Bioshock Infinite

Retr0gamer

It's sounding more and more like the only way to play this game. Really can't wait now.

tok9

Actually that always was something way too easy about the Bioshock games. That you could kill someone and not care because it basically re spawns you.

This game is sounding awesome. Sounds like an FPS Dark Souls in difficulty. Great news

Burning Eclipse

tok9 wrote: »

Actually that always was something way too easy about the Bioshock games. That you could kill someone and not care because it basically re spawns you.

I played through Bioshock 2 once, on hard difficulty and with the Vita Chambers off. It was a great experience, because it meant I had to legitimately kill everything, and not wear them down through a war of attrition. I also got almost all the achievements (like completing a harvest without the little sister taking damage), really felt like a challenge at times!

WolfForager

Heh, "Average Gamers". Kotaku keeping up the stellar reporting as usual.

hooradiation

WolfForager wrote: »

Heh, "Average Gamers". Kotaku keeping up the stellar reporting as usual.

to be fair the "average gamer" bit is taken from Levine himself, but he is busy pandering to the kind of dickholes who would call themselves "hardcore gamers" so.....

Retr0gamer

It's nothing about hardcore gamers, anyone that calls themselves that is guaranteed to be a, ahem, 'dickhole'. It's just Levine responding to criticism of Bioshock and responding well I think. It's nothing to do with making the game extremely hard so that 'casuals' can't play it. It's more that people miss the choice and challenge that old RPG FPS hybrid games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex had and was sorely missing from the otherwise excellent Bioshock. I'm glad he's putting it into it and it will be great if it takes off and shows other developers not to be afraid to introduce a little challenge and consequence into their games, the kind that makes RPGs and games with RPG mechanics actually interesting.

Kiith

hooradiation wrote: »

he is busy pandering to the kind of dickholes who would call themselves "hardcore gamers" so.....

That's bull****. He's not pandering to anyone. He's given people the choice to add some extra difficulty in the game, if they want it. The features he's talking about were great in some older games in the genre, and did add to the experience. And if people have asked for them again, why should it be a problem if he gives us option to use them?

Why does wanting a greater challenge mean you're a 'hardcore gamer dickhole'?

ShadowHearth

so wanting a game to give you a challenge, then make you think and be more carefull with your choices turns you in to "hardcore gamer dickhole". :rolleyes:


bring it on! 1999 mode! dickholes are waiting for you!

hooradiation

Kiith wrote: »

That's bull****. He's not pandering to anyone.

What in the name of allmighty fuck do you think the purpose of an interview for an upcoming game is?

Kiith wrote: »

He's given people the choice to add some extra difficulty in the game, if they want it. The features he's talking about were great in some older games in the genre, and did add to the experience. And if people have asked for them again, why should it be a problem if he gives us option to use them?

Why does wanting a greater challenge mean you're a 'hardcore gamer dickhole'?

Well done, you're two for two on monumentally failing to understand everything that's being said. Good job.

Anyone who classifies themselves as a hardcore gamer is a complete fucking tool, and Levine is directly pandering to these tools by spending an entire interview talking about how this is for the "hardcore" and "average" gamers need not apply. What, exactly, is the fucking point of making that distinction anyway?

I'm pretty fucking sick of this bullshit distinction and the cretins it panders to.

I'd comment on ShadowHearth making the exact same stupid mistake you did but I cannot honestly be fucked with two of you getting all butthurt at the idea that nerds being upset that their hobby has a wider auidence and cultivating a "hardcore" image is nothing but horrible.

ShadowHearth

hooradiation wrote: »

What in the name of allmighty fuck do you think the purpose of an interview for an upcoming game is?




Well done, you're two for two on monumentally failing to understand everything that's being said. Good job.

Anyone who classifies themselves as a hardcore gamer is a complete fucking tool, and Levine is directly pandering to these tools by spending an entire interview talking about how this is for the "hardcore" and "average" gamers need not apply. What, exactly, is the fucking point of making that distinction anyway?

I'm pretty fucking sick of this bullshit distinction and the cretins it panders to.

