Wolfire Games Forums

Hooooly shit. That looks amazing. Is it going to be out for PC, or just the consoles?

This would be much easier to do:



As for the, heh heh, "gameplay", it's clearly completely scripted to make look like it's actual gameplay. Don't let the crosshairs fool you.

There are some parts where you'd actually think "Wow...is this bit really gameplay?" but there are lots of little hints that show you it isn't. For one thing, there isn't a single place in any of the fight scenes where there's a HUD, which Bioshock always had.

I'd say it's most likely some between chapter cut scene or the game's intro...I don't literally mean chapter, but you get the idea.

Really though, when he said "Hey...you don't look so good." I thought "Is he smoking? I disagree."

Well, cool. It seems pretty good, regardless.

EDIT: Sorry, I like to stick to my childish beliefs that this game will be as good as the trailer, however stupid that may be.

I think it's called a target render. Just think about Killzone 2 for PS3, basically the same.

It's definitely an interesting way to get an idea what these guys are aiming for in the game, but on the other hand there's this unpleasant 'hype'-feeling to it (which, though, seems to work out just fine for many childish gamers). I prefer real gameplay over these target render-hypetrains anyday. They really shouldn't use the word 'gameplay' here.

Freshbite wrote:I'm interested in hearing Zhukov's response.

Really? Huh. I'm flattered.

So... uh... yeah, response as follows:

(Me being me, this will probably turn into a horrid great wall of text.)

*ahem*

Oh my.

This is interesting. And promising.

However, the first thing that strikes me is the same thing that everyone else has already pointed out. Namely the fact that this clearly isn't gameplay. It's a cinematic trailer consisting of scripted events seen from a first-person perspective.
When you think about it, some of the things shown there wouldn't really work in actual gameplay. For example, an actual player would probably shoot the ranting politician in the face as soon as he started acting hostile and consequently miss out on the whole cannon sequence.

So apparently the people behind this trailer are trying to pull a fast one on us. But y'know what? I'm willing to forgive them for that. Because, lack of genuine gameplay aside, that shit was fucking awesome.

(It actually reminds me of the original Bioshock trailer. That wasn't genuine gameplay either, but it was fairly indicative of what we ended up getting. Cool setting, orgasmic visual design, desperate battles against roaring golems etc etc. Oh, and it was awesome, that's another thing they have in common.)

Moving on...

- The new setting looks great. While Rapture was mind-blowingly good, I'm glad they're experimenting rather then just repeating previous success. I'm eager to see where they take this whole Columbia thing.

- The gameplay (well... "gameplay"... you know what I mean) seems to be basically copy-pasted from the previous games. Oh well. Hopefully they can still keep it relatively fresh. The addition of those sky rail things and a NPC partner should help in that regard. And hey, any game that lets you attack you foes with a swarm of crows can't be all bad, right?

- I really like the flying Big Daddy ("Him") at the end. It fits the new setting, but still harkens back to the original. Good stuff. (Also, note that he makes the same noise, and does the green-yellow-red light thing with his eyes.)

- Incidentally, Bioshock Infinite is being made by the team behind the original Bioshock, not the guys who made Bioshock 2. This is a good thing.

- Unless my ears deceive me, the main character is voiced by the same guy who did Garret from the Thief games. This is also a good thing.

- If you watch the trailer carefully, there seems to be some odd little things going on. For instance, at the point where the crazy politician's voice goes all creepy, his badge changes to a hammer and sickle before reverting back to the stars and stripes. Also, the painting in the bar changes starts out depicting a man on a horse and the statue of liberty, but then changes to being a portrait. I am curious as to exactly what these events imply.

- Lastly, for better or for worse, cleavage.

Zhukov wrote:- Unless my ears deceive me, the main character is voiced by the same guy who did Garret from the Thief games. This is also a good thing.

Ahh! I didn't realise it until you said it, but I think you're right actually, I hear it too. Here's hoping for lots of snarky comments laden with dark humour.

Zhukov wrote:For instance, at the point where the crazy politician's voice goes all creepy, his badge changes to a hammer and sickle before reverting back to the stars and stripes.

Democracy is non-negotiable.

