• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bioshock Infinite |OT| No Gods, Kings, or Irrational Games

Easy_D

never left the stone age
So I finally got this and god damn. I may have spoiled myself but this is still a special game and experiencing it is much different than reading about it. The entire first hour is magical, especially when you first see Columbia and that little piano tune plays.

Then the hymn in the cathedral place, beautiful. Also I love the regular gun, I feel like using it all the time :D
 

Minamu

Member
I think you can view the transcripts in your journal/inventory/etc. menu.
Okay, I'll check it out, thanks.

Bioshock 1 is on the PS3 disc. No code required.
Where exactly? I couldn't see it.

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 :/
You sure? It did say during the preorder phase on their actual site that Bioshock 1 would be included (together with "Industrial Revolution Pre-order Incentive"). I can't imagine they lied? :S
 

dankir

Member
How much farther do I have left in the game?

I just got the return to sender vigor and I'm just outside Comstock house

Also back at Fink Mfg there was a red tear that opened itself and I wasn't paying attention but I thought I heard rock music or something playing. Booker and Elizabeth even commented stating they've never heard that type of music before. What was that all about?

Also my complete Bioshock Collectors editions. My favorites by far this generation.


IMG_20130408_000038_zps83a604ac.jpg
 
How much farther do I have left in the game?

I just got the return to sender vigor and I'm just outside Comstock house

Also back at Fink Mfg there was a red tear that opened itself and I wasn't paying attention but I thought I heard Rock music or somethign playing. Booker and Elizabeth even commented stating they've never heard that type of music. What was that all about?

About three hours left
 

Jadedx

Banned
I did not like this game's story, too convoluted; also the ending was a cop out. You decide what the ending will be! pfft.
 
BioShock's telekinesis was extremely awkward to use.
Hehe - a lot of Bioshock felt awkward to me. I just found that particular power to be interesting and rewarding, in and out of combat.

It was also hilarious during those moments when my best laid Big Daddy ambushes would fall apart, only to find me scurrying away for cover and health all the while mentally grabbing and tossing every miscellaneous item I could find at him.

Hah - cigarette pack railgun motherfucker! Whiskey bottle rail gun! You want some of this? How about a candy bar to the dome!
 

El Odio

Banned
In terms of combat I felt like Infinite pulled it off much better than BS 1 and 2. Ammo was pretty plentiful in both of them which led to me relying more on the machine gun or pistol rather than using plasmids or setting up traps aside from a few tough big daddy fights.
Infinite feels much better because the vigors can actually combine with one another for different effects rather than cancel each other out when used simultaneously. I felt encouraged to experiment with them and the two gun restriction without knowing what the enemies up ahead would be carrying made me try different ways to take out groups rather than simply resorting to shooting them all every time.
 

Torraz

Member
This game is bad for my choice paralysis.

Not sure whether to go for salt, shields or health.

Not sure what vigors to upgrade.

Not sure what weapons to upgrade (or vigor, as money is pretty limited atm).

Not sure what locks to pick (as supply is pretty limited, early in the game).
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
So in other words, we should just play Half Life 2.

Watch out, or IGN might make a "WHAT HALF LIFE CAN LEARN FROM BIOSHOCK INFINITE" and compare Alyx with Liz.

This game is bad for my choice paralysis.

Not sure whether to go for salt, shields or health.

Not sure what vigors to upgrade.

Not sure what weapons to upgrade (or vigor, as money is pretty limited atm).

Not sure what locks to pick (as supply is pretty limited, early in the game).

Salt Shields or Health: Pick the one you find yourself low on the most.
Vigors: Which ones do you use the most?
Same with weapons.

Just compare which vigor/weapon nets you the most kills.
 

Torraz

Member
Watch out, or IGN might make a "WHAT HALF LIFE CAN LEARN FROM BIOSHOCK INFINITE" and compare Alyx with Liz.



Salt Shields or Health: Pick the one you find yourself low on the most.
Vigors: Which ones do you use the most?
Same with weapons.

Just compare which vigor/weapon nets you the most kills.

I went mostly with salt at this point. Thinking I might put a few points into shields now, though, as shields regenerate on their own.

Crows seem pretty cool, but I only have devils kiss, crows and possession so far.

