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

ViewtifulJC said:
I do that a lot, too. DocSeuss hates one of my all-time favorite games Half-Life 2, but he articulates his problems with the game so well sometimes I even find myself nodding along with his posts, even when I disagree vehemently.

If this game inspires enough passion, I'm sure I'll do a big post you can judge for yourself, lol
Click to expand...

Look forward to reading your impressions of Bioshock one way or the other. I know you're true, Viewtiful.

Fjordson said:
This is how I feel about Derrick. A few of my favourite games are ones that he hates with a fiery passion (and I do mean fiery) but we've always had good conversations on GAF and I respect his posts because he always articulates why he dislikes something.
Click to expand...

Yeah. In general I tend to gravitate toward people I disagree with, because I find I learn things about myself and about them I might not have understood otherwise, but I love a good spirited defense of one's positions. You learn a lot about people that way, both good and bad. But it's real, imo.
 
Amir0x said:
*looks at list*

I didn't have you on the list, actually, but not because I didn't trust you. I add people as I read particularly good posts that also have an extremely specific type of content, so I just must not have had a post draw my attention.

The important qualifier for how I add people to my list is that the post in question must be an example of something I disagree with, but that individual must have posted an eloquent enough defense of his or her point of view that I respected his/her perspective even though we disagree. The mark of true respect is when you can do that.

I'll add you to the list bro. Number 53! :P
Click to expand...

Damn, 53?

How does that compare to your ignore list, Ami?
 
That Videogamer review is a great counter-balance to read. Most of those issues (enemy variety, tiresome combat, same-y environments, NPCs reactions lacking, invincible Elizabeth, redundant powers, no need to change combat strategy, tears being a disappointment, no true antagonist) are visible in the few videos I've seen.
 
XANDER CAGE said:
Damn, 53?

How does that compare to your ignore list, Ami?
Click to expand...

I have zero people on ignore. I don't like ignoring people.

Messofanego said:
That Videogamer review is a great counter-balance to read. Most of those issues (enemy variety, tiresome combat, same-y environments, NPCs reactions lacking, invincible Elizabeth, redundant powers, no need to change combat strategy, tears being a disappointment, no true antagonist) are visible in the few videos I've seen.
Click to expand...

I'll read this once I finish the game 'cause I don't want to be spoiled, but thanks for posting this. Love counterpoint reviews.
 
razgriz417 said:
Giantbomb's review is up

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bioshock-infinite-review/1900-568/




Score:

5 out of 5
Click to expand...

i23YxiBG40sbF.gif
 
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

Is it such a far-fetched concept to think, to some degree, keeping journalists penned up with a review copy and then suddenly opening the review embargo gate creates a sense of hysteria? And expectation? Consider also the historical baggage of former franchise glory simultaneously weighing in, as well.

I get it: Reviewers are professionals. Or so we hope them to be. But they're still human and at the mercy of their readership and audience. And gamers sure do like having their pitchforks at the ready. Is a game like Bioshock Infinite too big to be criticised?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
 
Barkley's Justice said:
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

Is it such a far-fetched concept to think, to some degree, keeping journalists penned up with a review copy and then suddenly opening the review embargo gate creates a sense of hysteria? And expectation? Consider also the historical baggage of former franchise glory simultaneously weighing in, as well.

I get it: Reviewers are professionals. Or so we hope them to be. But they're still human and at the mercy of their readership and audience. And gamers sure do like having their pitchforks at the ready. Is a game like Bioshock Infinite too big to be criticised?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
Click to expand...

It's why game reviews are worthless. Who can tell which of these opinions is genuine and which are in some way informed by outside influences?

The most negative reviews right now only seem to be "8s", but I saw peeps in the official Bioshock Infinite thread say he'd give the game a 7 and articulated some good reasons why he had issues with the game. Might want to dig through for that
 
Amir0x said:
It's why game reviews are worthless. Who can tell which of these opinions is genuine and which are in some way informed by outside influences?

The most negative reviews right now only seem to be "8s", but I saw peeps in the official Bioshock Infinite thread say he'd give the game a 7 and articulated some good reasons why he had issues with the game. Might want to dig through for that
Click to expand...
I hate that idea though that sites with negative reviews are suddenly more credible and are being more fair.

Not saying you're saying that, but there's always that impression. Any time there is a lot of positive reviews for something, one negative one will come out and people will treat it like it's worth more.
 
-Pyromaniac- said:
I hate that idea though that sites with negative reviews are suddenly more credible and are being more fair.

Not saying you're saying that, but there's always that impression. Any time there is a lot of positive reviews for something, one negative one will come out and people will treat it like it's worth more.
Click to expand...

Nah, my point is not that negative reviews are inherently more credible, but that the credibility of game journalists have been so muddied at this point that there is literally no way for any casual observer to see who is sharing a legitimate perspective. Therefore, all reviews both positive and negative are effectively worthless for me as a reader.

That said, especially early on and if it's a AAA game, if a review is well written AND negative I do tend to give it slightly more stock, because by definition such a review would not be paid off, and because I might learn something interesting from such a review whereas all the others are generally saying the same things.
 
Bioshock infinite for what it's worth is a good game, a damn good game and has some of the most refreshing presentation and encounter design I've seen in some time.


arguing whether it's a 7 an 8 or a 9 seems pointless... it is good tho.
 
Amir0x said:
Nah, my point is not that negative reviews are inherently more credible, but that the credibility of game journalists have been so muddied at this point that there is literally no way for any casual observer to see who is sharing a legitimate perspective. Therefore, all reviews both positive and negative are effectively worthless for me as a reader.

That said, especially early on and if it's a AAA game, if a review is well written AND negative I do tend to give it slightly more stock, because by definition such a review would not be paid off, and because I might learn something interesting from such a review whereas all the others are generally saying the same things.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I don't dig game reviews at all these days. I read them for the lulz mostly, since I don't seem to relate anymore from my experiences at least (like Nier for instance, which got panned and I originally skipped on due to reviews).

In fact what I said is probably a symptom of what you're saying. People think the non stop great reviews are hype filled BS so they give much more attention to the negative ones even though they are fewer and far between.
 
Barkley's Justice said:
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

Is it such a far-fetched concept to think, to some degree, keeping journalists penned up with a review copy and then suddenly opening the review embargo gate creates a sense of hysteria? And expectation? Consider also the historical baggage of former franchise glory simultaneously weighing in, as well.

I get it: Reviewers are professionals. Or so we hope them to be. But they're still human and at the mercy of their readership and audience. And gamers sure do like having their pitchforks at the ready. Is a game like Bioshock Infinite too big to be criticised?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
Click to expand...

The game is not too big to be criticized. I also don't think this is a GTAIV scenario where reviewers had 6 hours with the game so couldn't get a good feel for the game.

Plenty of negative points have been mentioned (in some reviews at least) but even those that have issues with the game seem to think the good outweighs the bad.

It could simply be that there are no negative reviews... because no one who has reviewed the game actually disliked it. Or even if they weren't totally pleased with the game, they would have a tough time presenting it as a bad game. This is probably an issue for many critics... you might not enjoy something, but you know that it is technically or mechanically solid. If that's the case, how do you score it?

I'm sure there will be plenty of negative reviews floating round soon enough... just not from the major sources.
 
So I read the excerpts on Metacritic. Glad to see the world hasn't changed, and Professional Gaming Journalists managed to keep their appearance as paid shills.
 
Barkley's Justice said:
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Videogamer review I linked to above? Other reviewers have linked to that review as a counter-point, so it's not like they go patting themselves on the back on unanimous reviews. It doesn't give the game a 5 or something, but it's a good enough counter-opinion.

BioShock Infinite is a strange game, and one that makes a mockery of those little scores at the bottom of this and almost every other review ever. The number, that, invariably, you've already looked at. It's a difficult game to put a score on because it succeeds and fails in equal number, yet isn't average.
Click to expand...

Read it.
 
Barkley's Justice said:
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

Is it such a far-fetched concept to think, to some degree, keeping journalists penned up with a review copy and then suddenly opening the review embargo gate creates a sense of hysteria? And expectation? Consider also the historical baggage of former franchise glory simultaneously weighing in, as well.

