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

DragonKnight said:
And that is where opinions come into play. Those were the best aspects of the game and i didnt see them being the best aspects of the game as a flaw. Whats wrong if reviewers as whole feel the same way? Does that make them sell out? What about me? I dont get paid to play games and most of my faves are as gameplay driven as they come.
Click to expand...

You can have whatever opinion you want, that's none of my business. With journalists, however, I'd hope they would try to show some measure of objectivity and look at the game from multiple perspectives, maybe compare it to the greats of its genre like System Shock and Deus Ex, but I guess expecting reviewers to be well-read is expecting a bit too much. To make an analogy to film, a critic may have liked Transformers: The Dark of the Moon and found it to be an enjoyable movie, but at the same time they should be knowledgeable enough in the medium to list all the reasons why it's not a well-made film from an objective, informed perspective.

Hot Coldman said:
You're a smart guy, I don't believe you don't realise this position is as idiotic to take as "IT'S GONNA BE AMAZING 10/10 EVERYONE LOVES IT HYPE OUT THE ASS"

Something something open minds.
Click to expand...

Maybe. My negativity does come with a disclaimer of "UNTIL I'VE PLAYED IT AND MADE UP MY OWN MIND," but you're probably right about me laying it on a little thick.
 
Derrick01 said:
96 almost guarantees I'll hate it based on what other games have gotten that score or higher this gen (skyrim, ME2, GTA 4, Bioshock 1, uncharted 2). Arkham City is the only one I didn't completely hate out of the 96+ club this gen. I don't think I look for the same things the casual press does in games to say the least.
Click to expand...

Your last sentiment pretty much sums you up. You have a very clear image of what you expect a video game to be and that's it. Each to their own though. For me, the bioshock games are freaking fantastic despite "lackluster" mechanics. But it is a case by case basis. I could never play a game like skyrim. Combat is way too jarring and shitty. Dont care how impressive the rest of the game is.
 
Derrick01 said:
96 almost guarantees I'll hate it based on what other games have gotten that score or higher this gen (skyrim, ME2, GTA 4, Bioshock 1, uncharted 2). Arkham City is the only one I didn't completely hate out of the 96+ club this gen. I don't think I look for the same things the casual press does in games to say the least.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it being a game means you'll hate it. I think.
 
Derrick01 said:
96 almost guarantees I'll hate it based on what other games have gotten that score or higher this gen (skyrim, ME2, GTA 4, Bioshock 1, uncharted 2). Arkham City is the only one I didn't completely hate out of the 96+ club this gen. I don't think I look for the same things the casual press does in games to say the least.
Click to expand...

The two reviews I looked at (Eurogamer and Joystiq) both spent far more time canvassing the 'story' than the game-play itself. Not saying this is a bad game, but I have become more and more aware how 'production values' inflate the review scores of high profile games.

I guess we wait for the player community to get their hands on it and give it their analysis.
 
Orayn said:
You can have whatever opinion you want, that's none of my business. With journalists, however, I'd hope they would try to show some measure of objectivity and look at the game from multiple perspectives, maybe compare it to the greats of its genre like System Shock and Deus Ex, but I guess expecting reviewers to be well-read is expecting a bit too much. To make an analogy to film, a critic may have liked Transformers: The Dark of the Moon and found it to be an enjoyable movie, but at the same time they should be knowledgeable enough in the medium to list all the reasons why it's not a well-made film from an objective, informed perspective.
Click to expand...

What if the movie is Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what it sets out to achieve(a summer action-adventure movie for big audiences), it achieves with flying colors. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to start tampering off points because, "Well, it doesn't have the emotional maturity and literate sensibilities of my favorite New Wave euro films!" Well, it wasn't trying to be. That doesn't make it inferior off the bat, that doesn't it isn't an impeccably polished masterpiece of a film, unless your taste just go to Bergman over Spielberg, which is your own problem.

