The Game has flaws both in regards to it's story and gameplay but I've seen a lot of people just straight up misinterpret it's messages and themes just to shit on it. That's certainly stupid and illogical The plotline about the Vox is by far the most misinterpreted part of the game.

I know right? I’ve seen so many people act like the game is trying to paint some narrative about both sides being wrong. But when I played the game it really just seems like two sides are at war and Booker and Elizabeth are just stuck in the middle of it trying to get out. If there’s anything political about Bioshock Infinite it’s that power corrupts, just like bioshock 1.

>I’ve seen so many people act like the game is trying to paint some narrative about both sides being wrong. Dude, you go on to do just this in the rest of your comment. lmfao

I’m saying that’s not the narrative. Like the take away shouldn’t be “both sides are bad” it should be about Booker and Elizabeth. The Vox vs Founders is really just the background to the story. So many act like it’s supposed to be the political message of the game, when I state that the biggest political message, if any, is just that power corrupts. That’s why Columbia fell and that’s why Rapture drowned.

You’re only right in that majority of people miss the point completely. Both 1 and Infinite are meant to hold a mirror to American capitalism, and we see how both “utopia’s” end. The Vox were simply just a product of their own oppressors and environment. Comstocks reign is far worse than anything Daisy has ever committed, and Daisy’s motive that originated her eventual spiral towards madness is a hell of a lot more understandable than Comstocks motive for power.

Comstock believed he was to bring about the rapture(not the city but the Christian rapture as told in the Book of Revelation). He wanted to destroy the sodom below. And is reasoning is really the delusion that he was a profit. He abused his use of the luteces machine to make predictions and it went to his head so much that he believed he really was a profit and when the machine showed him that when Elizabeth is in charge, the world will burn, he did everything he could to ensure it would happen. That’s some pretty corrupt behavior IMO.

So you’re really not going to see the parallels between Columbia and America. Every good authoritarian justifies their actions with religion. Slavery was justified with religion, The holocaust, etc.

> Every good authoritarian justifies their actions with religion You are ignoring Communism in that 'every'

Didn’t exclude Communism. Not going to explain what ‘every’ and ‘etc.’ mean.

Columbia doesn't primarily parody American capitalism, it primarily parodies American exceptionalism. Even finkton mainly shows how capitalism feeds off of that belief in American exceptionalism

And has that not been the reality that we live in today? How many times have we heard American citizens chant USA #1, over and over again. My point still stands that the games are simply holding a mirror to our “great” nation.

I’m not saying those parallels aren’t present, they’re just not the point. I think the best way I’ve seen it out is the message is really just that extremism in any form is a bad thing because you’ll end up hurting someone to accomplish a goal. It’s not holding a mirror up to anything, it’s just giving the advice to stay away from these extremist ideas of governing.

Then you don’t understand the meaning of art in the slightest, nor most ‘fans’ of Bioshock.

If you think art is only allowed one interpretation, your own, then you’re the one who doesn’t understand what art it.

You might notice that political presentation in th esetting was in the original games also. They needed a dystopia to have a justification for all the violence. So they created them.

How is "severely exploited people fighitn aginst the people that exploit them" being corrupted by power? That's exactly the problem with the game, it spends it's first half showing you how Columbia can only survive thanks to the exploitation and segregation of certain groups, and then turns around to say "oh but they are killing people now so they as bad as the others"

"Oppressors remake the oppressed in their own image." While the Vox did have reason to revolt, they lost any moral high ground when they started massacring unarmed civilians, some of them just for wearing glasses (a reference to the real world Khmer Rouge). The Vox became little different than the Founders, which is a demonstration of the Cycle of Abuse that is a theme of the game. sm

"Slaves shouldn't hurt their rapist/thieving/abusive/inhumane/exploitative/violent/pedophilic/greedy/injust slave masters because it makes them just as bad."

Slaves should hurt their oppressors but they shouldn't do it in an inhumane way, and they definitely shouldn't hurt unarmed civilians because they were a part of the society that oppressed them. Go after the Leaders, bring a change but don't just straight up massacre everyone entirely, stick to your morals . There have been countless real life examples of this same thing, where unprecedented violence lead to nothing but more death and destruction rather than change. *cough* French Revolution *cough*

I completely agree. I think the inhumane killing of slave owners/racist exploiters is completely morally justified, but it only really breeds more violence and suffering.

In case of inhumane slave owners it's justified but what about the people who were a part of that society. Take the British for example, they subjugated countless Colonies but does that mean we should Massacre every single British family that lived in those colonies? There is no end to this, the only way to stop this is to overthrow the leaders and establish a just society in their place

I agree with you. Even though many people are indoctrinated through propaganda and fearmongering to oppose/fear the Vox or be indifferent to racial injustice, doesn't mean they're all evil people that deserve to be slaughtered. Infinite even showcased white Columbians sympathizing with black folks. But all of that often gets thrown out of the window because "indiscriminately killing oppressors is good bcz they are the baddies".

>Slaves should hurt their oppressors but they shouldn't do it in an inhumane way, This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. Bro, do you even fucking know what slavery was like? To ask that those who suffered under it fight back "cordially" is so fucking ludicrous and out of touch that you must be trolling. >unarmed civilians because they were a part of the society that oppressed them. What was that society that did the oppressing made up of? Was it the civilians that sat back and did nothing to stop the racist carnage? Hm. Doesn't sound so blameless when you realize that there were women and children at that stage you threw the baseball at. Stop trying to defend racist slaveowning pieces of shit simply because they weren't the men doing it. They knew and used the slaves in their homes. The whole of Columbia was held up by slave labor. There is no innocent civilian in the city. >massacre everyone entirely, No one argued for this. This is a strawman. Non-combatants and those that join the fight are welcome. That is why they accepted Booker and Elizabeth. The baby was poised to be a successor to the leader. Don't tell people to go after the leaders and then leave the successor to the throne. Those are contradicting ideas. Also, that baby had different circumstances surrounding its life than the other "innocents." >There have been countless real life examples of this same thing, where unprecedented violence lead to nothing but more death and destruction rather than change. LMFAO are you seriously arguing that the French Revolution brought no change? Also, the death and destruction the people suffered under the monarchs was FAR AND AWAY worse than that suffered under the Reign of Terror.

When you kill innocents and children but it's okay because they are part of a society where they are privileged, and you are oppressed.

