BioShock Infinite

[sclpls]

Edit: I take issue with this, but not enough to write a lot. This is an academic redefinition of "racism" that I think is only confusing.

 

In 1902 racism was a neologism that was coined by a guy that was in favor of "reeducating" American Indians so that they would behave more like white people. But the issue feelthedarkness described is certainly what Henry David Thoreau described in his letter "Slavery in Massachusetts", and it's what Frederick Douglas described in his autobiography. They didn't use the term racism back then because the word didn't exist. Maybe they are both too academic to have anything interesting to say about race relations in America, and they are just too confusing.

[aperson]

First of all the dripping condescension is really not needed.

 

Second of all I'm not talking about "race relations" I'm talking about specific word choice. The idea of racist action that requires a power structure is a perfectly valid idea. Many forms of racist action do require a power structure. That's not what "racism" means though. That's not what it means in common vernacular or in a dictionary. There are good words to describe the concept you're advancing - systemic racism, institutionalized racism, societally-sanctioned racism.

 

By redefining "racism" in a way that defies the common definition and that is popular only in some narrow academic circles you're preaching only to the converted. Other people can't participate because they literally don't know what "racism" means, by no fault of their own. Ironically the vast majority of black people are excluded from conversations on racism, as they aren't erudite enough to have read "Slavery in Massachusetts."

 

Racism isn't what the vast majority of black people think racism is (and experience!), it's actually what white "critical race theorists" say it is? Pat Bidol and Judith Katz are the real experts! Black people are out of their depth - in discussions of racism. Really?

 

According to Rasmussen:

 

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

 

I don't put a ton of stock in Rasmussen, but I assume that 31% isn't actually 0%. And that's not "capable of racism", that's "are racist." (I guess Hispanics are really cool)

 

It seems like rather than each person advancing their own definition of what racism is it's best to stick to what the word is commonly understood to mean. (And how it is in fact defined) Words having specific, well-defined meanings is important to communication, no?

 

There's nothing wrong with the idea that some expressions of racism take power. That's a fine idea.

 

Edit:

 

The more I think about this the more it bothers me. Racism as defined by white academics.

 

Here's Clarence Page talking about the aforementioned poll:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-10/news/ct-oped-0710-page-20130710_1_racist-blacks-whites

 

Yet, as the poll results hint, it is no secret that the black community has to contend with its own internal racism too. I recall, for example, how one of my son's black high school classmates responded when I asked whether he detected any racism in today's youths. Yes, he said, "The blacks girls get mad when they see you dancing with a white girl." Ah, yes. Race, like sex, is complicated, children.

 

He doesn't understand racism the way Judith Katz does?

 

This is not meant to be taken as "black people are the real racists" or that "the real problem with racism in America is black people" or some shit like that. There's no "ah ha" here. Just let's use the well-understood definition of the word and not construct a discussion that is in itself exclusionary.

 

The idea that you can't discuss racism unless you read Thoreau and went to an Ivy League is just...well. Not good. Let's leave it at that.

[Twig]

First of all the dripping condescension is really not needed.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you're also easily the most condescending person in all of these arguments. You always "apologize" by saying your harsh tone is unintended, it's just how you talk, blah blah blah, but then you accuse other people of being condescending without giving THEM the benefit of the doubt while asking them to forgive you.

 

Please stop doing that.

[I Saw Dasein]

I don't see why we should care what a creator's intentions are with respect to a work. If my experience of a work on its own merits is that the work is consistent with or supports a particular ideology (e.g. racism) then I don't care whether that consistency is intentional or not. Trying to look behind a work for authorial intent is a rube's game. 

[SecretAsianMan]

To get back to the subject of the actual game, I just finished the siren fight.  Holy shit, that was the worst thing.  No ammo, no salt, endlessly respawning dudes, zero help from the tears, and a really loud annoying boss who's a FUCKING GHOST THAT I'M SHOOTING WITH BULLETS.  I don't even want to play any more tonight, that was just so awful.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Also worth thinking about is how little that made any fucking sense even in terms of the wackiness that's already in the game.

[SecretAsianMan]

Also worth thinking about is how little that made any fucking sense even in terms of the wackiness that's already in the game.

 

Yeah, that was complete nonsense.  Actually even calling it nonsense gives it too much credit.