Carbine and shotgun are nice. Only seen the pistol, machine gun, and some weird shotgun that only has one shot a reload.
 

spekkeh

Banned
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.

Well I could never get past the fourth hour mark in Bioshock because of how dreary I thought the combat was, so I guess we would agree there.

The problem, for me, is not really the combat itself. I quite like the gameplay puzzles they created where you can approach a setpiece from many different angles. The plas..vigors are nicely varied, I thought a few of them were useless but then I see people on here who only use those, so they must be well balanced. Same goes for the weapons, a really nice variety. I haven't really made up my mind over whether I think the weapons lack oomph, or whether I enjoy weapons that finally just let you blast away without spraying everywhere and cooldown timers. The lack of enemy variety was annoying though and the bigger machines were more annoying because of their bullet sponge nature than fun I thought.

No what really annoyed me was that the fps and loot trappings worked antithetical to what the game seemed to want to achieve. Now it could be just me; I'm a game design researcher so I'm heavily biased against anything that (I feel!) grates in this sense. Heavy action FPS games are contingent on a continuous, increasing sense of urgency. Like an avalanche that gathers up momentum. They need to have this, because why else would you massacre such ludicrous amounts of people other than that the increasing urgency demands it (you forget about the ludicrousness of the situation basically). But the game hides away a lot of the understanding of the plot in corners away from the path you are actually being directed in! In addition, you need to understand Columbia to appreciate it, but the constant shooting gets in the way of this because your attention is constantly focused on the enemies, that are not interesting to the actual understanding of the plot. This schizophrenia was constantly nagging my mind while I was playing the game. The game design says go this way there are enemies you have to shoot, the world design said go the other way, it's what it's really about.

This is exemplified in the green arrow you can conjure up. You see it veers off right, so you go left in search for loot and voxophones. Apart from killing any urgency that's left (because your mind outright refuses the idea that you have to roleplay as the protagonist in the plot and e.g. hurry quickly save Elizabeth), the loot mechanic furthermore kills any observation of the environment. Loot is everywhere. In the trashcans, on the street, in desks. You're clicking on everything without giving it conscious thought. Therefore the environment, Columbia(!) (the place it should be about), is essentially meaningless. There's no spatial cognition, because there's no need for it. You don't have to reason about the environment, like 'I bet there's a voxophone on that person's nightstand', because they are on the ground, in a crypt, in the bushes, everywhere that's illogical. As such, you don't appraise the environment like a logical place, but like it's a backdrop. And then there's the shooting again, for the fiftieth time in a row. Why were you doing this again? To pay off some kind of debt that hasn't even been explained. Okay..
 

Laughlin

Member
This game is bad for my choice paralysis.

Not sure whether to go for salt, shields or health.

Not sure what vigors to upgrade.

Not sure what weapons to upgrade (or vigor, as money is pretty limited atm).

Not sure what locks to pick (as supply is pretty limited, early in the game).

You get a lot of lockpicks throughout the game. I'd say use them as much as possible.
 
I really miss shooters being about player motion and mobility just as much as shooting, with a good, chaotic mania to every encounter.
Halo used to be awesome about this.
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.
But they do complicate your strategy. At the beginning you can only possess and set things on fire. So, in an early fight you can posses a turret. It'll fire on your enemies and you can set them on fire. By the end of the game, though, you can do so much more. You can possess an enemy turret and use Bucking Bronco to send everybody in the air. Then sick Murder of Crows on them while they're in the air floating helplessly and the turret is raining fire on them.

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.
So you're not good at shooters, but you want more random elements into the combat? You want random elements? Sounds frustrating to me.
 
Halo used to be awesome about this.
It still is - now more than ever. But in a different way. Sprint and mobility AAs like evade and jetpack change the fundamental nature of the game, but make it more about using that mobility wisely and preparing to be attacked from more vectors.

Seems you and I just like opposite things though ;P
 
Also back at Fink Mfg there was a red tear that opened itself and I wasn't paying attention but I thought I heard rock music or something playing. Booker and Elizabeth even commented stating they've never heard that type of music before. What was that all about?