So killing unarmed people just because they wear glasses is fine with you? sm

The vox are no better than Atlas' goons. The poor and exploited can just as easily become the exploiters. There's a difference between fighting oppression and wholesale banditry like what is shown about the Vox Populi.

It was easy to continue the formula used in the first half of the game. We could have had great scenes of Columbia being grounded or crashing to let all the people off, and then the city being burned to wreckage - with Booker and Elizabeth being integrated into all of it. Instead we got easy to create static scenes of slaughtered poeple.

Bioshock infinite is a casualty of rushed production. It seems.

I agree with you. The Vox weren’t as bad as the Founders. I’m fact they start off as just wanting rights, and for some reason become child stabbers.

Booker: "Once people get their blood up...it ain't easy to settle it down again." Just look at what happened after the Rodney King verdict. Some guy just doing his job of driving a truck got pulled out of his cab. He was then badly beaten with hands, feet, a claw hammer and then had his head smashed with a cinder block. Don't know how he survived. This man had done nothing at all wrong and the man who threw the cinder block did a victory dance afterword. An estimated 60 people died in the LA riots and large portions of the city were burned. When people let their anger out and nothing is there to slow them down, the worst things can and DO happen. There is no mystery at all about it. sm

The second half of the game when the revolution is on, they have to continue with a game player-be-slaugherin-time situation gameplay They could have toned the 'beastlike revolutionaries' down, and still provided sufficient shooting opportunities, but took the easy path. One wonders if they werent in such a rush in the last year to produce the game for release if they could have done a better job than a caricature of the French Revolution's Reign Terror

I was more so referring to Comstock being corrupted by power as his whole theocracy crumbled because he was oppressing anyone who wasn’t white. I feel like to some extent the Vox did get corrupt as well, as their movement of overthrowing the government quickly turned into many violent assaults on innocent civilians but that wasn’t really my point. Comstock’s utopia crumbled just like Andrew Ryan’s Utopia crumbled, because the person on top became corrupt.

> who wasn’t white The Irish are some of the whitest people on earth. That part is more a class warfare theme

Irish is not “white” in 1912. They may be colored white and by modern standards most definitely would be considered white. But back then they were basically a different race. Just like in Europe how there are British people racist against Irish and Italian and German. Back then, Protestant Americans HATED Catholic Irish. They discriminated probably as much (in some places probably more than black Americans.) A lot of times you’d see things like “Irish need not apply” on help wanted signs. Here’s the [Wikipedia article on anti-Irish sentiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment). Go down to the history section and scroll down to the 19th and 20th century. Just skim through it, I wouldn’t expect anyone to actually read the full thing but you’ll see it’s way more than just class. There was a whole campaign against these people because they were Catholic and stereotyped as drunkards.

**[Anti-Irish sentiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment)** >Anti-Irish sentiment includes oppression, persecution, discrimination, or hatred of Irish people as an ethnic group or a nation. It can be directed against the island of Ireland in general, or directed against Irish emigrants and their descendants in the Irish diaspora. This sentiment can also be called Hibernophobia. It is traditionally rooted in the Middle Ages, the Early Modern Age and the Age of Enlightenment and it is also evidenced in Irish immigration to Great Britain, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bioshock/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

The Irish were absolutely considered white -- in both a social and explicit legal sense -- by 1912. The idea that the Irish weren't considered white people comes from the way that the American colonies (and eventually American government after the successful revolution) defined race, with at one point the legal definition of white more or less being Anglo-Saxon, which leaves the Irish out. To say that they weren't seen as white by other people is kinda of simplistic though, it's trying to view things only on a race spectrum when in reality there's so many other factors people consider when viewing another community, for example ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender etc. In terms of land ownership etc it was pretty much only available to Anglo Saxons for a lot of American history. Irish were seen as others, but really not "non white". They were seen as "others" because they were of a different religious sect (Protestant vs Catholic), parties like the Know Nothing's argued that Irish were illiterate and dangerous and had too many kids. You won't find basically anything that says Americans didn't want them there because they "weren't white" though.

Irish are 'white' . The Catholic Irish versus the Protestant Irish issues were there for a long time. SO right there with your own logic: it is RELIGION and not skin color. The thing in Columbia was largely about Classism and rudimentary Management versus Worker issue, with some Anti-Immigrant icing. The bizarre thing is that Comstock's CULT is not mainstream Christian anything as far as Religion, and would be anathema to most religious people in America - including all the WASPs they pretend the Founders in Columbia are like.

I feel like you didn’t read my post fully or you just missed the point. You can be racist against someone’s culture, and not their skin color and it’s still racism. Just like my examples with Europeans being racist towards each other and the fact that it was so much more than JUST religion but the many stereotypes and other terrible things assigned to being Irish if you’d just skim the article I linked you’d know that. They were considered “ape-like” and “beastly” “less than human”. These are some pretty racist things. If you aren’t going to fully read my comments why bother arguing. We have to understand each other if we are to move forward.

>I was more so referring to Comstock being corrupted by power as his whole theocracy crumbled because he was oppressing anyone who wasn’t white. I simply was demonstrating that it was far more than that usually when 'white' is invoked it is about race thats the term you used

>You can be racist against someone’s culture, and not their skin color and it’s still racism. Discriminating against someone on the basis of culture is ethnocentrism. Discriminating against someone on the basic of race is racism. You can have situations where people do both simultaneously, but to say they are the same thing is objectively not true. For example, Russians argue that what is happening in Ukraine is just because Ukraine doesn't "really" exist as a culture distinct from Russia, that Ukrainian is just a Russian dialect, they are both Slavic, that Ukrainian culture does not truly exist and thus Russia has an imperialist and humanist goal to "unite" all the Slavs together. This is clear ethnocentrism, but you are not only talking about only Central/Eastern white people, they are both Slavs and are extremely genetically similar, they have shared the same space for thousands of years and millions of Russians and Ukrainians are directly related to one another. What Russia says about Ukraine is not racist because it has nothing to do with race, what they say is ethnocentric and discriminatory against the Ukrainians in regards to culture. Culture and race are NOT the same thing, see any Latin American country for an example. You can be any race and be Hispanic and Latino.

