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

Forums - Gaming - Is Bioshock Infinite really that good?

 

So far, I don't think Bioshock Infinite is that good.

I Agree: I'm playing just to see the end. 50 27.93%
 
I Don't Agree: Keep play... 53 29.61%
 
Haven't played it yet. 76 42.46%
 
Total:179
DaRev on 15 April 2013
mibuokami said:

I am not a fan of FPS and generally avoid them; I bought Bioshock Infinite day 1 and do not regret it.

What got me hooked initially was the atmosphere of Columbia, I love the art direction, I love the design aesthetic and I love the music.

What kept me going was the mystery; I battle my aversion for FPS, I battle motion sickness, I ignore the relatively mediocre gun-play and played the game to the very end; all that matter to me was progressing the narrative.

What blew me away was the finale; how it effect your entire view of the game's narrative, not the blatant thing that the game hammered home to you about 2/3 of the way into the plot, but the subtle dig that takes time and effort to unveil itself.

Bioshock Infinite is a triumph of narrative over gameplay and will remain one of my best gaming experience ever, right next to the likes of Planescape Torment and Portal 2.

So yes, to me it deserve all the praise that it got and more, but I can understand very easily how someone could and would be disappointed in the game if their value in the composition of a game is less skewed than my own.

Cool, I'm glad you enjoyed the game, as I think the BS series is worth playing. And if any of the 3 games is your first experience with the series then I think most people will be very satisfied no matter which game they play first. For people like me on the other hand, it's very hard for BS, like any other game, to capture that 'magic' again.  Anyways, I'm not writing off BI just yet, so I'm hoping it has a strong latter half.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
DaRev on 15 April 2013
J_Allard said:
osed125 said:

According to this guy, building a Rapture is somewhat possible even in the 50's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3TCNjyshc

Eh not really, he says the tubes and stuff might have been possible at that time but there's no way the buildings and everything survive the pressure at that depth. So basically all the little tube hallways you run around would survive but everything else would quickly wither away into nothing.

I think you just confirmed why Rapture was leaking all over the place and untimately failed lol.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

PScollector on 15 April 2013

Its ok im playing through it now, but im kinda forcing myself 2 keep playing..........Im really over FPS's



 

Check out my Youtube channel : http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePSXcollector

Corey on 15 April 2013

The game is only truly great after you experience the ending.

Everything leading up to that brings a great sense of clarity and wonder, whilst playing just enjoy the obscure story and great gameplay and visuals.

So yes, it is "that good".



AnthonyW86 on 15 April 2013
PScollector said:
Its ok im playing through it now, but im kinda forcing myself 2 keep playing..........Im really over FPS's

Yeah i think that's was probably the major issue for me to, gunfights just aren't as fun as they used to be. Also i kind of feel the game is a bit to limited and scripted and they story is forced upon you to many times.



Around the Network
AnthonyW86 on 15 April 2013
SvennoJ said:
J_Allard said:
osed125 said:

According to this guy, building a Rapture is somewhat possible even in the 50's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3TCNjyshc

Eh not really, he says the tubes and stuff might have been possible at that time but there's no way the buildings and everything survive the pressure at that depth. So basically all the little tube hallways you run around would survive but everything else would quickly wither away into nothing.

You can always work with compressed air environments underwater, sucks when you want to return to the surface though.

Buckinster Fuller designed cloud nine in the 60's, a flying city built on a giant geodesic sphere. 1 degree difference in air temperature inside and outside the sphere would be enough to lift a city for 6000 people

Much more efficient then magnetics.

How about kind of combining the two? A underwater city placed in a giant sphere? That way building could be constructed in regular fassion with only the outside sphere having to deal with the pressures?



SvennoJ on 15 April 2013
AnthonyW86 said:
SvennoJ said:

You can always work with compressed air environments underwater, sucks when you want to return to the surface though.

Buckinster Fuller designed cloud nine in the 60's, a flying city built on a giant geodesic sphere. 1 degree difference in air temperature inside and outside the sphere would be enough to lift a city for 6000 people

Much more efficient then magnetics.

How about kind of combining the two? A underwater city placed in a giant sphere? That way building could be constructed in regular fassion with only the outside sphere having to deal with the pressures?

Maybe. I'm not an engineer but I would think it would want to float to the surface real bad. The deepest mine is almost 4km below the surface, there must be ways to do it. Build it in de rock under the bottom?
But why go that deep, a floating city just far enough below the surface to be out of reach of the weather seems a lot more practical. Same solution as for the transatlantic tunnel. I wonder if we'll ever get that one. Maglev in a near vacuum tube, now that's travelling.



Ssenkahdavic on 15 April 2013

yes



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

AnthonyW86 on 16 April 2013
SvennoJ said:
AnthonyW86 said:
SvennoJ said:
 

You can always work with compressed air environments underwater, sucks when you want to return to the surface though.

Buckinster Fuller designed cloud nine in the 60's, a flying city built on a giant geodesic sphere. 1 degree difference in air temperature inside and outside the sphere would be enough to lift a city for 6000 people

Much more efficient then magnetics.

How about kind of combining the two? A underwater city placed in a giant sphere? That way building could be constructed in regular fassion with only the outside sphere having to deal with the pressures?

Maybe. I'm not an engineer but I would think it would want to float to the surface real bad. The deepest mine is almost 4km below the surface, there must be ways to do it. Build it in de rock under the bottom?
But why go that deep, a floating city just far enough below the surface to be out of reach of the weather seems a lot more practical. Same solution as for the transatlantic tunnel. I wonder if we'll ever get that one. Maglev in a near vacuum tube, now that's travelling.

How about attaching chains to the bottom of the Sphere and the other side of the chains to the boddom of the ocean?  Much like you keep a party balloon from flying off.



iron_megalith on 16 April 2013

 

For me the game is the whole package. Story is very solid so I'm very happy. Saddly though the gameplay mechanics seems to be lacking(thanks to me stumbling onto the E3 2011 demo videos) as it felt kinda smaller in scale. While the game is a little too shooty at times, I kinda wished there were scenarios in the game that would make me think twice getting caught in a firefight. I was really hoping the Boys of Silence were running the show. Handyman's a bitch though. Motorized Patriot.... A cool joke I guess. I always laugh when I hear the things it says.

I'm ok though with the none affecting choices as the game pretty much nails the story because of this. I'd give this a 9/10 even with the lacking gameplay. It's lacking but it's not broken and I surely enjoyed using the skyline. Now to wait for DLC.

DaRev said:

Story: I haven't finised Infinite as yet so can't pass final judgement. Although, Bioshock's story was quite good, so Infinite has its work cut out for it.
Characters: Hell no. No way those bunch of Republican zombies are as good as Splicers, Little Sisters and Big Daddys, etc.


If I were you, finish the game first. Come back after you finished the game.

Bioshock really had a cool gameplay. Regarding other people saying Big Daddys being a threat. Well.. I remember not taking long enough wrenching Big Daddys for a challenge so I dunno.

Anyway the story in Bioshock 1 was pretty good up until you come face to face with Andrew Ryan. From there on it went downhill.  Sure the cool revelation of Fontaine was something but other than that, it left me stale. Bioshock 2? Please.. WHAT STORY!? Though rushing with a drill is pretty fun though. Also I will disagree when people claim that Bioshock 1 had more creativity in it's premise than Infinite plainly because if you play the story, it just knocks you over.

Moving on, Bioshock Infinite progresses better. Also regarding the characters, yes Bioshock has a set of more complex characters, but that doesn't demean the Luteces, Booker, and Elizabeth as interesting characters. Quite frankly they were all I cared for in this game but then again they are the ones the story focuses on.