Top
130°

Is there too much shooting in Bioshock Infinite?

OXM - You've probably played the opening ten minutes of BioShock Infinite, by now. If not, well, what are you waiting for? Booker DeWitt's introduction to Columbia is - almost literally - a heavenly experience, as you ascend through the clouds and a golden, gleaming archipelago comes into view, floating in the sky.

The story is too old to be commented.
Chuk51217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

Damn, I'm starting to get weary of games journalism. A distinct wing of the press has become really nit-picky and jaded. Too much shooting? Well the combat is good, and there's just enough quiet parts in Infinite for world building. It's a FPS, not a full on RPG. It has better balance as it is, instead of crappy combat that crutches on a good narrative.

Also, who knows what the DLC will bring exactly.

Hydralysk1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

How much shooting does an FPS require to be an FPS exactly? It's more a description of it's core gameplay mechanic than an indication of it's frequency, though I admit the common FPS has lots of shooting so it's understandable. This doesn't mean, however, that the game must have a certain percentage of shooting segments to qualify as an FPS.

The appeal of most FPS games is, simply speaking, the fun of shooting dudes in the face. The reason FPS' make great multiplayer games is that a lot of them focus on the mechanics first, and story second. Thus the mechanics (shooting) are the primary component on display for the game, because the story usually can't hold it up on it's own. I didn't like the Resistance series because of it's story, I loved it because it had a ton of inventive weapons to kill things with.

Bioshock's focus on the other hand, is clearly it's story and single player campaign. When I played Infinite I wasn't playing it for the shooter mechanics, and thus when the combat encounters drag on they start to feel like roadblocks preventing me from reaching the next bit of plot. Few of what I personally consider the high points of the game involve it's combat.

For example, one of the parts I remember most vividly is where Booker picks up a guitar and starts playing a tune while Elizabeth sings a song to coax out a scared urchin from his hiding place so she can give him food. No shooting mechanics, the area is completely optional, and it was a brilliant and touching moment for me that really sold me on the characters. The shooting on the other hand all kind of blurs together, and this is 2 days after finishing the game.

Maybe the balance was perfect for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else felt the same. I think you are confusing being nit-picky and jaded with people who simply care more about things, or care about different things, that don't bother you during your playthrough.

Furthermore, whatever the DLC eventually turns out to be, it's an entirely irrelevant point as far as commenting on the amount of shooting in the retail game.

HammadTheBeast1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

What I'm tired of, is people ripping on this game because it has gotten such high scores, purely for hits.

Bioshock has, and will be, a FPS. Key word "shooter". If there wasn't any shooting, it would be purely set piece/video again and again, which would really detract from the experience.

Hydralysk1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

"Don't get me wrong, I like zipping about on skyhooks and shooting bad guys - but imagine if Irrational had held back during some of those encounters, reined in the powers and provided fewer, more significant enemies: perhaps then we'd have some drama worthy of such a beautifully constructed stage?"

The article never said there shouldn't be shooting in the game, they simply said they thought that there was too much combat while the highlights of the game were mostly non-combat moments.

For example (VERY MINOR SPOILER INCOMING), the scene where Booker tries to buy some tickets for the airship and kills a bunch of guys who are posing as bystanders when they ambush him. Right after this Elizabeth freaks out directly as a result of you using the shooting mechanics to kill a bunch of people, tying that combat encounter into her development as a character.
(VERY MINOR SPOILERS ENDED)

You don't need to remove shooting segments, even mindless shooting segments, but it'd help to give more of those encounters context by tying it into the narrative rather than killing the newest wave of guys for the sake of moving the next area.

Mainsqueeze1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

I kind of agree with Hydralysk in a way. Personally i liked how the shootouts with enemies in the first Bioshock worked more. Less but more significant enemies that for the most part didn't come at you in waves but were strategically and believably placed around each level. I think alot of games should go that rout. Such as Uncharted, don't get me wrong uncharted is an amazing game but fighting off waves of badguys in between the more memorable set piece and story moments gets slightly old. It would be cool if every kill had more meaning. I still love Bioshock infinite (as well as Uncharted) and think most of the critical success is warranted.

dedicatedtogamers1217d ago

In my opinion, Infinite is a great shooter with an above-average story (for a shooter), but it's a bad Bioshock game.

It guts out a lot of the freedom, exploration, and chilling atmosphere that made the series popular in favor of a good ol' rip-roarin' adventure. Bioshock's most basic enemy - the splicer - remained memorable and threatening all throughout the game. Infinite has its share of cool enemies, but you're mostly shooting down waves of generic soldiers.

vickers5001217d ago

I agree with your second paragraph, but it is certainly NOT a bad Bioshock game. I personally don't think it's quite as good as the first, but it's FAR from being a 'bad' Bioshock game.

WUTCHUGUNNADO1217d ago

Too much shooting? What's next... "Are the graphics too good" or "Too much storyline"

Brian1rr1217d ago

I hope so its a shooter after all

FantasyStar1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

I spent the first 15 minutes exploring Columbia and listening to those 4 dudes sing and visiting. Throughout the game you can clearly tell a lot of thought was put into the city and the culture. It's a shame I don't really get to get a better idea of Columbia because we're just moving from Point A to Point B and so on. Back in the first Bioshock; you back-tracked a bit and saw bits of non-scripted parts of the game. You basically 'explored'. Bioshock: Infinite by comparison feels on-rails.

Do you guys know more about Dimwit & Duke than simply what Elizabeth pointed out? If you don't: that's the point the article was making.

Blank1217d ago (Edited 1217d ago )

Well im not going to tell you how to play the game but it wasnt fully point A to B everything was mostly interactive as for your dimwit and duke it was in the beginning they hand puppet machines you need to replay and push the interact button more oftenly I personally didnt go point to point I looked at every table or machine I checked it out along with the buildings in the area it may look closed but as you walk towards em the doors open so explore more also this is a crappy article im downvoting it

BLKxSEPTEMBER1217d ago

I haven't played infinite yet but I beat bio 1&2. I watched the opening level today and the first thing that came to mind was there was a lot more shooting in this game compared to the previous games. I don't see this necessarily as a problem as long as its still a thining man's shooter. The game looks great and I can't wait to pick it up.

Show all comments (29)
The story is too old to be commented.