My Negative, Finite Review

[Ayayron]

For those who want a short statement with a numerical score: read the last paragraph.

I don't intend to write this review to convince anyone that loves Infinite to jump on the negativity train with me, but I've been noticing a lack of articulation from some of the community that has not been satisfied with the game. I merely intend to express my reasons why I was disappointed with Bioshock: Infinite overall. Forgive me if I concentrate too much on the negative aspects, but with a game such as this, the positives can be found anywhere else with minimal effort. There is no need for me to do so. I have nothing to prove. I am trying to review this product on its own merits; however, in some instances I do need to provide some comparing and contrasting with the original to further illustrate my points. As a reference and a heads up, I am not a lover of the original game in the franchise either. I thought it was solid, but not necessarily the masterpiece it is claimed to be. So overall, try to take my thoughts as what they are --just one man's attempt at explaining his feelings towards this game.

For a franchise that has roots in creating a good atmosphere combined with a marketing campaign showcasing the environment (not to mention the countless reviews gushing over it), Bioshock: Infinite was lackluster. This is not due to built up or unrealistic expectations. The first major concern is the lost opportunity to embrace the setting. In the beginning sequences of Infinite, the idea of a floating city was touched upon and showcased in several places ; soon after rescuing Elizabeth, I got the sense it was forgotten about. This could have been any city -- not necessarily a fantastical one built and living in the sky. The content of the city was very uninspired as well. Throughout the game you travel through much of the city and explore various parts of it. For the life of me I could not explain to you the environments that I saw or the places I visited mere days after playing it. The city was forgettable and generic.

This creates further problems when the gameplay has a secondary focus of encouraging you to explore and find "goodies" to assist you in your travels. If I'm going to be spending hours of extra time exploring through spare offices, trash cans, desks, and shelves to find next to nothing, It would at least be nice to be doing this in an environment that I find breathtaking and memorable. This is direct contrast to Bioshock 1, which triumphed in this regard. The item system was ultimately the same between these games with the risks, time investment, and rewards being very similar. The main difference was that I found Rapture a complete joy to explore for much of the playthrough. Bioshock 1 used shadows and lighting masterfully to craft an environment that could generate thoughts and emotions in the gamer. This game took a different approach by trying to embrace the daylight, the colors, and the overall vibrance of a city built in the past -- but failed to generate any of the interest, emotional, or intellectual appeal of its predecessor. Another lost opportunity.

Let's move on further into more of the actual make-up of the city, it's population. A short way of describing my thoughts on this topic is that the city of rapture which was beaten, broken, and depopulated felt more alive than this city full of lifeless people. When I walked into the streets of rapture, full of the destruction and debris of previous conflicts I could imagine in my head what may have happened here. I could envision the horror of what it would have been like to be on the streets, or in the room when the city started in its downfall. I could picture these streets and the buildings before the downturn and envision what life might have been for them in the past. This was a vastly underappreciated aspect of the original Bioshock. In Infinite, we have a city that is populated with people that have nothing to say, are fixed in place, and add very little insight and value to my experience. Many of these people are often complete copies of a character several feet away. The beginning directly after the baptism sequence is an embarrassment. In games of the past, it could be justified due to technical limitations. In a franchise like half life, technical limitations were mitigated by having these copied characters actually be the same person. What happens to one happens to the other, they are the same and merely are being put into the story to give you familiar faces and further emotional weight to the story. This cannot possibly be the case in this game. Another lost opportunity.

The main character is another example of lazy storytelling. The character starts out as a blank slate, with little to no back-story, previous experience in prior games, expectations, or personality. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it is in this case. Over time, some pieces of his life are scattered into the story when necessary. The downside to this is that for much of the game I have no reason to care about him. I have no reason to be surprised by his past, any actions he took, any actions he chooses to take, or much of what he has to say. I don't know him, I was given little back story, his lack of personality and lack of a past of any kind for much of the game gives me no basis to have any meaningful opinions or reactions to what happens in the story when it concerns him. Surely he becomes a bit more developed as the story moves on -- but again, how can I possibly be surprised or shocked when being in this lazy storytelling environment. Would it be a twist if I told you that I was a girl? Would it be a twist if I told you that I played this on a different platform than you guessed? No, it would not. The characters that drive the story are also very uninspired and generic ; they are often too reminiscent of the original Bioshock game with respect to the story arch and evolution of the events. One interpretation of the ending may suggest that this may be intentional, but I think it's more likely that it was sloppy and unimaginative storytelling at work more than anything.

