...it's one of those times. I'm not really playing games and there aren't really any interesting games coming out. Well, there's Assasin's Creed - but I still can't believe this series is still going after the romp that was Black Flag. As much as I respect UbiSoft for writing a female protagonist, ultimately I care about gameplay and how well it services the experience. Ever since sailing the high-seas in one of the best pirate simulators I've ever played, every Assasin's Creed game since is a comedown. They might as well just stop and move onto something else.
Fallout 4 also isn't out yet, and I'm not really enthused about that because it looks exactly the same as Fallout 3. A new Elder Scrolls game would be more appropriate since there's an oppourtunity for actual expansion to the lore of this world. Fallout 4 looks just like a re-make of Fallout 3, which itself was a re-make of Fallout 1&2 and spawned Fallout: New Vegas. With the modern world decending into terrorism, perpetual warfare, and government corruption - I've honestly had it with post-apocalyptic games. Please, for god's sakes, can we talk about something that actually tried something new...even if it's a sequel to a re-make which itself spawned another sequel and AAAARRRGGHHHH.
So let's go back to a game that I've already reviewed. A game that actually fuses story with gameplay, and whilst both are slightly bloated; they service each-other perfectly. Yup; it's the love/hate sensation: BiShock Infinite.
So let's go back to a game that I've already reviewed. A game that actually fuses story with gameplay, and whilst both are slightly bloated; they service each-other perfectly. Yup; it's the love/hate sensation: BiShock Infinite.
I may actually turn 'Re-Review' into a regular thing here, because I like being able to go back to games I really like and pick them apart. Both a review and a retrospective is only really supposed to be an overview of an artwork - the difference between a review and retrospective being a difference between playing a game for the first time and returning to a game played several years ago to see if it holds up or not. A 'Re-Review' should be used for those games that I just can't stop playing after I've already talked about them, to the point where I have to add more to my initial impressions.
But this time I decided to play around with the game a bit. So I ramped the difficulty up to 'Hard' - something I've only ever done with Deus Ex, Thief 2, Half Life 2, and System Shock 2. The boss fight with Lady Comstock and the final battle was a bit tricky, but perfectly managable once I'd worked out a battle-plan. Really this wasn't any different from the majority of old-school shooters I've played; so I ramped up the difficulty even higher to '1999 Mode.' This is supposed to be a nightmarish mode remenicent of System Shock 2's infamous difficulty that makes you lose health quicker whilst all the enemies have wrapped themselves in titanium foil. Objective markers are gone, as is 'Auto-Aim,' You also lose more money when you die, and if you run out of money then you're kicked back to the Main Menu.
It...wasn't that bad. Whilst in the other difficulties I used circle-strafing tactics, flinging Vigors whilst both outrunning and outgunning my foes - here it's mostly 'jump out of cover, use a Vigor, fire a few shots, dive back into cover, wait for shield to regenerate, repeat.' Lady Comstock was an absolute pain (but she's a pain even on the easiest setting) and the final battle was a great adrenaline rush; but I was never booted to the Main Menu.
And I'm not some master. With liberal quick-saves I was able to beat Deus Ex on 'Expert,' but I couldn't do 'Impossible' on System Shock 2. You'd think it would be easy since SS2 has unlimited quick-saves, but after trying to take down a security bot about a hundred times; even a Dark Souls fan who's also a part-time Buddhist monk would ragequit. It's literally impossible.
But this time I decided to play around with the game a bit. So I ramped the difficulty up to 'Hard' - something I've only ever done with Deus Ex, Thief 2, Half Life 2, and System Shock 2. The boss fight with Lady Comstock and the final battle was a bit tricky, but perfectly managable once I'd worked out a battle-plan. Really this wasn't any different from the majority of old-school shooters I've played; so I ramped up the difficulty even higher to '1999 Mode.' This is supposed to be a nightmarish mode remenicent of System Shock 2's infamous difficulty that makes you lose health quicker whilst all the enemies have wrapped themselves in titanium foil. Objective markers are gone, as is 'Auto-Aim,' You also lose more money when you die, and if you run out of money then you're kicked back to the Main Menu.
It...wasn't that bad. Whilst in the other difficulties I used circle-strafing tactics, flinging Vigors whilst both outrunning and outgunning my foes - here it's mostly 'jump out of cover, use a Vigor, fire a few shots, dive back into cover, wait for shield to regenerate, repeat.' Lady Comstock was an absolute pain (but she's a pain even on the easiest setting) and the final battle was a great adrenaline rush; but I was never booted to the Main Menu.
And I'm not some master. With liberal quick-saves I was able to beat Deus Ex on 'Expert,' but I couldn't do 'Impossible' on System Shock 2. You'd think it would be easy since SS2 has unlimited quick-saves, but after trying to take down a security bot about a hundred times; even a Dark Souls fan who's also a part-time Buddhist monk would ragequit. It's literally impossible.