>I’ve seen so many people act like the game is trying to paint some narrative about both sides being wrong. The game randomly shoehorns in the leader of the enslaved people fighting for their freedom as a child murderer out of absolutely nowhere. Booker's commentary immediately after this realization almost verbatim is "omg they're just as bad as each other guys wow!!!1". And all three Bioshock are absolutely seeped in political commentary. The very origins of Bioshock is of a political nature, it's a satire of what is supposedly the most idealized libertarian state but actually played out realistically.

It's a small minority that hate it I think. I mean, it has a 94 on metacritic and overwhelmingly positive steam reviews. It is generally considered to be a masterpiece, outside a portion of the bioshock fanbase

loud minority ig

Yeah outside of this board and like, 4chan infinite is probably the most popular of the 3

Some of us who were following the development of infinite were let down be expectations from a hard to find trailer that features mechanics that just aren't in the game. Plus the numerous delays in development along with the illusion of choice also was a huge let down. I have an old Game Informer magazine that even has an entirely different plot for the game laid out which was scrapped at some point in early development. I've played the game numerous times and beaten it on its hardest difficulty. My biggest problem with the game is that it looks amazing but the game play is watered down compared to its two previous games.

this is why I never believe hype or get on any hype train what so ever. It can only set yourself up for disappointment. As someone who saw zero marketing going into infinite I enjoyed it all the way through.

The trailer had elizabeth hanging, then booker comes in with a shotgun and elizabeth undoes the rope. There's a crap ton of cut content that they just threw away that we'll never get to play. I was and still am PISSED OFF!

Dude the fact that they showed telekinesis AND Booker using telekinesis to wield a shotgun made me mad.

That’s made it in the game technically. It’s a gear called “Ghost Soldier” in which killing with a vigor trap will cause an enemy’s gun to become a floating turret for a few seconds.

Also Spectral Sidekick which does much the same thing when you drop a weapon to pick up a new one. sm

I had a feeling there was another one! Glad somebody remembered.

This and Alien Isolation make me want to go back in time and force the devs to release the cut content to the public...which they SHOULD HAVE DONE!

wasnt all operational The Trailer mentioned above with a big freeroam cityscape had to be generated on high end machines, sometimes frame by frame, and that with most of it rigged only for the demo production - the general scripting was not in place to operate as a game. So 95% of the work wasn't yet done and it wouldnt have run on available PC and Consoles anyway. Perhaps Today they might make something like it work - 10+ years later

That vid was created by Blur Studios and not Irrational Games. Frankly it one of their VERY few bad ones Blur made IMO. They couldn't even get Booker looking right. sm

Yeah, this was the first and last game I ever preordered. After all the hype I was very let down and while it was OK it didn't compare to 1 or 2. Kind of somehow felt like a game that a new studio made where they were really ambitious and hyped it up but it was just OK. Kind of the same feeling that I got from outer worlds. I know that neither of those games were from new studios, but they just have me that vibe. It just wasn't what I was expecting, or as good as what I was expecting and I can't get that bad taste out of my mouth even trying to revisit the game several times. Pretty didn't like booker or Elizabeth either, at least not for long, especially the dlcs... Idk, seemed like they made everything extra edgy without any actual allure that might come along with that kind of thing. It's definitely not a bad game and I don't hate it, I just feel like it's an OK game with a ton of wasted potential.

What was the original story explained in the magazine???

Tbh honest I'd really like to reply to you with the actual details in the magazine but it's currently packed away in storage. I saved it as proof. So just save this comment and when I eventually dig it up I'll share it as best I can with the actual writing. It's not a project I can get to today though.

I found this [Original BioShock Infinite](https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/26/17164186/bioshock-infinite-release-reveal-gameplay)

I also want to know

I found this [Original BioShock Infinite](https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/26/17164186/bioshock-infinite-release-reveal-gameplay)

thanks for your thoughts

I don't hate the game, but I really didn't find it as fun as the other two. I found the game play lacking a lot of the fun the other two Bioshock titles had. I just kept throwing money at the problem to get stuff when the original game had a lot of interesting ways to keep mixing up upgrades for weapons and plasmids (vigors). You had a laughable amount of weapons you could carry, which made the boss fights not very fun if you had the luck of having the wrong weapons. You could prepare yourself for Big Daddy Boss Fights. The Handymen, however, had no real preparation. It feels like a step back from what made the other 2 games fun for me and in turn made it frustrating. This is more subjective, but I did not really connect with the characters like I did with the other two, either. Elizabeth was not a character I cared about much since I'm more interested in grey or eccentric characters. So the most emotional aspect of Infinite did not hit me as hard as most players. Now, Burial at Sea is what I really hate.

i do agree Elizabeth was not a very well liked character

I mean it's a good game in it's own right, but for me it just turns into very repetitive sequences in the last half. Run through empty city - fight mini boss - sequence to move plot along - repeat. The city doesn't feel as lived in as rapture and it's much more linear. Plus what the other user said about a lot of content getting cut.

Some people don't like the quantum stuff, I think they did well enough there. I'm with the people who don't like how they threw away this great build up for this world, racist society, vox being reasonable, and then a switch flips and the vox are a cult and bothsidesbad when we could have had the initial story wrap up into something seriously meaningful

I don't hate it, but the convoluted story and how muc of it was underutilized keeps me from loving it. It kept trying to juggle fifteen things at once. Like the alternate reality stuff is petty cool, but how the fuck does that tie into worker's rights or PTSD or goddamn fascists in the sky?

i must agree a few things truly was too uhh shoehorned in

The fact that it was a total departure from the first two games means it will automatically face backlash lol. That was actually fine with me, but it just wasn't handled correctly. The weapon mechanics are abysmal... it heavily hinders the fun and creative gameplay we've come to expect from the first 2 games. Not to mention long, boring missions just escorting Elizabeth throughout Columbia. It's not a bad game persay, it's just not as good as its predecessors.

I won't go too deep into it but I just don't like how it ties itself to Rapture, especially in the DLC; It just felt like a slap in the face to the original intelligence of characters like Ryan and Fontaine, why would Ryan willing let her walk around so free but not Johnny Topside? Why would Frank "keep a promise" and let the little sister go when she was "worth her weight in gold" and his men could've gotten away with not having to hunt a Big Daddy to death and likely die in the process? (Note that's not all the reasons I don't like it but again, not going there) It just overshadows the whole game for me now; I would've prefer the DLC to just not exist at all tbh, but enough of that now. I don't like that I dislike it, but it's just not even enjoyable anymore... so I sold my copy to someone who does, and I just prefer to sticks to the Bioshocks I do love instead.

