I wasn't talking about the first game though. Nor the second one. And if you want to argue that Bioshock Infinite wasn't linear, go ahead. I know it's subjective, but on a scale from "completely linear to open world", I'd say Infinite resides somewhere around the letter "c". Infinite is an excessively linear game with only one path to your objective most of the time, and even where the path seems to diverge, it will very soon join back together with no real consequence.
Last edited by Starker; 13th Apr 2015 at 01:35.
Praxis points are abundant even if you're just exploring a bit and doing side quests. You don't have to play like an XP whore to finish the game with unused praxis even after acquiring all the good augs for combat, stealth, and hacking. That is different from Deus Ex, where the augmentation and skill choices really mattered and you couldn't be good at everything.
I loved SS2 and have played it at least a dozen times. But despite the similar game systems and elements carried over from SS2, Bioshock didn't play anything like it. I enjoyed the unique setting and visuals for the first few levels, but I did not enjoy the arcade shooter gameplay, and aside from a clever plot twist the story was uninteresting. It turned into a chore to finish and left me with no appetite for sequels. Since I don't have a lot of free time for gaming anymore, I would rather play something I'm reasonably confident I will enjoy. At the moment, I'm thinking of STALKER: CoP (which I still haven't played) or Black Mesa. Although the Mankind Divided announcement has me tempted for another Deus Ex round instead.So you haven't played any of those games? Without experience then your opinion on those games is entirely lacking credibility. Bioshock 2 for instance follows the same mould as Bioshock 1, i.e. streamlined System Shock 2. Infinite follows a more rigid narrative, but the freedom of playstyle and character building trademarks of a Shock are all there. (Thief 4 I can't adequately comment on in the slightest since I haven't played it past the first 10 minutes. Which is what you should be doing!)
Anyway as others have pointed out, you were misreading what was written.
ALL of the Shock games and ALL of Deus Ex games have "set-pieces". Unclench you anus and get over your hang-ups, you're missing out on great games like Bioshock 2. Infinite is worth playing just for the well written characters alone IMO.
Don't forget though, the narrative surrounding the augmentations was different in DX than it was in HR. J.C. was a clean slate and had to carefully choose what augmentations to install. Adam already has them installed, they're just disabled to avoid overloading his somethingorother as a consequence of his physical trauma prior to being aug'd (or something like that) Jensen got top of the line everything. He's supposed to be tricked out in every way. Maybe in manky divided that will change, if he wants to upgrade to something new or different, he's going to have to have some choices to make.
I'm pretty big on making sure gameplay makes sense within the narrative framework, and not (as I've already mentioned) Gimping JC with the inability to shoot a shizfecking rifle. b/c "gaemplai yo"
having said that. There's nothing wrong with a compromise, just make it make sense. If we're evolved enough as gamers to hate invisible walls, we should hate bullshit like that too.
The biggest turn off for me with Bioshock was the caricature style of it. It had so many elements in place to feel creepy, but instead just felt like a parody of itself.
I started playing the second one and gave up as I just couldn't get into it. I think it's all of the super-hackneyed cod-prohibition era idiom shoe-horned in too, makes it feel like an amateur dramatics troupe wrote the dialogue.
In theory I'd like Bioshock's aesthetic; I think that more games should go for idiosyncratic looks, and the expressionistic style suited Bioshock. However, since the game was basically a shooter and the grotesques you faced were only ever enemies to shoot and kill, the effect didn't work all that well for me. If the game had been more along the lines of Deus Ex or Bloodlines and there'd been other ways of interacting with the Rapturites than killing them, it might've been different. Ideally the inhabitants of Rapture should have been both fearful and pitiable, and at least for me they were neither.
Human Revolution disguised the skill improvements as augs, which fits the narrative better than stats. I didn't mind combining augs and skills together into one upgrade system. But the idea that Jensen is fully outfitted with all the augs but can't use them is a bit far fetched as well, especially when you consider that augs can be unlocked by gathering XP bonuses.
The traditional FPS approach is just to make the guns bigger and the enemies badder as the game progresses, which requires less narrative justification, but is less fun to play that a FPS/RPG in my opinion.
System Shock 2 managed a very subtle campy creepy thing with the vending machine voices and C3PO suicide droids without going OTT. In those small doses, it actually added to the game's overall sense of dread. With Bioshock it was like complimenting someone's tiramisu with something like "I liked the grated chocolate on the top" and then next time you're invited to theirs for afternoon tea and possibly badminton, they slide over a giant block of chocolate with the word TIRAMISU carved into it.
Yeah, System Shock 2 vending machines sounded like something corporate marketing would come up with, while Bioshock came over more as an attempt at "I'd buy that for a dollar" type of parody.
SS2 Value Rep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HqHNOxhRmo
BS Circus of Values: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71UmEQVap7w
OK, I'm officially excited. I guess it's not surprising that they're keeping HR's relentless fixation on augmentation above all other aspects of the DX story, but the 'aug apartheid' idea sounds interesting, and I'm interested to see how they'll make it fit with the original.
I'm guessing they won't be outsourcing the boss fights this time around. I always thought that was kind of a weak excuse the last time around - as if EM had no clue whatsoever what this third party developer was coming up with for their game.
I'm still wondering why they feel the need for boss fights. Not just Eidos Montreal but the whole industry. When was the last time you played a game where a traditional boss fight was a highlight of the game?
Souls series, probably?... I don't think DX needs boss fights, but I'm not against encounters pitting you against powerful NPCs. It just doesn't have to be a traditional arena fight.
Agreed. I would like to see difficult and climactic situations which can involve key NPCs, but spare me the one-on-one staged battles against giant enemies in closed, arena like levels with stashes of loot everywhere. Making them bypassable is OK but I'd rather make them interesting and fun.
Well the original Deus Ex had boss fights.
Yes, but they were designed in a pretty non-obnoxious way. You could run away from a lot of them, or kill them earlier in the game, or pull the old 'throw a grenade right before they start talking' trick, etc. The only one where I remember you being locked in a space and forced to fight someone was Anna. And even that didn't really feel like an arena space, since it was an area you'd already spent lots of time in. Actual arena fights are against the spirit of DX to me.
Yeah, but I wasn't commenting on the execution, just the idea that boss fights aren't in the spirit of the games.
If you want to define "boss fight" as any opportunity for combat with a stronger than average NPC, then yeah it had them.
So Anna Navarre, Gunther Hermann and Walton Simons didn't exist? Well, there was Richard Strong too, but all he did was throw grenades occasionally.
You mean Howard Strong?
And the series with the best boss fights EVAR would be Ys.
There's some in-engine stuff here, and at one point Jensen gets so sad by all the killing that he activates his robo-shades so noone can see him cry! BOO HOO