View Single Post
Old April 9 2013, 11:14 PM   #8
Re: Bioshock Infinite.

I played the game over the last several days. For me, the major pro of this game was that there were intervals where there wasn't combat. Many games nowadays don't do this. However, I am not gushing over the game, and, in fact, I traded it in.

I was enjoying the game. I was learning how to adapt to the environment, how to use the vigors in conjunction with my weapons, and how to shoot enemies at a distance with a carbine. I am the kind of player who enjoys taking cover, selecting a target, and methodically taking that enemy down. I would occasionally use the vigors for mob mediation. Less often, I would use Elizabeth's aid - the tears which introduced artillery to the battle. Then came the final battle, and I found that my strategy, which I had used to that point, was rendered obsolete. I felt that the battle was designed for a rail-and-gun shooter. I felt frustrated and betrayed. Up to that point in the game, the player had choices on how they were to fight. I felt those choices were removed in this final battle. Even worse, Elizabeth's role is reduced to a supply mule; she doesn't bring in assets that can help the battle. She does bring in an asset that, in true CoD fashion, is governed by programming. (Select a target, Strike a target, Wait, So On) Then there was the design of that level. I would like to see someone rationalize the design, and rationalize the strategy of the enemy.

I have been diagnosed with severe anxiety and depression. I was worried that this game would elevate my anxiety to uncomfortable levels. Thankfully, it didn't, and, at times, I was able to relax. Occasionally, I would panic, when facing some enemies, but then I recovered. Then came that final battle. Ugh. Four times in, and I am feeling pulses of anxiety roiling through my back and I am in pain.

As for the environment, I take it for granted that levels are simplified representations of what the "real world" could potentially be. However, even after playing the game, I am not sure how Columbia qualifies as a functioning city. When I think of a floating city, I think of Cloud City or Stratos of Ardana. I don't think of free floating buildings and city blocks that connect like Lego blocks and, the player has to traverse the city using skyhooks, skylines, and airships.

I hear this game has great graphics on PC. I wouldn't know. I played it on the XBOX 360. The graphics didn't strike me as innovative, and I saw some issues. I examined a flow of water from a pipe; it looked like the bend of the flowing water lacked curving edges. And, for a game that reportedly cost 100 to 200 million dollars to produce and market, couldn't they have spent that money in making more models? When I watched Elizabeth dancing in a company of generic civilians, for me, it became apparent where they spent their money and where they didn't spent their money.

As for the storyline, I feel that it is maybe rather pointless, really. From what I have read and heard, would there be success if the pattern of disruption was altered? I am dubious.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote