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.

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

Do I need to explain that I'm not talking about a dictionary definition again?

I did not rehash his words into my own opinion- I took what he ACTUALLY said and extrapolated that to the effect they would have.

If you know NOTHING about a game, and you only read one review, that highlights every little thing the game does wrong, then you will have a negative image of the game- That's all there is to this. Why does this need to be a big deal? Why are you clinging to the "strawman" so hard?

No, again. You can't throw an explanation of what he "means to do" when he EXPLICITY states that is not the goal and that other people WILL disagree and that you SHOULD look pros up in other posts, so what you did IS a strawman and it doesn't follow a valid reasoning scheme. Strawmen are posts that deal with arguments that YOU not he created and therefore do not belong in a debate. If you wanted to be serious about your arguments, not using logical fallacies would be a step.

[Shadowspaz]

And reading comprehension would make people take you seriously as well, if we're gonna start with low-blows.

I never said what he means to do. I said what the review's effect can have on people, especially when they expect a more typical review, as the title would suggest.

This is only about expectations vs. content, and only between the title and the post itself, actually. Still not seeing why this is such a big deal. But, then again, you have yet to ever argue my point. You just keep yelling strawman at me. Which is funny, cause isn't every one of your posts a strawman at that point...?

:P

Edit: This time, I won't directly contradict your reply with an edit in the previous post. I'm fairly satisfied with this one, since they keep getting simpler and simpler.

Edit2: And no, I'm not editing them after you post. It's actually before. I'd just rather do that, than double-post.

Edit3: But I guess, with my edits directly contradicting your attacks, that means I have you predicted pretty well, don't I? :P

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

And reading comprehension would make people take you seriously as well, if we're gonna start with low-blows.

I never said what he means to do. I said what the review's effect can have on people, especially when they expect a more typical review, as the title would suggest.

This is only about expectations vs. content, and only between the title and the post itself, actually. Still not seeing why this is such a big deal. But, then again, you have yet to ever argue my point. You just keep yelling strawman at me. Which is funny, cause isn't every one of your posts a strawman at that point...?

:P

Mhm, "This review does not do that. It is not a balanced view (Yes, as stated in the OP), which also makes the negative bias very prominent (Which, for a review, is not helpful), and prevents people from developing their own opinions about it. It isn't "Here is what I felt about the game; what do you think?" It's more "Here is why it's bad, now agree with me." I'm not saying he's only looking for people to agree, but that, to someone with a neutral stance on it, after reading such a post, they won't be left with any information to disagree....."

You indirectly attacked something you thought he was implying by stating his opinions in this format, which he says he isn't doing.

When there is a disclaimer, and you ignore it, your fault. Bottom line.

A review is an opinion it doesn't require that you list anything good about something whatsoever. So if people have their own preconceived notions of what is expected of in a review, this doesn't change that IT IS A REVIEW.

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

Edit: This time, I won't directly contradict your reply with an edit in the previous post. I'm fairly satisfied with this one, since they keep getting simpler and simpler.

Edit2: And no, I'm not editing them after you post. It's actually before. I'd just rather do that, than double-post.

Edit3: But I guess, with my edits directly contradicting your attacks, that means I have you predicted pretty well, don't I? :P

It would be nice if you don't alter anything but small comprehension/syntax errors in posts.

[Shadowspaz]

No, it just changes what they expect of a review... And I (As well as many, many others, I can guarantee) expect a well-rounded review. And again: This is between the title and the post.

Also, you have, once again, actually QUOTED THE VERY LINE that explains what you keep claiming as a strawman. I know it was put bluntly, but I couldn't think of a better wording, and I don't really care to. It's not THAT important to me.

But hey, lets look at that disclaimer, and then keep reading. Okay, I'm not supposed to let this change my opinion... Okay... Man, there are a lot of bad things he's pointing out... I wonder if the game is really any good... I mean, he says there are good parts, but he doesn't list any... Jeez, there sure are a lot of problems he's listing...

[Shadowspaz]

You know, I guess I can see how you could read that as a strawman... I think that really comes from how blunt it sounds... Which is why I explained my wording right afterwards, but I do kiiinda see how you could see that.

I mean, it sure as hell isn't as glaring a fault that I would waste an hour trying to point it out to the guy, but sure, it's a bit ambiguous. But what's funny, is that isn't even remotely pivotal to my point, or even the message of my first post.

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

No, it just changes what they expect of a review... And I (As well as many, many others, I can guarantee) expect a well-rounded review. And again: This is between the title and the post.

Also, you have, once again, actually QUOTED THE VERY LINE that explains what you keep claiming as a strawman. I know it was put bluntly, but I couldn't think of a better wording, and I don't really care to. It's not THAT important to me.

But hey, lets look at that disclaimer, and then keep reading. Okay, I'm not supposed to let this change my opinion... Okay... Man, there are a lot of bad things he's pointing out... I wonder if the game is really any good... I mean, he says there are, but he doesn't list any... Jeez, there sure are a lot of problems he's listing...