I'd comment on ShadowHearth making the exact same stupid mistake you did but I cannot honestly be fucked with two of you getting all butthurt at the idea that nerds being upset that their hobby has a wider auidence and cultivating a "hardcore" image is nothing but horrible.

Kiith

hooradiation wrote: »

What in the name of allmighty fuck do you think the purpose of an interview for an upcoming game is?

I know perfectly well what a game interview is for, but to say its pandering is an increadibly negative way of describing it.

hooradiation wrote:

I'd comment on ShadowHearth making the exact same stupid mistake you did but I cannot honestly be fucked with two of you getting all butthurt at the idea that nerds being upset that their hobby has a wider auidence and cultivating a "hardcore" image is nothing but horrible.

What the hell are you talking about? Where have i ever said, or even suggested, that i'm upset that gaming has a wider audience? And how exactly am i cultivating the harcore image?

I couldn't be happier that gaming has grown so much in the last few years. It's brilliant to see it getting the attention it deserves. I am however allowed to not like certain things that are changing in games, regardless of how popular they are. I'm excited that there are some features from System Shock 2 in Bioshock Infinite, becuase System Shock 2 was better than Bioshock, and one of the best games i've ever played. Doesn't make me a nerd, or hardcore, or butthurt etc...

Socialist_Pig

hooradiation wrote: »

What in the name of allmighty fuck do you think the purpose of an interview for an upcoming game is?




Well done, you're two for two on monumentally failing to understand everything that's being said. Good job.

Anyone who classifies themselves as a hardcore gamer is a complete fucking tool, and Levine is directly pandering to these tools by spending an entire interview talking about how this is for the "hardcore" and "average" gamers need not apply. What, exactly, is the fucking point of making that distinction anyway?

I'm pretty fucking sick of this bullshit distinction and the cretins it panders to.

I'd comment on ShadowHearth making the exact same stupid mistake you did but I cannot honestly be fucked with two of you getting all butthurt at the idea that nerds being upset that their hobby has a wider auidence and cultivating a "hardcore" image is nothing but horrible.

fukking hell who spat in your soup.Lol:DIts a game mode ffs,get over yerself!

BlitzKrieg

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I ****ing love venture brothers

Burning Eclipse

hooradiation wrote: »

to be fair the "average gamer" bit is taken from Levine himself, but he is busy pandering to the kind of dickholes who would call themselves "hardcore gamers" so.....

Is your issue with the fact that he has decided to include this option in the game, or the fact that he did an interview on it?

hooradiation

ShadowHearth wrote: »

*an image macro*

I am beside myself at the spectacular breadth of your consistent failure.

Kiith wrote: »

I know perfectly well what a game interview is for, but to say its pandering is an increadibly negative way of describing it.

Or incredibly accurate.

Let me put it this way, if it were an interview from another company about, say, trying to make a game more streamlined, thread would be blotted out by the heaving circle-jerk of people complaining about how this is the worst thing ever and how appealing, pandering if you will, to these casuals is terrible and obvious and HOW VERY DARE THEY.

But an obnoxious interview full of this "hard-core"/"average" dichotomy bullshit and suddenly it's being "increadibly negative" to point out the whole thing is pandering to a subset of nerds with a persecution complex?
Is that what you're getting at here?

Kiith wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? Where have i ever said, or even suggested, that i'm upset that gaming has a wider audience? And how exactly am i cultivating the harcore image?

I couldn't be happier that gaming has grown so much in the last few years. It's brilliant to see it getting the attention it deserves. I am however allowed to not like certain things that are changing in games, regardless of how popular they are. I'm excited that there are some features from System Shock 2 in Bioshock Infinite, becuase System Shock 2 was better than Bioshock, and one of the best games i've ever played. Doesn't make me a nerd, or hardcore, or butthurt etc...

Sweet taintchaffing fuck, I am amazed at how reading comprehension goes right out the fucking window around here on such a regular basis. Nothing but broken glass and people telling me that things I never said are so very wrong.