One issue that has plagued this franchise from the start is the poor pacing and the poor structure of the story. Infinite is no different. Throughout many of the first hours, it is hard to tell at what act of the story you are in. The events that the character experiences in the game are often very bland and impact-less. Events trigger you to do other events before you can do the original event, and while you are on your way to completing your secondary event you have to do a third quest to accomplish the previous. Where exactly am I in the story now? Is what I'm doing currently truly important? I don't know, let's just continue and see where the story goes. The third act problems have been addressed before with the Bioshock games, but it should also be noted that it is actually hard to even know when the end of the game is approaching. The original Bioshock had this problem more than this one, where the player thinks they are finishing up the game and yet they still find themselves playing several hours later with the same feeling. The third act in this game drags on a bit unnecessarily, and much of it is to do with the constant sidetracking that is due to the "mission" structures.

I don't necessarily want to get into the nuts and bolts behind the ending, or address any spoilers. What I think is important is that at this point, a shocking discovery near the end is becoming expected with this series. I found myself anticipating this and guessing the "twist" before it was unveiled. Honestly, it was more of a "I hope they don't go there with this" than a guess, but it turns out my fears were warranted. I won't give away the details, but what I can say is that they introduce similar "discoveries" that many movies/books/games have done in the past whenever time travel and multi-dimensional story elements are added. None of these discoveries were particularly interesting or surprising. When I look at the final story, the discoveries seem completely self serving -- what was the point? What was the story trying to say or add? Was there an overall message? The twist and the discoveries exist merely as a facade of complexity and intelligence to try to convince the player that something meaningful or insightful just happened. It did not. The story is empty and hollow. Complexity and convoluted stories should not simply be interpreted as "good" or "smart" stories. There is a difference. I'd like to address some of the story elements as well before I move on to other thoughts. I felt that another lost opportunity was the lack of utilization of the racist and historic themes of the story. This could have potentially been used as a creative parallel to current events, but this was not really addressed. The social environment of the setting was also forgotten about and under-utilized like many more things in the game. Another lost opportunity.

Now in terms of gameplay, something that I haven't directly addressed yet with my thoughts. I found the actual vigors to be quite bland. I didn't find them nearly as interesting, useful, or creative as magical abilities in other games or the abilities in the original Bioshock. The comparison with the original may be nostalgia, but either way I did not find myself using them very much or being particularly interested in them or their effects. I felt the same way about the actual weapons as well. Many of them did not have much of a role, and some of them seemed to just be repeats of one another with a different skin. I finished the game with close to 6000 silver pieces as well, not because I was some champion of scavenging, but because I never found myself needing or wanting to upgrade many of my guns or any of my vigors. Why should I bother upgrading a vigor that I find uninteresting and not very useful with a mild upgrade that costs me over 1000 silver? I'll pass. It turns out that much of the upgrading was not even remotely necessary anyway.

Like the story and significant characters in the universe, the enemies that are actively being battled throughout the duration of the game are boring and monotonous. Guys with guns. More guys with guns. Guys dressed differently with the slightly different guns. Sure they added a couple tweaks to the recipe like the patriot and the handyman, but when compared against the originality and impact of the Big Daddy, there is no comparison. The lack of diversity is also apparent in how much they had to re-use the patriot just to add some sort of variety to the battles. The patriot was, what I thought, an interesting mini boss at the time. Little did I know he would be one of the main show of force throughout the rest of the game. Simply stunning in the lack of creativity coming from the same developer that introduced the iconic characters of the original game. The actual battles play out repetitively throughout many of the hours, and the A.I. behind many of these troops add no extra interest.

Auto save is one of the issues that has been addressed with previous comments, but I would like to add that I agree with the sentiment about it and I was negatively affected by it twice. I had to redo some lengthy sequences multiple times due to in game problems like getting stuck between barrels without any way of escape. Auto save only is a needless feature that introduces no value and only introduces negative aspects. I don't understand anyone who tries to justify this. It also inhibits experimentation.

I don't find myself caring much about the graphical engine because I tend to prefer content and quality over any visual glamour. But with the bitter taste that was left in my mouth with the other aspects of this game, I feel the need to provide more evidence of the laziness behind this development. The game looked good, but was this a 6 year advancement since the original Bioshock? I don't think so.

