Bioshock Infinite - Review Thread [UP: IGN exclusive split PC/Console review up]

Great scores overall, and I can't wait to play it myself (PC version) tomorrow, but...

I think a month from now once the hype is settled and GAF have had a chance to play it, those perfect scores are going to look a little silly. Don't let me spoil the fun, it's obvious that everyone is in agreement that it's worth playing.

...this wouldn't surprise me at all. I too have a feeling that there's going to be a sizable backlash against this game after a few weeks have passed and initial hype settles down. Just like most other high-scoring games this gen such as the original Bioshock, GTA4, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Half-Life 2, Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption, Batman: Arkham City, Zelda: Skyward Sword, Uncharted 3 and so on. The only notable games that got very high praise from both reviews and end-users are the Mario Galaxy games, Portal 2 and Uncharted 2.
 
I really like Adam Sessler, but he just said the ending "compares to Chinatown in its resonance." I'm excited to play this, but I find that hard to believe. Chinatown is an all-time classic...
 
ryan.jpg

Never gets old lol.
 
Kind of ironic that the IGN review is actually one of the lower scores in the OP. Over compensating a bit maybe?
 
I get the feeling that this might be one of those 'experience' type of games where reviewers throw good design to the wayside because omg dat atmosphere/story/ambience/blah blah

I don't really buy into those things at the expense of good gameplay. I'm hoping this isn't one of those
BI has a good setting but as an actual game it's nothing worth writing home about. Even The Walking Dead -which is criticized for its lack of interactivity- is better, thanks to the players's choices. In Bioshock Infinite you're just shooting dudes. Your reflexes are tested in order to ensure the main character's survival and that's what 99% of adventure games have been doing since the invention of video games. Also your (few) choices don't even matter.

With a $100 million marketing budget and a "video game as art" approach, even a mediocre game can get great scores.
 
I get the feeling that this might be one of those 'experience' type of games where reviewers throw good design to the wayside because omg dat atmosphere/story/ambience/blah blah

I don't really buy into those things at the expense of good gameplay. I'm hoping this isn't one of those

It's definitely feeling like another one of those situations. Hell that's most AAA games now. Most people ripped apart the Tomb Raider gameplay but dat atmosphere/story/setting. 9/10.
 
Was on the fence with some user impressions but the reviews have pushed me. Its a game that at the very least deserves to be tried out.


Edit: consider me in the AAA camp then. Combat is the original bioshock was passable. I mean i killed people in interesting ways but the real meat of the game fio me was the setting, story, and the audio diaries. I had the same experience with mass effect. Combat sucked but damn if i wasnt drawn in and floored.
 
The low Videogamer review barely mentions the narrative and spends about three paragraphs chastizing the game for choosing sunlight and blue skies in favour of Bioshock's dark, oppressive original setting. I mean, seriously, do we not have enough murky FPSes out there? And isn't that entirely missing the point of the setting and the counterbalance to the themes it provides? What's it's trying to say about America and its past?

I read it just before the Kotaku review where the guy actually writes a beautiful piece about how alluring Columbia is despite its dark underbelly, and the difference in the quality of the writing and ideas being raised in the two reviews was really noticeable.
 
It's a hard decision for me :
- PS3 version looks better but I hate the controller
- 360 version looks worse but I love the controller
- PC version looks best and I love Mouse/KB controls but I guess it won't run that good on my Laptop (i5@2,93 GHz, 8GB Ram, Nvidia 540M)
Probably gonna buy a console version and get the PC version when it's cheap down the line.
 
The low Videogamer review barely mentions the narrative and spends about three paragraphs chastizing the game for choosing sunlight and blue skies in favour of Bioshock's dark, oppressive original setting. I mean, seriously, do we not have enough murky FPSes out there? And isn't that entirely missing the point of the setting and the counterbalance to the themes it provides? What's it's trying to say about America and its past?

I read it just before the Kotaku review where the guy actually writes a beautiful piece about how alluring Columbia is despite its dark underbelly, and the difference in the quality of the writing and ideas being raised in the two reviews was really noticeable.

I'm not going to comment on VideoGamer's writing, but I will say that the game's bright setting is a massive change for the better, in games in general. There are plenty of dark bits (in both senses of the word) too.
 
lol

Pretty much this.

I'm still going with the 360 version, the DS3 is very uncomfortable for shooters. And the differences will be minimal if there is any.

That is as bad as the hyperbolic statements on how good or bad a game is. I like the 360 pad feel a little more than the DS3 but I don't know why anyone uses it as an excuse to ignore the better version in 2013. Oh well, it's not going to change nor am I going to debate it but it's a rather cheap excuse.
 
It's definitely feeling like another one of those situations. Hell that's most AAA games now. Most people ripped apart the Tomb Raider gameplay but dat atmosphere/story/setting. 9/10.

What's weird is that Tomb Raider's story wasn't even that good. The atmosphere is decent enough, but marred with setpieces that break off any type of atmosphere abruptly.
 
I'm not going to comment on VideoGamer's writing, but I will say that the game's bright setting is a massive change for the better, in games in general. There are plenty of dark bits (in both senses of the word) too.

I think this is one of the reasons I'm actually gravitating to this one more than the first 2 games and I'm one of those in the camp of Bio 1 and 2 being overrated.

I'm pretty excited for this one and am almost entirely spoiler free outside of the initial reveal trailer and some interviews here and there.
 
I really just wanted to wait on this one. Now I feel I've got to play it on release just to avoid the spoiler drive bys.
 
I'm not going to comment on VideoGamer's writing, but I will say that the game's bright setting is a massive change for the better, in games in general. There are plenty of dark bits (in both senses of the word) too.

