Is Bioshock Infinite worth getting if I know the ending?

I watched a full LP of it a few months back and enjoyed it, but now it’s for sale on Steam for $9.99. Still worth getting?

For 10 bucks, it’s an OK shooter with some incredibly inventive environments. I was actually rather disappointed with the gameplay and felt it’s a poor knockoff of Bioshock, or even System Shock 2. It’s not bad at all, but it definitely could have been better. That said, it’s a lot of fun to mess around with during the game’s better moments, and exploring the gameworld is a blast.

Actually, the funny thing is that the shooter aspect of the game is mediocre. It’s kinda like they felt the game just “had” to have shooting in it, and they stripped out any remaining complexity, but wanted to really focus on the cool world-building. That they then had no use for.

Still, it’s a lot of fun once and there’s scenery like you wouldn’t believe. Frankly, the game’s twists are pretty bad and rather tedious distractions. But the overall adventure is a lot of fun.

I’m pretty crappy at shooters and play games for the plot, usually. Would it be something I can enjoy?

shrug I thought the plot was rather good, and as bandit said it is a pretty game. From what I’ve seen the shooting was a secondary issue.

Sure. It’s not actually a bad plot, just rather melodramatic and hinging too much on BIG EPIC TWISTS. It probably did not help my personal experience that I figured out said twists in about an hour of play.

Maybe I’ll snag the Bioshock multipack on Amazon or something, or wait for the next time to come around. Thanks for the opinions.

I think people get a little too hung up on the EPIC PLOT TWISTS and judge the game based almost entirely on their perception of that one event. I thought it was a fairly entertaining shooter in an interesting and aesthetically pleasing environment. The little plot drops throughout the game did a good job of telling the overall tale of the world, the song covers were fun and it was a bit of a revolutionary delight to have the game be one long escort mission where your escort was capable, helpful and not cocking up the entire game. Seriously, just the fact that they felt it necessary to tell you “Don’t worry about protecting Elizabeth, she ain’t gonna die, just play the game” should give a good clue about how escort missions usually go down.

So, while most discussions of the game get hung up on five minutes of it, I think it plays well as a whole regardless. It’s not perfect, there’s better shooters, etc but I’d say it’s worth the ten bucks.

It’s a fairly unimaginative shooter with an interesting plot and pretty good characters. If you’ve already got the plot and characters from watching a video, there’s not much point to playing the game.

It is also extremely easy. It is targeted toward more casual gamers. The hardest mode you unlock is even significantly backed off in difficulty from what it was promised. So, no need to be particularly good at shooters.

The real fun seems to be in knowing you are going to roll through, so you try to combine effects of powers in interesting ways.

I myself am not an FPS kind of player, so if I get one cheap, I like to blow through it on Easy. I tried this with Bioshock Infinite and had to crank it back up to Normal. I mean, I suck, but I don’t su-uck. I don’t regret the money I paid for it on sale ($14.99 with Bioshock 1 and 2 included). I am a bit surprised at the chatter in which people seem to have been mind-blown by the ending. Aside from a twist which I did not anticipate, its not all that wild as such if you’re accustomed to science fiction. But its a beautiful world and an interesting story with some running and jumping and shooting things.

Worth ten dollars, absolutely. But if you got the story anyway, I couldn’t tell you whether or not the FPS game is all that great, because I’m not a great judge of them. But I didn’t find the bio powers at all interesting. I kind of liked the Possession, but I was horrified at the implications of the fact that people kill themselves when they come to their senses. Otherwise, mostly I used the sniper rifle where I could and switched to shotgun when people got close. That worked so unfailingly well that the rest seemed kind of a distraction. Okay, I did really like the Ram power that basically flew you across the battlefield to punch an enemy, like the Biotic Charge that I always liked so much in Mass Effect 3.

Right after Bioshock Infinite, I started playing Borderlands, which I found a lot more fun with its much firmer grounding in RPG mechanics. Although I still relied on a small number of cheap tricks, which is my style in FPS gaming, it still seemed strategically more intense than Bioshock Infinite when viewed so close together.

I keep hearing people saying it is “meh” as a shooter. If this is only so-so what are examples of an imaginative shooter?

Here are a handful of my favorites: Half-Life 2, Bioshock, Clive Barker’s Undying, Crysis, Deus Ex, EYE Divine Cybermancy, Far Cry 3, No One Lives Forever 2, Painkiller, Rise of the Triad, STALKER, Time Shift.

Each one adds something interesting to the gameplay and work better as shooters.

Ok…how? What is different? A shooter entails putting the “X” on the mark and pulling the trigger (i.e. clicking the mouse).

