VIDEO Bioshock Infinite

Set in the clouds instead of under the sea.

"Unlike Rapture, this wasn't a secret, underwater city constructed in silence and hidden from the world. [Columbia] was constructed in broad daylight in the 1900s America as an example of the success of the American experiment. This was like the Apollo project for the 1900s... But as the city floats around, to show the despots and the tyrants the success of our system, something terrible happens. As it turns out, this isn't just a flying World's Fair; Columbia is a Death Star. There's a terrible, terrible international incident, and it turns out Columbia is armed to the teeth." In short, things go bad, the city disappears completely into the clouds, and for a long time, no one hears from the floating fortress.

The game's story picks up in 1912, several years after those disastrous events. "You're a character this time. You're not an unknown cipher with no identity like you were in BioShock 1." You even have a name: Booker DeWitt, "a disgraced former Pinkerton agent... a man who prowls the docks when there's trouble... a man who gets things done."

Wow. When I saw the title, I dreaded an MMO. Thank God it isn't one.

 

Sky-o-Shock?

 

A day-one pick up for me, no doubt about it. Even if there's nothing new, which I'm sure there will be, the setting combined with Bioshock gameplay already has me sold.

 

This.

 

Here's hoping AeroShock doesn't have the incessant "go here, but before you can go here you have to get the key, but before you get the key you have to meet this guy, but before you can talk to this guy you have to find his dead wife, but before you can find his dead wife you have to unlock this door, but before you can do that you have to find this key, etc. etc. et-freaking-c." filler material. Absolutely ruined BioShock. Dead Space also had that problem.

 

umm... ok reynar. whatever you say. that's pretty much what ANY game boils down to if you really think about it.

OT: looks pretty freaking interesting to me. if they continue to refine the gameplay even more, i'm getting this. period.

 

It's been awhile since I played BioShock but I think you might be exaggerating just a tad here, Reynar. There were possibly a few sidequests within some of the quests and the backtracking was kept to a minimum; sometimes being purely optional if you were collecting stuff and farming achievements. Otherwise, Bioshock was a pretty lineal affair. But I'll agree with Trimaj: you always have to jump through someone's hoops in RPG's such as this, as well as many other games.

 

I apologize if I didn't exaggerate enough to the point where it was obvious that it was an exaggeration. But to me, BioShock was a game that started off and ended great, but it seemed like there was so much filler material in the middle to make the game longer that it significantly tarnished the overall package. And no, not every game is like that.

 

it got to be a bit much after ryan, but up til that point i was pretty danged satisfied with it.

 

A city in the clouds? Kind of reminds me of Cloud City from ESB.

 

Yea, when I first saw the trailer, I was hooked. Quite a bit suprised in a good way I might add.

 

so is there really no one else out there that's played this? because if so you lot should be ashamed. storywise i haven't played anything really straight out better since planescape torment. and the ending is actually a satisfying one, unlike so many other games out there now a days. definitely a worthy successor to the original bioshock.

there are a few things i didn't like about it as much, mainly mechanics things, but they did manage to make up for it with elizabeth. possibly the best companion i've ever had in a game that isn't an RPG, and definitely the most functionally useful by far.

get it, play it, love it, then come back and discuss it.

 

I was stoked and ready to play it...until some worthless muthafrakker broke into my home a couple of weeks ago and stole, among more valuable and important stuff, my 360. And my PC just isn't up to snuff, so I'm still screwed. Yeah, first world problems, I know.

So...would you kindly lend me a good chunk of cash so I can enjoy the game?

 

Played it but didn't post here.

It is not exactly as good as original Bioshock but it is a great game. Columbia wasn't Rapture but it was beautiful, Elizabeth is the best shooter companion ever, the story was great and the twist was one of the best twists in video games and better than 'would you kindly', though not as good as Kotor and Final Fantasy VII twists. The ending is possibly the best ever.

On negatives, the game wasn't challenging, upgrading weapons and other RPG elements were very minimal and you could even finished the game without doing so, Elizabeth randomly disappeared and then appeared somewhere else.

