Do a search for my name in this thread. You'll find some lengthy posts on the subject. I've probably repeated myself more here than anyone deserves to hear.
-
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
The Librarian
Banned
Well, hm...
the replay is really quite fun to see all the stuff that was hinted at but you didn't notice cuz you weren't looking for them
You've been so descriptive about every single part of the game so far and that's all you're gonna give us for the ending?!
Well, most of us were pretty speechless too.
gotta stroke that chin before he can tell us.
mickcenary
Member
Admittedly and somewhat ashamedly, I only used Undertow once or twice throughout the whole game... 
. How exactly do you drop guys off edges and whatnot?
. How exactly do you drop guys off edges and whatnot?Admittedly and somewhat ashamedly, I only used Undertow once or twice throughout the whole game...
the normal attack is basically a force push. just keep pushing them until they fly off the edges.
The Librarian
Banned
Jack Scofield
Member
yea, the force push itself is kinda weak but the alt attack is grabbing dudes from far away and it's pretty powerful since they're temporarily stunned when you do that.
Undertow is basically used to kill for me. Mainly using skyrails to jump onto the ships and push off the rocket enemies. The pull was also useful for Handymen.
Not nearly as randomly applicable as something like BB was, but still neat.
Coupled with Storm (hat), which causes certain Vigor effects to chain to nearby enemies, it's super effective. You can literally one hit chain kill 6+ enemies in a single go, and all the while they can't even attack back because they're floating.
These were the vigors I personally used (in order of preference).
1. Bucking Bronco (Mass chain kill with ease, as described above.)
2. Return to Sender (Only really important towards the end game, but the blue shield is vital in defending against big enemies or crowds. You can literally just keep using a blue shield over and over whilst pumping even a handyman full of close range shotgun shots to the chest. The hold down version of the shield absorbs bullets, bombs etc to make for a powerful return grenade.)
3. Devil's Kiss (Better early to mid game, simply because it causes mass damage to bigger enemies and to crowds once you get the cluster version. Not as useful as return to Sender though as that has both a shield, and a charge attack that can replicate something similar to Devil's Kiss with absorbed damage.)
4. Shock Jockey (I found this important really towards the end game where you can face quite a lot of Patriots. Just shock them and they freeze long enough that you can often just shoot the cog on their back hard enough that they die in single electricity shocked bout.)
Go to the spoiler thread, and your mind will be blown once more.
The Librarian
Banned
Okay. Now that I think I have everything in my head right (watching the ending a few times on Youtube), I'll say some stuff.
ENDING SPOILERS
I was delaying posting my feelings for a bit because I originally thought
When I first finished BioShock, it was my favorite game of all time. My opinion has since changed, one of the reasons being I hardly go back to it. I measure how much I love games by how many times they draw me back in, and most importantly, how much fun I have with them. Given those conditions, I'm hesitant to say if Infinite qualifies as one of my favorite games ever. My feelings now say it has a pretty good chance, but that could be the honeymoon period. If I had to say which is the better game between BioShock and Infinite, I'd have to say Infinite: The story is better, and most importantly, I had more fun with Infinite.
I'll try to post more thoughts tomorrow, but I will say this given complaints I've read about the story in the past: I don't think it's fair to criticize the game's story because it isn't deep, or it only appears deep, or because it doesn't comment enough on racism, religion, capitalism, and communism, or any of that. This is a simple story told in a complex way. It is first and foremost
How lovely.
ENDING SPOILERS
I was delaying posting my feelings for a bit because I originally thought
if Elizabeth had killed EVERY Booker, then nothing happened, which means we went through all that for nothing. That would've left me more or less feeling like I wasted my time. But if Elizabeth chose to only kill the Bookers that rejected baptism, then, as seen by the post-credit sequence, we're only left with the universes where Booker becomes Booker and lives with Anna. That I'm satisfied, and happy, with.
If that interpretation is correct, then I love the story of this game. What an ending! Ken Levine has some imagination. Based on what I read in this thread earlier, I had guessed that Rapture was another universe. An infinite number of universes. The game's title makes sense!
As an aside, I really like how deaths are incorporated into the story. When you die, you simply take control of another Booker in another alternate universe, so to speak. To diverge a little more about the gameplay, I gotta say I loved using the Songbird to attack enemies and completely wreck shit. Too bad the only time that happens is in a poorly-designed encounter.
If that interpretation is correct, then I love the story of this game. What an ending! Ken Levine has some imagination. Based on what I read in this thread earlier, I had guessed that Rapture was another universe. An infinite number of universes. The game's title makes sense!
As an aside, I really like how deaths are incorporated into the story. When you die, you simply take control of another Booker in another alternate universe, so to speak. To diverge a little more about the gameplay, I gotta say I loved using the Songbird to attack enemies and completely wreck shit. Too bad the only time that happens is in a poorly-designed encounter.