Meanwhile, BioShock Infinite is more flexible in it's approach, so if you're stuck then it's not a case of starting the game all over again because you unknowingly built your character wrong. However, it's clear the game wasn't designed for this kind of difficulty, and whilst it's interesting seeing the game being darkly twisted against the player - it doesn't really fit. Since the idea is that every single time Booker dies then he actually dies and another Booker from another dimension replaces him, it's weird that he should die this much. The plot never adresses a 'kill or be killed' atmosphere. Games such as Amnesia establish how much of a delicate flower you are, but with Booker it's clear you're a tough army veteran turned private investigator. Going on the skylines is actually a bad idea unless you have gear that takes advantage of it. It's almost funny how you jump on the skyline only to be shot down - like if Errol Flynn swung on a chandelier but the chandelier broke and he fell through a table. The gameplay is clearly designed to be a romp where you throw yourself into combat situations without worrying too much about dying, so it seems like a step back when you're forced to duck and dive out of cover.
Oddly, the first thing I'd like to praise is the sound design. The use of music is just as effective - if not more so - than in BioShock, and I like how the developers got around the fact that most music from the 1910's is unlistenable to modern audiences by introducing cover versions of later hits. The Barber Shop Quartet version of 'God Only Knows' is so good I'm dissapointed the official soundtrack of this game doesn't include it. Whilst the combat music gets repetitive, I absolutely love how every time you kill someone the soundtrack makes this jarring orchestra-sting, so it sounds as though the music is reacting to your actions. It's also very useful on the higher difficulties where, because you're staying back from the action, it's difficult to tell if you've just killed or merely wounded someone.
The gameplay itself is bloated in how the 'Repeater' is exactly the same as the Machine Gun, the 'Hail Fire' is a re-skin of the Volley Gun. Yet when I switched from the Machine Gun to the Repeater because I'd run out of ammo and the enemies stopped carrying Machine Guns then suddenly all my weapon upgrades were null and void. I'm not spending my hard-earned cash on exactly the same thing twice. This isn't an Apple Shop!
Whilst I appreciate the weapon variety, there are some weapons I never needed to use. I never got the difference between the Hand Canon and the Shotgun, and a fully-upgraded Carbine is just as effective as a Sniper rifle. The Shotgun is also ridiculously underpowered compared to the Machine Gun. I personally spent 90% of the game with a Carbine/Machine Gun combo; occasionally switching to a Volley Gun or RPG.
The more I experiment with the Vigors, however, the more I realise how refined these are. Whilst BioShock and to a lesser extent BioShock 2 had a handful of Plasmids that I never used (the Freezing Plasmid is functionally identical to the Lightning. 'Swarm' was pointless, and I didn't need 'Decoy' when I had 'Enrage') - every Vigor here serves a purpose. The first time I played through, I didn't have a use for 'Undertow' or 'Return To Sender.' That's because I was a n00b playing on Medium difficulty. Play on the harder settings however, and both these late-game Vigors become life-savers. 'Undertow' pushes enemies away, meaning that you can push even the strongest enemies off-of cliffs for an easy kill, and 'Return To Sender' blocks any and all damage for a short peorid of time - making it a 'get out of jail free' card when you're low on health and need to get back into cover. It's a shame these two Vigors are the last ones you pick up in the game, but I suppose that's the whole point. As the challenge ramps up, you're given the appropriate tools to deal with the situation.
The only thing that really breaks the game are the traps. Almost every vigor allows you to leave a trap, which adds some tactics to the combat. A good trick is to lay a trap and then lure enemies into it, because enemies seem blissfully unaware of the shards of sparking lightning sticking out of the ground. The downside though is that traps stay there forever. If you know at what points in the plot you're going to be ambushed then you can just lay a combo of fire and lightning traps. Even in 1999 mode, this can make fights incredibly easy.
Plot-wise, the racism in Columbia doesn't really make much sense. I suppose racism itself is nonsensical, but at least modern day racists like Theresa May, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and others mask their predjudice behind important sounding observations that are actually complete rubbish when you stop to think about it. Those three all claim that people from other countries will steal our wealth and reduce the standard of living when many comprehensive and trustworthy sources have proved that this isn't the case at all. It's nothing but a loss of perspective: forgetting that our first world nation is actually the one stealing wealth and the people now trying to seek a better life are by-products of our tyranny.
Perhaps that's what BioShock Infinite is going for as well, but the issue isn't really explored enough. I feel like the Vox Populi is supposed to be Comstock's excuse for supressing black and Irish rights, but there's no sense of what truly is the status-quo. It's not like how, in the real world. terrorism has resulted in a wave of anti-Islam hatred. Black and Irish Columbian's are treated like filth regardless of whether the Vox are rebelling or not. There's no suggestion that things are getting worse for the people of Shantytown - it seems as though its been all bad all the time for these poor people.