I missed this the first time too (I think a PA announcement was happening at the same time, and had audio priority), but it's an Easter Egg where you hear CCR's Fortunate Son through a Tear. YT vid of that scene here: http://youtu.be/LoLtlfwxl08?t=1m11s
 

Jadedx

Banned
Really? I think you might just not understand the ending. What specific issues do you have?

I understand the ending and the
multiple dimensions, multiple versions of the same people doing slightly different version of the same thing, and the fact that dewitt dying puts an end to the comstock timeline.
I just hate stories/endings like that, reminds me of the reasons I did not like MGS4.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Man I want to replay Bioshock 1 now, but I want to play it on PC. But it's still 20 dollars on steam and GMG.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Man having the weekend to ruminate about Bioshock Infinite, it really is a swell game, I'd put it at an 8.0, which anyone who knows me knows I use a full scale and shit on most games because most games are shitty.

It's clear the game had troubled development but I feel if it didn't go through that period and realized some of the potential they hinted at in the trailers that showcased what seemed like a more robust system, I think it would be perfect. For example, I really thought we'd be using skyrails all over the city, like a method of traveling from one building "island" to the next, but the game was far too linear and thus exploration was relatively limited from that perspective. The utilization of the setting, which is still the games best feature, also paradoxically reveals the games weakest elements.

Come to think of it... I'd play an open world game set in Columbia lol
 

DatDude

Banned
Man having the weekend to ruminate about Bioshock Infinite, it really is a swell game, I'd put it at an 8.0, which anyone who knows me knows I use a full scale and shit on most games because most games are shitty.

It's clear the game had troubled development but I feel if it didn't go through that period and realized some of the potential they hinted at in the trailers that showcased what seemed like a more robust system, I think it would be perfect. For example, I really thought we'd be using skyrails all over the city, like a method of traveling from one building "island" to the next, but the game was far too linear and thus exploration was relatively limited from that perspective. The utilization of the setting, which is still the games best feature, also paradoxically reveals the games weakest elements.

Come to think of it... I'd play an open world game set in Columbia lol

If Arkham City has taught me anything..when a game is set in a more expansive sandbox world..the narrative begins to lose it's focus compared to that of a more linear game (like Arkham Asylum).;
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
I would give it a 10/10 for being the first game to have an excellent story in my opinion, and not just "for a video game."
 

DatDude

Banned
I understand the ending and the
multiple dimensions, multiple versions of the same people doing slightly different version of the same thing, and the fact that dewitt dying puts an end to the comstock timeline.
I just hate stories/endings like that, reminds me of the reasons I did not like MGS4.

The ending is not a cop out btw.

It's basically agreed that the last scene after the credits
is booker reuniting with Anna is a different universe, resetting the timeline to where he never sells her. Thus the song "WILL THE CIRCLE BE UNBROKEN?"
 

Gvaz

Banned
The ending is fine, I liked it but I also don't want another bioshock.

I want irrational to make System Shock 3 instead.
 

Amir0x

Banned
If Arkham City has taught me anything..when a game is set in a more expansive sandbox world..the narrative begins to lose it's focus compared to that of a more linear game (like Arkham Asylum).;

I consider most games (something of the order of 95 percent or more) have just truly terrible stories, so I'm not sure I can personally ascribe any significant damage to a narrative that is specific to open world games.

I've seen some open world games with considerably better (better by game standards, that is: it's almost always still shit) game stories than linear titles.

And I think Bioshock Infinite's story could EASILY have been told in open world form, because most of it is just audio logs you must find and a few key points you must shuffle through. But an open world would allow you to follow explore the society and all its implications, maybe talk even more with the regular citizens (both poor and privileged) to get even more of the world... I actually think it would suit it quite well.

And I'm not the type of guy who always advocates something should be open world all the time (just not painfully linear, which let's face it Infinite really was...).


At the very least I would have enjoyed a Bioshock Infinite that was Metroidvania-esque with its exploration. I thought the combat was a great improvement over Bio 1 and 2, so improving the exploration and fleshing out some of its other systems (particularly the skyrail system was criminally underutilized) would have made a game that would have hit most of the right notes for me.
 

DatDude

Banned
I've seen some open world games with considerably better (better by game standards, that is: it's almost always still shit) game stories than linear titles.

.