When I first finished BioShock, it was my favorite game of all time. My opinion has since changed, one of the reasons being I hardly go back to it. I measure how much I love games by how many times they draw me back in, and most importantly, how much fun I have with them. Given those conditions, I'm hesitant to say if Infinite qualifies as one of my favorite games ever. My feelings now say it has a pretty good chance, but that could be the honeymoon period. If I had to say which is the better game between BioShock and Infinite, I'd have to say Infinite: The story is better, and most importantly, I had more fun with Infinite.
I'll try to post more thoughts tomorrow, but I will say this given complaints I've read about the story in the past: I don't think it's fair to criticize the game's story because it isn't deep, or it only appears deep, or because it doesn't comment enough on racism, religion, capitalism, and communism, or any of that. This is a simple story told in a complex way. It is first and foremost
about two characters whose fates are intertwined far greater than anyone can ever guess when he or she ascends the steps of the lighthouse to Columbia.
How lovely.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Damn, you've post a lot in this thread, I'll refer to these ones to talk of my problem of what Piotrowski seems to be referring (which is the context of Infinite in the industry):
With these points, I completely agree. But there is something you guys are not considering: the context of this specific game in this specific industry.
He is saying how this game is the example of what not to do in the industry. But he is wrong. We as gamers want the whole package, thrilling gameplay to have fun, and amazing story. Piotrowski seems to think that both are mutually exclusive in the videogame industry, when they shouldn't. We are expecting more of the games we're buying, and big budget games seem to focus more on the gameplay rather than both, and indie games seem to think themselves as the saviors of this latter aspect of games, often sacrificing gameplay mechanics (as seen in threads where people argue that Journey or The Walking Dead are not really 'games' per se). We are seeing a present attempt to try to balance both aspects of games to try and make them better (you then might say how this was done years ago, but then I'd tell you that you need to take in account the context of the industry as it is right now), Irrational seems to be one of the few studios that try to balance them both (as it was seen with revamp of the gameplay, which will be saved for other discussions since it's not the point I'm trying to make right now) and the utilization of several plot devices and various themes (another discussion for another time too). How often can you say that a studio would attempt to do this, in an industry that is completely dominated by games like Call of Duty, where the games that actually make a decent profit are selected indies? Not very often, we're talking about a game that is trying to be sold to audiences who mostly care for action-packed games (meaning, that they make emphasis on the gameplay department, or at least in the marketing department) yet is trying to make gamers connect the dots (which doesn't happen very often either, and you seem to undervalue, taking in account the context of games).
We should be happy at what we got, and yes, criticize the game in its failings, and praise it in its successes, and yes we should ask for more or else we'll be stuck in the industry. But saying that the game is the amalgamation of the wrongs of the industry, and the perfect example of what not to do with games is downright wrong. This is what the industry needs to do, a balance between gameplay and story, but leaving space for the developers who want to go out of this balance, but someone needs to make an example of this balance. Irrational didn't make the balance, but is arguably getting closer, and so saying that this game is not important to the industry is down right baffling, specially if it sells well.
Well said.
The argument being lobbed around is: "BioShock Infinite thinks it's intelligent and special, but it's not." It's as if people want to derail the game just because they think it has a chip on its shoulder.
Why is it self-aggrandizing? Because it delves into themes often skirted by games or haphazardly handled by other mainstream pieces of entertainment?
I agree with critiquing the game for its actual faults, but hyperbolism and contrarianism do not equivocate to anything constructive.
Your in luck because your final interpretation was dead on to what we have all concluded to
Nah, crows were my go-to especially with that absurdly good effect that sets traps on enemies you kill.
Crows was my main Vigor for Normal mode. Pretty awesome power. Way OP once you get all the upgrades.
http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3733057.htm
This article is absolutely fucking awful.
While I do agree that the advertised themes of racism and nationalism aren't really explored beyond "we know these are bad things and we use them to represent Comstock and his society in certain ways", no one has a fucking "responsibility" to use some event in American history in some specific way defined by a head-stuffed-up-his-own-ass critic. Who the hell are you to tell storytellers what they can and cannot do? To quote,
Bioshock Infinite has some issues in gameplay and pacing, but if Ken Levine wanted to tell a complex plot that ends up being mostly focused on well-executed concepts from science-fiction, he has no obligation to do anything otherwise.
Oh, and this quote:
Fuck off. I guess no book or movie depicting violence has ever had anything of note to say.
This article is absolutely fucking awful.