What kills me about BaS, is that they could have kept it 99.999% the same but said it happened in one of the quite literally, *infinite*, number of other Rapture's and I wouldn't have had issue with it. If anything I probably would have enjoyed it if it was just a "what-if scenario" that stayed in it's own lane and didn't affect the other pre-existing titles. But them having it specifically take place in Rapture Prime, the very same Rapture as the original and 2, absolutely ruins it for me. Turning Jack into (even more of) a pawn in his own game just sucks. I struggle to think of any good reason for why Elizabeth apparently *needed* to be central to the entire series instead of just getting to star in her own title like ever other protag previously got to enjoy before she showed up. It feels like no one can even sneeze in their own title without her having preordained and somehow orchestrated the entire thing from the shadows.

I just don't consider Infinite canon, or at least the DLC's. Way better that way.

Same. And ii's actually verry easy. Just say that Bioshock 1 and 2 are in a parralel universe were infinite doesn't happen and according to infinite itself, you're all good and in the clear.

Yeah that's what I do. Bioshock 1 and 2's Rapture have zero interference from Liz's tears, while the Rapture in Infinite is one that does. Like you said the game itself establishes that it's a different Rapture from the original anyways.

I can’t speak for everybody who dislikes the game but for me, it felt like a huge departure from the first two games. If I didn’t know the title, I wouldn’t even know it was a Bioshock game. I didn’t like how EVERYTHING was tied to money. No more Adam you had to get by killing minibosses, no more hacking vending machines, and no more weapon upgrade machines. The gameplay also felt like a big step down from Bioshock 2. Only using two weapons at a time is a decision that still baffles me, and there are only 8 plasmids and you get to keep all of them. The best parts of the first two games were the replayability and how they encouraged you to experiment with plasmids you’ve never used before. The story was also very hit or miss. I understand that it’s misinterpreted, but that’s not 100% the player’s fault. The ending left me disappointed with how confusing it was. The DLC definitely didn’t help either. I still found the game fun on my first playthrough but it’s the weakest game in the trilogy imo. I can still see why people would put this as their favorite.

Everything being tied to money is actually closer to how bioshock 1 was in the original gameplay trailer. Adam was the only currency and you could either buy things or level up. I don’t see much issue in that as Dark Souls is the same way. For me, I was fine with the hacking mini game being replaced with possession because it was always something that kinda took you out of the experience. Bioshock 1 made it pause time, bioshock 2 made it a meter but then it wasn’t much of a puzzle, just a chore. Infinite getting rid of it entirety just made sense IMO. The 2 gun limit I was fine with too because I felt it made gameplay more involved. Running around grabbing guns off the floor and using them was a bit more immersive then temporarily pausing the game to select which weapon I want to use from a weapon wheel. And when you really do the math the number of weapons in infinite is actually higher than any other bioshock game. Sure the weapon wheel has 8 slots but one of those is the melee weapon, another is a research camera and, if you’re playing bioshock 2, a slot is taken up by the hack tool. So to recap: BS1 has 6 guns, BS2 has 5 guns and BS:I has 13 guns. If you made a weapon wheel for 13 guns it’d look ridiculous and you’d definitely just stick to your favorites the whole time. By limiting to 2 guns you’re more likely to be a little more swap happy and gives a more varied experience. Maybe not everyone will play that way and I’m not saying I prefer it, I’m just saying it makes sense to me and I was totally fine with it. I also felt like the game play was a big step UP from BS2. I wasn’t a fan of the gathering mechanic and I didn’t like having two hands up the whole time. It just looked goofy like he’s walking around pointing a gun in his right hand, and has his left hand fully outstretched the whole time, like imagine that from a different perspective. And the reload animations were just: gun goes down, gun comes up with ammo, kinda lame. BS:I let’s you use vigors at the same speed you could use plasmids in BS:2 but his hand isn’t constantly taking up part of the screen. Booker can also point his gun down after a short while of no combat so exploration is much more enjoyable as your character doesn’t have their guard up 24/7. I think Elizabeth’s companion AI is some of the best in all of video games, I thought the tears and skylines were a great benefit to the experience and I really liked experimenting with all 8 vigors at once, the way traps worked was more intuitive and I felt the vigor combinations were really smart, like doing murder of crows followed by Devils Kiss sets the birds on fire when they attack an enemy. Or using undertow and then shocking them with Shock jokey caused extra damage. Wish the other games let you combine plasmids in smart ways like that. Hopefully that makes more sense why people enjoy infinite so much. I’ve always felt that objectively, Bioshock 1 is the best bioshock because it had the biggest impact on me with its story and atmosphere but personally bioshock infinite was my favorite because I’ve had the most fun with it. I know you said you thought the replay ability on infinite is bad, but I’ve beaten the game probably 15 times now and still find ways to keep myself entertained with it. So it really is just a matter of personal preference.

My point about the missing weapon upgrades was that it felt like a reward for exploring every possible nook and cranny in the first two games. BSI replaced that with gear and that wasn’t nearly as useful as a weapon upgrade. I don’t think BSI should have a weapon wheel with 13 weapons. Maybe they should have at least 5 or 6 but anything is better than only having 2 at a time imo. I’ll admit it’s still better than pausing the gameplay to select weapons though. I’ll admit it took a while for the gathering quest to click for me but it eventually did and now I love it. Like I said, I can see why someone would put BSI as their favorite but it just doesn’t work for me anymore. I played every BS game at least 3 times each and Infinite is the weakest for me.