 

I have to resurrect this to say, I was genuinely twisted up inside after finishing this game. I haven't been this affected by a story since... I don't even remember. I wouldn't call is a "satisfying" ending though; you definitely get the rug pulled out from under you.

There's lots of controversy about how it diverged from the original gameplay trailers, but I, for one, am glad. As it was in the trailer, it seemed to be a restyled clone of Bioshock 1, where everybody in the city has gone insane and attacks on sight. The story it now tells makes you morally accountable, but not with a particular set of results the way Bioshock 1 did... it just assumes you're doing bad things, running around shooting people. It immediately discards the notion that you're a hero... and that's quite possibly the best justification for rampant violence in a game. It really ups the ante for the "Are videogames art?" argument.

 

Yeah, I just finished the game a few days ago....I thought the ending was extremely satisfying. Also...I never finished the first Bioshock....think I'll do that next.

 

so, anyone interested in the burial at sea DLC? i think they're doing something very, very interesting with that.

 

Interested yes, but not that much excited. Almost a year of work, they could have spend another year and bring us a new Shock series game.

 

uh... infinite hasn't been out anywhere near a year... think four or five months.

and between the games that ken levine actually had a hand in making it was closer to five years between bioshock and infinite. if not more.

 

Somewhat, especially if it explains the ending a bit more (whether anyone remembers the whole ordeal or not is what I mean). Don't care about the Clash in the Clouds DLC (heard there were a few more voxophones in that, but watched them on Youtube already and don't think any new info there, just confirmation of previously hinted or speculated stuff).

I've got to get around to playing the original Bioshock sometime (its on my to-do list), but while they haven't confirmed whether this is the same Elizabeth or not, at least they've confirmed she is aware of Infinite's events, so its not completely separate from the original game or something like that.

 

Isn't the new DLC to be launched in next March, which means that is will be launched exactly a year after Infinite?

Also, between BioShock and Infinite was BioShock 2. Surely, if they would have added another year or two they would have given us a new Shock game instead of giving us a DLC.

 

number one, from what i'm seeing is that is the latest it'll be out by, some things have said later this year. anyway, a year is not anywhere near enough to make a good shock game. especially with levine at the helm. see the following for why.


yes, there was bioshock 2, which was made by an entirely different branch of 2k and didn't have levine involved with it at all other than MAYBE as some consulting to help keep things consistent. on the game that ken levine was working on, you have about five years between them, which is why infinite is an absurd amount better than bioshock 2. because he doesn't push things out before they're ready. will it be five more years before the next ken levine shock game? no clue, but it'll almost certainly be a next gen game which would suggest there's going to be a fair amount more development time until release, were i to guess. see, that's the thing you're not getting, ken levine had nothing to do with bioshock 2. it was a cash in on the success of the first game by 2k, which is why the story is flatter by a lot and it had multiplayer shoehorned into it. compare it to either bioshock and infinite, and you'll see a pretty huge difference.

also, if they're basically recreating rapture with new art assets? yea, i could see that taking a year. especially since they're telling a new story that is looking like it's going to be significantly more indepth than you seem to be giving it credit for right now.

given ken levine's track record on length, no i don't think another year or two would have been enough to make another game. especially if it's going to be next gen.

 

Yep, you're right. Didn't know that Bioshock 2 was made by a different branch of 2k. Don't know though if they really worked 5 years at the game.

Just out of curiosity how do you compare Infinite to BioShock, and both those games to System Shock 2. While the story of Infinite was the best one IMO, I think that gameplay is superior on System Shock 2, has regressed by a big amount on BioShock and Infinite was essentially only a shooter with a very simple (and much worse) gameplay than it's two big predecessors.

 

I'm kind of stoked for Burial at Sea, but that's mainly because I want to know WTH is going on with Elizabeth. I also quite liked the fact that the moral choices ended up being meaningless; in most games, that would feel like a betrayal, but her it really worked to illustrate the game's themes.