While I do agree that the advertised themes of racism and nationalism aren't really explored beyond "we know these are bad things and we use them to represent Comstock and his society in certain ways", no one has a fucking "responsibility" to use some event in American history in some specific way defined by a head-stuffed-up-his-own-ass critic. Who the hell are you to tell storytellers what they can and cannot do? To quote,
Stephen Fry said:
Bioshock Infinite has some issues in gameplay and pacing, but if Ken Levine wanted to tell a complex plot that ends up being mostly focused on well-executed concepts from science-fiction, he has no obligation to do anything otherwise.
Oh, and this quote:
Asshole Writer said:
Fuck off. I guess no book or movie depicting violence has ever had anything of note to say.
What annoys the hell out of me from that article is that it implies that Infinite is pretty much the same as COD when it comes to it's subject matter--meaning there is none. Baffling.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
Had a funny AI moment with Elizabeth who stopped giving a dramatic speech to throw me a coin.
I had to laugh.
"I always hated you mother! And I know you always hated me for no-Found some money! Catch!"
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Wow, that twitter meltdown thing was weird. Even my resident Bioshock fan didn't freak out that much, and she pretty much hated the game. Of course, she also had very specific reasons she could state on demand.
Besides, Tomb Raider is a far better example of everything that's gone wrong this gen.
I do feel the setting and major characters were wasted as opportunities for the narrative, but I still think the story started as one idea and ended as another. Since I thought the story was better in the second half, I find it harder to argue with how it ended up.
Besides, Tomb Raider is a far better example of everything that's gone wrong this gen.
I do feel the setting and major characters were wasted as opportunities for the narrative, but I still think the story started as one idea and ended as another. Since I thought the story was better in the second half, I find it harder to argue with how it ended up.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is someone who doesn't even play video games, and just tried to play this to write an opinion piece.
The writer seems to take umbrage in Irrational's stance on the "controversial" content during a preview held for the press a few months ago, which was more or less, "We put in there and leave it to the players to interpret for themselves."
This is something most filmmakers, novelists, and writers in general try to employ. You want the viewer/reader/player to glean something from the experience. Something worth mulling over and discussing. Something that you hope sticks with them. Even if part of it falls flat.
BioShock had a similar knee-jerk reaction to some of its content (particularly the Little Sisters and the option to "harvest" them), although it was far more subdued because there wasn't a previous entry drumming up precedence prior to its release.
To elaborate further on the author's perspective, here's a statement he posted on his Twitter feed:
Daniel Golding (the writer of the piece) said:
It seems that a majority of the vigor was aimed at Irrational showing off two particularly "poignant" scenes in BioShock Infinite back when they previewed the game for the press.
But for those that have played the game, how much of those two sequences make up the entirety of the game? Just a nominal portion of it.
I used them quite a bit in 1999 mode as well because after my normal run, I knew where enemies would be. If I knew some guys were coming through a door I'd put down a trap that might turn into 3 and continue to be useful during that fight. Or, if I knew I'd be coming back through an area where enemies would spawn again, I'd use it toward the end of the fight because the traps were persistent.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Well, I did though think it problematic that they chose a world with such a race and class conflict, but ultimately
present both sides as being morally equivalent, with the have vs have not resource issue being resolved by what is essentially a deus ex machina.
Quadraphonic
Member
Is this also the thread for discussing the ending?
I'm guessing future DLC will flesh out some of the story. It has to, right?
Also, is there anywhere that lists all the choices you can make in the game and their outcomes?
PLUS the gear that
can turn you into an unstoppable machine as it cycles the weak bodies and powers you up.
It feels like a cop out having Comstock be Booker. I mean, I guess there's the two alternate timelines, split from the choice of being baptized or not, but would you really go into an alternate universe to take your own baby? It just seems bizarre. I guess it plays into the whole 'infinite' name in the title. And yeah, having the Vox be so violent also is frustrating.
I'm guessing future DLC will flesh out some of the story. It has to, right?
Also, is there anywhere that lists all the choices you can make in the game and their outcomes?
Yeah, the upgrade to
make bodies crow traps
gives you a 40% to get salts
Finally finished the game today. I have pretty mixed opinions about it.
As I mentioned many times before, this can't compare to Bioshock 1, and even though Infinite is the better game, even Bio2 was more of a successor to 1 than this.
Later this year I'm gonna try to play through the 3 games again to see where each stands.
As I mentioned many times before, this can't compare to Bioshock 1, and even though Infinite is the better game, even Bio2 was more of a successor to 1 than this.
Later this year I'm gonna try to play through the 3 games again to see where each stands.
Comstock specifically stole Anna from Booker because he wanted a child that was still his own flesh and blood.
therealminime
Member
Just finished my 1999 playthrough. I decided to double dip with the 360 version. I was really surprised with how easy it was. It certainly helps to have played the game once through already and to get the season pass bonuses.
was pretty simple. I'd recommend a fully upgraded RPG and the scavenger vest, it makes for quick work of every enemy. The last fight was a bit tougher, primarily because of the near unplayable framerate on the 360. Got it on my second try.
