BioShock Infinite: in defence of graphic violence
When a critically acclaimed FPS raises questions about the appropriate level of violence in a video game it’s doing something right
BioShock Infinite: in defence of graphic violence
BioShock Infinite: in defence of graphic violence
When a critically acclaimed FPS raises questions about the appropriate level of violence in a video game it’s doing something right
Join the MyGaming Steam group || Find out how to enter MyGaming Steam Community Giveaways
I barely even noticed the violence. What ruined it for me was the horribly mediocre gameplay.
While the mechanics are incredibly simplistic (even in 1999 mode), I actually enjoyed the gameplay in the context of the rest of the game.Originally Posted by Graal
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Yep, as TotalBiscuit puts it it feels like a damn chore to get to the next bit of the story. The more I think about it the more disappointed I get with the game.
I had a good time with it, that's all that matters to me.
Indeed. I would actually not have minded a 'skip tedious combat sequence' button. I basically had to force myself to finish the game, simply because I found the shooting parts so mediocre. It's a pretty big disappointment coming down from Bioshock 1 and 2 to the simplistic gameplay mechanics of Infinite.
I didn't even play Bioshock 2 because I read it was pretty bad, but Bioshock 1 was amazing.
She's skitzo with the way she deals with it. They don't deal with her aversion in any decent way at all in my opinion. She one minute is scared of you and runs away because you are violent, and the next minute she is chucking you ammo and applauding you for murdering people.Elizabeth, the deuteragonist of BioShock Infinite, is not nearly as comfortable with violence as you are, which is something Irrational also handles well.
The first time she sees you kill, she (quite understandably) runs away from you.
When you catch up with her again, one of the many touching conversations between Booker and Elizabeth plays out with her having to make a choice: work through it, or return to captivity.
This:
Goes into more depth about the violence thing as well as other great points.
Very interesting article!
/I really don't see the "mediocre gameplay" people are complaining about. I loved the gameplay about as much as I loved the story and the world. I thought the Vigors worked well and the two guns (carbine & hand cannon) that I upgraded worked pretty well for the whole of the game as well. IMO the combat is much more refined than that of Bioshock 1 and 2. Sure the gunplay is not as fluid as say CoD or Borderlands 2, but it's not supposed to be IMO.
This I also want to agree with. Her 'acclimatisation' to violence is very poorly handled, just like Lara in the new Tomb Raider. One moment she's running away, the next you say a few sentences to convince her you're good and then suddenly she trusts you fully.
The combat is essentially a dumbed-down version of what we had in B1 and 2. Someone on another forum did a giant write-up on the mechanics of the gameplay in Infinite, but it won't fit (it's almost 20000 words long), so I'll just post the link. It really gets right down to the basics of how the whole thing works.
Or if you don't feel like reading that wall of text, here's a shortened version that goes into a lot less detail but is essentially the same thing at the core:
Basically what it comes down to is that B:I is a straight-up shooter (and a bad one at that), while 1 and 2 were FPS/RPG hybrids.None of the weapons in the game are exactly interesting. You've got your pistol, your machine gun, your shotgun, your revolver, your sniper, your minigun, your grenade launcher and your RPG. That's about as generic as it gets. Then the upgrades are absolutely boring as well. You've got damage, capacity, rate of fire and reload rate. Woohoo! Bioshock 1 and 2 not only had a much better selection of weapons, but the upgrades for those weapons were pretty interesting as well, not to even mention that multiple types of ammo allowed you to approach different situations in different ways.
Then there's the fact that you can only carry two weapons. Erm, that limits your creativity in a firefight. Some people might say that forces you to think strategically because you need to choose weapons based on what enemies you think you might be facing, but that's simply not true. During the game if you encountered a situation where you needed a certain weapon, the game would always make that weapon available via a tear, so the two weapon limit was entirely useless.
Even the Vigors are boring. None of them, save maybe the possession one, was in the least bit interesting. I ended up using one and used it pretty much throughout the whole game.
Let's not forget that in Bioshock 1 and 2 your interaction with the environment could help in combat situations. You could hack a camera to set sentry bots on enemies, or hack a health dispenser to harm enemies going for health, or lure a big daddy into attacking a group of splicers. B:I is a much more straightforward shooter and in pretty much every situation 90% of the damage being done to enemies is going to be coming from your weapons. It doesn't have nearly the diversity that B1/2 had.
I guess the biggest problem with B:I is just that its gameplay is completely and utterly bland and uninspired. Everything it does has either been done before (and likely been done better) or is really nothing more than an old gameplay mechanic that's been convoluted. The entire tear thing is nothing more than a gimmick. It's like Irrational focused so much on the story that they just simply didn't bother about gameplay, which I don't quite get because the gameplay in B1/2 was done a lot better, even if it was a bit shallow. The gameplay in B:I is a definite step back for the entire series.
Posting Permissions
