Is bioshock 1,2 and Infinite are connected in story?

[Sakikoですは]

Then I guess I should start with 1

[Ragnaroni]

1 and 2 are related. Infinite is its own thing for the most part. There is the DLC which takes place in the same world as 1 and 2. Starting with 1 is always a good idea, it's a great game!!

[Sakikoですは]

Originally posted by Ragnaroni:

1 and 2 are related. Infinite is its own thing for the most part. There is the DLC which takes place in the same world as 1 and 2. Starting with 1 is always a good idea, it's a great game!!

Okay

[dave.]

Originally posted by Ragnaroni:

There is the DLC which takes place in the same world as 1 and 2.

Well, technically if we want to dig deep into the lore we'd have to mention Burial at Sea directly contradicts important plot points from every game in the series and logically can't exist if events depicted in Infinite ever take place not just in one timeline, but the entire multiverse. So I'd personally consider this borderline poor, nonsensical fanfic.

Now, to answer OP's question, there's no hard rule to play these games - the first two are connected, but you can play them in any order you want, since they're pretty much self contained stories. Same applies to Minerva's Den.

That said, however, playing Bioshock first may be a good idea, due to two factors:
1. It introduces you to the world of Rapture instead of starting in it, somewhat expecting you to know it already and not be surprised by it.
2. On the technical level B1 is very clunky, if not pretty much obsolete. If you play B2 and take some of its improvements for granted, you'll be negatively surprised with B1's rudimentary mechanics.

Infinite can be played independently, since other than few little nods/easter eggs (and trash DLCs) it has very little, if anything, to do with its predecessors.

[k-ricks]

for timeline Rapture should build before Columbia but INF story ended before event of B1 it's a time travel+multiverse messy thing with BAS dlc then B2 is B1's aftermatch 6-7 years later

[Dryspace]

Originally posted by dave.:

On the technical level B1 is very clunky, if not pretty much obsolete.

What frightful nonsense is this? No---I'm dead serious. As a connoisseur of FPS games I have absolutely no clue what you could possibly be talking about.

There is nothing wrong with BioShock's gameplay in general, or combat in specific. It's not great gameplay and never was, but there is nothing, either design-wise or technically, wrong with it. It plays very well.

Are you perhaps talking about BioShock so-called "Remastered"? I can't say anything about it as I have no plans to ever touch it. I can also say nothing about playing BioShock on Windows 8, 10, or 11 as I would never do such a thing. But any problems that exist would of course not be the fault of the game.

[Lou]

Originally posted by dave.:

Originally posted by Ragnaroni:

There is the DLC which takes place in the same world as 1 and 2.

Well, technically if we want to dig deep into the lore we'd have to mention Burial at Sea directly contradicts important plot points from every game in the series and logically can't exist if events depicted in Infinite ever take place not just in one timeline, but the entire multiverse. So I'd personally consider this borderline poor, nonsensical fanfic.

Now, to answer OP's question, there's no hard rule to play these games - the first two are connected, but you can play them in any order you want, since they're pretty much self contained stories. Same applies to Minerva's Den.

That said, however, playing Bioshock first may be a good idea, due to two factors:
1. It introduces you to the world of Rapture instead of starting in it, somewhat expecting you to know it already and not be surprised by it.
2. On the technical level B1 is very clunky, if not pretty much obsolete. If you play B2 and take some of its improvements for granted, you'll be negatively surprised with B1's rudimentary mechanics.

Infinite can be played independently, since other than few little nods/easter eggs (and trash DLCs) it has very little, if anything, to do with its predecessors.

Literally hopped on community to trash talk one of the best series made. Start at the start, it is more rewarding that way. If you can't wait play infinite first as it can stand alone apart from the dlc. If you start with infinite, do not play the dlc until B1 and B2 are finished. Homie is hating for no reason. Dude probably plays cod and expects every fps to be of that style. Beautiful story that requires a lot of attention.

[dave.]

Literally hopped on community to trash talk one of the best series made.

Nothing is above criticism, especially when the criticism is valid and constructive.

Homie is hating for no reason.

Oh, I do hate these DLCs for very objective reasons related to their awful and most importantly utterly nonsensical writing, I'm afraid.

Dude probably plays cod and expects every fps to be of that style.

And this is nothing more than an ad hominem logical fallacy. Good job shooting yourself in the foot, assuming something about me that whether true or false has nothing to do with BaS' contradictions and retcons.
And FYI I never played any CoD nor intend to, so don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Ragnaroni]

TLDR : The BioShock Infinite DLC is very much a slap in the face to fans because of the retcons and stuff. Focus on the three games and forget about the DLC unless you REALLY wanna visit Rapture one more time and like stealth!