Yeah, it's one of the things I'm really looking forward to. It's anything but a negative.
 
What's weird is that Tomb Raider's story wasn't even that good. The atmosphere is decent enough, but marred with setpieces that break off any type of atmosphere abruptly.

bad characters also did that. Having lara toss and turn between emotions that constantly conflicted with what was happening ruined my immersion or any sense of attachment to her or the game. Good game but definitely broke it's own immersion at times
 
Was on the fence with some user impressions but the reviews have pushed me. Its a game that at the very least deserves to be tried out.


Edit: consider me in the AAA camp then. Combat is the original bioshock was passable. I mean i killed people in interesting ways but the real meat of the game fio me was the setting, story, and the audio diaries. I had the same experience with mass effect. Combat sucked but damn if i wasnt drawn in and floored.
I don't like that developers think they're forced to have combat. Bioshock's strength lies in its story and atmosphere so they should have devoted all their resources to making a gameplay that actually serves the story. Having combat is unnecessary and only serves to delay the player from reaching the goal/the end of the game, but serves little to no interest in itself. We've done that since at least Half-Life 1.

There's certainly a good adventure game hidden somewhere in Bioshock but they've attached a frustrating generic shooter to it.
 
Yeah..,

I sense imminent backlash coming. Don't see the game living up to these scores. Amazing to see this after the rather tepid IGN review considering exclusivity and IGN over scoring everything.
 
I don't like that developers think they're forced to have combat. Bioshock's strength lies in its story and atmosphere so they should have devoted all their resources to making a gameplay that actually serves the story. Having combat is unnecessary and only serves to delay the player from reaching the goal/the end of the game, but serves little to no interest in itself. We've done that since at least Half-Life 1.

There's certainly a good adventure game hidden somewhere in Bioshock but they've attached a frustrating generic shooter to it.

I might not go as far as you in your claims, but damn if there haven't been plenty of games that I wished didn't focus on killing throngs of baddies and instead focused on other gameplay elements such as exploration or exposition. Uncharted 2 became a damn chore every time I had to blast people - not to mention it shot itself in the foot whenever characters in cutscenes got worked up over killing, whereas two seconds ago in gameplay said character mowed down over twenty people. It's not even a particularly good shooting engine, which made multiplayer all the worse (for me).

I haven't played Infinite yet, but I'll see if I have a similar complaint.
 
Yeah..,

I sense imminent backlash coming. Don't see the game living up to these scores. Amazing to see this after the rather tepid IGN review considering exclusivity and IGN over scoring everything.

There will be backlash to everything. It's impossible to reach 100% agreement on the quality of a product. The higher rated a game is, the more those who don't agree will voice that opinion and critique the game in later years. That's just the way it is.

Skyrim is one of the most bland, tedious and boring games I've played this or any other generation. To me the scores it received are laughable, but to others they'll be more than justified. You're just always going to be more likely to read and pick up on comments from those who don't agree than those who do.
 
I'm looking forward to renting this, being tremendously disappointed, and becoming further convinced that mainstream games journalists live in their own little world of moneyhats, purple prose, and superlative gushing over bad writing and braindead gameplay.

"THE STORY IS EPIC AND EDGY AND YOU CAN SHOOT A GUY WITH A GUN WHILE YOU SHOOT A GUY WITH MAGIC POWERS, 21/10 GOTYAY ALL YEARS"
 
Bioshock's problem was a dearth of NPCs that weren't specifically there to go crazy and kill you. There should have at least been pockets of sanity left in the city on the brink. It would have given the peaks to the valleys that was almost the entire game.
 
I'm looking forward to renting this, being tremendously disappointed, and becoming further convinced that mainstream games journalists live in their own little world of moneyhats, purple prose, and superlative gushing over bad writing and braindead gameplay.

"THE STORY IS EPIC AND EDGY AND YOU CAN SHOOT A GUY WITH A GUN WHILE YOU SHOOT A GUY WITH MAGIC POWERS, 21/10 GOTYAY ALL YEARS"

Okay, I think this post shows we kind of crossed the line with criticizing the games industry.
 
There will be backlash to everything. It's impossible to reach 100% agreement on the quality of a product. The higher rated a game is, the more those who don't agree will voice that opinion and critique the game in later years. That's just the way it is.

Skyrim is one of the most bland, tedious and boring games I've played this or any other generation. To me the scores it received are laughable, but to others they'll be more than justified. You're just always going to be more likely to read and pick up on comments from those who don't agree than those who do.

Obviously there will be backlash toward everything, but I'm just doubting Infinite will be a Galaxy or Portal 2 and avoid major backlash.
 
I'm looking forward to renting this, being tremendously disappointed, and becoming further convinced that mainstream games journalists live in their own little world of moneyhats, purple prose, and superlative gushing over bad writing and braindead gameplay.

"THE STORY IS EPIC AND EDGY AND YOU CAN SHOOT A GUY WITH A GUN WHILE YOU SHOOT A GUY WITH MAGIC POWERS, 21/10 GOTYAY ALL YEARS"

Sounds like you shouldn't really be reading a thread that's clearly titled as "Review Thread".
 
I don't like that developers think they're forced to have combat. Bioshock's strength lies in its story and atmosphere so they should have devoted all their resources to making a gameplay that actually serves the story. Having combat is unnecessary and only serves to delay the player from reaching the goal/the end of the game, but serves little to no interest in itself. We've done that since at least Half-Life 1.

There's certainly a good adventure game hidden somewhere in Bioshock but they've attached a frustrating generic shooter to it.


Blame the dudebros? I dunno. I have no problem playing through passable gameplay if the rest of the package is sublime. As to whether or not the gameplay is frustrating ill just have to play the game myself.
 
Top Bottom