I get it: Reviewers are professionals. Or so we hope them to be. But they're still human and at the mercy of their readership and audience. And gamers sure do like having their pitchforks at the ready. Is a game like Bioshock Infinite too big to be criticised?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
Click to expand...

Well put man, exactly where I'm coming from as well
 
Apophenia Overload said:
Hoping for a good one from Zero Punctuation. After all, Yahtzee's first claim to fame was by tearing down the golden calf that was the original Bioshock.
Click to expand...
And he still liked it a decent bit, just not as much as SS2. Really disappointing WHY they moved away from that as far as they did and why it probably won't happen again unless they can make something on a lower budget (which they probably won't get to do.)
 
Oh, I know he didn't think it was bad, but he called it out for what it is: a game with good style and setting but ultimately much shallower than promised, and overrated by the prevailing opinion at the time. Given the sad echo chamber that game journalism often is, that's as close as you'll get to nailing 95 theses on a church door these days. The hype is so strong that saying AAA games aren't as A++ as the mob thinks is grounds for getting flamed. (To be fair, there is a similar effect with movies on Rotten Tomatoes.) Perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.
 
The high review scores for infinite show perfectly why putting a single score that's supposed to summarize everything you think about a game is such a worthless practice.

Quite a few of the high marks don't fail to critisize the game. However they ultimately liked it a lot, so they give it a high score.

No amount of crying about homogenisation of scores will ever change that, because a score will never save one the trouble of actually reading the review. Also, at least to me, a 6 from IGN is just as worthless as a 10.

Find reviewers you like and promote good writing that way instead of getting worked up about scores.
 
There's nothing to cry about, it's a systemic problem and more worthy of mockery than sadness. That said, I will cry about how Computer Gaming World once got rid of review scores for a while but then dumb readers demanded they bring them back because tl;dr
 
Barkley's Justice said:
Come on...No negative reviews?

Is anyone else skeptical about this cycle game publishers put everyone through?

Is it such a far-fetched concept to think, to some degree, keeping journalists penned up with a review copy and then suddenly opening the review embargo gate creates a sense of hysteria? And expectation? Consider also the historical baggage of former franchise glory simultaneously weighing in, as well.

I get it: Reviewers are professionals. Or so we hope them to be. But they're still human and at the mercy of their readership and audience. And gamers sure do like having their pitchforks at the ready. Is a game like Bioshock Infinite too big to be criticised?

No negative reviews?

Anyone? No perspective other than, "5/5"?

I just can't trust homogenization like that. Even if I personally think a game is a 10, I'd like to read about why someone thought it was a 5.
Click to expand...

To be fair, PC Gamer's review reads like a 50% but they gave it a 91%.
 
Apophenia Overload said:
John Teti's review on the Gameological Society is as close as being negative towards a AAA major studio game as these times will permit.
Click to expand...

Levine sets up a conflict between American exceptionalism and rabble-rousing populism, but he punts by casting practically every prominent figure in Columbian politics as an irredeemable asshole. Comstock is an asshole because he’s a megalomaniacal eugenicist—something of an open-and-shut case right there—and the Vox leader is an asshole because she’s more concerned with the narrative of her triumph than the welfare of her citizens.

The takeaway is that anyone who seeks power is a scoundrel, a moral steeped in the easy cynicism of false equivalence. (I expect this sort of Nihilism Lite from Rockstar Games, but not from Levine.) The intellectual dodge of calling everyone a loser excuses Infinite from having a meaningful political point of view. The game’s politics hide behind its metaphysics—if everything is just a matter of perspective, why bother holding any ideals? If you believe in something, then in the immortal words of The Dude, “That’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

Everyone's an asshole, makes it easier for me to shoot at everyone (Far Cry 2)!

Other parts of the BioShock carryover simply don’t make sense. It’s all well and good that the plasmids of the old game have been rechristened as Vigors for Infinite, but in the BioShock, plasmid abuse was an integral part of Rapture’s downfall. More to the point, plasmids made sense in the culture of Rapture, where self-worship was the norm, and man’s freedom to improve his lot was sacrosanct.

Where do Vigors fit into Columbia? I don’t know, and neither does Infinite. There are advertisements for Vigors all over the city, and you can find bottles of the stuff lying around, but very few Columbians use them. In a society that espouses racial purity, you’d think Vigors would be more of an issue. After all, they can turn a person into a demigod regardless of race. But this never comes up. If anything, Comstock appears to tacitly embrace the sale of Vigors. There’s a difference between plot holes, which are excusable, and a disregard for internal logic. Vigors belong to the latter category.

Now that's a bit weird, I'd be expecting loads of rich people using Vigors. (Unless if they do, for people who've played the game) Maybe not for combat gain, but just for making their lives an even greater luxury. Or at least class struggle like in Deus Ex Human Revolution.
 
Amir0x said:
Nah, my point is not that negative reviews are inherently more credible, but that the credibility of game journalists have been so muddied at this point that there is literally no way for any casual observer to see who is sharing a legitimate perspective. Therefore, all reviews both positive and negative are effectively worthless for me as a reader.

That said, especially early on and if it's a AAA game, if a review is well written AND negative I do tend to give it slightly more stock, because by definition such a review would not be paid off, and because I might learn something interesting from such a review whereas all the others are generally saying the same things.
Click to expand...

Paid off. What exactly do these reviewers get? Really? No jokes, no funny quips, what do they get that you know for a fact? I'm curious because I keep seeing this and seeing that guy with a Dorrito hat. Did he get paid by Dorrito's? How much? How much does a reviewer make? I'm guessing less than 30 k a year.

And why do so many hold video game reviewers up to this high standard? They most likely make less than all other print media and really get nothing in return. So if you're a guy making shit money, living with two buddies in a small apartment, taking the bus to work.....wouldn't you like to be "paid off". I can't believe that they get anything worth talking about.
 
Apophenia Overload said:
John Teti's review on the Gameological Society is as close as being negative towards a AAA major studio game as these times will permit.
Click to expand...

That's actually a pretty good set of points, although for what it's worth the game does address Vigors, just not directly (at least, not yet - haven't beaten the game). It clashes a bit with the purity angle, that's for sure.

However, while I do agree with his description of the two opposing factions both being assholes, I disagree with that being an inherently negative aspect of the story. Having two shitty factions vying for control of Columbia is incredibly interesting to me, especially because in Infinite we're in the middle of things. Keep in mind that Rapture is the same way - combing through the rubble of that city reveals that the two factions struggling for power were violent elitist eugeniphiles and violent, cutthroat mobsters. Being in the midst of that conflict rather than picking up the pieces is refreshing for a -Shock game.

I enjoy unraveling those types of stories, although I definitely wouldn't call Infinite's point of view nihilism (nor would I write off "nihilism" as an inherently bad trait for a game, although that's a different discussion entirely).
 
XANDER CAGE said:
That's actually a pretty good set of points, although for what it's worth the game does address Vigors, just not directly (at least, not yet - haven't beaten the game). It clashes a bit with the purity angle, that's for sure.

However, while I do agree with his description of the two opposing factions both being assholes, I disagree with that being an inherently negative aspect of the story. Having two shitty factions vying for control of Columbia is incredibly interesting to me, especially because in Infinite we're in the middle of things. Keep in mind that Rapture is the same way - combing through the rubble of that city reveals that the two factions struggling for power were violent elitist eugeniphiles and violent, cutthroat mobsters. Being in the midst of that conflict rather than picking up the pieces is refreshing for a -Shock game.

I enjoy unraveling those types of stories, although I definitely wouldn't call Infinite's point of view nihilism (nor would I write off "nihilism" as an inherently bad trait for a game, although that's a different discussion entirely).
Click to expand...

jep, glorifying a particular political view in order "to say something meaningful" usually makes for way worse writing and for myopic point of views imo.

And in no way is multiple factions battling for power (with some questionable morals) nihilism, that's everyday politics.
 
PC Gamer's review is good too because Tom Francis (love this guy's articles, plus he's making Gunpoint) really comes down hard on the writing and story, but not really much else other than saying it's not massively better than Bioshock. Considering all the talk around the story and Elizabeth's character, this is interesting.