BI is not trying to be System Shock 2, or Deus Ex, or STALKER. I think a better comparison would be Half-Life 2, a scripted shooter with great art direction, environmental world-building and advanced AI companions, all the while delivering thrilling action set pieces.

See the game for what it is, instead of what's it not(and was never trying to be).
 
Orayn said:
Maybe. My negativity does come with a disclaimer of "UNTIL I'VE PLAYED IT AND MADE UP MY OWN MIND," but you're probably right about me laying it on a little thick.
Click to expand...

OK, cool. :)

I've had a hard time being properly excited about this game- it's been walking a lot of fine lines for a while, for me- but it's always been intriguing. I don't the critical reception points in any direction, really.
 
Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption and Uncharted 2 are amongst my favorite games this generation, so to see it in that class brings a smile to my face.

GTA IV was definitely an outlier though...
 
RobotMafia said:
This is one of the dumbest things I've read. You didn't like Bioshock but you preordered this anyway because you dont have much of a choice? Why.
Click to expand...

x-files-believe.jpg
 
ViewtifulJC said:
What if the movie is Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what it sets out to achieve(a summer action-adventure movie for big audiences), it achieves with flying colors. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to start tampering off points because, "Well, it doesn't have the emotional maturity and literate sensibilities of my favorite New Wave euro films!" Well, it wasn't trying to be. That doesn't make it inferior off the bat, that doesn't it isn't an impeccably polished masterpiece of a film, unless your taste just go to Bergman over Spielberg, which is your own problem.

BI is not trying to be System Shock 2, or Deus Ex, or STALKER. I think a better comparison would be Half-Life 2, a scripted shooter with great art direction, environmental world-building and advanced AI companions, all the while delivering thrilling action set pieces.

See the game for what it is, instead of what's it not(and was never trying to be).
Click to expand...

And I think that's what some posters, including Derrick, fail to understand. They have this clear image of a "good game" with any substitutes trying to veer off and focus on one aspect over the other makes the game bad, and linear, and uninteresting, and whatever.
 
Jake Tower said:
The two reviews I looked at (Eurogamer and Joystiq) both spent far more time canvassing the 'story' than the game-play itself. Not saying this is a bad game, but I have become more and more aware how 'production values' inflate the review scores of high profile games.

I guess we wait for the player community to get their hands on it and give it their analysis.
Click to expand...
EDGE was the same way, nobody really goes in depth about the gameplay and the combat and spends about 80% of the review talking about the story. At least EDGE told me a little bit about how the rails play into combat. I don't know about this.
 
Read the review summaries in the OP. Will get. Platinum'd both Bioshock and Bioshock 2, and I dont want to leave this one out of my bioshock platinum collection.
 
So is the game essentially Bioshock 1 in a different setting or is it completely different in how it plays?

I'm not too concerned if it is, Bioshock 1 is among my best games of the gen,
 
ViewtifulJC said:
What if the movie is Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what it sets out to achieve(a summer action-adventure movie for big audiences), it achieves with flying colors. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to start tampering off points because, "Well, it doesn't have the emotional maturity and literate sensibilities of my favorite New Wave euro films!" Well, it wasn't trying to be. That doesn't make it inferior off the bat, that doesn't it isn't an impeccably polished masterpiece of a film, unless your taste just go to Bergman over Spielberg, which is your own problem.

BI is not trying to be System Shock 2, or Deus Ex, or STALKER. I think a better comparison would be Half-Life 2, a scripted shooter with great art direction, environmental world-building and advanced AI companions, all the while delivering thrilling action set pieces.

See the game for what it is, instead of what's it not(and was never trying to be).
Click to expand...

I guess? A movie or game can accomplish its initial goals and still be bad, like The Asylum's mockbusters or most shovelware games. Raiders of the Lost Ark was a fun movie, but it had a positive criticical reception because it was smartly made by people with a very strong understanding of how to use the medium effectively. You still make a good point, though, and I'll try to give Bioshock Infinite a chance to be Raiders of the Lost Ark instead of Battleship.