LOL, the OP was a review. Otherwise know as giving an opinion. Whether he hates or likes the game doesn't matter. Whether it's well-rounded or not doesn't matter. He SAYS, omfg actually read the disclaimer, to go search for pros in other posts. " but with a game such as this, the positives can be found anywhere else with minimal effort." AGAIN, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS ENTIRELY NEGATIVE OF A REVIEW. If you aren't going to take the dicitonary, then ♥♥♥♥ it, you really don't give a ♥♥♥♥.

[Lewellyn]

You keep stating that people EXPECT "balance" from reviews. You never actually answered how you know that. I expect an opinion, because that's what a review is.

[Shadowspaz]

I'm not taking the dictionary definition because people rarely do. You are operating PURELY on that definition, and I am not. I have told you this, and yet, you keep arguing your point. THAT is a very nice strawman. Here:

I am not even claiming that this isn't a review.

But I told you what definition I'm using. I've detailed it many times. I have told you I am not using the dictionary definition. I told you that I am going off of expectation. I told you that, on par with other reviews, this is not what people would expect.

And yes, I keep saying 'expect,' because you can ask people. You can read GOOD REVIEWS, and they are all balanced. They mention everything. It should be clear that this is MY expectation already, but Mumboejumboh has already said that it was his as well. But seriously. Ask around. Read some really well-detailed reviews.

I could turn the question back on you just as easily: How do YOU know what people expect? But I won't, because, despite explaining it many times, you are still not seeing (or even acknowledging) where I'm coming from. I have told you so many things, so many times, and you just keep charging ahead with what you THINK I'm talking about.

Now, I AM coming up on 42 hours awake, I've had a lot of caffeine, and I'm in a fantastically delirous state, but this is seriously starting to bore me. Either up your game, or keep spinning your wheels so I can comfortably close this window.

[X01JP]

(Cant_sleep_someones_wrong_on_the_internet.jpg)

[Shadowspaz]

Hahaha, no, I'm just dealing with some problematic situations with my code, and looking for something to occupy my mind for a bit. :P

Which is also, actually, why I've been awake for so long....

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

I'm not taking the dictionary definition because people rarely do. You are operating PURELY on that definition, and I am not. I have told you this, and yet, you keep arguing your point. THAT is a very nice strawman. Here:

I am not even claiming that this isn't a review.

But I told you what definition I'm using. I've detailed it many times. I have told you I am not using the dictionary definition. I told you that I am going off of expectation. I told you that, on par with other reviews, this is not what people would expect.

And yes, I keep saying 'expect,' because you can ask people. You can read GOOD REVIEWS, and they are all balanced. They mention everything. It should be clear that this is MY expectation already, but Mumboejumboh has already said that it was his as well. But seriously. Ask around. Read some really well-detailed reviews.

I could turn the question back on you just as easily: How do YOU know what people expect? But I won't, because, despite explaining it many times, you are still not seeing (or even acknowledging) where I'm coming from. I have told you so many things, so many times, and you just keep charging ahead with what you THINK I'm talking about.

Now, I AM coming up on 42 hours awake, I've had a lot of caffeine, and I'm in a fantastically delirous state, but this is seriously starting to bore me. Either up your game, or keep spinning your wheels so I can comfortably close this window.

Oh, wow, well i guess you concede defeat. I am operating on the definition that makes sense, yours is biased because you want a definition that means "fair and balanced". And since you seem determined to throw out what most people consider as the appropriate definition, you have lost any momentum in this w/e it is. Unsubscribing. Bye.

[Shadowspaz]

Weird. Thought I was going by what most people regard as informative reviews... Odd. I THOUGHT I said that... Oh well. I already conceded, I guess. But I AM still subscribed, soo... Man, your logic is HARD. :P

But winning/losing means this was an argument, and my post that prompted all of this was simply an articulation of Mumboejumboh's point. I'm sorry this turned into a competition for you. And I'm sorry it because such a massive problem for you, as well. I hope you get well soon, and I sincerely hope you did unsubscribe, because coming back to misinterpret, and then start things with strangers, can't be good for your mental health.

Recover quickly! <3

[Zandur Goose]

This game dissapointed me as well...I would put the original Bioshock on the top and Infinite at the way bottom in the franchise. Bioshock 2 is pretty good, but not as great as the original one. But, don't forget about System Shock 2.

[Lewellyn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shadowspaz:

Weird. Thought I was going by what most people regard as informative reviews... Odd. I THOUGHT I said that... Oh well. I already conceded, I guess. But I AM still subscribed, soo... Man, your logic is HARD. :P

This is my final post (maybe). I have come back to see that I misinterpreted some of the original posts.

The point where we differ is just the difference between positive and normative analysis. You say that a review or rather a helpful review should be balanced and objective, while I try to say that a review, no matter the expectations from readers, is just an opinion whether it's biased or unbiased.

Some of my points still stand, like how strawmen were used to argue against the OP, but really everything from me after the first few posts was nothing but constant babble and regurgitation of stupid things that had nothing to do with this difference in analyses. Positive and normative... ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥...