BioShock Infinite

[I_smell]

Oh and I'm glad someone already pointed out that the dialogue is really bad. Cos it is.

I mean the acting's bad aswel, but I understand that it's a game and animations have to work a certain way. I'm sure there's a hundred technical limitations that make these guys act like stilted robotic Video game characters...

 

but the writing of when they DO speak is always such a flat, expository "I'm sad, it's bad, and I wanna go to Paris."

Maybe I'm just holding it to a high standard though, I dunno.

[melmer]

Paris sticks of shit and is full of leering assholes, someone should tell her

[Twig]

The armored, explosives-carrying enemies should not need to be bullet sponges when fighting against them, because there are immediate and effective ways to deal with them.

What their armor should be doing is forcing you into closer ranges where you can apply a vigor ability that will immediately remove them as a threat. (Possession, turn them on their allies. Bucking Bronco, push them off a ledge.)

I did enough of that, but it doesn't change the fact that when you run out of salts you have no choice but to Shoot A Dude. Also: Possession is expensive, bucking bronco/water power is risky (what with having to get close).

 

I'm sorry, but it's not well-designed combat. It's just not. It's okay. Much like the first Bioshock. Actually, I was more forgiving of the first (and I guess second) Bioshock, because I felt like there were more environmental toys to play with. Also I loved the trap darts!

[darthbator]

I thought combat was far better then in the original shock but was still the low point of the game. 

 

 

Paris sticks of shit and is full of leering assholes, someone should tell her

 

Alternate realities man!

[Twig]

It's better when there's lots of fun tears to work with and, most importantly, a skyline. When it's just a regular arena with nothing interesting about it, it falls completely apart.

[I Saw Dasein]

I don't really agree. I thought it was a very well executed arena-style shooter, with lots of interesting weapons and powers. I liked how the powers interacted and gave you interesting tactical choices. The ability to lay traps (especially with the electrical power) really lets you control the flow of combat, as did the liberal use of possession as a distraction (one of the possession upgrades makes it very cheap to use, which I thought was really helpful). The weapons all felt quite different to me, with my favorite being the hailfire launcher. The enemies didn't seem like bullet sponges to me; they just all had particular weaknesses. Like, possession is an instant kill on any of the human enemies, including the rocket launcher dudes. Lightning completely shuts down the patriots. Bronco stops the raven dudes and the firemen entirely, since you can just pick them up and kill them while they're in the air. 

 

I thought the combat was really fun on its own terms, there was just a bit too much of it and it didn't always mesh well with the narrative. 

[osmosisch]

vis a liz

Haha, bravo.

[sclpls]

I agree with I Saw Dasein. The combat may have been an awkward fit for the narrative of the game, but as an activity I engaged in in a game I found it perfectly enjoyable, especially the areas with the skylines. Once I got the hang of setting up traps it became pretty tactically interesting as well. The original Bioshock's combat always felt more like a slog to me.

 

I guess the only time things got tedious was with the Sirens, but that was probably my fault for going for a cheap solution where I would electro-hook each undead dude one at a time until there were no more corpses left to revive, and then she was basically quite harmless and easy to take out.

[Zenfar]

This game is a serious cause sleep deprivation it is an amazing experience and really glad they didn't pull any of their punches.

[Merus]

I was playing on normal, but I found the firemen would often blow themselves up in a panic when flung into the air with Bronco. It felt enough like there was A Trick to each enemy, and the constraints on your arsenal meant you had to abandon somewhat effective tricks (like Possession on Patriots) because you couldn't afford the less effective ones. It also felt like the heavy hitters were placed to encourage you to borrow their weapons for cleanup - you get a Fireman and a Patriot, and the Fireman's volley gun helps you clean up the Patriot, while the Patriot's crank gun clears up a roomful of enemies.

 

BioShock's combat appears to be built around the concept of improvisation, but I'm blanking on a game that manages to do improvisational combat well, or at least better. I don't think Halo fits, even though I played it that way.

[melmer]

^ the darkness 2 had good improv combat. I remember thinking that at the time, it never really mattered which gun you were holding, just pick any up off the floor and have at it. (The first half of the game any way) darkness 2 is really good go play it people

[youmeyou]

This is a pretty damning critique of the game from Errant Signal. Still chewing on it, a lot of interesting points were made.

 

What I came away thinking was... are our expectations of games so low that anything (at least in the AAA sphere) that even tries to be something more, something 'important' is instantly lauded as perfection? Relavent is Jake's comparison to Baz Luhrmann or Zak Snyder. Those directors make beautiful spectacles that contain zero substance. I'm wondering if a large part of why Bioshock comes off as so good, is its art direction alone. Because it does have a huge array of problems, many of which are elucidated here (though I don't agree with all his points, especially his distate for vigors). It's always a tradeoff between what a piece of art does well and what it does poorly. Errant Signal guy clearly thinks the poor outweighs the good. And he makes some persuasive arguments.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GJ2cSKBFBDQ

[I Saw Dasein]

I've just started the video, but it seems like his first criticism -- that the game's violence and focus on combat undermines its narrative -- is kind of misguided (or at least, I don't agree with it).