Voice of Reason said:
And I think that's what some posters, including Derrick, fail to understand. They have this clear image of a "good game" with any substitutes trying to veer off and focus on one aspect over the other makes the game bad, and linear, and uninteresting, and whatever.
Click to expand...

Derrick is persnickety, and I think that he should be lauded for it. When the press are handing out 9's and 10's like candy, it's good to have some people arguing from a more critical standpoint. The occasional nastiness is a necessary counterpart to some of the overly positive, seemingly unthinking assessments that we get from modern game reviews.
 
Derrick01 said:
Good gameplay. That's the common thing missing from those games I listed. They're all focused (and excel) on story, cinematic gaming, and/or spectacle.
Click to expand...

I only agree if the spectacle is without substance. I cannot say that for ME1 or Bioshock 1. Hell i almost quit ME1 for being so damn buggy with shitty combat. Put that sucker on easy and enjoyed the ride. I will say that combat got in the way of the experience for me with ME1 so as a critic I would not have marked the game so highly. And for me skyrim would be unplayable. Same with fallout 3.
 
Gotta laugh whenever anyone brings up objectivity in a reviews thread. It's important to get the details right but once you start talking about whether those details are good or bad you're firmly in the realm of subjectivity. Which is the point of a review.
 
upJTboogie said:
EDGE was the same way, nobody really goes in depth about the gameplay and the combat and spends about 80% of the review talking about the story. At least EDGE told me a little bit about how the rails play into combat. I don't know about this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because FPSs have become so run of the mill these days. I thought the eurogamer review was sorely lacking.
 
Impressive scores, though I think most saw that coming. Can't really read them ATM, but I can't play this until Thursday, so I really don't want to hype myself further, especially for reviews that may not be reliable.
 
GlamFM said:
I think you need a new hobby altogether.
Click to expand...

From the looks of it his hobby is moaning about games on the Internet all day.

The RPS review seems pretty nuanced, but actually has quite a bit of praise for the gameplay and level design:

What is a far less ambiguously excellent achievement is Infinite’s level design. This is a broadly linear game, in terms of events and the sequence you encounter Columbia’s various areas in, but there’s so damn much packed into its areas. They are timesinks in the best possible way... There’s a particular level about three quarters of the way in, and coming off the back of a few no doubt carefully-sequenced smaller, more indoor-centric maps, that’s so wonderfully enormous it’s almost exhausting to traverse. It can be roamed out of order too, raided for secrets and supporting cast backstory before being revisited later in the narrative’s more fixed progression, by which point it’s been repopulated with new foes and a sort of roaming bossfight.
Click to expand...

...the fighting is thrilling, highly customisable stuff. Oddly, it reminds me more of the original Doom than the tense, slightly clumsy back-against-the-wall skirmishes of BioShock or even the ratatatat man-popping of a Call of Duty. These large, multi-level spaces, the amped-up colours, the preponderance of explosions which could level a house, the veritable armies of freaks and fanatics you face: it’s much more cartoon absurdity than it is macho fantasy.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like it shares all the problems of the first one. Will wait til it's cheap. Other than the art direction I don't think Bioshock was particularly impressive, and even then Rapture felt like a series of themed corridors rather than a real city.
 
Man, and everyone was so convinced that IGN would be the one doing all the gushing, along with dishing out a perfect score. I suspected the game was going to do well, but to see perfect scores from the likes of Eurogamer and even a 9 from EDGE is pretty telling. Can't wait to download this bad boy.
 
Computer said:
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.
Click to expand...

The sky rails are generic?

Nevertheless, if you're interested in Bioshock purely for the FPS combat and gameplay and the challenge/survival aspects, you are surely barking up the wrong franchise.
 