Would you care to name a few? The only one that I really liked was Red Dead Redemption narrative..but even that game had a narrative that felt too stretched and prolonged in the mexico section just to bloat the game.
 
I consider most games (something of the order of 95 percent or more) have just truly terrible stories, so I'm not sure I can personally ascribe any significant damage to a narrative that is specific to open world games.

I've seen some open world games with considerably better (better by game standards, that is: it's almost always still shit) game stories than linear titles.

And I think Bioshock Infinite's story could EASILY have been told in open world form, because most of it is just audio logs you must find and a few key points you must shuffle through. But an open world would allow you to follow explore the society and all its implications, maybe talk even more with the regular citizens (both poor and privileged) to get even more of the world... I actually think it would suit it quite well.

And I'm not the type of guy who always advocates something should be open world all the time (just not painfully linear, which let's face it Infinite really was...).


At the very least I would have enjoyed a Bioshock Infinite that was Metroidvania-esque with its exploration. I thought the combat was a great improvement over Bio 1 and 2, so improving the exploration and fleshing out some of its other systems (particularly the skyrail system was criminally underutilized) would have made a game that would have hit most of the right notes for me.
Yeah one dissapointing thing was the hugely missed opportunity to use Elizabeth's powers and vigors for puzzles which could open up for a more metroidvania esque design.
 

Zeliard

Member
I thought the combat was a great improvement over Bio 1 and 2, so improving the exploration and fleshing out some of its other systems (particularly the skyrail system was criminally underutilized) would have made a game that would have hit most of the right notes for me.

Yeah I quite enjoyed the combat in Infinite. If we're comparing it to your usual modern shooter campaign, I think it's superior to a laughable extent. I'd easily take it over most of your modern military shooters, for instance. I actually felt that way about Mass Effect 3's combat relative to your typical TPS combat, despite the huge problems I have with that series as a whole; let's just say that Gears of War or Uncharted # whatever vs Mass Effect 3 combat is an easy decision for me.

And as the guys at Irrational apparently have three separate significant bits of DLC in the works, I wouldn't mind one of those being centered around the combat, preferably with some Skyline action.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Would you care to name a few? The only one that I really liked was Red Dead Redemption narrative..but even that game had a narrative that felt too stretched and prolonged in the mexico section just to bloat the game.

Well Red Dead Redemption has a solid (by game standard) narrative, but in terms of writing, the Grand Theft Auto series is known for its high quality satire and parodies, with individual scenes being quite hilarious and on point. That's not to say I think GTA games have great overall plots, but that the individual writing can provide some pretty dark and concise commentary on the modern American dream.

I have to view game stories in the full light, because so many of them are terrible. Like I've said many times before, I only hold like 5 to maybe 10 games at BEST in high regard (as in, a good story even compared to other mediums like tv or books or movies), so I probably view game stories from a very different perspective.

My perspective is "well, what DOESN'T suck about the story?" Since most games have terrible stories, I usually pick up elements I enjoy as representative for what I'd like in a game that is the total package story-wise. Games like Grim Fandango and Planescape Torment are two of the few games ever made that are great total packages from a writing/narrative perspective. The other games I enjoy tend to be interpretive affairs, with limited writing and more visual direction.

Bioshock Infinite is closer to Grim Fandango in terms of overall story execution, but it's not quite at that height. I feel since the draw was in the world design and atmosphere, exploring the entire world might make the narrative far more engrossing. But that's just me...

Yeah I quite enjoyed the combat in Infinite. If we're comparing it to your usual modern shooter campaign, I think it's superior to a laughable extent. I'd easily take it over most of your modern military shooters, for instance. I actually felt that way about Mass Effect 3's combat relative to your typical TPS combat, despite the huge problems I have with that series as a whole; let's just say that Gears of War or Uncharted # whatever vs Mass Effect 3 combat is an easy decision for me.

And as the guys at Irrational apparently have three separate significant bits of DLC in the works, I wouldn't mind one of those being centered around the combat, preferably with some Skyline action.