Obviously, Infinite has some positive aspects to it. I am not trying to detract from the experience as a whole. This is one of the only games I ever played where I enjoyed having a "partner". I didn't resent Elizabeth, and I actively looked forward to having her back with me when we separated. This is an achievement, make no mistake about it. Removing hacking from the game when compared to the original was another good move. And overall, the final battle sequence before the end of the game was a fitting way to escalate the gameplay. It was a much better alternative to introducing a lame and trivial boss like Bioshock 1 did. Not every game needs a "final boss".

I don't think numeric scores for art have much merit, but I know how obsessed many people are with them so I will do my best. I treat scores out of 10 a little differently than most. Many reviewers have ratings similar to a 6 being "okay" and a 7 being "good" and an 8 being "great", so on and so forth. Do must of us think that the majority of games that get 8's and 9's are great? Do most of us think that the majority of titles that get released should be 8's or 9's? I don't think so. If every game is an 8 or a 9, shouldn't standards be raised? There's no shame in having a score above a 5. I see it as a spectrum; anything below a five is on the bad side of the spectrum and anything above a 5 is on the good side of the spectrum. Let me repeat that ... anything above a 5 is on the good side of the spectrum. For me, it's a matter of how good. I look at the game based on originality, quality, message, gameplay, fun, longevity, and a myriad of other factors. Based on my views above, I would rate this as being "okay" with a 6/10 score.

[Mumboejumboh]

I think maybe the biggest problem here is that this isn't really a review so much as a diatribe discussing an opinion. The line blurs a little but an IDEAL review takes in all aspects of the thing being reviewed into account. It's long-winded as well which means that it will likely be dismissed by fans as nobody who loves something would want to read an essay about why the thing they love is awfu. Similarly the people who dislike it are liable to just agree off-handedly since they already have their own reasons to dislike it. This leaves a marginally smaller group of people who read the whole thing and formed their onw opinions about it.

Personally I can't muscle through it at all. How the OP felt about the game was largely divergent from how I felt and none of what I read felt like it had any grounded basis. The whole "review" just feels like one man blustering about how he didn't like the experience he got. While it's perfectly fine to articulate these thoughts as much as you like...calling it a review when you're blatantly just saying "I didn't like this and this is why I didn't like it" is disingenuous.

[Bellomy]

İlk olarak filmmakerartist1 tarafından gönderildi:

The final boss battle is what really sucks and drags the game down.

Really? I liked that battle.

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Lamont Von Fraserbergenstein tarafından gönderildi:

It's become intensely popular among the "more elite and intellectual" (I prefer the word "unintelligent") members of game criticism to write off BioShock Infinite as a poor game and anybody who enjoyed it is a misguided prole.

Now you're guilty of the same problem that you claim exists. There are those who say that people who like Bioshock Infinite are dumb, but they are the trolls, the minority. You are offput by the generalization and pettiness they show, and then do the same yourself by saying that this small fraction is the majority and that pettiness is there primary drive and insult their intelligence to boot! The hypocrisy is odious.

I am one of those people who dislike the game, and I will put up an argument on why I think that B:I is not desering of it's praise at all. There are plenty of others such as OP who will be giving their opinion and then be told to ♥♥♥♥ off or "go play CoD cuz u dont get it lel." Don't you dare act like the only side who is guilty of any pettiness is the critics, as you've demonstrated for us yourself in your first paragraph.

İlk olarak Mumboejumboh tarafından gönderildi:

I think maybe the biggest problem here is that this isn't really a review so much as a diatribe discussing an opinion. The line blurs a little but an IDEAL review takes in all aspects of the thing being reviewed into account. It's long-winded as well which means that it will likely be dismissed by fans as nobody who loves something would want to read an essay about why the thing they love is awfu. Similarly the people who dislike it are liable to just agree off-handedly since they already have their own reasons to dislike it. This leaves a marginally smaller group of people who read the whole thing and formed their onw opinions about it.

Personally I can't muscle through it at all. How the OP felt about the game was largely divergent from how I felt and none of what I read felt like it had any grounded basis. The whole "review" just feels like one man blustering about how he didn't like the experience he got. While it's perfectly fine to articulate these thoughts as much as you like...calling it a review when you're blatantly just saying "I didn't like this and this is why I didn't like it" is disingenuous.