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by Dryspace:

Originally posted by dave.:

On the technical level B1 is very clunky, if not pretty much obsolete.

What frightful nonsense is this? No---I'm dead serious. As a connoisseur of FPS games I have absolutely no clue what you could possibly be talking about.

There is nothing wrong with BioShock's gameplay in general, or combat in specific. It's not great gameplay and never was, but there is nothing, either design-wise or technically, wrong with it. It plays very well.

Are you perhaps talking about BioShock so-called "Remastered"? I can't say anything about it as I have no plans to ever touch it. I can also say nothing about playing BioShock on Windows 8, 10, or 11 as I would never do such a thing. But any problems that exist would of course not be the fault of the game.

Oh come now, no game is perfect or above criticism. Bioshock 1 is a great game overall but there are plenty of things you can point to as flaws in it's design.

[Dryspace]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Oh come now, no game is perfect or above criticism. Bioshock 1 is a great game overall but there are plenty of things you can point to as flaws in it's design.

I want to think that you replied to the wrong person, because with respect to my post your reply is a non sequitur.

My point was not that BioShock is perfect, or above criticism. My point was not that the combat or general gameplay of BioShock is perfect, or above criticism.

My point was that the gameplay mechanics of BioShock are neither "very clunky" nor "pretty much obsolete". That is an absurd assertion that I can only imagine was a hastily-typed exaggeration.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by Dryspace:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Oh come now, no game is perfect or above criticism. Bioshock 1 is a great game overall but there are plenty of things you can point to as flaws in it's design.

I want to think that you replied to the wrong person, because with respect to my post your reply is a non sequitur.

My point was not that BioShock is perfect, or above criticism. My point was not that the combat or general gameplay of BioShock is perfect, or above criticism.

My point was that the gameplay mechanics of BioShock are neither "very clunky" nor "pretty much obsolete". That is an absurd assertion that I can only imagine was a hastily-typed exaggeration.

I’d say it is a bit clunky in comparison to a lot of other shooters or even it’s own sequels. Not sure what they mean by “obsolete” in this context though so I guess I agree there.

Though in my defence you did say there was “nothing wrong” with Bioshock’s gameplay, which is what I took issue with, because of course there is. Nothing wrong with and perfect mean the same thing btw.

[Dryspace]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Though in my defence you did say there was “nothing wrong” with Bioshock’s gameplay, which is what I took issue with, because of course there is. Nothing wrong with and perfect mean the same thing btw.

I understand your confusion, but I believe that the context---the sentence, "It's not great gameplay and never was, but there is nothing, either design-wise or technically, wrong with it." makes it clear that my point can't be taken in that way.

Again, I understand your point, but when I say "nothing wrong", I am making a distinction between positive aspects and negative aspects. A bowl of soup can be merely good, in that there is nothing about it that elevates it or makes it stand out, while at the same time there is nothing wrong with it, in the sense that it is not prepared contrary to established recipe, or served cold (when inappropriate), or containing sand, or a roach, etc.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by Dryspace:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Though in my defence you did say there was “nothing wrong” with Bioshock’s gameplay, which is what I took issue with, because of course there is. Nothing wrong with and perfect mean the same thing btw.

I understand your confusion, but I believe that the context---the sentence, "It's not great gameplay and never was, but there is nothing, either design-wise or technically, wrong with it." makes it clear that my point can't be taken in that way.

Again, I understand your point, but when I say "nothing wrong", I am making a distinction between positive aspects and negative aspects. A bowl of soup can be merely good, in that there is nothing about it that elevates it or makes it stand out, while at the same time there is nothing wrong with it, in the sense that it is not prepared contrary to established recipe, or served cold (when inappropriate), or containing sand, or a roach, etc.

Ok then, I get it. In that case I’ll say that Bioshock does indeed have a few roaches in it and gets pretty cold by the end, if that makes sense.

[Dryspace]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Ok then, I get it. In that case I’ll say that Bioshock does indeed have a few roaches in it and gets pretty cold by the end, if that makes sense.

Remember, the subject is not BioShock as a whole, but specifically the gameplay mechanics. But I'm listening.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by Dryspace:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Ok then, I get it. In that case I’ll say that Bioshock does indeed have a few roaches in it and gets pretty cold by the end, if that makes sense.

Remember, the subject is not BioShock as a whole, but specifically the gameplay mechanics. But I'm listening.

Well yes I was referring to gameplay specifically, other things like the narrative, art design and atmosphere are top notch. But if you strip all that away the game underneath is kinda dull, repetitive and un-challenging and seriously outstays it's welcome by the end. Just my opinion of course.