By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bioshock: Infinite- Reviews (95 on Metacritic!), game out now!

 

Where will it end up on Metacritic?

<80 19 4.44%
 
80-83 6 1.40%
 
84-86 20 4.67%
 
87-89 58 13.55%
 
90-92 161 37.62%
 
93+ 164 38.32%
 
Total:428
AndrewWK said:
yo_john117 said:
Man I can't wait to play it on Tuesday! I really hope my Gamestop has a midnight launch.


I don´t think they will do that for Bioshock

If it has enough pre-orders they will. I've noticed that they usually have midnight launches for games that sell around 500-700k first week in the US. So it's possible but I'm not getting my hopes up too high.

Tomb Raider sold around 400k FW in the US and it didn't have a midnight launch.

Bioshock 2 sold roughly 450k FW in the US (not sure if it had a midnight launch).

AC: Brotherhood 

Fable II sold roughly 500k FW and I went to that midnight launch

 

I think Bioshock Infinite will sell quite a bit better than Bioshock 2 so it's definitely a possibility (I'm thinking 600-800k FW in the US across both platforms).



Around the Network

So....where are the reviews?



Nintendo and PC gamer

One question were all bioshock games directed by ken levine ?
becoz this One is really atracting me ?



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

asqarkabab said:
One question were all bioshock games directed by ken levine ?
becoz this One is really atracting me ?

no, only the first one and this now.



TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I remember a time when games where unplayable and the machanics didn´t make any sense and really where broken beyond repair. In the NES SNES and N64 era games where a lot worse then they are today. That is why todays games get much higher ratings then in 1995



Around the Network
starcraft said:
Conegamer said:
pezus said:
Another review: http://baziwood.ir/1392/01/03/second-bioshock-infinite-review-score-is-in/

90/100

Balance-6

"It's too easy"

Concerning stuff.

Finish it then replay with 1999 mode on.

 

That will put some hair on your balls.

But I don't see why I should need to finish a game just to be able to have some difficulty.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Conegamer said:
starcraft said:
Conegamer said:
pezus said:
Another review: http://baziwood.ir/1392/01/03/second-bioshock-infinite-review-score-is-in/

90/100

Balance-6

"It's too easy"

Concerning stuff.

Finish it then replay with 1999 mode on.

 

That will put some hair on your balls.

But I don't see why I should need to finish a game just to be able to have some difficulty.

So without even having played you think this is going to be far too easy? Just play it on the highest difficulty then



AndrewWK said:
Conegamer said:
starcraft said:
Conegamer said:
pezus said:
Another review: http://baziwood.ir/1392/01/03/second-bioshock-infinite-review-score-is-in/

90/100

Balance-6

"It's too easy"

Concerning stuff.

Finish it then replay with 1999 mode on.

 

That will put some hair on your balls.

But I don't see why I should need to finish a game just to be able to have some difficulty.

So without even having played you think this is going to be far too easy? Just play it on the highest difficulty then


No, I'm just concerned that it will be. And I don't like it when the only challenge can be found when you've finished the game, if that's the case here.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Conegamer said:
AndrewWK said:
Conegamer said:
starcraft said:
Conegamer said:
pezus said:
Another review: http://baziwood.ir/1392/01/03/second-bioshock-infinite-review-score-is-in/

90/100

Balance-6

"It's too easy"

Concerning stuff.

Finish it then replay with 1999 mode on.

 

That will put some hair on your balls.

But I don't see why I should need to finish a game just to be able to have some difficulty.

So without even having played you think this is going to be far too easy? Just play it on the highest difficulty then


No, I'm just concerned that it will be. And I don't like it when the only challenge can be found when you've finished the game, if that's the case here.


Im thinking the same
If a reviewer is saying it is easy then it is more than that for REAL gamers...Its probably more a 2/10 for normal gamers.
Those reviewers are satisfied and completely challenged with the lowest difficulty in CoD while every normal person can finish those games in ~ 2 hours on Veteran.

And with most games these days you have to unlock the highest difficulty and destroy your 1st time playing experience.
You have to finish the game most of the time once or twice on a complete boring difficulty,destroy the feeling of achieving something to progress for yourself before you get the real game.
This is a big problem for people who started gaming before this Gen - The Ultra Hard mode of today is our normal Mode.

Probably one reason why i like Demons/Dark Souls so much.
This game is the same for everyone - If you die you suck.You try it again,you learn and destroy the game.After finishing the game NEw Game+ is probably easier than the 1st playthrough.Why?Cause people are able to learn and get better with the time.
Don't know why developers forget this in this Gen - There is absolutely no learning curve in most games.And on higher difficulties enemies just get a complete retarded 110% aim accuracy or just more health.Its the same game without any changes except for just some boosts in their parameters.
No new moves,no new phases and all those things...

Its probably easier for close combat/Sword/Shield etc games than pew pew games to give someone that feeling of achieving and beating the game but its rather looks like developers are getting lazy.



pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.