DEATH is a preferable alternative to COMMUNISM.

Communist detected on American soil, lethal force engaged.

Communism is the very definition of failure.

Communism is a temporary setback on the road to freedom.

Embrace democracy, or you will be eradicated.

Democracy will never be defeated.

Better dead than Red.

Points for who knows what the fuck I'm on about.

Bonus Round: DIE COMMUNIST SCUM.

Seems like they're changing a significant amount of the game style/gameplay featured in the first two games. I suppose that's why it's BioShock Infinite and not Bioshock 3, but honestly, why does it seem like there are a ton of series that have been doing that recently? Call of Duty, Ace Combat, Metal Gear, and now Bioshock I AM NOT AMUSED. Change is good and all, but you don't need to fix what ain't broke. The problem with taking a risk like that is the fact that it could all end up horribly wrong and mutated, like a child with Down syndrome.

But then again, I don't know why I'm being so pessimistic when the trailers look genuinely good. I guess I'm just clingy and have trouble accepting change Definitely keeping my eye on this.

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Zhukov wrote:- Unless my ears deceive me, the main character is voiced by the same guy who did Garret from the Thief games. This is also a good thing.

Ahh! I didn't realise it until you said it, but I think you're right actually, I hear it too. Here's hoping for lots of snarky comments laden with dark humour.

Zhukov wrote:For instance, at the point where the crazy politician's voice goes all creepy, his badge changes to a hammer and sickle before reverting back to the stars and stripes.

Democracy is non-negotiable.

DEATH is a preferable alternative to COMMUNISM.

Communist detected on American soil, lethal force engaged.

Communism is the very definition of failure.

Communism is a temporary setback on the road to freedom.

Embrace democracy, or you will be eradicated.

Democracy will never be defeated.

Better dead than Red.

Points for who knows what the fuck I'm on about.

Bonus Round: DIE COMMUNIST SCUM.

Is that from... Fallout 3? Shit Liberty Prime says?

Ragdollmaster wrote:Change is good and all, but you don't need to fix what ain't broke.

I disagree. Strongly.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved Bioshock. That game shares a little corner of my heart with the likes of Portal and Half Life. Hell, I even liked the sequel.

But that doesn't mean I want to see them churn out the same game every couple of years. Surely it's better for them to take the series in new directions? By all means, they should learn from previous successes, but would hate to see them just blindly treading the same ground for the sake of easy profits.

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Zhukov wrote:- Unless my ears deceive me, the main character is voiced by the same guy who did Garret from the Thief games. This is also a good thing.

Ahh! I didn't realise it until you said it, but I think you're right actually, I hear it too. Here's hoping for lots of snarky comments laden with dark humour.

I haven't actually checked that. Just a hunch on my part. Something about the way he says, "That thing took Elizabeth."

I had to listen to it about six times before I could place the voice. Still not 100% certain.

Renegade_Turner wrote:Points for who knows what the fuck I'm on about.

Dudeman wrote:Is that from... Fallout 3? Shit Liberty Prime says?

Ahh. My guess was the combat dialogue from Fallout 3's Mr Gutsy robots.

Oh well, I was on the right track.

Ragdollmaster wrote:...why does it seem like there are a ton of series that have been doing that recently? Call of Duty, Ace Combat, Metal Gear, and now Bioshock I AM NOT AMUSED. Change is good and all, but you don't need to fix what ain't broke. The problem with taking a risk like that is the fact that it could all end up horribly wrong and mutated, like a child with Down syndrome.

Occasionally you seem averagely intelligent, but you talk an ungodly amount of dumb shit.

Bioshock 2 was only just about okay, but even at that it felt cheap. It felt like Bioshock 1 with a drill on your arm instead of a gun. It was an amazing game in its own right, but after Bioshock 1 it felt all too familiar. I understand wanting the core gameplay mechanics to stay largely unchanged with tweaks here and there. That's understandable...and it's also exactly what they're doing.

A much-needed change of setting is what we've seen here. If a series stuck on the same setting all the time it would get ridiculously stale. it would be like if the Final Fantasy series got to Final Fantasy 7 and then began rehashing and rehashing the Final Fantasy 7 world and its characters in sequels again and again to cash in on its popularity...oh wait...they've already done that.

