-
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
- Thread starter Cystm
- Start date
So I was poking around unreachable areas in the game, and found out that the "Paris" rift that Elizabeth opens when you first see her is actually modeled out and you can explore it.
I made a video in case anyones interested.
I made a video in case anyones interested.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Loving the game now that i am a decent chunk in, but i felt so much more curious and excited about Rapture than i ever did about Columbia. The intro was no where near as gripping, but thinking back, entering Rapture after some serious shit went down probably had a lot to do with it.
The DLC can't come soon enough. I feel the same way. This game alone is an addiction.
After listening to various talks about it, I find myself feeling the same way Adam Sessler did. I know some people called his opinion hyperbolic, but I feel the exact same adoration towards this game that he did. It's really weird, because I can't recall the last game to make me feel this way.
Has there been any indication of what the dlc would be? I'm really yearning for it as well
I do. The original BioShock.
Seriously, the world and the characters that inhabit it are amazing (relationships were nailed, by the way, for everyone). So much detail and messages to think about. Man, I really hated the
Sea of Doors
Gameplay is fun for me, too. I dread the Handymen, but at the same time welcome them. They're harder for me to fight against than
Lady Comstock
Judging from this thread, Levine said something about more Songbird info. Jump here for more.
5 hoursish?
I was about to say 8-10h
at least 5 hours, maybe 6.
Youre at the halfway point. So another 6 to 10 hours depending on your pace.
Almost done with my 1999 playthrough. It's kind of worked out not getting Infused with greatness the first go around on hard in that it is basically essential anyway to beat 1999 mode without any frustration.
I am getting sucky gear drops though. Nothing really that fits with the playstyle I am hoping to achieve.
How many potential gears are in the game?
I am getting sucky gear drops though. Nothing really that fits with the playstyle I am hoping to achieve.
How many potential gears are in the game?
catotheyounger
Member
I cheesed the system and reload sections when gear is given. There is usually a generous checkpoint on a couple of gear drops. I check the gear, and reload depending on its quality.
I know he liked the Hitman series, the Max Payne games, the original Portal. He's just one of those people, I'm sure he'd be drawn in if he tried it, but convincing him to do so... yea.
Anyway, I just went through Battleship Bay and Soldier's Field for the second time. I really let Elizabeth take the reins in the first part and didn't screw up Soldier's Field on this go around(last time I stupidly looked in a store's cash register, which set all the NPCs off). Amazing just how many moments she has in those sections.
While impressive, I felt at arm's length, watching the way the AI works and their meticulous scripting more than connecting with Elizabeth. Maybe it's because I watched that little talk Ken gave about her a couple of days ago, or because it is all scripted and the player only chooses to let it happen or cut it short. Maybe it's something else, I don't know. It's not like I don't like her character, the scene in the tower only moments before was moving,
watching her go through the rooms in her tower
I keep thinking back to that moment in ICO when I ran up and swung at a random wall with my stick out of frustration. Yorda flinched and reacted in such a convincing way, and it was so completely NOT what I expected from a videogame, that had a much greater effect on me. I never did it again and she was never just companion AI after that. I wonder if Yorda had some of Elizabeth's behaviors, wondering around look at vistas and leaning against pillars, would that have made for a better experience?
That's what I'm doing on my 1999 run right now. Just got to Hall of Heroes. Trying to get the Shawn Combo, but it seems Electric Punch can only be gotten by getting the DLC pass? So instead of that I'm putting Burning Halo in its place.
I think it's a myth.
Edit: It only exists for the console versions, and I'm guessing it downloads automagically. The PC version comes with the texture pack already included.
yeah it was a bonus for pre-orders and it's now included within the DLC season pass, but the Burning Halo gear is an excellent alternative to that, even better for some fights.
As for texture packs... I don't know where this comes from, consoles don't have the memory required for higher quality textures than those they already sport so they are not getting any texture packs. On the other hand the PC version is a 3 DVD retail print / 17 GB digital download, so you don't need to download anything extra, everything is there.