[bkbroiler]

Here's my Bioshock opinion: I thought the first game had a neat story that had very unengaging gameplay that failed to live up to the hype around it at the time (that there was going to be this living, breathing world that you could wander around in, set up traps for enemies, watch Big Daddies go about their work, that there would be any reason to use weapons and powers other than shock and wrench).

 

Then I played Bioshock Infinite 5 (?) years later, and seem to be on the other end of the hate/hype. Fun combat with lots of variety, fun to zip around on rails, interesting interactions between the two main characters, and a story that puts the whole series into a very interesting light. Did I change in this time? Is it just a matter of hype and perspective? Weird that so many people get so worked up over this game, and yet hail Bioshock 1 as this masterpiece.

[aperson]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you're also easily the most condescending person in all of these arguments. You always "apologize" by saying your harsh tone is unintended, it's just how you talk, blah blah blah, but then you accuse other people of being condescending without giving THEM the benefit of the doubt while asking them to forgive you.

 

Please stop doing that.

 

You're right. I have no reason to read condescension into what sclpls wrote.

 

I'm trying man! I spend a lot of time editing my posts trying to make them less confrontational. (This may be impossible to believe but it's true!) I am not a super positive assume-the-most-charitable guy by nature, but it doesn't help when someone posts literally just to point out that I'm awful. It's hard to read charitably after that.

 

I invest a lot of time and effort into my posts - maybe they still suck and I'm an idiot and I suck. But I do put effort into them, and for someone to just be "ignore this guy he's trying to fight us" is dispiriting.

 

Most of the time if you read condescension into my post try again as playfulness - that's usually more the spirit that it's intended. But you're right - I will try to stop accusing people of slagging on me. (And succeed!) And it would be nice if certain people would stop posting just to point out how awful I am. (I'm not talking about you)

[tabacco]

You're right. I have no reason to read condescension into what sclpls wrote.

 

I'm trying man! I spend a lot of time editing my posts trying to make them less confrontational. (This may be impossible to believe but it's true!) I am not a super positive assume-the-most-charitable guy by nature, but it doesn't help when someone posts literally just to point out that I'm awful. It's hard to read charitably after that.

 

I invest a lot of time and effort into my posts - maybe they still suck and I'm an idiot and I suck. But I do put effort into them, and for someone to just be "ignore this guy he's trying to fight us" is dispiriting.

 

Most of the time if you read condescension into my post try again as playfulness - that's usually more the spirit that it's intended. But you're right - I will try to stop accusing people of slagging on me. (And succeed!) And it would be nice if certain people would stop posting just to point out how awful I am. (I'm not talking about you)

 

LET IT GO.

[BobbyBesar]

Yeah, that was complete nonsense.  Actually even calling it nonsense gives it too much credit.

Nah, it just opened a rift to the ghost universe. INFINITE POSSIBILITIES! PROBLEM SOLVED!

[SecretAsianMan]

Here's my Bioshock opinion: I thought the first game had a neat story that had very unengaging gameplay that failed to live up to the hype around it at the time (that there was going to be this living, breathing world that you could wander around in, set up traps for enemies, watch Big Daddies go about their work, that there would be any reason to use weapons and powers other than shock and wrench).

Then I played Bioshock Infinite 5 (?) years later, and seem to be on the other end of the hate/hype. Fun combat with lots of variety, fun to zip around on rails, interesting interactions between the two main characters, and a story that puts the whole series into a very interesting light. Did I change in this time? Is it just a matter of hype and perspective? Weird that so many people get so worked up over this game, and yet hail Bioshock 1 as this masterpiece.

I'm the opposite I think.  I loathe melee combat in any first person game so when I played Bioshock 1 I loved setting up traps and using combinations of the powers and weapons during encounters, especially with the Big Daddies because you could plan out how you wanted the fight to go.  With Infinite, I'm not feeling any of that.  I don't mind the 2 carried weapons limit because I'm used to that by now, but you have such a small reserve of ammo that you're constantly forced to change weapons.  That in itself doesn't bother me, but combined with the similar-but-not-quite-the-same weapon types that the Vox and Founders have that use different ammo and the way that I'm constantly accidentally looting a body instead of picking up his dropped weapon in the midst of a fight means that I'm often frustrated during combat.  The vigors help some but I'm not feeling the same synergy that I did in Bioshock 1.  Setting up traps in Infinite seems pretty useless because the space is either very large and open due to the skylines/hooks, or the enemies just stay back and shoot and never trigger the trap.  Of course, I might also be down on the combat in Infinite because the last thing I did was the TERRIBLE siren fight, which magnified all those problems exponentially.