 

The exact same criticism could be leveled at Django Unchained, one of the most compelling movies of the past few years (whether or not that movie was actually any good is immaterial). There is nothing about violence that necessarily is in tension with narrative or emotional depth. It's not enough to say that the game is violent, if the violence is in service of something. I think the combat does present pacing problems, in that there is just too much of it, but I don't agree that it undermines the story the game is trying to tell. The game establishes Booker as a hardened mass murderer: massacring countless people who don't deserve it is kind of what Booker is "about". The way the game treats Columbia's soldiers is an exact mirror of how Columbia (and American culture circa-1910) treated China and American Indians, and the game goes out of its way to point this out pretty emphatically. So if the question is "why does Booker slaughter all of these innocent people", the question that I think the game wants you to ask is "why did America slaughter all of those innocent people?" Which is a good and fair question for a game to ask you to think about.

[Argobot]

I've just started the video, but it seems like his first criticism -- that the game's violence and focus on combat undermines its narrative -- is kind of misguided (or at least, I don't agree with it).

 

The exact same criticism could be leveled at Django Unchained, one of the most compelling movies of the past few years (whether or not that movie was actually any good is immaterial). There is nothing about violence that necessarily is in tension with narrative or emotional depth. It's not enough to say that the game is violent, if the violence is in service of something. I think the combat does present pacing problems, in that there is just too much of it, but I don't agree that it undermines the story the game is trying to tell. The game establishes Booker as a hardened mass murderer: massacring countless people who don't deserve it is kind of what Booker is "about". The way the game treats Columbia's soldiers is an exact mirror of how Columbia (and American culture circa-1910) treated China and American Indians, and the game goes out of its way to point this out pretty emphatically. So if the question is "why does Booker slaughter all of these innocent people", the question that I think the game wants you to ask is "why did America slaughter all of those innocent people?" Which is a good and fair question for a game to ask you to think about.

 

I think this would have more weight if the game was trying to make a larger commentary on the history of American racism, but since it isn't, the connection between the FPS gratuitous violence and the violence in American history is tenuous.

[youmeyou]

The problem I come to in regards to Booker's violent nature justifying the gunplay is that the writing still can't help but cast him as an empathetic character. He feels guilty about his past, he feels horrified when Elizabeth hints at wanting to die rather than return to the tower. You can't have those emotions and then go and kill everyone in town. It's an entrenched video gamey dissonance. To the extent that I've grown used to that dissonance, this didn't deeply bother me, but I think it's a fair criticism to make.

[mjukis]

After exploding enough heads, Booker is taken to an alternate reality where the underclass of Columbia has risen up in rebellion. "These revolutionaries are as bad as their racist oppressors," says the deadliest serial killer in the history of human civilization, "because they are violent." Fortunately, the entire setting is erased from existence and nothing of consequence ever happens. Metacritic rating 95 (94 on Xbox).

 

http://bphennessy.com/bioshock.html

 

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3733057.htm

[I Saw Dasein]

I think this would have more weight if the game was trying to make a larger commentary on the history of American racism, but since it isn't, the connection between the FPS gratuitous violence and the violence in American history is tenuous.

I think the game did set out to comment on the history of American racism and institutional violence, although I don't think it really succeeds (largely because it gives up on that theme half-way through in favour of a fairly ridiculous sci-fi plot). I think this because the game sets out to address some of the most fraught chapters in American history: Wounded Knee, Pinkerton strike-breaking, civil war, and slavery. These are all topics pretty much straight out of a "People's History of the United States". The intent is there; it's just not executed all that well. I guess I look at it this way: what kind of person murders hundreds of people in order to follow instructions he doesn't really understand? A person like Booker Dewitt. 

 

The problem I come to in regards to Booker's violent nature justifying the gunplay is that the writing still can't help but cast him as an empathetic character. He feels guilty about his past, he feels horrified when Elizabeth hints at wanting to die rather than return to the tower. You can't have those emotions and then go and kill everyone in town. It's an entrenched video gamey dissonance. To the extent that I've grown used to that dissonance, this didn't deeply bother me, but I think it's a fair criticism to make.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this. Booker is definitely underwritten, as are most of the characters in the game, but I don't have a problem with a character who is capable of killing innocent people but also has normal emotions towards others. For example, presumably many of the cavalrymen who massacred children at Wounded Knee went home to loving families (Booker himself does pretty much just that).