Ok, let me make this easy on you.
If you think gaming has grown up, then what place in this grown up gaming world does the arbitrary distinction between "hardcore" and "people who just play games" have?

Could it be that it's a false dichotomy created by inept manchildren to deal with the change of gaming from a socially unacceptable to acceptable hobby?
And if so, why in the name of jegus are we giving this persecution fantasy the time of day?
If gaming has grown up so much why are we tolerating such juvenile nonsense?

Instead of getting impotently indignant at a question I didn't ask, turn your fucking attention to one I have asked - What, exactly, is the fucking point of making the distinction between "Hardcore" and "average" anyway?

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

Is your issue with the fact that he has decided to include this option in the game, or the fact that he did an interview on it?

If I didn't know any better I'd be considering that you've all learned how to operate as a pack and are trying to give me a goddamn aneurysm by faking that you could all be outfoxed by simple utensils.

Mr E

Closing this for now to prevent further derailment.
Busy now, so I'll open again later when I get a chance to review.

Retr0gamer

I think it's more the way you conduct yourself here and the language you use. It doesn't exactly endear yourself to anyone.There's no conspiracy here. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when you are so aggressive. So will you please just cool it with the agressive attitude and language. I'm not against you voicing your opinion but can you please do so in a more civil manner because there's an awful lot of people reporting your posts. You're skating on thin ice.

As for people getting excited about a developer catering for an audience that wants a deeper experience, why can't they say they are pleased or displeased when a developer caters to a wider audience. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to discuss it.

As far as I'm concerned and going by my own personal tastes I really dread when a developer says they are going for a wider audience. It's not always bad but sometimes you end up with really dumbed down products like the last splinter cell which ends up appealing to even less people. There's a difference between dumbing down and simplifying while still maintaining depth that developers need to learn. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of the latter. Even though in some cases it went a little too far overall it was successful in taking the depth of the original but making the process of accessing all the options available to the player a whole lot easier.

The last few years I've been playing games I've felt all the big games really have been lacking depth to their combat and systems and it's nice to see some developers address this. With the success of the wonderful Deus Ex HR and now Bioshock Infinite I hope that this will show developers not to be afraid to give the player options and depth to gameplay systems and even limit their options forcing the player to make the correct decisions. If it's done right you won't screw over the player but most developers are just too lazy to balance their gameplay systems and therefore just make their games cakewalks. Just look at Uncharted 3 for an example were in a few sections (and only a few but they standout) some really awful level design and enemy placement that really screws over the player is washed over by the fact that the game has recharging health and plentiful checkpoints.

Mr E

Well said, Retr0. Thread reopened.

Keep it civil ... by being aggressive, you're just going to rub people up the wrong way.

Sabre0001

I'm intrigued by the 1999 mode. I like the classic days of worrying about health, collecting medkits and so on rather than absorbing bullets / getting killed but have done damage to enemy. Going to make me much more cautious around Big Daddys!

Honestly though I'm just looking forward to another Bioshock!

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think it's more the way you conduct yourself here and the language you use.

I guess my scandalous language must make it hard for these people to read, which would explain why after three posts laying out what my problem was people seem to be intent on complaining about what they thought they read.

Duly noted, I will try my damnedest to avoid clouding my unambiguous statements with such fiery vernacular. It confuses people. Can't be having that.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's no conspiracy here. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when you are so aggressive. So will you please just cool it with the agressive attitude and language.

A conspiracy? Please, I make it a point never to attribute things to malice which have more adequate explanations.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not against you voicing your opinion but can you please do so in a more civil manner because there's an awful lot of people reporting your posts.

I did not realise that the enormity of my vocabulary was causing so much consternation those with more delicate dispositions. How terrible for them.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for people getting excited about a developer catering for an audience that wants a deeper experience, why can't they say they are pleased or displeased when a developer caters to a wider audience. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to discuss it.

As far as I'm concerned and going by my own personal tastes I really dread when a developer says they are going for a wider audience. It's not always bad but sometimes you end up with really dumbed down products like the last splinter cell which ends up appealing to even less people. There's a difference between dumbing down and simplifying while still maintaining depth that developers need to learn. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of the latter. Even though in some cases it went a little too far overall it was successful in taking the depth of the original but making the process of accessing all the options available to the player a whole lot easier.