LET IT GO.

Tempted to make a Frozen joke but it's been done enough.

[Bjorn]

I'm the opposite I think.  I loathe melee combat in any first person game so when I played Bioshock 1 I loved setting up traps and using combinations of the powers and weapons during encounters, especially with the Big Daddies because you could plan out how you wanted the fight to go. 

 

And for all my severe criticisms of BI, I actually really liked the melee combat in it, particularly once I had a bunch of melee focused gear and the vigor that lets you Charge people.  Combine that with a shotgun and a hand cannon, and combat became really laughable.  The hyperviolence of the melee kills never bothered me, really.  Sure, they're gross and I can see what it would really turn someone off.  Just didn't bug me. 

 

That Charge vigor just finally convinced me that if I wasn't going to be able to have prepared, thoughtful combat, I might as well have fun being a maniac pinballing back and forth across an arena.

[SecretAsianMan]

And for all my severe criticisms of BI, I actually really liked the melee combat in it, particularly once I had a bunch of melee focused gear and the vigor that lets you Charge people.  Combine that with a shotgun and a hand cannon, and combat became really laughable.  The hyperviolence of the melee kills never bothered me, really.  Sure, they're gross and I can see what it would really turn someone off.  Just didn't bug me. 

 

That Charge vigor just finally convinced me that if I wasn't going to be able to have prepared, thoughtful combat, I might as well have fun being a maniac pinballing back and forth across an arena.

 

I can see how that would be fun but it's just something I would never do.  Melee combat in any game with long range weapons is so counter intuitive to me that I can never wrap my head around the possibilities.  I'm also a bad sniper so my comfort zone tends to be in the mid range stuff.

[Zeusthecat]

Setting up traps in Infinite seems pretty useless because the space is either very large and open due to the skylines/hooks, or the enemies just stay back and shoot and never trigger the trap. 

 

I had this exact problem. I tried numerous times to set traps and could never get them to trip for the same reasons. Luckily, when I got the upgrades to some of my vigors that automatically set traps around an enemy when they die, the combat got much more interesting.

[Argobot]

Burial at Sea Episode 2 is a distilled version of what I was hoping Infinite would be -- a few hours of exploring a gorgeous environment with minimal combat that is entirely avoidable. I haven't seen a Bioshock game since Infinite was first released, so it was a real pleasure to go back to the Bioshock environments. For all the faults of this game, its visuals and sounds are still incredible to witness. It was a fun experience and Elizabeth's narrative was actually pretty good right up until the last 10 minutes, when the game takes the retconning too far to the point of unnecessary nonsense. Everything that happens before that though was pretty fun and I'm glad that I got to see it.

 

Side bar: I'll be really happy when genre stories finally drop the trope of having an older woman go to great lengths to protect a young girl because of "motherly" instincts. I know Aliens kind of kicked that whole trend off, but at least that movie has a fictional justification for why Ripley would be fanatic about protecting Newt no matter the cost (she feels guilty about her own daughter). Burial at Sea has more justification than most of these stories for why Elizabeth would go to such lengths to save one little girl, but it still felt like the game was implicitly relying on Elizabeth's gender to justify most of her actions. It didn't detract from the experience for me, but I think the game would have been more interesting if they'd come up with literally any other motivation for Elizabeth.

 

What did detract from my experience:

The fact that Booker still communicates with you during the game even though he dies at the end of Episode I is also infuriating. It makes the whole experience of playing as Elizabeth feel less interesting because she spends most of the game being bossed around by her Booker imagination. It gives the game an unsettling paternalistic pallor that made it difficult for me to ever fully care about Elizabeth.

[CaptainFish]

I just finished Burial at Sea 2, as well. Uh... I don't think I wanted what this is.

 

I really wanted them to use their parallel universe stuff as an excuse to do some sort of side story in Rapture. I would've loved an honest-to-goodness side story. This is not a side story. It feels way more like someone thought Bioshock can not stand on its own and made this to fix that.

I found the combat pretty annoying starting off with limited tools, as I always do with Bioshock games. I actually found a lot of it depends on the level design. Areas where you could use the skyhooks more plentifully felt fine. Then you get some tonics that trivialize it. I think I would've preferred if they had found a way to pull the combat back even more. They did a pretty decent job of changing the dynamic by adding a stealth system, but it never felt as good as a true stealth game.