Not sounding like a 50% at all, though.
 
Messofanego said:
PC Gamer's review is good too because Tom Francis (love this guy's articles, plus he's making Gunpoint) really comes down hard on the writing and story, but not really much else other than saying it's not massively better than Bioshock. Considering all the talk around the story and Elizabeth's character, this is interesting.

Not sounding like a 50% at all, though.
Click to expand...

The majority of the review is dedicated to picking apart the story, almost admirably, although it relies way too much on snark rather than actual criticism. I really don't think a review that calls core mechanics incredibly contrived can be a 91%, especially if the reviewer didn't like the story much either. Story is a huuuuge part of Bioshock.

Several years on I don't think "not massively better than Bioshock" deserves such a high score. The review reads far more lukewarm, and I wish it'd either have backed up its score a little better or scored a little lower.
 
patapuf said:
The high review scores for infinite show perfectly why putting a single score that's supposed to summarize everything you think about a game is such a worthless practice.

Quite a few of the high marks don't fail to critisize the game. However they ultimately liked it a lot, so they give it a high score.

No amount of crying about homogenisation of scores will ever change that, because a score will never save one the trouble of actually reading the review. Also, at least to me, a 6 from IGN is just as worthless as a 10.

Find reviewers you like and promote good writing that way instead of getting worked up about scores.
Click to expand...

This!
 
XANDER CAGE said:
The majority of the review is dedicated to picking apart the story, almost admirably, although it relies way too much on snark rather than actual criticism. I really don't think a review that calls core mechanics incredibly contrived can be a 91%, especially if the reviewer didn't like the story much either. Story is a huuuuge part of Bioshock.

Several years on I don't think "not massively better than Bioshock" deserves such a high score. The review reads far more lukewarm, and I wish it'd either have backed up its score a little better or scored a little lower.
Click to expand...

Or it could be he just doesn't value story that highly over the rest of the game. To you, it clearly does. For example, Far Cry 3 to me had great gameplay from the movement mechanics, shooting, stealth in an open world game, melee kills, and animal behavior. But everything around it when you're not actually playing from the filler side quests and missed opportunity of a story was bad. I'd give the game a 8.0 but then if I think about it in another minute, I could give it 7.5.

It's not as ridiculous a score disparity with some websites like Gametrailers.
 
Messofanego said:
Or it could be he just doesn't value story that highly over the rest of the game. To you, it clearly does. For example, Far Cry 3 to me had great gameplay from the movement mechanics, shooting, stealth in an open world game, melee kills, and animal behavior. But everything around it when you're not actually playing from the filler side quests and missed opportunity of a story was bad. I'd give the game a 8.0 but then if I think about it in another minute, I could give it 7.5.

It's not as ridiculous a score disparity with some websites like Gametrailers.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't value it as greatly, why dedicate the majority of the review to picking it apart? It's sort of hard to avoid story in a game like BioShock, where it's a huge piece of the appeal - unlike Far Cry, where it was at least easily ignored. Still, I'm not trying to make this a gameplay vs. story argument.

I'm not saying he's wrong, I just think the tone of the review and the score are waaaay out of whack. I mean, people are in here asking for a negative review - I think the PC Gamer article is as close as they're gonna get.
 
pseudocaesar said:
So? Still doesnt change the fact that what he said is the embodiment of everything wrong with games journalism.
Click to expand...

He was a video producer, not on the editorial staff

Overboost said:
So it's up to a 96 Metacritic on 360, with 38 reviews in so far for the PC version... 17 of which are 10/10s. I can't remember the last time I've seen so many perfect scores. Mass Effect 2, I guess.
Click to expand...

I went and looked up ME2 on metacritic, it's 94.

ME3 is 93.
 
That good, huh? Adam even broke his 3/5 streak.

Didn't care much for what I played of the original Bioshock, but I'll probably have to give this one a shot sometime anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FBC: Firebreak | Review Thread
Review 
49
158
lughnasadh123 replied
Dune: Awakening - Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
63
637
dorkimoe replied
Split Fiction - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
154
10K
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
576
Aguero9320 replied
Top Bottom