment upgrades are universal rather than on a selective upgrade path. I honestly think that most shooter designers deliberately misunderstand what makes character upgrades work in RPGs. In that genre, it's generally not about empowerment, but instead, it's about carving out a role. But these days, upgrade paths in shooters just feel like "cheats" that have been hardwired into the game.

 

[Zeliard]

The Vigors are mainly centered on crowd control, but I disagree that they're totally homogeneous in the way it's being painted, especially when you throw in certain gear combinations along with Vigor upgrades.

I actually love the crowd control nature of the Vigors because they, along with the Skylines when you have them, make the shield regen mechanic far less problematic than in other games. In most other regen-based shooters, you don't have anywhere near such CC and mobility options, and are relegated to dull and repetitive stop-and-pop to get through encounters.

In Infinite, due to the Vigors offering the player so much control over enemies and the Skylines so much control over movement around the arena, you can be aggressive and creative even on 1999 in a way that a lot of health regen games don't offer (and this is why it's so easily comparable to Bulletstorm).

 

[Conciliator]

I enjoyed the combat but the upgrades, especially the weapon upgrades, were really disappointing. The upgrades in Bioshock 1 and 2 are SO cool, adding those visual touches in addition to the interesting effects, and most of the upgrades in Infinite are just really standard number upgrades.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I think the real problem with the vigors is for over half the game you have to use them really sparingly. It wasn't until a little over the halfway mark that you were given enough infusions and salts were abundant everywhere. At that point players are already conditioned to use the vigors sparingly. I mean the first vigor you're given can only be used twice and money and salts are hard to find early on. I don't think it was until late game for me to really start playing, experimenting and going all out with different combinations.

 

[Divvy]

I agree that the weapon upgrades were pretty messy and there wasn't any good reason to upgrade the vox weapons since they would drop pretty infrequently.

That said, I think the upgraded handcannon is the best weapon in the game.

 

[conman]

In Infinite, due to the Vigors offering the player so much control over enemies and the Skylines so much control over movement around the arena, you can be aggressive and creative even on 1999 in a way that a lot of health regen games don't offer (and this is why it's so easily comparable to Bulletstorm).

This is the heart of my problem with Infinite's combat (and with most modern shooters). You get way too much control. Admittedly, I've only played on Hard and not on 1999, so that might be a big difference. But on Hard, I never felt like I didn't have absolute and complete control over a situation. The shield is way too generous. Health and ammo are way too abundant. Enemies are way too stupid. Environments are way too shooting gallery-esque. And upgrades/enhancements push you even further over the edge.

And if the answer to my issues is just to "play 1999 mode," then that tells me that the game design is busted. I'm really not that good at shooters.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Ha. It's a big peeve of mine, too. The only way I could enjoy Far Cry 3 was to deny myself any weapon or skill upgrades. Would have been ten times the game if they'd just left upgrades out of it altogether. Haven't played the new TR yet, but it's good to have a heads up.

And I have to wonder how much better Infinite's combat would have been if they'd focused on an even smaller (but more substantially varied) set of vigors and weapons, and not bound your upgrades to purchases. I definitely prefer Metroid-style upgrade paths: upgrades add complexity and open up levels/combat in new ways that complicate your strategy rather than limit it. And most equipment upgrades are universal rather than on a selective upgrade path.

Again, I simply didn't feel this way about the game. On a general level though, I completely agree. I've been sick for years of games giving you 90 abilities that really only do 5 different things and then half ass the content since people will be too distracted figuring out what to use to notice the game isn't a cohesive package designed around anything.

And a lotta people loved it, but my advice is beware of the new TR, on a lot of levels.

 

[Truant]

I agree that the weapon upgrades were pretty messy and there wasn't any good reason to upgrade the vox weapons since they would drop pretty infrequently.

That said, I think the upgraded handcannon is the best weapon in the game.

Handcannon/shotgun combo is the way to go.

 

[electricpirate]

The AI is uninteresting and unchallenging (I played on Hard). The enemies have no "personality." Combat all takes place in arenas that seem to have designed ca. 2002. Vigors all perform effectively the same function (stun + damage), just with different eye candy. Bonus equipment feels like an afterthought. And the weapons are the totally standard array in any shooter ever made. The only thing that sets combat apart from a generic shooter are the skylines and the (stunning) visuals.