So, you're mad he prefaced it with "Negative" and then read it because you thought it might be positive? And you also have a problem with thoroughness? Because its length is a result of its specificity. A true fan should be willing to read this because understanding faults of a game is just as important as understanding its strengths. Otherwise, it devolves into blind devtion. I read it because I wanted to see the points he raised and how many coincided with my own, as well to see if I disagreed on anything or if he thought of something I didn't see. That's how you build arguments and inform yourself.

Now, because his opinions differ from yours, you're not going to bother entertaining it? Willful ignorance is the best kind, isn't it? It was told from the title that it was going to be focusing on the negative aspects and even has a disclaimer to say that he was just going to focus on the negatives, but that there's plenty of positives too. He's reviewing the negative aspects, you know, something that every purchaser of a product should know?

[X01JP]

This may be a highly rated game, but there sure seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads trying to figure out why. And yes, I am one of them.
Perhaps I will never understand the love for this game.... I wish there was another Bioshock made more similar to the first two. I guess that kind of game is from another era though.

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Lamont Von Fraserbergenstein tarafından gönderildi:

Indeed, those words in paranthesis are not the words of Sterling. They demonstrate, not that people who dislike a game are unintelligent, but rather how their idiocy is exposed when they post in such a way as if they sincerely believe their words mean something. In actuality, they are so wrong they do not even amount to gobbledigook.

My words in paranthesis were, for the most part, my response to a comment earlier in this thread describing folks who thought BioShock Infinite was a masterpiece as "very young" or "afraid" to criticize it. If anyone thinks they can resort to cartoonish ad hominem as a way to depict their opponents, I will reflect their own tactics against them. Is it an argument winner? No. But it shows that neither side can get anywhere using childish name-calling tactics.

In the OP's case, his opinion is to review (and no OP, that was not a review. no prize for you) as masturbation is to marriage. He presented NOTHING OF ANY VAULE WHAT.SO.EVER in the time he frivoled away typing.

Yes, but by stooping to these people's level, you lose all credibility to claim that you are right in that they are childish. You are at their level, what's the separation in who is acting like an egotistical idiot?

If you were referring to someone in particular, it would've helped quoting them in particular to isolate their case. I apologize, in that rereading what I wrote was aggressive, but I absolutely refuse to be clumped with persons such as them. I will try to present an argument, and I will fight tooth and nail to fight these people who try to derail it, regardless of side. (See: "Bioshock Infinite Critqe" (yes that's how OP titled it) on page 3.) It's these kinds of people who take away any credibility of criticisms we might have.

It was a review in that it looked over the game itself and pointed out flaws. It is explicitly stated that it is going to be negative in the title, and in the first paragraph that is reinforced. But OP doesn't say there's nothing good, but just that they won't be covering it and that it's easily found anyways. It's at least nice to see a balance of reviews where people just glance over any faults and some who point them out. (However if there could be a combination...)

OP's critiques have merit. It's not meant to sway you (and it even says so as well), but merely to point out the faults within the game that they found. Plenty of it rings true for people such as myself, and while you may disagree, it is a good starting point for discussion over the game itself, rather than being some half-baked idea that sparks insanity and fighting (though that will happen regardless.)

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Lamont Von Fraserbergenstein tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

Yes, but by stooping to these people's level, you lose all credibility to claim that you are right in that they are childish. You are at their level, what's the separation in who is acting like an egotistical idiot?

If you were referring to someone in particular, it would've helped quoting them in particular to isolate their case. I apologize, in that rereading what I wrote was aggressive, but I absolutely refuse to be clumped with persons such as them. I will try to present an argument, and I will fight tooth and nail to fight these people who try to derail it, regardless of side. (See: "Bioshock Infinite Critqe" (yes that's how OP titled it) on page 3.) It's these kinds of people who take away any credibility of criticisms we might have.

It was a review in that it looked over the game itself and pointed out flaws. It is explicitly stated that it is going to be negative in the title, and in the first paragraph that is reinforced. But OP doesn't say there's nothing good, but just that they won't be covering it and that it's easily found anyways. It's at least nice to see a balance of reviews where people just glance over any faults and some who point them out. (However if there could be a combination...)

OP's critiques have merit. It's not meant to sway you (and it even says so as well), but merely to point out the faults within the game that they found. Plenty of it rings true for people such as myself, and while you may disagree, it is a good starting point for discussion over the game itself, rather than being some half-baked idea that sparks insanity and fighting (though that will happen regardless.)

