Games nowadays seem to be given high scores and ratings based on it's story, art direction and narrative, which I think goes against the whole point of "video games".
I used a combination of upgraded Undertow and Shock Jockey to grab and kill three enemies at a time.
Any enemies that didn't die from the two hit combo gets finished off with a shotgun to the face.
This is what I used for the final battle.
But yeah, maybe they wanted to put the player in a disadvantage situation? (I mean, if you have seen the ending, you know how "mean" they can be )
But games not really like quick save all the time. But it's true, they should also give ratings on other things like also how a PLAYER likes the game WHOLE.
AND I LOVE THIS *A* the style is so lovely ^^
And I agree with your comments. IMO 'Infinite' looked fantastic and it played very well, but ultimately I preferred 'BioShock' and 'BioShock 2' All the games in the series were clever, but I felt that 'Infinite' slipped into being "clever-clever." And my realising that, ultimately, my actions had virtually zero impact on the game was a bit of a downer.
Ah well. I will have try out some of the DLC for it.
Beyond that, I guess it's to add more challenge to the game. And hacking in both of the previous Bioshocks were flawed in different ways, so I don't really miss that.
Result is stocking up on health kits would make an already easy game easier.
The single ending was a little annoying, but it drummed the point that sometimes choices just don't matter. Remember all the choices in the early part of the game that had no real bearing on events, like choosing the bird or the cage in BS Bay. Also black and white moral endings would've been sh**.
Hacking = possession. It's quicker, easier and generally faster paced, which fits infinites style a lot more. Besides I never really saw the appeal of hacking bots and only did it out of necessity.
2 guns i;m neutral on as well. One hand it's a limiting factor, but on the other the only time I ever wish I could have more is when I find an RPG and don't take it due to ammo limit. Also with ammo being so much more common having more than two weapons would be overkill, whereas in the first 2 it was sometimes necessary to switch to guns you didn't like using because you'd emptied your shotgun.
Checkpoints are so common quick saving is redundant.
It's fucked up that Booker carries lock picks for Elizabeth to use while Elizabeth carries health and Salts for Booker, who would be using them.
Nothing justifies this bizarre arrangement.
Possession is a poor replacement for hacking.
In the last two games, I was gradually turning the city and its vending machines against my enemies.
Especially in the first game, I can revisit certain areas, knowing that the bots and turrets have my back.
Here, what possession can do is very limited.
I remember back when I hacked health stations to kill anyone other than me trying to use them.
Having some vending machines spit out coins isn't a good replacement.
when it comes to hacking.. that's what the possetion plasmid or vigor is for -_-
i will give you that it kinda sucks there's only one ending and you can only carry enough health to get you back up to full
but as far as only 2 guns that is sort of neutral, it has it's good points, and it's bad, but really i only use 2 guns in Bioshock anyway
In the first two Bioshock games, it felt like you're slowly turning the city against your enemies with the hacking of the cameras, the turrets and even the health stations.
After all that, Possession feels like a cheap replacement.
The player character, Booker Dewitt, is an actual character unlike Jack who never spoke or had any opinions about anything. Booker gets frustrated, he gets afraid, he thinks to himself, and it makes me (the player) actually care about what's going on. Jack on the other hand, says not a single word from the moment he enters the lighthouse, to the moment he defeats Atlas. He's in this fantastic, spooky environment, and he can't even be bothered to ask a question. I think the scene with Andrew Ryan would have been twice as dramatic if we had actually known what Jack was thinking (honestly, if you were in Jack's position, wouldn't you have something to say?)
The back story and origins of Columbia and its characters are actually made clear, unlike in the first game, where if you didn't collect every single audio recording you would be totally in the dark about what's going on. I get the gist of what Rapture was, but I didn't really see why I should care that it fell apart.
There was no needless backtracking and there were no boring errands that forced you to collect a bunch of shit. I absolutely hated having to go find cures for things and having to scrounge for clues, because every time you cleared out an area of its Splicers, you'd come back 5 minutes later and there would be more. Eventually, the Splicers that were meant to be scary, became annoying.
The characters were actually, physically in the story, not talking to you over the radio the entire time. I understand that not having characters with you is supposed to create a feeling of isolation and vulnerability, but I actually found it boring. Also, the player's goal is much clearer. Stop Columbia from attacking the surface world, and rescue Elizabeth. In Bioshock 1, Jack (like I said) has no dialogue, so we never get a sense that he has a goal. With the exception of Little Sisters, every person alive in Rapture was a prick who deserved to suffer, so for me there was no real motive to save anything. I would have been totally happy to just leave everyone (little sisters included) underwater and call it a scratch.
Also, the ending of Bioshock Infinite was great because it kept the previous game's themes of choice, but presented them in a new fashion. Bioshock was about the power of choice. Infinite was about the illusion of choice.
All in all, I think Infinite delivered a better story, which in my mind resulted in a better game play experience. In the end, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, if you're not going to do anything of substance with them. That's not to say I don't think Bioshock had substance, just that Infinite had more.
In a video game, gameplay has to come first.
I couldn't care less about "human drama" or "bittersweet ending" when the gameplay is shallow.
All those would have been nice for a movie or novel but this is a different format altogether.
That is what my comic was focusing on: shallower gameplay that pales in comparison to what the series previously offered.
A good story is only a "bonus" in a video game.
It shouldn't be the core or the focus.
In the end, what keeps me coming back isn't the "engaging story" but the gameplay.
It also doesn't help that in the end, the "human interaction" is limited by technology.
Elizabeth is at most, some sort of robotic A.I. companion, limited to a few speeches and motion capture.
She won't comment or react outside of what she was provided with.
It makes it worse that she's invincible and invisible to enemies.
It's done that way to make her less of a bother or chore to take care of but also weakens the whole illusion of her being a human companion you're set out to protect.
Its games like Half-Life that pioneered (and actually half life is probably still the best besides Portal (2)) interactive storytelling wherein gameplay and story went hand in hand to tell the story as well as possible. Portal beat Half-Life in that aspect by being a perfect game. The Portal games are the ONLY perfect games ever made.
But my point was that neither should come before the other. As cheesy as it sounds, they need to work "hand in hand".
GTA V 7/10:
PS, Bioshock 2 was a shit knockoff of the original that wasn't even made by Irrational Games.
That said, you also have to take into account the fact that 'Infinite' is set in a radically different environment than 'Bioshock', which of course means some gameplay features need to be tweaked and or removed. Also, the story does go hand in hand with gameplay because what is going on in the story dictates what is needed for gameplay. For example, the ability to hack turrets to use on enemies is pretty useless when Elizabeth can just pull one into existence for you. Obviously that's just an exhample, but I think you know what I'm getting at (hopefully)
Still, I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect game.
PS, I was told that Bioshock 2 wasn't all that great. I gave it a skip.
Shallow, linear, gimmicky and plasticky gameplay.
Narrative full of plot-hole, a disappointing climax -- when i was fighting the "final battle" it didnt even feel like anything unusual.
A setting that deals with societal relations in a cartoonish, overly-caricatured way. (hmm "what if a 19th century evangelist preacher built Rapture, except, in the sky" that's the entire brainpower sauce behind Infinite)
For a game set in the sky-city everything is just one big hallway. Shoot some stupid AI baddies, loots some desks, buy some pointless dumbed down upgrades- rinse and repeat.
Contrast that with B1 which I played 3-4 times already, everything in that game felt memorable, combat 10x more satisfying, and the sociological ideas were much more refined.
thats it in a nutshell
unless of course they were actually advocating the exact opposite ideas by disregarding all that, going for constants rather than variables, and "ultimate fate" if you will.
or perhaps the fact that the Booker has a very defined personality, so he's treated more like an independent character, rather than a self-insert for players. so we're basically playing a game about Booker's story rather than a story that's up for the player to make.
i quite like the "two weapons only" mechanic actually, rather than having all the guns at once, and thus having a gun for every situation readily on hand. it makes weapons choice much more important, and it makes players to do a bit of improvisation as to how to defeat certain enemies under less that ideal circumstances. and of course it gives Elizabeth even more use too, since she can throw you weapons as well.
i didn't say there was anything wrong with any of that, i was just presenting the possible reasons as to why they departed from their old non-linear ways. like the fact that Booker's more of an independent character than all previous protagonists (again, i didn't say there was anything wrong with that). or the idea that perhaps making the story linear was a way to make it more streamlined like the rest of the game. in short, i don't mind the game as it is.
i just think being a vastly new world and all, it would've been really interesting to see all the different possibilities and directions Columbia could go.
as it is, the story is a very personal one, since what really matters in the end is what happens to Booker and Elizabeth. Columbia as a place plays second banana, whereas previous titles were very centric on the place its set in. what mattered most was what the player wanted for Rapture. (again, nothing objectively wrong with that either)