I think Arthur Gies said it best in the Polygon roundtable for Bioshock Infinite regarding the problematic combat. At some point, it started to get in the way of what I wanted in the game: to advance the story.
That's as much of a compliment to the game's story and characters as it is an indictment of the core gameplay loop of 1) enter a room with tears and ammo, 2) commence wave after wave of bullet-spongey enemies, 3) stall them with vigors and then shoot them all down one by one, 4) hide behind crates to recharge shield, and then 5) scavenge the battlefield for more ammo and salts after everyone is dead.
I know that I'm not alone in having felt a tinge of annoyance every time I came across yet another room with tears and glinting ammo, because I knew I was going to have to slog through a 5-10 minute COD-esque shooting gallery. That's not to say that there isn't room for flexibility in combat here. The ability to set vigors as traps lends the player some interesting setup opportunities, and the skylines are actually pretty well handled during firefights. There is a lot to like there, on paper, but I just think they padded the game out too much by throwing endless waves of enemies at the player.
I would have much preferred more intimate, smaller-scale fights. The recharging shield was a bad decision, as it influenced the combat scenarios in a negative way. When you have regenerating health, the entire game has to be designed around bombardment rather than strategy. It's as simple as that. I preferred having to ration my health items as I did in the first BioShock.
It's a shame that the combat makes up the bulk of this game's content. The story is attempting some very interesting things, and that was the sole reason for me trudging through all of the tiresome combat. If I wasn't interested in seeing where all of the craziness was going, I would have probably petered out about 3/4 of the way through. The ending was a pretty damn good payoff, though. I think they did a good job with that.
By no means am I echoing the sentiment of "Bioshock Infinite shouldn't have been a shooter." I'm saying it should have been a different kind of shooter.
That's as much of a compliment to the game's story and characters as it is an indictment of the core gameplay loop of 1) enter a room with tears and ammo, 2) commence wave after wave of bullet-spongey enemies, 3) stall them with vigors and then shoot them all down one by one, 4) hide behind crates to recharge shield, and then 5) scavenge the battlefield for more ammo and salts after everyone is dead.
I know that I'm not alone in having felt a tinge of annoyance every time I came across yet another room with tears and glinting ammo, because I knew I was going to have to slog through a 5-10 minute COD-esque shooting gallery. That's not to say that there isn't room for flexibility in combat here. The ability to set vigors as traps lends the player some interesting setup opportunities, and the skylines are actually pretty well handled during firefights. There is a lot to like there, on paper, but I just think they padded the game out too much by throwing endless waves of enemies at the player.
I would have much preferred more intimate, smaller-scale fights. The recharging shield was a bad decision, as it influenced the combat scenarios in a negative way. When you have regenerating health, the entire game has to be designed around bombardment rather than strategy. It's as simple as that. I preferred having to ration my health items as I did in the first BioShock.
It's a shame that the combat makes up the bulk of this game's content. The story is attempting some very interesting things, and that was the sole reason for me trudging through all of the tiresome combat. If I wasn't interested in seeing where all of the craziness was going, I would have probably petered out about 3/4 of the way through. The ending was a pretty damn good payoff, though. I think they did a good job with that.
By no means am I echoing the sentiment of "Bioshock Infinite shouldn't have been a shooter." I'm saying it should have been a different kind of shooter.
The Librarian
Banned
liiiieeesssss
This really puzzles me. Infinite's combat is more like Halo than Call of Duty.
I don't understand the "wave after wave" comments, because outside of a few encounters (like in Hall of Heroes, but there are only two waves), there aren't continuous waves of enemies.
Speak for yourself. I use a lot of strategy in Infinite.
1999 mode makes all the "Bioshock Infinite is a shallow shooter" claims a joke, playing on 1999 difficulty forces you to plan ahead and anything remotely similar to a CoD approach will get you killed in seconds, every bullet counts, you'll be rewarded for using your vigors effectively, managing your salts, getting nice and fast headshots... also randomized gear forces you to be creative too, so there you go, meticulous and smart + creative gunplay, where is the mindless shooting ?
I understand 1999 cannot be the default difficulty mode, or we would have kids returning the game to shops after the very first firefight, but reviewers should give it a decent go before making some of these claims, in my humble opinion of course.
.
I understand 1999 cannot be the default difficulty mode, or we would have kids returning the game to shops after the very first firefight, but reviewers should give it a decent go before making some of these claims, in my humble opinion of course.
Dax01 said:
.
As someone who finished the game the first time in 1999 mode I can honestly say... nope.
I can't really imagine how insulting the regular modes must be, but 1999 mode isn't very challenging at all either. There are only about 5 encounters were "every bullet counts" and this is because the enemy HP is scaled so ridiculously high.
The Librarian
Banned
I mean, last night for example, when I was fighting
, I used a strategy. There was this particular part of the combat space where there was a raised section. I walked up the steps, lay down electricity traps on either side of me, and used my Carbine while opening up a tear for the Mosquito Turret whenever it appeared. I also used Undertow to bring forth
so I can grab supplies.
the Ghost of Lady Comstock
ghost enemies
that's an honest opinion, to me 1999 mode is both challenging and entertaining and I've played almost every FPS available on PC and consoles for the last 10 years, my favorite one being STALKER, not even the mighty Half Life 2 comes close in my opinion.
Yeah the reason I'm not going back to play 1999 Mode after beating Hard is because as a whole, the game is pretty damn good. As a game though, it's a repetitive shooter and no amount of changing up Vigor strategies or self-imposed rules is going to make the game any more than that.
I'm tired of watching Twitch.TV streams where people playing Bioshock Infinite never use skylines, rarely switch Vigors even if the ones they're using are getting them killed therefore wasting salts and ammo, ignore collecting gear and/or optimising them for different situations, run around with a sniper rifle, don't understand tears, don't use Possess to give breathing room, don't use return to sender when they sustain heavy fire... it's amazing, it's like tunnel vision applied to gameplay. I understand how these players could enjoy the plot while finding the shooting part tedious. Some of the guys playing were absolutely adored by the Twitch.TV community as FPS gods... well, I don't know that site well nor the streamers but I felt embarrassed to be there.
how can you be so sure about 1999 mode and the way it changes gameplay if you never tried it ?
how can you be so sure about 1999 mode and the way it changes gameplay if you never tried it ?
electricpirate
Member
I think he makes good points, but I think he misses the forest for the trees in regards to the combat.
I think a lot of players have just been conditioned to play a certain way given the deluge of linear, set-piece-heavy shooters we've had that don't remotely take into account player creativity and good (or any) movement. I bet most people who complained that, say, Bulletstorm was just another boring shooter probably also played it in that sort of way. If you're mostly used to one sort of shooter, you're going to think they all operate roughly the same way.
If (optional) in-game tutorials are needed to get those players thinking along more creative lines, then we should have more of them. I laughed at Dishonored's tutorial screens at the time ("Pay attention player! You have THREE options to get through this level, and here they are!"), but it's easy to see just how necessary they are for modern AAA games that offer any sort of player freedom. I don't know how far Infinite's Adaptive Training went into giving people play-style hints, but my impression is not far enough.
There's certainly tons of room for criticism when it comes to Infinite's combat, but I think people sell it short by likening it to your typical modern shooter. Where it actually does approach that, and very purposefully so, is during the Hall of Heroes portion of the game where you are in corridors shooting at enemies (soldiers) who pop up out of cover.
I was merely comparing it to COD and other modern shooters in terms of how its combat scenarios are staged. You come into an area with obvious cover points, tears, ammo... etc. And you know that over the course of the next 5-10 minutes, you're going to be slaughtering 30-50 enemies. Once that's over, you'll probably scavenge a bit, walk about fifty more feet, and then hit another room of that sort. All of the combat just becomes loud and tiresome after a while, because you're simply tasked with killing too many faceless goons. Bioshock 1, by comparison, had more intimate battles.
I will admit, of course, that there are more options and opportunities for creativity here than in most FPS's these days (with the exception of maybe Darkness and Bulletstorm). But all the creativity in the world won't prevent me from being annoyed by constant gunfire and chaos. The second half of the game, in particular, devolves into an apocalyptic shooting gallery.
Wow. I'm having serious flashbacks to my endless defenses of the original Assassin's Creed. What you're saying about Bioshock Infinite was the heart of my praise for AC. I think so many found AC "boring" and "repetitive" because too many folks just played it straight without bothering to uncover the huge amount of possibilities in the world around them (in combat, exploration, story, stealth, etc).
It's really strange (and usefully eye-opening) to find myself on the other side of the fence this time.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Yay! 100% achievements! Can't wait for the dlc!
I'm going to continue to test out some of the 'arenas' to see how good I can get at dispatching enemies and really mixing up my vigor usage in 1999 mode.
I'm going to continue to test out some of the 'arenas' to see how good I can get at dispatching enemies and really mixing up my vigor usage in 1999 mode.
Remachinate
Member
Wow. I'm having serious flashbacks to my endless defenses of the original Assassin's Creed. What you're saying about Bioshock Infinite was the heart of my praise for AC. I think so many found AC "boring" and "repetitive" because too many folks just played it straight without bothering to uncover the huge amount of possibilities in the world around them (in combat, exploration, story, stealth, etc).
It's really strange (and usefully eye-opening) to find myself on the other side of the fence this time.
It's funny you bring up AC1, because for all the criticism it got for its gameplay, the game succeeds in using gameplay to service its story in a way that Infinite fails (not to mention all the AC sequels). Like Infinite, the intent of AC1 was to bring the player into the world and actually play the role of an assassin. The focus was on infiltration, gathering information, and observation before taking out a single target and fleeing. Combat with the various guards was supposed to be boring because that's not how an effective assassin operates.
In contrast, Infinite's combat segments, while fun in isolation, are incongruous with the larger experience, and it undermines the narrative.
Wow. I'm having serious flashbacks to my endless defenses of the original Assassin's Creed. What you're saying about Bioshock Infinite was the heart of my praise for AC. I think so many found AC "boring" and "repetitive" because too many folks just played it straight without bothering to uncover the huge amount of possibilities in the world around them (in combat, exploration, story, stealth, etc).
It's really strange (and usefully eye-opening) to find myself on the other side of the fence this time.
Hah, is this about AC1 specifically? I'm actually with you there. So much of the changes they made in sequels still rub me the wrong way, and it got especially bad with Brotherhood adding in the killstreak stuff. The combat in AC1 actually had a decent amount to it, even if most people cruxed on countering everything and then complaining it got old. I also played it HUDless, but to be fair I didn't attempt this with the sequels to see if it worked as well as it did, as 1 had a ton of cues to look out for in the world itself.
Nice, been waiting on this one. Dude is pretty much the only guy talking about games right now that I listen to. I wish he would have went more into deconstructing Elizabeth's shoehorned and incredibly aggravating introduction to the core gameplay, and mentioned that essentially all of her context specific tears are the exact same abilities you used have on-command control over through the use of plasmids...only now it's context exclusive because Elizabeth had to be justified.
[URL="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52334748&postcount=16034"]
No, no it does not. In fact, it does nothing but magnify all the shit that brings the game down.
This is pretty good FULL OF SPOILERS but sums up a lot of how I feel about the game, especially vis-à-vis B1.
Ein Bear
Member
What's this? Texture pack for the console versions? :S