Don't look now, buddy, but you've fallen into the same pit and lost your professional credibility yourself XD (that is, if you rate yourself by the standard of credibility)

It does seem that every day or so, there is another "critic" who thinks he or she found some flaw or something else they deem to be revolutionary enough (maybe they think their opinion is enlightening and original) to post onto a forum with the same said flaws for the hundredth time.

Will this circle be unbroken? NOPE! Another will post something that "merely points out the faults within the game that they found" or another AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO HATES THIS GAME" like a boastful little kid who keeps marching in the limelight and saying, "I am a game critic! Listen to me!"

I will agree that people often cannot be bothered to check to see if they're posting an original topic, as illustrated by the tons of "I'm mad about the deal on the Season Pass!" threads that sprang up.

But, I'm not trying to have a standard of credibility, so much as a standard of integrity. If I want to debate a game with someone, I'm not going to go around acting like an ass-hat. Nor will I stand by and let people try to derail that. I will admit, it may be pompous to foist that idea onto others and hold them up to my standard, but can you agree that by stooping to an opponent's methods, you lose at least some credibility? That's why peaceful protests like that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King were so effective; they illustrated by contrast the barbarity of their opponents. Let your opponents make ass-hats of themselves without returning it, and people will join your side or at least be more willing to listen.

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Lamont Von Fraserbergenstein tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

I will agree that people often cannot be bothered to check to see if they're posting an original topic, as illustrated by the tons of "I'm mad about the deal on the Season Pass!" threads that sprang up.

But, I'm not trying to have a standard of credibility, so much as a standard of integrity. If I want to debate a game with someone, I'm not going to go around acting like an ass-hat. Nor will I stand by and let people try to derail that. I will admit, it may be pompous to foist that idea onto others and hold them up to my standard, but can you agree that by stooping to an opponent's methods, you lose at least some credibility? That's why peaceful protests like that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King were so effective; they illustrated by contrast the barbarity of their opponents. Let your opponents make ass-hats of themselves without returning it, and people will join your side or at least be more willing to listen.

Hey, on the internet, no one really knows whether you are really credible or not, and no one knows how many real-life credible people posted unprofessional language under a masking alias and avatar.

When it comes down to very well made and solid games, such as BioShock Infinite, unless the game is broken or was deceptive in it's advertising, or never informed the customer in advance with previews (this game had dozens of those that you'd think would prepare someone) there really is nothing to resort to other than gluing together your preferences and opinions you've got against the game and call it a negative review. That is what the OP is.

I hold myself to my standard not so others can say "Hey, that's a decent guy", but so I can say it to myself, because, as the whole cliche saying goes "I'm the one who has to look at myself in the mirror". Others need not validate this, but can potentially do so, and admitably, I am affected by their opinions, as much as I try not to be.

Now, sure, B:I is overall a decent game at the very least. But just because it's well made does not mean it is exempt from criticism. There's never a perfect game, but we can highlight when something is done wrong so it can be fixed and made to be a better game down the line. It's how we develop the art of creating a good game. We also highlight the good too, yes, but there's also threads that do this as well. Sure, plenty of this is subjective, but that's the point of opinions and arguments. It's to bring together different ideas and try to ascertain what we can agree on and develop why certain things are bad/good.

[Mumboejumboh]

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

So, you're mad he prefaced it with "Negative" and then read it because you thought it might be positive? And you also have a problem with thoroughness? Because its length is a result of its specificity. A true fan should be willing to read this because understanding faults of a game is just as important as understanding its strengths. Otherwise, it devolves into blind devtion. I read it because I wanted to see the points he raised and how many coincided with my own, as well to see if I disagreed on anything or if he thought of something I didn't see. That's how you build arguments and inform yourself.

Now, because his opinions differ from yours, you're not going to bother entertaining it? Willful ignorance is the best kind, isn't it? It was told from the title that it was going to be focusing on the negative aspects and even has a disclaimer to say that he was just going to focus on the negatives, but that there's plenty of positives too. He's reviewing the negative aspects, you know, something that every purchaser of a product should know?

Actually, the reason I didn't read the whole thing is because I disagreed with how he felt and decided that I didn't need to read another thousand words of him talking about how he didn't like the game. It still doesn't make it an actual review of the game so much as him talking at length about how he feels. It'd be the same thing if I wrote an extremely long post about how I loved Bioshock Infinite. I could explain how much I loved each part of the game until the end of days but that still wouldn't make it a review.