 

This game still has a ton of amazing stylistic choices. I absolutely adored the opening of the DLC, as one of the most unique levels I've experienced. The way different musical elements are done positionally was amazing. The art is fantastic, and I love all the lighting in various areas. Lots of good sound design and music is present as well.

 

Anyway, lots of spoilery story complaints below.

 

I found a lot of the story stuff in here to be pointless. I don't ever marvel when it turns  out every single facet of your universe "just happens" to tie together. I don't need for someone to go back and find the few things I didn't know or want the answer to and explain them. Bioshock 2 did a much better job when they showed that Little Sister segment and it was something new that added on to the previous world. I honestly don't understand the value of creating a fantastical world and explaining every single facet. They really drained the wonder out of Rapture. At the same time they made sure that most of the peripheral connections between Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite were concrete and in your face. I preferred that stuff when it was more implied and felt more speculative.

 

The worst part of this DLC is that it revisits Daisy Fitzroy's completely nonsensical turn. That part of the main campaign is still one of the worst written things I've ever seen in a game and the way they attempt to explain it is not offensive but pointless. They write into the game that the reason that Daisy did what she did is the same reason why she had to from a narrative perspective. Levine needed someway to advance Elizabeth as a character into being less innocent by forcing her to kill Daisy. So to do this he has her do something that is completely not in her character and out of left field. It turns out the Lutesces literally tell Daisy to do this. She never even intended to kill the child, she instead sacrificed herself by acting like she would so that Elizabeth would end her life and be able to stop Comstock. I'm really not sure how this was supposed to make me feel better about that part in the original campaign. The fact that she isn't actually a child murderer is fine, but she's still a only stepping stone for the people the game is actually about. 

 

Ryan's philosophies are revisited and, like Bioshock 2 before it, Bioshock Infinite frames them for an even younger audience: pre-schoolers. I think it really hurts him as a character when they frame his philosophies as so clearly infantile and preposterous. Atlas/Fontaine is back, and acts in a way that blurs the line between the two way more than before. Thinking back, Atlas was supposed to be a hero of the people, but he turns out to be way more cruel and sadistic in this DLC than Fontaine ever acted when he became a comic book villain taunting you over the radio. I always thought Fontaine's portrayal in the denouement was the worst part of Bioshock so I didn't appreciate more of him.

[Bjorn]

Thanks for the thoughts on the DLC for those of you who've actually played it.  I do have a question.
 

Huge spoilery stuff about the ending of the DLC:

 

How did the end feel to you, with Fontaine killing Elizabeth? I haven't found anyone who's really given much of a reaction to that yet.

[SecretAsianMan]

Well, I finished Infinite.  I 'get' the story in that I understand the events that occurred, but I honestly don't see what the big deal was.  Even if I hadn't known a large part of the plot before, I'm pretty sure I would have figured it out fairly early.  The characters themselves were fairly well done and the acting was pretty good.  I wish they had gone another way with the multiple reality idea and actually had the choices matter.  Also I wish they went somewhere with the whole race thing instead of just using it as a backdrop.  I feel like the game could have been made without those elements at all and still gone almost the same way.

 

Gameplay wise, the combat itself was ok, but there were a lot of little things that bugged me.  The limited amount of ammo, having multiple weapons that are functionally similar yet different with different ammo, and making the weapons super weak to force me to use the vigors.  Using the vigors at the end felt less interesting to me than the first Bioshock because I just said fuck it, throw shit everywhere at everyone.  Granted you could do that in Bioshock too, but at least I could plan encounters much more and actually use traps.  Maybe I was playing the wrong way, but it just didn't work for me.  The only part I really enjoyed was the skylines.  That was a neat way of moving around.  Also that siren fight was possibly one of the worst things a game has made me do in a long time.

 

Despite how negative I sound, I don't think the game was all that bad.  I just didn't find it particularly special.  Overall, 

[osmosisch]

I'm really glad I played this game the moment it came out, because I'm terrible at avoiding spoilers (as goddamn Dark Souls 2 is showing me) and I think I would not have enjoyed the game even half as much as I did coming in with all this baggage. There's a lot of enjoyment to be gained from forming one's own opinions and only contrasting them afterwards to what others think.<br /><br />Bioshock to me was always about contrasting beauty and ugliness, and in that sense I think Infinite is a success. It's just a shame it's not successful in many other ways. I think someone phrased Infinite as "the whole being less than the sum of its parts" which I think is apt.