I guess I feel like I can see what Levine et al were trying to do; they didn't really succeed in a lot of ways, but I still "get" what they were going for. At some point they got caught up in the sci-fi aspect of the story, which is a shame, but I still can appreciate what I think they were attempting to get across. And Booker's violence is entirely consistent with that aspect of the narrative. 

[TurboPubx-16]

A lot of criticisms come from a place of, "Infininte was trying to tackle theme X" or "one of the main goals of Infinite was to do Y." I watched the announcement trailer and went on blackout until the game came out; from my perspective Infinite is a first person shooter with a fun comic book-style story based on the theme of redemption, with the single greatest backdrop ever seen in a video game. I don't know where people are getting so many insights into the grand plans of Kevine and co. The game opens up with "Are you afraid of god" and a quote about transdemensional travel, which is the only declaration I can see as far as the creator's intentions go, which is to say, this is a fun science fiction fantasy adventure.

[melmer]

^

Ive seen so many blog posts over the last week of people acting as if Ken Levine has taken an actually shit on their face.

Seriously if I were Ken I wouldn't bother next time, I'd just make a zombie game or a gritty mega man reboot

[I Saw Dasein]

I dunno, I guess I'd rather play a game with some ambition and interest in history than yet another sci-fi romp. My experience of the game was thus colored by my hope and expectation that the choices they made in terms of theme and world-building would have some meaning beyond a colorful backdrop for shooting. I got some of what I was looking for, and overall I liked the game. I also think it is fun and interesting to talk about if and how the game reflects American history, since it is, after all, a game set in an alternative historical America. 

[youmeyou]

A lot of criticisms come from a place of, "Infininte was trying to tackle theme X" or "one of the main goals of Infinite was to do Y." I watched the announcement trailer and went on blackout until the game came out; from my perspective Infinite is a first person shooter with a fun comic book-style story based on the theme of redemption, with the single greatest backdrop ever seen in a video game. I don't know where people are getting so many insights into the grand plans of Kevine and co. The game opens up with "Are you afraid of god" and a quote about transdemensional travel, which is the only declaration I can see as far as the creator's intentions go, which is to say, this is a fun science fiction fantasy adventure.

 

I don't think you get to exhibit intense depictions of racism, bigotry and social struggle and then pretend your game is a lighthearted fantasy game. Clearly, they were going somewhere with the first act, and I don't think it's a stretch to say it wasn't developed to the point that an interesting or coherent statement was made.

[TurboPubx-16]

I don't think you get to put such an incredible weight on Infinite's shoulders and not walk away disappointed. Where is the precedent for such a thing in a first person shooter?

[youmeyou]

I'm not putting weight on it. They willingly put that stuff in there! They could have just made it a disneyland with an evil villain. (which is arguably, all it is) But they put the race and social struggle elements in there and I'm allowed to not be impressed with how that aspect of the plot played out.

 

And the second point you make is what I was kind of referring to when I first posted the errant signal video. It's like: just because this game attempts to tackle big issues, it's not even conceivable to reviewers and fans that it maybe fails at properly addressing these issues. (hence all the "perfect" "10/10" reviews lauding the game)

[Argobot]

I'm not putting weight on it. They willingly put that stuff in there! They could have just made it a disneyland with an evil villain. (which is arguably, all it is) But they put the race and social struggle elements in there and I'm allowed to not be impressed with how that aspect of the plot played out.

 

Completely agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a game for introducing some really weighty topics and then failing to do or say anything meaningful  with them.

 

It's frustrating that people want to give this game a completely free pass because it's better than a 'typical shooter.' Looking at it that way shuts off any possibility of ever critically examining games, which is a huge shame disservice to the medium in general.

[Zederick]

Completely agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a game for introducing some really weighty topics and then failing to do or say anything meaningful  with them.

 

It's frustrating that people want to give this game a completely free pass because it's better than a 'typical shooter.' Looking at it that way shuts off any possibility of ever critically examining games, which is a huge shame disservice to the medium in general.

 

Agreed as well. On the one hand, I appreciate that the game is trying to say something (a low bar, but one that surprisingly few games really reach), but I wish it had done a better job of it all:

* The moral equivalence is forced and unfair - yes, the revolutionaries are also violent and extreme, but their uprising against slavery was morally justified

* The racism it depicts is the caricature racism that white guys (like myself) can look at and comfortably say, "You never see that in society nowadays - sure is nice that racism is over forever!"

* The game talks about infinite potential and choices and variety and then goes out of its way to force you into making only one choice (because video games)

 

It bugs me that the expectations are so low for storytelling and serious thought in games that it has been and will continue to get a pass on all of this.