I definitely had more fun playing the game a second time on 1999 mode. You really have to use your vigors, weapons, and gear smartly.
Lady Comstock
I definitely had more fun playing the game a second time on 1999 mode. You really have to use your vigors, weapons, and gear smartly.
Bioshock Infinite is much as a successor as Bioshock 1 was a successor to System Shock 2.
It wasn't meant to be Bioshock Infinite: Return to Rapture in the sky Part 2.
It was meant to be it's own game, with it's own unique identity, that still retained many of the shock series staples (audio diaries, great narrative, great characters, details in the environment galore, etc. ), that had a slight correlation, but more of a nod really, to the previous bioshock game.
Admittedly and somewhat ashamedly, I only used Undertow once or twice throughout the whole game...
I used Undertow almost exclusively
when you are riding on the way to Comstock's airship and other guys are coming in on their own airships - use Undertow and you can push them off their ships into the sky below.
It's pretty jarring, not only do I agree with some of the points that article brings up, but I didn't make a lot of those observations while playing. Goes to show how desensitized I am to videogame storytelling. I registered that
the roots were there for an interesting dynamic with racism in Columbia, but that plot line gets swallowed by a million other things Ken wrote in there. Focus is by no means a strong point for Infinite, not on the story side. I also thought Fitzroy's character started off beautifully with those voxaphones and the false accusation of murder, but when she turned maniacal seemingly at the flip of a switch and the message went all "giant douche or turd sandwich"(oh you could call it nihilistic I suppose, that sounds better) it was very deflating.
I think he's making a bit of a straw man in saying Infinite was poised to or heralded as some transcendent thing that was to bring the industry "forward", but he makes interesting points as well. Lastly, I don't know if he didn't like the way it was addressed or whatever, it's late and my reading comprehension isn't at an all time best, but Wounded Knee is pretty fucking pivotal to Dewitt's character. After all,
that's what leads to the first baptism. Or, more accurately, to the depression which leads to the baptism and we all know what wheels that set in motion.
I'll come back to it in the morning, but I wouldn't dismiss the article as outright drivel.
Again that root of racism is a metaphorical symbolic representation of the chaos that is ensuing within Booker. It's supposed to symbolize the man he once used to be, and the city and it's conflicts of racism, american extremism, etc. They are all symbolic metaphorical representations towards the man Booker once was.
Think Silent Hill, and how the city was a metamorphosis to who the main character was. Similar to Columbia and the various conflicts that ensue there.
The Librarian
Banned
Going through the game looking for remaining voxophones and sightseer things. Then I'll do a 1999 run.
Edit: How do you find out how many voxophones and what else you need for each chapter?
Edit: How do you find out how many voxophones and what else you need for each chapter?
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
It's funny you mention that, I was thinking SH for a while,
like the twist would be Booker was actually trapped in his own recurring Hell.
There's no indicator which is why if you miss one it's a pain.
So I just left
How far into the game am I? Also, I never have any money. I have upgraded only one vigor and two guns. I search every nook and cranny for loot and I still have no money.
Also a question about Gear. Am I right in that you can select 3 types of Gear at once to augment your abilities? The PS3 patch seems to have screwed up something. I can't quit out of the game without the system doing a hard resest. Very annoying.
Shantytown and the Vox Populi uprising is in full swing.
How far into the game am I? Also, I never have any money. I have upgraded only one vigor and two guns. I search every nook and cranny for loot and I still have no money.
Also a question about Gear. Am I right in that you can select 3 types of Gear at once to augment your abilities? The PS3 patch seems to have screwed up something. I can't quit out of the game without the system doing a hard resest. Very annoying.
60% to go and you have 4 types of Gear to switch around.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Man anyone got any tips for saving cash? I am on my 2nd play through, probably halfway through. Trying to get the trophy for all vigor upgrades in one game. First play through was on Hard, got nowhere close to enough money. Now on 1999 mode, doesn't seem like I'll have enough this time either. I'm not dying much at all.
I don't understand the complaints that this game is not deep, because it doesn't tackle racism or religion, head on. How many movies set in world war II use those events as a backdrop to tell a personal story with believable characters?
He goes on and on about how the game is trying to be something that is not. Well, after playing the game, it was very clear to me what the central plot of the game was: the relationship between the characters. It was never trying to center around racism/religion. I've listened to a lot of Levine's interviews and never got that impression from him either. The game presents these themes and how they affect and shape the characters. Again, not much different than most movies.
But the worst part, is that to him, the only way for the game to be taken seriously, is to tackle these themes head on. Which is completely not true.
Just don't buy any gun upgrades and you should have enough to max out a single power at least. Choose your favorite and stick with it.