The wonderful thing about opinions is that you really don't have to care what someone else feels about something. He doesn't like it? Well I guess it sucks to be him because he bought a game he didn't like. I bought it and loved the time I spent playing it so why should his opinion on the game matter? Would my reading his post change the positive experience I had playing the game?

I don't care HOW many words you throw out in a post...it doesn't magically become a review just because your opinion is verbose. Also I don't particularly appreciate your written tone, sir. It seems like you're itching to start up unpleasantness.

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Mumboejumboh tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

So, you're mad he prefaced it with "Negative" and then read it because you thought it might be positive? And you also have a problem with thoroughness? Because its length is a result of its specificity. A true fan should be willing to read this because understanding faults of a game is just as important as understanding its strengths. Otherwise, it devolves into blind devtion. I read it because I wanted to see the points he raised and how many coincided with my own, as well to see if I disagreed on anything or if he thought of something I didn't see. That's how you build arguments and inform yourself.

Now, because his opinions differ from yours, you're not going to bother entertaining it? Willful ignorance is the best kind, isn't it? It was told from the title that it was going to be focusing on the negative aspects and even has a disclaimer to say that he was just going to focus on the negatives, but that there's plenty of positives too. He's reviewing the negative aspects, you know, something that every purchaser of a product should know?

Actually, the reason I didn't read the whole thing is because I disagreed with how he felt and decided that I didn't need to read another thousand words of him talking about how he didn't like the game. It still doesn't make it an actual review of the game so much as him talking at length about how he feels. It'd be the same thing if I wrote an extremely long post about how I loved Bioshock Infinite. I could explain how much I loved each part of the game until the end of days but that still wouldn't make it a review.

The wonderful thing about opinions is that you really don't have to care what someone else feels about something. He doesn't like it? Well I guess it sucks to be him because he bought a game he didn't like. I bought it and loved the time I spent playing it so why should his opinion on the game matter? Would my reading his post change the positive experience I had playing the game?

I don't care HOW many words you throw out in a post...it doesn't magically become a review just because your opinion is verbose. Also I don't particularly appreciate your written tone, sir. It seems like you're itching to start up unpleasantness.

So, if you disagreed on how he felt, why in the world did you click on a title that specifically says, from the get-go, it's going to be negative? Why did you bother posting? Why are you even in this forum if you didn't care about opinions?

Your posting made no sense except to explain to everyone here that you disagree. If you truly didn't care, even if you wandered here somehow without knowing, why did you bother to post? It made no sense because you completely contradict your words with action.

The starting post was not meant to sway. It never was. If you had read it, the OP explicitly states it's not meant to. It's literally the second sentence.

My tone is only what it is because it's people who cannot be bothered to read at least the OP and comment based on either a wild guess or just the title aggravate me for being reactionary, uninformed posts that do not help contribute to a thought provoking discussion of the game. Though, nice bonus with trying to make yourself seem to be victim and pretending to be fancy and civilized by writing "sir."

If you truly enjoyed the game then defend it with counterpoints and examples instead of just hand waving any claims the OP might have and essentially saying "I don't agree, so it's not valid" or "You wrote too much and because I can't be bothered to read it, it's stupid." That's not a valid argument. Could they have gone into positives too? Sure, that would've been helpful. But apparently, it was too long for you as it is, so it wouldn't have mattered because you wouldn't have read it anyway, so why even bother?

See, Bellomy is a true fan. S/he looks at a criticism and points out reasoning or examples that the person might of missed and attempts at offering its own counterview.

İlk olarak Bellomy tarafından gönderildi:

This is worth repeating, and let's not forget that as the game goes on if we pay attention to the dialogue we'll notice some interesting hints dropped occasionally about Booker's past.

That Booker was not given a backstory is simply not true. It's just not spoon fed, but that's never been BioShock's style (save the unfortunate info-dump at the end). It's always expected the player to pay attention and try and figure things out for themselves.

I wasn't a fan of the ending but I can't deny that I was EXTREMELY invested in the story up until that point. It had great voice acting and some genuinely moving moments. I really, really wanted that happy ending, and that's an achievement in itself.

Also - Columbia LACKS ATMOSPHERE??? You're kidding, right? The loving attention to detail that was paid to each individual section of the city was amazing in and of itself. Shantytown in particular was incredible.

I think combat gets a bit of a bad rap. The shooting and vigors are definitely generic, and it could be better, but I really think that the skylines can be a blast when you figure out how to maximize your usage.