[CaptainFish]

Thanks for the thoughts on the DLC for those of you who've actually played it.  I do have a question.

 

Huge spoilery stuff about the ending of the DLC:

 

How did the end feel to you, with Fontaine killing Elizabeth? I haven't found anyone who's really given much of a reaction to that yet.

 

This is a hard question for me to answer because of the amount of baggage around it but I'll try anyway. Big ending spoilers in here too:

 

The event itself is performed with brutality but it doesn't linger at all on it like an earlier scene mentioned in the RPS article. It feels way more like the violence visited on other characters in the series.

 

As for the meaning and how I felt about it, that's the weird part. So much of her death is tied to Bioshock 1; it was to the point that I didn't actually care about Elizabeth herself. In what is probably supposed to be a masterstroke, her death is very similar to Daisy Fitzroy's in the regular campaign. She has to die, or more specifically she must deliver the code phrase to Atlas who will kill her, so that Jack will activate on the plane and perform the acts of Bioshock 1, leading to the, now-canonical, good ending of that game***. Like the retconned Daisy, she knows her actions will lead to her own death, and accepts them to save others. However, from my perspective, Fontaine wasn't missing one crucial bit to make Bioshock 1 make sense and now after 7 years the mystery is finally solved. Elizabeth's death is slotted into a part of the story that entirely made sense before. Tying her death to a unnecessary retcon (in this case the retcon where she is responsible for Atlas knowing "Would you kindly"), and cutting to several Bioshock 1 scenes during her death makes Elizabeth the least important part of her own final scene.

 

***Or at least, the good ending stems from this specific rapture where Atlas got the data he needed because of Elizabeth? Also maybe the good ending was canonized in Bioshock 2, I don't remember.

[Bjorn]

This is a hard question for me to answer because of the amount of baggage around it but I'll try anyway. Big ending spoilers in here too:

 

The event itself is performed with brutality but it doesn't linger at all on it like an earlier scene mentioned in the RPS article. It feels way more like the violence visited on other characters in the series.

 

As for the meaning and how I felt about it, that's the weird part. So much of her death is tied to Bioshock 1; it was to the point that I didn't actually care about Elizabeth herself. In what is probably supposed to be a masterstroke, her death is very similar to Daisy Fitzroy's in the regular campaign. She has to die, or more specifically she must deliver the code phrase to Atlas who will kill her, so that Jack will activate on the plane and perform the acts of Bioshock 1, leading to the, now-canonical, good ending of that game***. Like the retconned Daisy, she knows her actions will lead to her own death, and accepts them to save others. However, from my perspective, Fontaine wasn't missing one crucial bit to make Bioshock 1 make sense and now after 7 years the mystery is finally solved. Elizabeth's death is slotted into a part of the story that entirely made sense before. Tying her death to a unnecessary retcon (in this case the retcon where she is responsible for Atlas knowing "Would you kindly"), and cutting to several Bioshock 1 scenes during her death makes Elizabeth the least important part of her own final scene.

 

***Or at least, the good ending stems from this specific rapture where Atlas got the data he needed because of Elizabeth? Also maybe the good ending was canonized in Bioshock 2, I don't remember.

 

Thanks for those thoughts.  I wonder when the decision to tie the worlds together so tightly happened, if that was something they wanted to do early with Infinite, or if it came later. 

[dartmonkey]

Isn't it the duty of every Rapture inhabitant to be

brutally drilled by a Big Daddy behind a pane of glass?

 

Just finished Burial at Sea 2. For me it characterised all the problems I had with Infinite, though it minimised the combat which was nice. As with all previous games, I never felt motivated to use the plasmids over a meaty shotgun. I have always thought guns were problematic in this series. If I was given only a puny pistol as a last resort weapon, it would force me to experiment with the plasmids and forge some kind of empathy for the splicers. As is, I simply shotgun everything because it's more satisfying.

 

Colombia was a great visual design achievement but that glimpse of Rapture in Infinite proper was thrilling and it's the star character here. However, I always felt they should have set Bioshock 2 in Middle America, with Jack being forced to return to the city mid-game. Rationing it a little would have been more interesting. This doesn't outstay its welcome though.