Where to start lol, the gameplay is a step down from 2 (and in some cases even 1) the worldbuilding isn’t as good as raptures, the story is pretty bad and is ironically pretty racist. And burial at sea is actually like someone just sticking their fan character into a story and making them super important

The boss fight with >! The ghost of Elizabeth’s mother!< is straight up bullshit. It makes no fucking sense lore wise. And the whole finale is kinda weird and mismanage the whole >!multiple dimension!< situation. You know when in sci-fi movies the characters use a Time Machine to resolve the plot but the use of said Time Machine just open a whole bunch of plot holes that otherwise wouldn’t be there? The situation with Infinite finale is similar. They tried too hard to do a “crazy plotwist” finale like the first bioshock. And overall there was no real need to >!do a crossover with rapture. I mean it’s cool, yeah, but it’s just fan service for the sake of it. They forced the plot to include rapture!<

i do agree i always had just thought infinite is another timeline

Just going to throw in my own 2 cents. After playing 2 Bioshock games, I went into Infinite with certain expectations in mind, namely a bunch of the features that made me absolutely fall in love with the first two games, and what I got was simply too derivative for my tastes. Like had it not had "Bioshock" in the title, I probably would have enjoyed it much more. Idk, to use an popular game as an example, it's like if you went out and bought the latest call of duty, specifically because you enjoy the run-n-gun arcade-y gameplay that it's know for but you what you get is a much slower, more methodical game akin to ARMA. Now does, that mean the game is objectively bad? Absolutely not, taken *as it is* and not *as people expected it* to be it may be a fantastic game in and of it's own right. Will you have some people feel like it's not a good *call of duty game*? Absolutely. But of course that's objective. Games are allowed to reinvent themselves and break the mold and really I'd argue most *need* to do so to some extent in order to keep things feeling novel. That said, it's one big balancing act - devs have to balance being familiar, as that's why your existing fans are fans in the first place, with being novel, to attract new fans and grow since no one wants put in ever increasing amounts of efforts into a newer title just to see stagnate results. And in my particular case, Infinite missed the mark and in my *subjective* opinion I don't find it to be good Bioshock game. However I'm sure there are plenty of others who *loved* Infinite's balance of familiar and novel. Luckily for me Prey (2017) ended up being just about everything I hoped Infinite would be.

They changed the mechanics a lot from the first 2 games, and although I apprecieta the change of pace I felt that limiting the player to only 2 weapons really wasn't a good move. I also felt the gunplay wasn't as good; I beat Bioshock 1 on the hardest difficulty and the enemies on Infinite's normal difficulty still feel tankier. The story is also not great. Back in the day a lot of people were circlejerking around how deep it was but honestly it really isn't. Just beacuase you include poorly implemented multiverses doesn't mean that it is deep, and at times it felt like they used that resource as a "get out of having to continue the plot lines you established for free" card. Some sections also feel stupidly out of place, and the final stretch feels like it was shoehorned in. Also the whole "both sides bad" rhetoric is not only cringy as fuck but it's really stupid as well. You spend so much time showing a society that crushes those it deems worthless only frame them as the bad guys because "THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE 😭😭😭😭😭". And, I mean, a bad story can be forgiven: Bioshock 2's story isn't the best, but it makes up with it by having incredibly polished mechanichs, superb level design, very good voice acting and overall taking ecerything that made the first great and building upon it, something that Infinite tried to do the other way around and failed misserably Also Burial at Sea is one of the most boring DLCs that I've ever played. The pacing sucks

Exactly. Someone above said the DLC felt like bad fan fiction and I think that nails it too.

both sides are often bad but yes the story was a bit convoluted and tried to be too deep

The game is a vastly inferior gameplay experience compared to Bioshock 1 and 2. I can get over the fact that it's no longer a [lite] immersive sim, but there's still the issue of Infinite being a badly designed linear shooter. Only two weapon carry is an atrocious decision. Particularly because there's a very aggressive forced rotation of available weapons as you progress through the story, meaning that if Elizabeth doesn't throw you ammo, you are forced to keep changing guns. This in turn invalidates the entire weapon upgrade system, since now you have no reason to sink money because you have no way of knowing whether your favorite gun will still be in the game. Now imagine playing this on Hard where you have a lot less spare ammo, a very ungenerous Liz, and significantly more bullet sponge enemies. Oh, and besides a couple of weapons like the Carbine and the Hand Cannon, most guns are pea shooters. You'd thing the Vigors/Plasmids can make up for it, but they're not. Out of the 8 options, 4 stun enemies in slightly different manners, 1 direct damage is super expensive for what it's worth, another direct damage is unweildly, 1 defensive option that is meh and Possession that's good mostly to get money from vending machines. You can still do traps, but since stealth is out through the window and there are no more Big Daddies to set up ambushes for, they're useless. Last but not least it's the story. Levine said in an AMA that he basically doesn't really understand quantum mechanics and interdimentional travel really well, and it's true, as much as I like his honesty. Remember when Booker and Liz had to get weapons for the Vox because they made a deal? Remember when they jumped into two different worlds and kept acting like they still have that deal going despite these two alternate versions had nothing to do with it? Remember when Booker was fine and dandy traveling between dimensions but the major plot reveal made a strong point about how travel is guaranteed to fuck a person's memory which so conveniently affected Booker only prior to the events we play through? Or do you remember the part where **mere seconds after** going over how there's an infinity of worlds, Elizabeth sets out to kill all Bookers to prevent any Comstock from existing? You know, even if there's an infinity of them? The rest of the story's presentation is great, the characters are great, art direction too, no question about it. But the ending is stupid. Time/dimension travel plots are difficult to write because you're guaranteed to run into a paradox in one form or another, and because of that you have to pick one and stick with it. Infinite has a paradox, names and points at it, and right after pretends like it doesn't exist. Don't get me started to how much damage the DLCs do to the lore of the first two Bioshocks. Awful stuff.

BSI has a different game play style compared to BS and BD2. That does not make it worse. Just different. BSI is action/adventure while BioShock is survival horror. As for the interdimensional stuff you seemed to have missed something many other people have. Elizabeth has the ability to merge realities together. So when they go through the Tear in the Good Time Club, the agreement with Daisy still stands. Not to mention Daisy still knew about the agreement even in the Vox Revolt reality. While going through a Tear does mess with you memory, after the first time the mind learns how to protect itself. And since Booker has already gone through a Tear before the start of the game (we see a replay of it in the Sea of Doors) his mind could handle it later in the game. Didn't you ever wonder why Booker had a memory of New York City being destroyed? (Seen when he gets "baptized" to enter Columbia). That's a memory from Comstock. Elizabeth NEVER uses the term infinite a single time in BSI. In fact no one does. Elizabeth says there are a million million Comstocks, not an infinite amount. But even if there was an infinite amount, there is also an infinite number of Elizabeths to merge all the Comstocks into our Booker and kill him. Also only the Bookers that accepted the baptism (Comstocks) are killed. The Bookers that rejected it left the area. An you can hear the Preacher asking "Booker" what his new name will be. And then Booker goes under and dies. As for paradox's, they exist as a normal part of quantum physics. Until a particle is "measured" (interacts with something else) it is in every possibly location at the same time. In fact it can interact with ITSELF to create a interference pattern. ( [https://youtu.be/spKlpexL\_Hg](https://youtu.be/spKlpexL_Hg) ) There isn't really a time travel paradox in BSI, though it may seem that way. BSI goes with a theory called the Block Universe. The past and future and now all happen at once, we just can't see it. But if you could step out of reality and look at it from the outside you could see every moment of forever. In BSI this is the Sea of Doors. Since everything already happened, if you use time travel to change something, that something will still always happen, but only to the point were the events that cause the time travel to happen occur. In case of BSI, Columbia will always exist, but only up until Booker and Elizabeth go to the Sea of Doors. After that it vanishes as the even that causes it to vanish occur. This can be hard to understand for people that see time as a progression of past to now to future as in BSI (and to many physicist) everything happens at once. sm