Orayn said:
I guess? A movie or game can accomplish its initial goals and still be bad, like The Asylum's mockbusters or most shovelware games. Raiders of the Lost Ark was a fun movie, but it had a positive criticical reception because it was smartly made by people with a very strong understanding of how to use the medium effectively. You still make a good point, though, and I'll try to give Bioshock Infinite a chance to be Raiders of the Lost Ark instead of Battleship.



Derrick is persnickety, and I think that he should be lauded for it. When the press are handing out 9's and 10's like candy, it's good to have some people arguing from a more critical standpoint. The occasional nastiness is a necessary counterpart to some of the overly positive, seemingly unthinking assessments that we get from modern game reviews.
Click to expand...

Most of GAF find game reviews laughable, Derrick just takes an extra step and hates the game itself, just because it doesn't meet his wild expectations. I don't mind it though.
 
I'm rather pleased Elizabeth is with you most of the game, my favorite part of the Half Life 2 episodes was when you had Alyx with you
 
Orayn said:
I guess? A movie or game can accomplish its initial goals and still be bad, like The Asylum's mockbusters or most shovelware games. Raiders of the Lost Ark was a fun movie, but it had a positive criticical reception because it was smartly made by people with a very strong understanding of how to use the medium effectively. You still make a good point, though, and I'll try to give Bioshock Infinite a chance to be Raiders of the Lost Ark instead of Battleship.



Derrick is persnickety, and I think that he should be lauded for it. When the press are handing out 9's and 10's like candy, it's good to have some people arguing from a more critical standpoint. The occasional nastiness is a necessary counterpart to some of the overly positive, seemingly unthinking assessments that we get from modern game reviews.
Click to expand...

Really? Its just as prominent as those 9s and 10s. Still i do think hype has a lot to do with how games are rated these days.
 
I do question giving a game such a high score just because it has a decent story. These reviews, they rarely mention the gameplay which is always the main meat of any game.
 
Voice of Reason said:
Most of GAF find game reviews laughable, Derrick just takes an extra step and hates the game itself, just because it doesn't meet his wild expectations. I don't mind it though.
Click to expand...

Derrick is my husbando. He's a well intentioned extremist, he may be harsh, but, he's usually right. But theres nothing anyone can do to stop the casualization of games.
 
Voice of Reason said:
Most of GAF find game reviews laughable, Derrick just takes an extra step and hates the game itself, just because it doesn't meet his wild expectations. I don't mind it though.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a fair assessment. He just seems to know exactly what he does and doesn't want. Nothing wrong with that.
 
partyphone said:
Gotta laugh whenever anyone brings up objectivity in a reviews thread. It's important to get the details right but once you start talking about whether those details are good or bad you're firmly in the realm of subjectivity. Which is the point of a review.
Click to expand...

Well, critics of books and films have a general consensus of what constitutes "good" cinematography, writing, acting, etc. I know that playing a game is a much more fluid, personal experience and I wouldn't argue that there have to be universal standards of what makes a good game. There's obviously a continuum of comparing something to a precise, external set of criteria and just giving your own opinion, but we're a little too far on the side of "I thought it was fun, therefore 10/10" right now.

Short of objectivity, it would be nice to see a more diversity of opinion. Where are the people like Derrick in the major review sites and magazines? I'm sure they're out there, but there's reason to believe they might be holding their tongues for fear of winding up like Jeff Gerstmann in the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
 
Orayn said:
Well, critics of books and films have a general consensus of what constitutes "good" cinematography, writing, acting, etc. I know that playing a game is a much more fluid, personal experience and I wouldn't argue that there have to be universal standards of what makes a good game. There's obviously a continuum of comparing something to a precise, external set of criteria and just giving your own opinion, but we're a little too far on the side of "I thought it was fun, therefore 10/10" right now.

Short of objectivity, it would be nice to see a more diversity of opinion. Where are the people like Derrick in the major review sites and magazines? I'm sure they're out there, but there's reason to believe they might be holding their tongues for fear of winding up like Jeff Gerstmann in the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. If there was a general consensus then what is the point of everyone writing reviews and giving their opinion?
 
