NowGamer: "We look at the importance of a videogame's world, and how Bioshock Infinite failed to succeed where its predecessor had."
Different strokes for different folks. I thought the world was the only thing that made me finish the game. Sometimes its cool to use your own imagination of what the world is instead of whats only put in front of you.
I definitely agree with most of the author's points. Bioshock infinite did present a story well, but failed to give much depth to the world. The opener was the best part of the game imo. Establishing a unique world full of life. And then instantly everything empties out and you spend the rest of the game slogging through a somewhat plain shooter. Not a bad game by any means, but you can't help but feeling such a wasted potential.
Sounds just like the original to me.
except around every corner, there is audible and visual evidence of the madness that gripped Rapture. Like the splicer talking to her dead baby, the Big Daddys and little Sisters going about their business, or the ambient sounds of a city underwater. Infinite has none of that.
My problem with Infinite's world is that it missed the point of what made Bioshock interesting in the first place. Bioshock wasn't interesting because of Rapture alone. Bioshock was interesting because of Rapture AND all the characters who filled it (Atlas/Fontaine. Andrew Ryan, Tenenbaum, splicers, Big Daddies, Steinman) and their conflicting viewpoints. In this regard, Infinte failed utterly. The Twins were the only truly interesting characters. Elizabeth was cute, but that's about it. The main protagonist was the incredibly cliche "stern but beloved religious leader, adored by the populace yet hides a dark past". Within the first 10 minutes I was already like "really? Comstock is the guy I'm supposed to fight??"
I think you meant antagonist, unless you were trying to be clever with who he really is. And I honestly thought Infinite's characters were much more interesting than any of the originals.
I found that unlike Rapture, Columbia was very centred on an American theme and focus which distanced me from really engaging in the game as much as Rapture did.
I really enjoyed the design of the world in Infinite, especially first walking through the beginning portion. Beyond that though, it never really measured up to the first one for me. Big Daddies were a way more developed enemy than the Handymen ever were. Handymen would show up to randomly attack you and die. Big Daddies had a more sensible place in the world, were much more interesting to fight (since you could observe them, follow them, set up traps, etc.), and overall had a lot more personality as an enemy type. They felt like more random encounters than a set up fight, they would freely battle other enemies, would get defensive when you approached a little sister, etc. They felt real in that world, while the Handymen seemed like "eh, we need something like a Big Daddy". The powers felt the same way. Instead of being a fallen city that featured absolute scientific freedom, and these genetic enhancements completely tore the place apart, the powers were just...there in Columbia. Yes I understand that they would see certain things through tears, which was a way to give the game world these powers without there being a more developed explanation for them, but even with that excuse they never really felt like they had a place in the game, but were there instead because the first game had powers and they should have them in this game just because. I don't know, overall the world/game just didn't feel cohesive like the first one to me (although, design wise, was still really cool to look at).
It's funny how quickly public opinion has turned on the game. In spite of Bioshock's ambition in telling a grand story, it falls short when placed in context of other games, as well as how its message pans out - or fails to - in real life.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.