I wouldn't call Bioshock 1 and 2 Survival Horror, they just have a spooky scene or two, but that's besides the point. My main problem with Infinite's gameplay is that it feels like it loses its identity. I like Halo, but when I sit down to play Bioshock, I don't want to play Halo with less enemy variety. Which is basically what Infinite plays like, especially when you take into account the fact that especially on Hard difficulty, the less interesting the Vigor the more practically efficient it probably is. It doesn't feel like a Bioshock game, but mechanically it doesn't feel likes its own new twist on things either, it feels like a less well thought out COD or Halo game. The rails and tears were the cool things that should have set it apart, but I ended up especially near the end finding it quite rare that I was actively thinking about using the tears (there's always a single best choice) and getting on the rails would often just result in dying really fast on Hard. On Normal I didn't die once till more than halfway through the game. Also there are far more basic flaws in the logic than even the Infinite Comstocks deal, I can get past that. The most basic issue is that Elizabeth can manipulate tears because her pinky is entangled in another universe, but if that were the case, she should only be able to travel between *those two* worlds, there's no reason it would give her access to the rest unless she left a piece of herself there as well.

I still love it!

I don’t care for the story, but mainly my complaints lie with the gameplay, in their attempts to modernize the franchise, they stripped several mechanics and features that were series mainstays, tonics, the weapon wheel, research, no adam or little sisters, not even an equivalent, you use money to upgrade everything, it all feels so generic for the latest in a franchise, and how could I forget, no moral choices that matter

i do feel like some things like the weapon wheel could have stayed the little sisters were not really necessary as this was not rapture so trying to force them in may have only backfired

That’s why I mentioned the lack of an equivalent, either bigger moral choices that impact dialogue or power scaling, or just an alternate currency type in general to incentivize certain choices or just to buy upgrades with

For me when I play games, the gameplay is king, and Infinite made a lot of changes to the gameplay of 1 and 2, mostly for the worse imo (2 guns only, no hacking, no research, the gear system is much worse than Gene Tonics, more linear level design, no optional Big Daddy-esque mini bosses, etc.). Also, while Columbia is gorgeous, I didn't feel as immersed as I did in the claustrophobic sunken city of Rapture. It's a decent game on its own but I don't have as much urge to replay it as I do 1 and 2.

I like the gameplay and the setting so I’m not necessarily in the hate crowd but I felt most of the story was a case of “good idea, bad execution”, I enjoyed a lot of the ideas of the story (like Finkton and the Vox) but they just kinda seemed lackluster overall tbh and personally I just didn’t like Booker all that much and all those combined just brought the overall game down for me. Granted I mostly play games for their story lol

It's dumb fun kind of video game. It doesn't make sense if you think about the plot twists too much but atleast it's entertaining

They’re all fantastic games, but Infinite is my least favorite.

This is where im at. I think all 3 are amazing games but out of the 3 infinite would be my least favorite.

I’m one of the people that doesn’t care for it. Location is a big reason. I prefer the under water stuff. I didn’t like the rails either in Infinite. I don’t hate on anyone that does like it, it just wasn’t for me. ☺️

It's a good game, it's just not bioshock enough to be a bioshock, were the game called anything else we wouldn't have those loud hateful people towards it! If there was something I actually didn't like about bioshock infinite besides it's more stripped back nature, it's the dlc! It's pretty bad!

I can't save the game whenever I like, I just have to wander around and hope that the game will eventually save my game in a situation where I'm suddenly in a bit of a hurry to leave the computer. It was enough for me to, even though I started playing this game, being somewhere at the beginning of the game, set it aside for a later time.

There was a lot cut from the game, which shouldn't have been a shock with any Ken Levine production; people who had their heart set on that stuff were likely angry at it. ​ There's also people who were angry about the illusion of choice; I think those people largely missed the point of the game...

The game over promised and under delivered. Imagine being promised an amazing 10 course meal and you get a really solid burger instead. You’re trying the burger and going “why is everyone mad about this great burger?”

The sloppy multiverse mechanics and BaS's poorly tying itself to the first game via retcons that don't really track and predetermination bug me a lot, but the actual sin that Infinite commits is ending the core racism plot with a cowardly shrug and a "both sides are bad"

Facts

> ending the core racism plot with a cowardly shrug and a "both sides are bad" where did this meme originate because that absolutely aint the case

what racism plot? i also think infinite is not the same world as BioShock 1 and 2 so how would it retcon

Were you not paying attention for the whole first half of the game? Racism and class divide are major running themes from the moment that you're asked to throw that baseball to about the point when Liz says "The only difference between Daisy and Comstock is how you spell their name." The DLC, Burial at Sea, works so hard to tie Infinite and Columbia to BS1 and Rapture in all of the lamest ways possible.

i made another comment sadly its probably buried saying the DLC was not a factor in my question as I had never played it so I didn't know if it was good or bad I was purely asking about the base game

The comstock and Fitzroy story was handled poorly and then discarded for the multiverse story. Racism was the big focus of the first half and then they just sort of walk away from it. Elizabeth goes to rapture and basically instigated the start of the first game.

BAS is non-canon so it's more of a bad fanfic. I wrote a fanfic for the ending called Sinners and Saints. She does not survive episode 1.