Some gimmicks like bullet-time are fun but most are gimmicks.

Put another way why is Bioshock shooting “bad” or “poorly done”?

No One Lives Forever! Oh how I WISH someone would update the graphics and engine. I wouldn’t even need them to make it a sequel - just remake it in a new engine. I wonder what it would take for Gearbox to make that.

I thought the skyrails more than qualified Bioshock: Infinite as adding something new to the gameplay. The salts and vigors have been done before, but they gave you an interesting variety to work with, and it was fun seeing how they worked in combos.

I’m frankly surprised at the “meh” the game is getting here. You did not see much “meh” anywhere upon it’s release, and for the following couple of months. People loved it. It’s not the greatest shooter, but it’s a damn fine game. As I was playing it, I found myself reminded of the Half-Life series.

I think the game is quite playable for people who aren’t into shooters, on whatever they call the easy setting in-game.

This is a good description of my feelings on it as well. Oh, and let me throw in The Last Of Us as part of this same description. Everyone raved about it as being this great game. No, what it is, is a pretty good story with better than average game graphics. When I finally played it, I was underwhelmed with the game play to say the least. On hindsight I would have enjoyed it more if I just played it on the easiest mode possible so the game play didn’t interfere with a someone interesting graphical story.

I think the Zero Punctuation reviews do a good job at looking at these games as well as being hilarious. I usually watch one before buying a game.
Bioshock Infinite
Last of Us

The game overall isn’t poorly done, nor did I say it was. I do say, however, that it wasn’t a very good shooter - that is, it’s not actually a terribly great game. Frankly, they could have ditched the shooting and made it a puzzle/adventure game in the sky-city and I’d have had a lot more fun.

One thing each and every one of the games I listed did was to unite the game mechanism with the story to create a superior whole. Time Shift, for example, is an underrated shooter that allows you to use a variety of time-shifting mechanics to approach events and situations in different ways. It features innovative weaponry and the plot, while a bit thin, does the job. It also ends in a twist I didn’t see coming even though they clearly implied what would happen. Far Cry 3 has its weak points, but does a really good job of pulling together the jungle/survival gameplay and integrating it with combat against heavily armed mercenaries (i.e., the classic shooter element). The story meanders a bit but features delightfully warped ideas, while being a blast to play.

Bioshock Infinite has a few strikes against it in that department. First, while it’s a sequel, it’s not a better game than Bioshock, or even System Shock 2. It has really pretty graphics, but cut out almost everything else. The shooting is vastly simplified, the cover mechanics are tedious and stale, exploration is much more limited and less rewarding, and the game lacks any of the complexities or hard decisions of pervious titles. If one compares it to a generic modern shooter it looks pretty good, but that’s rather like saying a glass of slightly dirty, brackish water looks good to a man in the Sahara. The last couple of times, the glass was brim full of cold, clear water. It’s nice that this time there’s a sprig of mint (i.e., Elizabeth), but on the whole I think I came out less on the deal.

I would also refer you to Errant signal ( at http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=500 because my browser is acting up and not wanting to insert the link), which is a pretty good evaluation of the weaknesses of the game.

Some of the basic factors that distinguish a really good shooter, off the top of my head:
[ul]
Variety of enemies.

[li]Variety of weapons.[/li]
[li]Enemy AI - do the bad guys try to flank me or seek cover, or do they just run at me head-on, screaming?[/li]
[li]Player tactics - do I need to think about my battle plan, or can I get through most fights by circle strafing?[/li]
[li]Interesting environments - as distinct from the setting. Do the fights take place in rooms with interesting lay outs? Do they make use of different elevations? Does it distinguish between hard and soft cover? Can the player interact with the environment in a way that’s significant to the combat?[/li]
[li]General pacing and enemy placement - is there a mix of high action and exploration, and is that mix appropriate to the setting? Does the game give you a mix of different enemies at the same time, and does the combination of different enemy abilities require different strategies?[/li][/ul]

I’m not saying that Infinite necessarily failed at these elements - it’s been a while since I played the game, so I’m reluctant to try to cite specific problems with it without reviewing it again. And lots of games can miss on one or two elements and still be great: WWII shooters in general are, by their nature, somewhat gimped on “variety of enemies.” The setting dictates that you’re mostly shooting at Germans in different hats. And while there’s usually a lot of different guns, they’re pretty much all variants on “shoots bullets.” You generally don’t get a ice ray for the Normandy landings. But there are still a lot of really good WWII shooters out there. But there’s a lot more to an FPS than, “put the X on the target and click the mouse.”