Yeah, I agree. It's not that I don't understand some of the criticisms on the surface level, as individual systems on their own tend not to go too far in Bioshock Infinite... there is a considerable level of room for added depth, in other words. But this is definitely a game where the sum total must be added up and evaluated, I think, because the systems work in conjunction to add a level of variety and flexibility that definitely surpass the majority of FPS today. Enemies react palpably to your shots, guns are appropriately weighty and can be upgraded (and thus your strategy will differ from game to game) and vigors add a level of customization to your approach to battle which elevates it. The vigors are much more effective than Plasmids, for example, as every one of them can be used as traps which work hella well.

When you combine the basic gunplay mechanics with the 'battle enhancers', like the way Elizabeth can open up various strategic tears (Patriots/Decoys/Rockets/Turrets/Cover/Med Kits/Various Weapons) and the way you can utilize skyrails to your advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the enemy) formulate a complete picture that is really quite engaging by genre standards.

There is definitely room for improvements, particularly with enemy variety and with the level of creativity regarding the weapons themselves, but I feel they were effective at what they set out to do.

When people said they didn't feel Bioshock Infinite should be a shooter I understand the sentiment but I genuinely would not have enjoyed it as much if it wasn't.

Yeah one dissapointing thing was the hugely missed opportunity to use Elizabeth's powers and vigors for puzzles which could open up for a more metroidvania esque design.

Man that would have been so rad. My biggest disappointment with Infinite was when I found out how limited the skyrails are in terms of their utilization for exploration. It was a really missed opportunity :(
 

Zeliard

Member
Yeah, I agree. It's not that I don't understand some of the criticisms on the surface level, as individual systems on their own tend not to go too far in Bioshock Infinite... there is a considerable level of room for added depth, in other words. But this is definitely a game where the sum total must be added up and evaluated, I think, because the systems work in conjunction to add a level of variety and flexibility that definitely surpass the majority of FPS today. Enemies react palpably to your shots, guns are appropriately weighty and can be upgraded (and thus your strategy will differ from game to game) and vigors add a level of customization to your approach to battle which elevates it. The vigors are much more effective than Plasmids, for example, as every one of them can be used as traps which work hella well.

When you combine the basic gunplay mechanics with the 'battle enhancers', like the way Elizabeth can open up various strategic tears (Patriots/Decoys/Rockets/Turrets/Cover/Med Kits/Various Weapons) and the way you can utilize skyrails to your advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the enemy) formulate a complete picture that is really quite engaging by genre standards.

There is definitely room for improvements, particularly with enemy variety and with the level of creativity regarding the weapons themselves, but I feel they were effective at what they set out to do.

When people said they didn't feel Bioshock Infinite should be a shooter I understand the sentiment but I genuinely would not have enjoyed it as much if it wasn't.

One of the criticisms I agree with most is that all of the combat tools as a whole are perhaps introduced a bit too late. I think things like the Skylines should have been introduced earlier and been a part of nearly every battle, possibly along with Elizabeth's tears, to the extent that it isn't screwing up the story's pacing. Those along with the vigors, upgrades, and gear offer a nice range of possibilities in combat.

Also, I think the game should have done more to emphasize vigor combinations and player movement and get people to think and act outside of the stop-and-pop box. A lot of players have been conditioned to play in the latter way if given a) guns, and b) a regen system. Certain players will have no problem playing around with these systems since that's what they're used to doing, but some players may be too used to how other, more basic shooters operate.

I have a problem with a lot of the modern methods of "accessibility" (a frequent euphemism for dumbing down), but one thing I've never considered an issue is the in-game tutorial, so long as it's an optional thing (it's the one compromise I think would be perfectly okay for a Souls game). A lot of games viewed as deep and relatively uncompromising had their own tutorial systems, including games like Deus Ex and System Shock 2.

I played on 1999 so I don't know what the Adaptive Training really did, but the impression I get is that vigor combinations and other cool and important things were perhaps not emphasized to the extent they should have been. I think if you're not putting the majority of stat upgrades into salt and really taking advantage of Skylines when they're available, you're really missing out.
 

Guevara

Member
I consider most games (something of the order of 95 percent or more) have just truly terrible stories, so I'm not sure I can personally ascribe any significant damage to a narrative that is specific to open world games.

I've seen some open world games with considerably better (better by game standards, that is: it's almost always still shit) game stories than linear titles.