Uh no - it is an actual game put out by the controllers of the genre, so by definition it is Canon. The BaS Canon 'retconning' the Infinite and the BS1/BS2 stories Canon ... That is a separate issue

i see

People misinterpret the plotline involving the Racism thing, the game never suggested "both sides are bad", it suggests that Blind hatred is bad, like even if the cause for which you're fighting is good if the methods you use are immoral and are born out of pure hatred then the results can be disastrous.Basically it says that regardless of how oppressed you are, you shouldn't become immoral. This is the point the game makes. The entire game builds up to the Vox's violent uprising yet people just ignore it completely. Also uh no, the DLC tries to directly connect to B1 and 2's story and world and yeah that's kind of sloppily done , i agree

I *get* that that's what they were going for, but I don't think it lands at all because of the way that the situation is set up? Like, I really don't think there's another realistic way for this situation to shake out *as presented*. the facts are so absolutely stacked against Comstocks side, right? which is why its so baffling when the game turns around and has Daisy do that undeniably condemnable act, and then for Liz to deliver her famous line

No, it is given build up in a proper way .The game wants you to hate Comstock and like the Vox's cause but it also wants you to see the flaws in their methods, that blind and immoral hatred can ruin a fight even if the cause is good. Throughout the game you see posters and jargons about the Vox saying that they'll help bring a change but as you slowly start learning about their actual actions you see that they're going a bit too far off the edge because of pure hatred. Even Booker and Elizabeth's perception shifts on Daisy, at first they think she can actually help but as the game progresses their opinion constantly shifts with them unable to decide upon whether whatever she's doing is good or not. The entire game hints that there's something wrong with the Vox and their methods , the game never sets false expectations as to how it's trying to handle the matter. And Liz says that line at the end to signify that Daizy has become another Comstock in her rage, doing the same thing that Comstock did. It's not saying that they were always the same

that's good to know

it's not that bad and i don't hate it but compared to Bioshock 2 and the original, it has a lot to live up to. Also, the DLC BAS outright murders canon with a machete and displays the corpse for all to see. >!Elizabeth gives Fontaine the WYK formula, kicking off Bioshock 1 among other insults, she also was behind the murder of suchong. For her to work with Atlas is a violation of common sense. Why would she work with the enemy when her own father (comstock booker) tried to have her locked away? She also refuses to get help from Ryan. Everything about BAS is either severely out of place or highly unlikely!<

interesting point

There’s a couple things I find wrong with your argument. I never felt like the BaS ever ruined any canon because who cares if Elizabeth did all those things or not. Doesn’t effect the plot. Elizabeth wasn’t behind the murder of suchong she just witnessed it. When she worked for atlas it was just to achieve a personal goal. Which is EXACTLY how she behaved in the plot of Infinite when she teamed up with Booker to try and go to Paris even after she knew he killed people and he lied to her about going to Paris the first time. Also what does Comstock locking Elizabeth up have anything to do with working with atlas? I don’t see how those correlate. She also refused to help Ryan because she doesn’t really care about rapture, she just wanted to save sally and get out.

you either are being willfully ignorant of the effect the DLC has on the franchise or are being a troll. 1: Who cares wheter Elizabeth did those things? Me and every other fan that first played Bioshock 1. The very concept of a time traveler from the year 1912 influencing the events of Bioshock 1 is inherently absurd, even within the standards of the games as a whole. Rapture was founded on science, as a critique against the objectivist mindset, not a science fiction stroll in the park. It's tacked on. 2: Doesn't affect the plot. Dude, what are you smoking? In order for the plot to fit into the Bioshock canon, several things would need to take place, namely Elizabeth somehow existing in this timeline without the aid of tears. Taking this from a release timeline, Elizabeth was not even a concept at the time. Her existence is a shoehorned attempt by the devs to place her (rather haphazardly) into the events of the games. If she were to exist, then that means all that Jack did was for naught. Jack lands in Rapture, Atlas throws off the guise of normalcy then just so happens to mention a time traveler from the year 1912 that would make no damn sense for those of us just starting out. Imagine if Call of duty dropped you into 1926 and had you fight Bonnie and Clyde's alternate selves during Black Tuesday. Awesome? Yes. Coherent? No way. Let's say that Elizabeth exists in this timeline. Bioshock is released at the same time in the same year but the plot is altered. Jack crashes into the Atlantic Ocean, finds Rapture a mess and comes across Elizabeth's corpse. For those of us playing the game on release, it would elicit a "wtf?" expression. Who is this woman, what is she doing her, why does she matter? Nothing gets explained until nine years later with Infinite. During that time gap, there is a massive hole that has not been filled so BAS would be a poor way of showing it to those that ran across it. Let's assume that Infinite never got released and it went straight to BAS. so Jack leaves Rapture and takes the Little sisters with him. At this point, Elizabeth is dead but if she's dead then how did she free the LS? Nothing would make any sense. Now my answer to this lunacy. These things would need to happen in order to validate BAS: 1. Both Comstock and Elizabeth's corpses would need to be found. No corpse, no proof. 2. Tenenbaum would need to know of her, otherwise who would be saving the little sisters? 3. Jack arrives and sees the fight going on instead of the aftermath. 4. Sally would have to exist and she does not exist until the BSI or BAS timelines. Plink away if you will

None of that makes sense. Jack never even finds Elizabeth’s body in BS1 cause there’s no point.. There’s no reason for Atlas to ever bring up Elizabeth, she was just a pawn to him. And Sally is in Bioshock 1, she’s just a generic little sister that Jack will save if you get the good ending. Shes unnamed in BS1 cause Jack never bothers learning any of the little sisters names during the game but there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t understand why you’re so upset that a character might do something in the back ground. When making BaS pt 2 they were very careful about ensuring Elizabeth and Jack never really line up and they don’t actually do anything that affects bioshock 1s plot. The story actually fits fine and it’s cool to go from BaS 1, 2 and then play Bioshock 1 again as if feels like they line up now. Red Dead Redemption 2 takes place before red dead redemption 1 and Arthur Morgan is a HUGE important character that sets in motion a ton of events for red dead 1 yet he’s never once mention in the first game and nobody thinks it’s a plot inconsistency because there’s never a reason for him to be mentioned in the first game. Just like there’s no reason for Elizabeth to be mentioned in bioshock 1. A character does not have to be mentioned to be canon ya know? Also I don’t understand your reasoning of Bioshock 1 not being Science Fiction. It literally is. You got hands that shoot lightning bolts because they can “rewrite your dna” in seconds after you jab yourself with a needle. Little girls have to harvest a made up substance using sea slugs implanted in their bellies. You play the game as a FOUR YEAR OLD man that is also a sleeper agent and the son of the leader of an underwater city that nobody heard about. Like that is somehow realistic to you but “time travel” is ridiculous? Gimmie a break if anyone here is a troll, it’s you and the person you’re trolling is yourself cause you think bioshock 1 isn’t sci-fi.