Well, you get my point. A certain setting works well for a time, but then you need to switch it up. Keeping the basic gameplay principles the same is good, keeping the setting and story pretty much the same isn't good.

Dudeman wrote:Is that from... Fallout 3? Shit Liberty Prime says?

All the first stuff was, the bonus round was Mr. Gutsy, as Zhukov rightly said.

Renegade_Turner wrote:Occasionally you seem averagely intelligent,

No argument there.

Renegade_Turner wrote:but you talk an ungodly amount of dumb shit.

Hey!

Renegade_Turner wrote:Bioshock 2 was only just about okay, but even at that it felt cheap. It felt like Bioshock 1 with a drill on your arm instead of a gun. It was an amazing game in its own right, but after Bioshock 1 it felt all too familiar. I understand wanting the core gameplay mechanics to stay largely unchanged with tweaks here and there. That's understandable...and it's also exactly what they're doing.

First part is, in a way, true- after all, there wasn't even really much originality with the weapons (Rivet Gun = Pistol, Machine Gun = Tommy Gun, Speargun = Crossbow, and so on), but I disagree about it feeling familiar in the atmospheric sense. Bioshock 1 felt a lot more adventureous in the sense that you're just a pawn who ends up going, against his will, through a series of shitstorms simply for the sake of doing them. The ending was cool in its own right, and it had a few "OHHHHHH" moments in it, but generally speaking the story felt a little detached at times. The atmosphere was full of mystery and darkness, but after some time it really became comfortingly familiar. Bioshock 2 was an improvement in every sense of the word. The story was powerful and still retained a few shocking moments, like in Bioshock, but it was also fairly linear. The atmosphere is pretty odd to describe; it feels similar to 1's, yet different in some significant ways. 1 was very mysterious, but it wasn't ever really scary, per se (except for this one time when a dentist appears behind you with a pipe, BUT I DIGRESS) Meanwhile, 2's setting felt comfortingly logical (there are towns and shops and train stations and oh my, as compared to Bioshock 1's seemingly randomly placed locales) but at the same time, it was darker and grittier with more graphic decorations and effects. If anything, the fact that everything started making some sense made the dark parts of the atmosphere seem even darker in comparison to everything else. Even minor stuff like the vending machines (though I do not approve of them removing the music from the machines) and hacking was improved.

Renegade_Turner wrote:A much-needed change of setting is what we've seen here. If a series stuck on the same setting all the time it would get ridiculously stale. it would be like if the Final Fantasy series got to Final Fantasy 7 and then began rehashing and rehashing the Final Fantasy 7 world and its characters in sequels again and again to cash in on its popularity...oh wait...they've already done that.

Yeah, but setting isn't the only thing that has changed. I feel like some of the core mechanics have been twisted around and replaced, and while a tweak or addition now and then is definitely appreciated, I'm just worried that some changes might end being more detrimental than benificial.

tldr - I do certainly appreciate the change of scenery (after all, between the first and second games, you explore all of Rapture) and that's not at all what worries me. What worries me is that there may be changes to the core gameplay which end up being terribly wrong (for examples of where a good series screwed up, see the difference between Xenosaga 1 and 2. [Footnote - 3 is a bit of a redeemer, but still.]) I absolutely loved the first two games- nearly everything about them, in fact. I hope that Infinite does nothing more than keep everything I did love, replace it with something I love more, or just add more mechanics that I love. I want the game to be good, but all of this discussion is moot until the game is actually released anyways.

Another potential issue: There was like a gap of 3 years between the first and second games, and now there's what, less than a year between 2 and Infinite? I really hope this is not a rushed game that looks glossy and attractive in the trailers and ends up being overpushed and overhyped crap on my console.

Zhukov wrote:- Unless my ears deceive me, the main character is voiced by the same guy who did Garret from the Thief games. This is also a good thing.

Ah yes, sir Russell. Now that you mentioned it...

Zhukov wrote:- Lastly, for better or for worse, cleavage.

Oh, definitely for the better.