Interlopers.net Forum - Half-Life 2 News & Tutorials

Epifire wrote:That's exactly what Ken Levine said when he finished writing the ending to Infinite.

Again, fan theories save the ending. Like this one:

Damn that was a really good point he made in there. It actually related heavily with a theory I debated over for a week in the Infinite fan forum. How people say this story is less then the original Bioshock is still beyond me. DLC man, there has gotta be some clues that are gonna be in there somewhere.

Thanks a lot for posting that video, made for some more interesting pointers I'm gonna be going over for another long period once again.

Probably because the story is less than Bioshock 1 Epifire?

Dude, obviously all the fanboys of the original are just Trollin us Infinite fans.

It has nothing to do with fanboys or trolling. The original was simply a better game in all aspects except maybe art, but that doesn't matter at all when Infinite has pretty bad gameplay.

Bioshock 1 is clearly superior, but Infinite is still an amazing game. If only the gameplay were better, and why the fuck are you the only one with plasmids, I know this point has been raised before but, like they're available in baskets for free at that fair and in vending machines, why doesn't anyone else use them?

There were enemies that used them they were just more limited then the first. Infinite brought a more fresh approach to things were the original felt a bit more stale as far as combat goes. First one you just shoot or whack guys down or switch hands to use a plasmid, where as Infinite you can do that and use Skylines to gain a air strike advantage and use Tears. As well as the fact all powers and items were much more easier to access then the first. No stupid waiting to find machines to switch out upgrades, and the melee weapon was bound to it's own attack key. Only downside for combat that I could see is how many weapons you hold, but still that isn't that isn't going to effect it that much when you keep a separate ammo store for each gun anyway.

Other reasons I have are...

No dynamic AI for great character portrayal and story telling. You had to fully rely on audio logs and radio voice overs which is pretty sad. So in the character/in-game NPCs the first left much to be desired. That is to be expected for an older engine but that's 2007, I mean common they could have done something more along the general play time of the game.

Infinite's character development and human portrayal was phenomenal over the first. The first had absolutely no interaction cause you can't talk in it anyway. The combat was literally the same thing just more added to it, so I don't see what problems people were having other then their inability to know how to use Skylines properly. Story is open to debate but both are good. So what really gets me is how people can't give a legitimate reason as to why the first is soo much better then it's successor. Bioshock for it's time was great and I think it still is but Infinite is just an improvement so I'm just not seeing what people seem to have against it. A game as great as this one deserves some sort of gratification from Bioshock fans.

So you don't like Bioshock 1 because the combat was tough and tactical with being very fair? And you don't like it because the story is told through audio logs in a ruined, abandoned, empty city, underwater? There is hardly any character development in Infinite aside from Liz just revealing more of herself and explaining the city to you.

Skylines were very under used, it added almost nothing to combat. It would have worked much better if you could have used them to go around the city instead of inside tiny combat areas. Your opinion on the characters and combat make no sense at all. You just want the flash of graphics and facial animations. It's not a valid argument.

And you called the combat of Bioshock 1 stale. Just, how... What you have said on everything is entirely wrong.

Fanboy Harder.


also:

Armageddon wrote:There is hardly any character development in Infinite aside from Liz just revealing more of herself and explaining the city to you.

Why even bother playing games anymore? You clearly would much rather watch E3 demos and cry about how the game isn't how you want it than actually pay attention during the game.

So instead of making a compelling argument against what I have said you just call me a fanboy?

Epifire wrote:Bioshock for it's time was great

You're treating 2008 as if it was a lot longer ago than it actually is, the only aspect of video games that has improved since then is graphics and that is the only aspect in which Infinite is superior to the original. You can't act as if the original is somehow handicapped by its release date, and therefore is unable to be better than Infinite.

Armageddon wrote:So instead of making a compelling argument against what I have said you just call me a fanboy?

Classic 'ad hominem'

We're critics, not fanboy faggots out to get milked by Ken Levine. There is no excuse for devolving into twats when I've seen you all deliver excellent criticism on a high, constructive level on a repeated basis. Hell, you're all making decent points but delivering them in a self-jerking fashion that invalidates your opinion in other people's eyes, however true it may be. Pack it in.

For the record, Bioshock 1 was the superior experience for me because it was fresh, different, original and also extremely tightly made. Infinite felt looser and more organic, but not in the best way. I enjoyed both though. Saying one or the other is the better game is like saying Goldeneye64 is better than Agent Under Fire; who gives a shit, particularly when they are years apart? I've developer as a gamer and human in the intervening space, and so has technology, storytelling, and the medium overall.

Armageddon wrote:So you don't like Bioshock 1 because the combat was tough and tactical with being very fair? And you don't like it because the story is told through audio logs in a ruined, abandoned, empty city, underwater? There is hardly any character development in Infinite aside from Liz just revealing more of herself and explaining the city to you.

Bioshock 1 may have an interesting setting but it's combat was fully linear and predictable becoming stale to me. The system was more clunky and this is shown in it's control scheme (definitely playable but not as fluid). The lack in characters doesn't make the first worse then Infinite, it just goes to show something good that Infinite had in addition. Oh and if you recall Infinite kept those little voice logs, Infinite managed to have them in addition to the other well done characters. Facts don't lie Infinite has more over the other but that's because it should. It's the latest one so it's kinda supposed to man.

Armageddon wrote:Skylines were very under used, it added almost nothing to combat. It would have worked much better if you could have used them to go around the city instead of inside tiny combat areas. Your opinion on the characters and combat make no sense at all. You just want the flash of graphics and facial animations. It's not a valid argument.

If adding vertical combat to the environment didn't add anything for you, then you just didn't use it but it was implemented well and is there. In 1 you had no vertical combat available, simply put the facts don't lie it wasn't there. It's a perfectly valid argument. Also Skylines were not intended to make you travel across the city. The arena design was shown on a larger scale in the E3 and I'm sure it would have stayed that size were it not for the porting to ruddy consoles.

Armageddon wrote:And you called the combat of Bioshock 1 stale. Just, how... What you have said on everything is entirely wrong.

It's stale in the comparison to me because it simply lacks the fresh added features it's successor has because people make some broad assumption that it has all these over Infinite and it simply does not. The only thing Infinite doesn't have over the original is harvesting for an alternate benefit, otherwise the levels are just as linear you still gotta go from point A to point B to complete the game. This isn't opinion Ryan, it's fact. There are certain mechanics in which both games work man. One was the start of the series while the other improved and had additions.

Just go ahead and say it. If you prefer the first one then fine, but that's no good reason to bash the other just because you like one more. I like Bioshock a lot, it was my first experience in the series, but Infinite is a vastly smoother improvement that added more. It's my opinion that I like Infinite a bit more cause it has moments that are more vivid and memorable to me. This is my opinion, but it's not wrong or right its just how I think. I'm not trying to change your views, I'm just saying give the other it's respect that is due for a good game. They are both equally great games, made by the same guys and both have features unique to their titles so why not treat them as such. I didn't want to turn this into a flame war, so I apologize if I got a bit out of line cause it's not intentional if I am.

I disagree that Infinite has more than Bioshock. Bioshock had more weapons, more plasmids, more varied environments, and more enemies. Along with managing coins and Adam and picking what you should and shouldn't eat because it would affect your EVE or health. It had a lot more depth to it's gameplay and in my opinion more stories told simply through just the environment than Infinite had in it's entirety.