See, I didn't see this, I found enemies to be tenacious. I routinely found myself flanked, and needing to move, heavy hitters added lots of variety to a battle, as my approach to a fireman, motorized patriot or crow could change things dramatically. While there was overlap with the skills (which is importnat) I found that how I combined those skills was much more important than any single skill, and that using skills that I had properly specced was more important than either.

Having that overlap is important though:

But in BI, because you have to choose what to upgrade, the game encourages you to stick to just a few things. It requires multiple playthroughs in order to give each vigor/weapon combination its due. That severely limits experimentation IMO and is a fundamental design flaw. If you want people to "experiment," you don't ask your players to commit to specific upgrade paths.

Because there is a variety of skills, and those skills have overlap, you can afford to expirement, try some things, and figure out what works. If you invest in Shock Jockey early on, you've got an area stun that's usefull at long ranges, so you can combine it with the volleygun to do damage to groups, or if you have the gear that causes a shock chain on an overkill, maybe you use the revolver, and set up chains of exploding heads. Maybe you've already heavily invested in the shotgun, so you grab undertow or charge upgrades next to close gaps. Since you have access to these abilities, you can try out combinations, and see what you like.

Rant: On a larger note, I think character/weapon upgrades in a shooter are a terrible design trend. They cover over an endless number of shoddy combat design elements. By giving players artificial enhancements, you encourage min/maxing, discourage experimentation, and you can ditch good AI and combat design (because you want to facilitate the feeling of player "empowerment"). Good combat design should channel and "teach" players a skill set. As you get better, the enemies should, too. Instead, modern AAA shooter design just throws a bunch of unnecessary powers and bonuses at you so that you can mow down mindless enemies in poorly designed levels. Bioshock Infinite is the latest victim of that trend.

See, in this one it's great. You can't just grind, you and your enemies are on a power curve. If you fall behind, things get pretty rough, and how do you fall behind? You play poorly, die a ton, and lose all your money. This puts the impetus on playing well, and not just playing to limp through this encounter. Similarly, you get more replayability, because encounters will play pretty differently depending on how you've developed your character, and what kind of gear you find. My previous playthrough relied on shock jockey and murder of crows for crowd control, and possession to keep harder targets off my back. I mostly stayed back, and created chains of crow traps to wreak havok. It was very gun heavy. Near the end, I relied heavily on return to sender and my upgraded carbine.

This time, I use posession to create a distraction, and I use charge to close gaps, and manage shields. For hard targets I prefer direct damage from Devil's kiss I rely more on the hand cannon, and I use the overkill gear for crowd control. I almost never fire my guns this time around. I feel less like i'm perfecting a form, and more like I'm forging a different experience this time around Endgame vague spoilers:

Spoiler

Hey, look at those mechanics reinforcing the central narrative theme

 

[Divvy]

Handcannon/shotgun combo is the way to go.

My man

 

[Zeliard]

This is the heart of my problem with Infinite's combat (and with most modern shooters). You get way too much control. Admittedly, I've only played on Hard and not on 1999, so that might be a big difference. But on Hard, I never felt like I didn't have absolute and complete control over a situation. The shield is way too generous. Health and ammo are way too abundant. Enemies are way too stupid. Environments are way too shooting gallery-esque. And upgrades/enhancements push you even further over the edge.

And if the answer to my issues is just to "play 1999 mode," then that tells me that the game design is busted. I'm really not that good at shooters.

On 1999 I never felt that enemies were basically puppets on a string, as they take and give a lot of damage, so you can't just play haphazardly or you'll get shot up quickly.

What I appreciate about the level of control offered isn't that it reduces challenge - it's that it emphasizes aggressive, mobile play. I don't think limiting player control over a combat encounter is a good way to increase challenge. Freedom of movement and the freedom to make quick tactical decisions that are able to be executed instantly are great things to have, and if they reduce difficulty at all it's because the player isn't artificially hampered.