 

Neat-little-bow retconning aside, I felt more patronised than ever by the writing. Everything was vocalised.

- Locked door? Ah, probably best to follow the MASSIVE TRAIL OF BLOOD LEADING TO AN ADJACENT ROOM THAT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY GOT A VENT. "At least they left a trail."

- Big Daddy need repairing? Maybe the Little Sisters can help. "Err, excuse me girls - is there any documentation closeby?" (paraphrased, but only a bit). Those two GLOWING CLIPBOARDS I PASSED IN THE PREVIOUS ROOM might be relevant. Probably the Instruction Manual.

- Somebody just double-crossed you? "I guess I should have seen that coming." I DID SEE IT COMING, YOU ARSEHOLES! IT WAS TELEGRAPHED LIKE A COLOSSAL NEON PHALLUS.

The visual design is more than enough to clue you up and there's always the idiot arrow to fall back on. Please just stfu.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughts on the DLC for those of you who've actually played it.  I do have a question.

 

How did the end feel to you, with Fontaine killing Elizabeth? I haven't found anyone who's really given much of a reaction to that yet.

 

For me, a side-effect of Infinite's... infinity is that my emotional investment in the characters is nullified. Is this Booker THE Booker or A Booker or A Comstock?... Don't really care anymore. Elizabeth irritated me throughout with her crass dialogue and 'did-I-ever-have-a-choice' bullshit. Her death was narratively and dramatically fitting, but I didn't find it particularly satisfying. It just was, and it was fine.

 

Also, who was Sally? I forgot who the hell she was. I had to wiki it at the end. Credits had her as Stock Motivation #4.

[Bjorn]

So I was listening to Bonfireside Chat (a Dark Souls focused podcast), and one of the hosts made an interesting comment about how the Souls games do Bioshock better than the Bioshock games do.  They didn't really chase the thought down, just a casual aside.  But thinking about it, there's definitely something there. 

 

Ultimately the Souls games are exploring many of the same themes as the Bioshock games, and the Souls do it better in many ways.  I think it's an interesting comparison for two games that I hadn't initially considered similar.

 

Infinite Worlds - This is baked into the essence of the Souls games with multiplayer, signs, co-op, invasions, story, world, everything.  The multiverse of cursed chasing a cure is one of the most gripping elements of the game, and rather than being delivered as a twist, it's a facet you have to deal with from step one.

 

Power Corrupts - Some of the bosses you face are not presented as being inherently evil, at least some of them wanted to do good, to make the world a better place, but ultimately succumbed to power, to the curse, or to crushing despair.  At least some of them view stopping you as being the unquestionably "Good" act.  In Bioshock, power just makes you an evil sociopath. 

 

Power corrupts the player - Something that BI left untouched, and Bioshock only examined through harvesting little sisters.  Dark Souls lets the player do whatever.  Want to slaughter the innocents, deliver the world to dark, destroy other players' attempts to finish the game?  Knock yourself out, you have the power to do so.  Or you can help others, shepherd NPCs through possible pitfalls and save their lives and sanity.  For all the Bioshock games really want to explore power, they really don't want an empowered player. 

 

Ambiguity of good/evil - Bioshock felt like a world where there could have been an outcome that didn't result in total disaster, there were good people working towards the goal of a better society.  BI just throws that out the window.  In Dark Souls, the forces of light, fire, the dark, gods, man and the abyss are not so clear.  There are legitimate cases to be made that for average humans, embracing the dark is the true "good" path, while embracing light is in fact continuing the oppression of the powerful over the weak.

 

Environmental Storytelling - Mostly audio logs and cutscenes versus item descriptions, NPC dialogue, the environment, item location, enemy/boss location, and enemy armor/weapons.  There are few games that embrace the environmental part of story telling more than the first Dark Souls. 

 

Combat vs pacifism - Other than having to kill certain bosses, the Souls games can be played in surprisingly pacifist and/or stealthy ways (DeS and DkS1 supported stealth better than DkS2), which was one of the perennial complaints about Bioshock and the lack of diversity in how to approach combat.  It's not something a beginner is going to pull off in a Souls game, but the option is certainly there. 

[registradus]

I was just getting into the combat by the end of Burial At Sea Episode 1. When I started Episode 2 and the combat was completely different I could not really be bothered. It is far too similar to the Batman Arkham games. so I just played them instead.