This post at least attempts to address a criticism that a person might have. It's somewhat vague, and doesn't cite too many examples, but it's certainly a step in the right direction for having an interesting dissection of the game.

[MagmaSK]

TL;DR:

I have a specific idea of how multiple realities work and these authors have dared have a different idea, so I am going to criticize their game for it ad nausea...

[Mumboejumboh]

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

So, if you disagreed on how he felt, why in the world did you click on a title that specifically says, from the get-go, it's going to be negative? Why did you bother posting? Why are you even in this forum if you didn't care about opinions?

I don't care that he dislikes the game...but it seems disingenuous to call it a review. That was kind of the crux of why I posted. Sure, I knew it was going to be negative, but I expected something...I don't know...more cohesive? The more I read the more it felt like opinionated blather about how he felt. There's nothing wrong with him feeling that way or him posting that here...but I don't think it should be called a review.

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

Your posting made no sense except to explain to everyone here that you disagree. If you truly didn't care, even if you wandered here somehow without knowing, why did you bother to post? It made no sense because you completely contradict your words with action.

I posted to call the title (that being the "review" part) into question. I don't care how he feels about the game, only how he intends to represent those feelings.

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

My tone is only what it is because it's people who cannot be bothered to read at least the OP and comment based on either a wild guess or just the title aggravate me for being reactionary, uninformed posts that do not help contribute to a thought provoking discussion of the game. Though, nice bonus with trying to make yourself seem to be victim and pretending to be fancy and civilized by writing "sir."

You're the guy who bellied up to my post getting all combative when all I was doing was calling the legitimacy of him calling it a "review" into question. I read part of it, not all of it, and what I read of it smacked heavily of being an opinion. I know FULL WELL what it's like to post tremendous walls of text talking about things on the internet (my god, it's like that's what's happening RIGHT NOW) so I also know that the more things you type in a setting like this the more likely you are to just devolve into bluster.

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

If you truly enjoyed the game then defend it with counterpoints and examples instead of just hand waving any claims the OP might have and essentially saying "I don't agree, so it's not valid" or "You wrote too much and because I can't be bothered to read it, it's stupid." That's not a valid argument. Could they have gone into positives too? Sure, that would've been helpful. But apparently, it was too long for you as it is, so it wouldn't have mattered because you wouldn't have read it anyway, so why even bother?

I enjoyed the game. Why do I need to defend it when I feel the experience speaks for itself? People are free to either enjoy something or not. If you didn't like it then that's just unfortunate for you. There's parts of Bioshock I didn't enjoy, certainly (primarily the ending, though I understand the reasoning I felt it was just...bleh, but that'd be getting into heavy spoiler territory and I'm not going to go there) but I still had a lot of fun along the way.

I'm not some white knight drawing my sword and readying my shield so I can charge into battle in defense of this game. Bioshock Infinite is what it is. You can like it, you can hate it, or you can just get the hell out.

I never said his opinion was invalid, only that I didn't agree with it. I didn't read the rest of his post because not only did I not agree with how he felt about the game he ALSO gave me the strong impression of personal bias which is not what a review should be about. I'm not going to read an essay that not only is negative about something I like but I also find the core of which to be unrelated to its purpose, which as stated by the title, was a review.

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

See, Bellomy is a true fan. S/he looks at a criticism and points out reasoning or examples that the person might of missed and attempts at offering its own counterview.

What high and mighty throne do you sit upon that lets you dictate whether I am or am not a fan of something?

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

This post at least attempts to address a criticism that a person might have. It's somewhat vague, and doesn't cite too many examples, but it's certainly a step in the right direction for having an interesting dissection of the game.

I'm not here to defend the game and I've said that multiple times in this very post. I only call the integrety of the original post as a "review" into question.

[Lewellyn]

İlk olarak Mumboejumboh tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak CordedUberator tarafından gönderildi:

So, if you disagreed on how he felt, why in the world did you click on a title that specifically says, from the get-go, it's going to be negative? Why did you bother posting? Why are you even in this forum if you didn't care about opinions...

TL:DR You already said that you "didn't care" except for it being called a review. And of course from my friend merriam-webster:

review
: an act of carefully looking at or examining the quality or condition of something or someone : examination or inspection

: a report that gives someone's opinion about the quality of a book, performance, product, etc.

: a magazine filled mostly with reviews and articles that describe the writer's thoughts or opinions about a subject

[Mumboejumboh]

Alright, point proven. I can't exactly argue with the dictionary definition of the word. I guess I just object to the personal bias? Well, whatever. For all the words posted here it all amounts to a hill of beans. Love it or hate it Bioshock Infinite did well and nothing that anybody says here is going to change that.