And I think Bioshock Infinite's story could EASILY have been told in open world form, because most of it is just audio logs you must find and a few key points you must shuffle through. But an open world would allow you to follow explore the society and all its implications, maybe talk even more with the regular citizens (both poor and privileged) to get even more of the world... I actually think it would suit it quite well.

And I'm not the type of guy who always advocates something should be open world all the time (just not painfully linear, which let's face it Infinite really was...).


At the very least I would have enjoyed a Bioshock Infinite that was Metroidvania-esque with its exploration. I thought the combat was a great improvement over Bio 1 and 2, so improving the exploration and fleshing out some of its other systems (particularly the skyrail system was criminally underutilized) would have made a game that would have hit most of the right notes for me.
Yeah my single greatest disappointment is being unable to explore around or even get off the railroad. I really enjoyed exploring Rapture (once opened up) and Columbia could have been 10x more interesting (post collapse).
 

Gvaz

Banned
Will never ever happen due to the license to System Shock being in some limbo abyss.

Yeah that limbo abyss is TOTALLY how they brought System Shock 2 to GoG.com and how they're bringing System Shock 2 to steam.

*eyes roll out of head at the speed of light*
 

Chuck

Still without luck
Minerva's Den question, though it's a little off topic.

Does the game have severe sound issues? I keep encountering machines that make little to no sound, like the turrets when they shoot.
 

Amir0x

Banned
One of the criticisms I agree with most is that all of the combat tools as a whole are perhaps introduced a bit too late. I think things like the Skylines should have been introduced earlier and been a part of nearly every battle, possibly along with Elizabeth's tears, to the extent that it isn't screwing up the story's pacing. Those along with the vigors, upgrades, and gear offer a nice range of possibilities in combat.

Also, I think the game should have done more to emphasize vigor combinations and player movement and get people to think and act outside of the stop-and-pop box. A lot of players have been conditioned to play in the latter way if given a) guns, and b) a regen system. Certain players will have no problem playing around with these systems since that's what they're used to doing, but some players may be too used to how other, more basic shooters operate.

I have a problem with a lot of the modern methods of "accessibility" (a frequent euphemism for dumbing down), but one thing I've never considered an issue is the in-game tutorial, so long as it's an optional thing (it's the one compromise I think would be perfectly okay for a Souls game). A lot of games viewed as deep and relatively uncompromising had their own tutorial systems, including games like Deus Ex and System Shock 2.

I played on 1999 so I don't know what the Adaptive Training really did, but the impression I get is that vigor combinations and other cool and important things were perhaps not emphasized to the extent they should have been. I think if you're not putting the majority of stat upgrades into salt and really taking advantage of Skylines when they're available, you're really missing out.

You and me seem to be on the same page about a lot of things on Bioshock Infinite, Zeliard, and you seem to go through a great deal of effort to explain your positions even when I disagree vehemently with you. I'm going to add you to my trusted and respected GAFer list.

Like you, I played to really get a grasp of the system and utilized the hardest mode so I would be forced to strategize and really learn all the corners and angles of the system in place. And maybe because of this I had a really different feel for how effective the combat systems were altogether because I literally was using everything to the maximum in order to attain success, particularly in the final third of the game, but the end result is the same: I really liked it.

God, a more open Bioshock Infinite with skyrail system going all over the place like a spider web endorsing the type of flexible exploration the game was screaming for... ah, in my dreams or
one of the billion other parallel dimensions in which Columbia did have an open world design
;)

Yeah my single greatest disappointment is being unable to explore around or even get off the railroad. I really enjoyed exploring Rapture (once opened up) and Columbia could have been 10x more interesting (post collapse).

Wouldn't it have been amazing? Maybe some other 2K team will decide to make Bioshock Infinite 2 and improve this aspect
 
I really do miss how the weapons would change as you upgraded them. I kept looking at my shotgun and waiting for some flashing glowing parts to show up when i would upgrade it...and nothing would happen : /
 

Grisby

Member
I really do miss how the weapons would change as you upgraded them. I kept looking at my shotgun and waiting for some flashing glowing parts to show up when i would upgrade it...and nothing would happen : /
Yeah, and I miss the different ammo types from BS2 (I think they might have been in 1 as well...?).
 
Top Bottom