Because Columbian's seem to lack a strong motivation behind their actions, it means when we start jumping in-between parrallel dimensions the differences make even less sense. In one reality, Booker is a hero of the Vox Populi but in another he's the hero of Columbia. I can kind of see Booker being a Vox champion, since he frequently shows sympathy towards the downtrodden of Columbia, but on the other hand he ultimately just accepts that racism is a part of American life. It's understandable given the peorid this game is set in, but the game should have just hinted at a spark in Booker that could've been ignited.
As for the hero of Columbia...I don't see it. I can easily see Booker being a head of police, given his violent past and his flexible morals. With just a splash of racism, it's not hard to imagine Booker as a mid-game boss. Part of the reason why I like the section with Slate is because Slate's clearly a mirror-image of Booker. But this isn't reflected in the gameplay.
It seems that whenever the combat comes along, you transform into another character. Whilst exploring areas, you're Booker. When you enter a combat arena, you're Captain Awesome: The Greatest Hero of Them All. As I said, the Vigor's are fun but the justification for their existence is flimsy. They're supposed to have come through a tear in the fabric of reality; but that's certainly convinient! The combat doesn't really fit with either the plot or the characters. The only times the two really marry is the final fight and where you storm Finkton with the Vox. In particular, there's that wonderful moment where you destroy a zepplin and return to everyone cheering.
As for the hero of Columbia...I don't see it. I can easily see Booker being a head of police, given his violent past and his flexible morals. With just a splash of racism, it's not hard to imagine Booker as a mid-game boss. Part of the reason why I like the section with Slate is because Slate's clearly a mirror-image of Booker. But this isn't reflected in the gameplay.
It seems that whenever the combat comes along, you transform into another character. Whilst exploring areas, you're Booker. When you enter a combat arena, you're Captain Awesome: The Greatest Hero of Them All. As I said, the Vigor's are fun but the justification for their existence is flimsy. They're supposed to have come through a tear in the fabric of reality; but that's certainly convinient! The combat doesn't really fit with either the plot or the characters. The only times the two really marry is the final fight and where you storm Finkton with the Vox. In particular, there's that wonderful moment where you destroy a zepplin and return to everyone cheering.
Compare this to Captain Walker from Spec Ops: The Line. The reason why I love this game so much is because it tricks you into choosing the wrong option every single time. At the start you're faced with a group of rebels and you're given the option to chose between trying to negotiate or shooting them. Of course, this option isn't obvious. There's no 'Press Q To Talk Them Down Or E To Open Fire' text prompt. You're presented with some enemies, and you have a gun in your hand. Your playing a game, so naturally you shoot the enemies because that's how all games work, right? This mindset keeps going until you're faced with a very large group of enemies and a missile-launcher. You naturally run to the missile and fire it because, again, you're playing a game. I don't want to spoil it but I guarentee you'll feel like the worst human being on the planet after making this decision. And this decision is placed within the combat. The plot and the gameplay compliment each-other perfectly.
Speaking of Booker, I've actually come to see him as the most interesting part of this game. Elizabeth still kicks ass, but she's ultimately an aide to both the player and the story. We're not supposed to place ourselves in her shoes because she has this bizzare power that no-one truly understands. Booker meanwhile has flaws. He has character faults, but he's also a wisecracker. It's so refreshing playing a first-person shooter where your character isn't a blank slate who you can project your own personality onto. Just like in Spec Ops: The Line, you're not playing as Booker. You're merely seeing the story though his eyes, occasionally functioning as his last scraps of conscience.
Elizabeth calls Booker a 'thug' and she's completely right. He shoots first, and asks questions later. There are several times in the plot where Booker resorts to violence because that's the only solution he can think of. There's one moment where I was hammering on the controls trying to stop Booker from doing a very violent...thing. (Trying not to spoil here.) Personally: I like Booker. He's the sort of person I would like to share a drink with. But it's clear you're not supposed to identify or support him. You're just following him, seeing where his story will go.
Perhaps that's why I like this game so much. The combat is great fun, but the story wraps you in a nice warm narrative blanket. It lets you go through the game at your own pace, but you don't have the responsibility of weaving your way through a complex metagame. Why can't more shooters that claim to be escapist fun maintain this careful a balance between freedom and linearity?
I'm not sure if this is one of my favourite games, but it's certainly one of the best games of the previous console generation, and the best BioShock game.
Perhaps that's why I like this game so much. The combat is great fun, but the story wraps you in a nice warm narrative blanket. It lets you go through the game at your own pace, but you don't have the responsibility of weaving your way through a complex metagame. Why can't more shooters that claim to be escapist fun maintain this careful a balance between freedom and linearity?
I'm not sure if this is one of my favourite games, but it's certainly one of the best games of the previous console generation, and the best BioShock game.