Geoff9920 said:
I don't think that's a fair assessment. He just seems to know exactly what he does and doesn't want. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

But each game differs in what they focus and excel at, so while Bioshock Infinite might not have deep mechanics like System Shock 2, it might have the better told story and world. I don't think that should be enough to call a game bad though.
 
Orayn said:
Well, critics of books and films have a general consensus of what constitutes "good" cinematography, writing, acting, etc. I know that playing a game is a much more fluid, personal experience and I wouldn't argue that there have to be universal standards of what makes a good game. There's obviously a continuum of comparing something to a precise, external set of criteria and just giving your own opinion, but we're a little too far on the side of "I thought it was fun, therefore 10/10" right now.

Short of objectivity, it would be nice to see a more diversity of opinion. Where are the people like Derrick in the major review sites and magazines? I'm sure they're out there, but there's reason to believe they might be holding their tongues for fear of winding up like Jeff Gerstmann in the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
Click to expand...

Yeah but at the same time you'll see much more divergent scores for movies. With top critics giving the same movie a 1/5 or a 4/4.
 
Orayn said:
Well, critics of books and films have a general consensus of what constitutes "good" cinematography, writing, acting, etc. I know that playing a game is a much more fluid, personal experience and I wouldn't argue that there have to be universal standards of what makes a good game. There's obviously a continuum of comparing something to a precise, external set of criteria and just giving your own opinion, but we're a little too far on the side of "I thought it was fun, therefore 10/10" right now.

Short of objectivity, it would be nice to see a more diversity of opinion. Where are the people like Derrick in the major review sites and magazines? I'm sure they're out there, but there's reason to believe they might be holding their tongues for fear of winding up like Jeff Gerstmann in the Kane and Lynch fiasco.
Click to expand...

So if there is a set of rules on what makes something bad and i enjoy it anyway doesnt that make the former completely irrelevant? Alcohol is awful for you in a plethora of ways. Doesnt stop people from enjoying it though. Isnt that all that matters in the end? I enjoyed this game. Heres why. Gaming reviews could do without the gross hyoerbole though. Just tell me why you like the fucking game.
 
Orayn said:
Well, critics of books and films have a general consensus of what constitutes "good" cinematography, writing, acting, etc. I know that playing a game is a much more fluid, personal experience and I wouldn't argue that there have to be universal standards of what makes a good game. There's obviously a continuum of comparing something to a precise, external set of criteria and just giving your own opinion, but we're a little too far on the side of "I thought it was fun, therefore 10/10" right now.
Click to expand...

If that was the case there would be little disparity in reviews. But anyone who reads film reviews would know that's not the case.
 
partyphone said:
This is nonsense. If there was a general consensus then what is the point of everyone writing reviews and giving their opinion?
Click to expand...

I mean that there are certain standards that critics of film and literature share. Proper criticism in those mediums isn't just about saying "I liked it, so it was good," it involves comparing the work in question to standards that developed over a long time out of academic study of film and literary theory. Opinion is still involved, of course, but the overall assessment is supposed to be informed by the history and inner workings of the medium. My issue is that game reviewers can be very myopic and often rely too heavily on gut impressions, as opposed to a more academic understanding of how video games work.

90TilInfinity said:
If that was the case there would be little disparity in reviews. But anyone who reads film reviews would know that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the other thing: There's a divide between film critics and film reviewers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FBC: Firebreak | Review Thread
Review 
49
163
lughnasadh123 replied
Dune: Awakening - Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
63
655
dorkimoe replied
Split Fiction - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
154
11K
The Cockatrice replied
Mario Kart World Review thread
Business Analysis Review  2
85
1K
Dr. Wilkinson replied
Revenge of the Savage Planet | Review Thread
Review 
16
580
Aguero9320 replied
Top Bottom