The last few years I've been playing games I've felt all the big games really have been lacking depth to their combat and systems and it's nice to see some developers address this. With the success of the wonderful Deus Ex HR and now Bioshock Infinite I hope that this will show developers not to be afraid to give the player options and depth to gameplay systems and even limit their options forcing the player to make the correct decisions. If it's done right you won't screw over the player but most developers are just too lazy to balance their gameplay systems and therefore just make their games cakewalks. Just look at Uncharted 3 for an example were in a few sections (and only a few but they standout) some really awful level design and enemy placement that really screws over the player is washed over by the fact that the game has recharging health and plentiful checkpoints.

I would answer this in more detail, but when you decided that "developers are just too lazy" was a reasonable thing to say then I realised that there is little point in arguing with someone who attributes games not matching your specific wants and desires as some kind of laziness on the part of the developer.

ShadowHearth

hooradiation wrote: »

I guess my scandalous language must make it hard for these people to read, which would explain why after three posts laying out what my problem was people seem to be intent on complaining about what they thought they read.

Duly noted, I will try my damnedest to avoid clouding my unambiguous statements with such fiery vernacular. It confuses people. Can't be having that.



A conspiracy? Please, I make it a point never to attribute things to malice which have more adequate explanations.



I did not realise that the enormity of my vocabulary was causing so much consternation those with more delicate dispositions. How terrible for them.




I would answer this in more detail, but when you decided that "developers are just too lazy" was a reasonable thing to say then I realised that there is little point in arguing with someone who attributes games not matching your specific wants and desires as some kind of laziness on the part of the developer.

using smart words, does not make you intellegent.

cloud493

So anyway, bioshock. Brilliant game, I've just finished the first, going for the second now. This looks brilliant, can't wait

Myrddin

cloud493 wrote: »

So anyway, bioshock. Brilliant game, I've just finished the first, going for the second now. This looks brilliant, can't wait

I finished the first & loved it. The second though, just wasn't a big enough departure & felt like a giant DLC pack or something. I got bored about 1/3rd in & left it

hooradiation

ShadowHearth wrote: »

using smart words, does not make you intellegent.

Understanding them does.

ShadowHearth

well bioshock 1 > bioshock 2, but that does not mean bioshock 2 is a bad game.

i was dissapointed to play a tin foil big daddy as i play on hard modes all the time .

i did not liked idea of playing big daddy in the first place, but the game itself is still very good.


i still remember those "statues" in water of bioshock 1... almost every single "scray/mind ****" thing in bioshock 1 got me.

ShadowHearth

hooradiation wrote: »

Understanding them does.

using smart words, does not make you intellegent. :rolleyes:

Myrddin

ShadowHearth wrote: »

well bioshock 1 > bioshock 2, but that does not mean bioshock 2 is a bad game.

i was dissapointed to play a tin foil big daddy as i play on hard modes all the time .

i did not liked idea of playing big daddy in the first place, but the game itself is still very good.


i still remember those "statues" in water of bioshock 1... almost every single "scray/mind ****" thing in bioshock 1 got me.

No at all, Bioshock 2 is a pretty damned good game. It just wasn't 'different' enough & I got a serious bout of repetition while going through it.

ShadowHearth

EnterNow wrote: »

No at all, Bioshock 2 is a pretty damned good game. It just wasn't 'different' enough & I got a serious bout of repetition while going through it.

i have to admit:

defend girl while she harvest " nectar" was really stomping on my tits on the second half of the game...

it was fun as a little tower defence type distraction, but later, i just started ignoring the girls or it was a chore and to do list...

Retr0gamer

Heard the DLC campaign for Bioshock 2 was well worth playing. I must pick it up soon, just a pity it's not on PC.

ShadowHearth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Heard the DLC campaign for Bioshock 2 was well worth playing. I must pick it up soon, just a pity it's not on PC.

+1


i heard it was savage too.

same problem as yours.