[CordedUberator]

İlk olarak Mumboejumboh tarafından gönderildi:

I don't care that he dislikes the game...but it seems disingenuous to call it a review. That was kind of the crux of why I posted. Sure, I knew it was going to be negative, but I expected something...I don't know...more cohesive? The more I read the more it felt like opinionated blather about how he felt. There's nothing wrong with him feeling that way or him posting that here...but I don't think it should be called a review.

I posted to call the title (that being the "review" part) into question. I don't care how he feels about the game, only how he intends to represent those feelings.

You're the guy who bellied up to my post getting all combative when all I was doing was calling the legitimacy of him calling it a "review" into question. I read part of it, not all of it, and what I read of it smacked heavily of being an opinion. I know FULL WELL what it's like to post tremendous walls of text talking about things on the internet (my god, it's like that's what's happening RIGHT NOW) so I also know that the more things you type in a setting like this the more likely you are to just devolve into bluster.

I enjoyed the game. Why do I need to defend it when I feel the experience speaks for itself? People are free to either enjoy something or not. If you didn't like it then that's just unfortunate for you. There's parts of Bioshock I didn't enjoy, certainly (primarily the ending, though I understand the reasoning I felt it was just...bleh, but that'd be getting into heavy spoiler territory and I'm not going to go there) but I still had a lot of fun along the way.

I'm not some white knight drawing my sword and readying my shield so I can charge into battle in defense of this game. Bioshock Infinite is what it is. You can like it, you can hate it, or you can just get the hell out.

I never said his opinion was invalid, only that I didn't agree with it. I didn't read the rest of his post because not only did I not agree with how he felt about the game he ALSO gave me the strong impression of personal bias which is not what a review should be about. I'm not going to read an essay that not only is negative about something I like but I also find the core of which to be unrelated to its purpose, which as stated by the title, was a review.

What high and mighty throne do you sit upon that lets you dictate whether I am or am not a fan of something?

I'm not here to defend the game and I've said that multiple times in this very post. I only call the integrety of the original post as a "review" into question.

It is a review. It is going over the (negative) aspects of the game and discussing them for readers. It has proclaimed itself as purely focusing on the negative. It never claimed to be balanced but merely a short talk about the faults the OP found with it.

I would be a lot less aggressive if you at least read the initial post, because your opinion only comes from a small part of it. How do you know what you read is representative? How do you know they don't raise any valid points? You don't, because you didn't read the whole thing and insulted the OP's validity without hearing them out fully.

Nor does typing things out thoroughly make it magically "devolve into bluster." Otherwise, as you admit that you're writing a wall of text, I can just claim that your points just happen to turn into mush that means nothing. Does a book just randomly start losing coherence after you get far enough in?

The experience doesn't speak for itself as much as you say because that's why we have varying opinions of things. We all interpret it differently, which is why some people like it and some people don't. Why were you here, except to read OP's opinion? You say you value different opinions, and then question OP's validity as a reviewer when they decide to place emphasis on the negatives for the sake of articulating a critical argument against its faults?

As for the impression of bias, I cannot comment on that as I saw none myself. Regardless, you should still at least humor someone you think is biased and read what they write, if only to understand any argument they may have.

Now, for the "true fan" thing, I was referring to something I wrote elsewhere, which in hindsight, was incredibly dumb. But, what I was referring to was about how a real fan of something will take the time to understand all aspects of something, in this case, a game, by knowing its strengths and weaknesses. Not only that, however, but also understanding and being able to constuct an argument to defend it against criticism by citing examples and counterpoints. Otherwise, by not doing this, it just becomes fanaticism; something this game warns heavily against, I might add, which no-one likes to argue against and can easily fall apart under scrutiny because it lacks a true understanding.

Edit: Removed my quotes for the sake of brevity.

[Lewellyn]

İlk olarak Mumboejumboh tarafından gönderildi:

Alright, point proven. I can't exactly argue with the dictionary definition of the word. I guess I just object to the personal bias? Well, whatever. For all the words posted here it all amounts to a hill of beans. Love it or hate it Bioshock Infinite did well and nothing that anybody says here is going to change that.

:O Non-inflammatory repsonse? :D Yes, personal bias. Hills of beans, my friend, that's all reviews are.