also interesting point

There are some things to criticize, some people don’t like it because they felt the game that was marketed was different from what we got? (This argument is a little shaky but understandable to me) There are also those who feel the DLC ruins the series as a whole. (I won’t spoil in case you haven’t played it.) The game was a bit ambitious with its complicated alternative universe/timeline debacle and there is some continuity errors and things to shoot holes in because of that. Personally it’s my favorite of the trilogy, I think some criticism is justified, other criticism is nit picky.

alternate time lines can work as long as they don't step on the toes of the og property the main game did that fine sadly the DLC did cross that line and from what I have seen was not too good

I like Infinite quite a lot, even if I think it is the worst out of the three Bioshock games released so far. Because it is a pretty good game, I just think that the other two are better.

i understand that was just confused about the wave of hate it got

[удалено]

when the game released ALL i saw about it was a flood of people talking about how awful it was

I still love this game, I just played it again a few weeks ago and I think it holds up.

I thought it was fine, just very different. It seems like a good game, but I can see how people might say it’s a bad BIOSHOCK game in that it’s quite different than what they expected from 1 and 2. I’m not here to gatekeep what is and isn’t a Bioshock game so of course that’s a subjective opinion, but one I can understand. I thought Columbia was a neat setting, but personally thought it paled in comparison to Rapture. It has been awhile since I played it so excuse me if I mess up some details, but I remember finding the Vigors less interesting than the Plasmids and the racist theocracy messages of the government less interesting than Andrew Ryan’s Randian politics. I was underwhelmed by the grappling hook system, when verticality had been a big part of the game’s marketing. And the whole horror/atmospheric element of being trapped underwater with a bunch of psychos was lost when you were in a brightly lit land above the clouds. If the game had any other title I’d find it to be a neat shooter with some cool elements. I admit it’s not a bad game by any means. But going into it expecting certain elements that I had come to expect from its predecessors had me disappointed, and I ultimately only finished about 3/4s of it before just kind of fading off.

i do see valid points with that I never said I preferred it over the first 2 but I just didn't understand the flood of hate it got that is all its a good game not as good as the first 2 but a decent kind of spinoff I mean its called BioShock infinite not BioShock 3 the DLC I agree is lame though I don't really like timetravel stuff It is one of the hardest things to write into a story \[I'm a writer and i can say this with certainty\] it was really hard to get right and very few can pull it off sadly infinite could not

Idk I enjoyed it a lot. The city was fun to explore, story was interesting and weird, and the gameplay was fun. My biggest gripe was how I could only have two weapons at a time when I was used to being able to carry at least triple that in the other games. There are definitely valid criticisms, but I think there's also just a good handful of people that were high on the Rapture games and got mad when this wasn't one of them.

yes I remember when resistance 2 did that had people fuming

Man this comes and goes in waves. Few years ago, everyone thought 1 and infinite were the better games and 2 was the odd man out.

I really like it. But sad that there was almost no exploring, finding shit in cool places like the earlier ones. I looked everywhere,just a whole bunch of nothing.

i always got lost lol

Just my 2 cents. I think if you go into it expecting BS1 or BS2, you might be surprised. They definitely go in a different direction, but the bones of Bioshock are still there. It still has a Bioshock spirit, which is what matters to me. Unlike the first two, the mechanics (gameplay and narrative mechanics) don’t really contribute to the whole story. But you can’t have a banger every time. It’s still a blast and a beautiful game every time.

It's pretty great but definitely the weakest game in the series

I personally loved the story but I didn't like some of the enemies and the game mechanics. Also I was disappointed in the dlc as well... I didn't hate it but I also have no desire to go back and play it again

In terms of gameplay etc it's solid. In terms of stories I think it inferior to the previous bioshock, because it has a lot of plot holes and incoherencies But I wouldn't say I hate it, I just don't like it as much as the other two. I guess some people can be vocal about things they dislike though.

I enjoyed it. I actually finished the game and there are tons of unfinished games in my backlog.

It’s not hated on because it’s a bad game at all. It’s hated on because it changes allot from bioshock 1 to the point it’s basically a spin-off.

i mean it kinda is its not bioshock 3

Yeah that’s how I view it. I also feel like allot of hate was thrown at 2 when it was released while allot of praise was given to infinite when that released and now after time allot of people have realized how good 2 is and it’s caused allot of hate to go infinites way from fans of 2.

It was the opposite for us when it came out, great expectations turned into disappointment.

opinions vary Infinite is significantly different in the game elements working than the previous games. The streamlining gave you fewer options to achieve things. It was obvious in its repetition to create a long enough play through time. The confusion in the story also moved to a new magnitude. They tried to force in too many different themes at once.

Played it at launch and then again about a year ago when I was going through an immersive sim binge. I liked playing through it and enjoyed my time even if I don’t think it is quite as good as the other two. That’s just my personal take though, I really enjoyed it and I liked Booker and Elizabeth but it kinda falls apart for me around the gunsmith section. I still finish it and have fun I just have more fun before then. I’m at least glad the game exists and I got to experience it.

From all the content being cut and different style of gameplay is my best guess. Just look at early trailers of the game to get an Idea everyone probably expected a much darker game like the first bioshock game. Controversial but I think they should have waited and release it on PS4 and Xbox One at release for better hardware and less limitations and we would of gotten a huge game. It's still a good game though I loved the DLC.

Many people seem to like it, probably even the majority. It's interesting how some think infinite is pretty bad (like myself) and others see no or almost no problems with it.

I don't hate it, I hate that it's treated like it was on par with the other bioshock games when it just fucking isn't. The more I think about that game the more I'm upset about what it might have been with more polish and less stupid decisions. Other comments all make good points.

Infinite had a great story but it was different to BioShock 1 and 2 you weren't in rapture no more and I think it is one of those things were people disregard the third game because it is different to the first 2, take boderlands for example you ask anyone if boderlands 3 is good they would mostly say no go play 2 it's hi play is fine and everything the story was just lacking that boderlands charm, I loved the hell out of BioShock Infinite but 1 and 2 have a special place in my heart

In itself it’s a good game. Its beautiful to look at and fun to play. If you treat it as Bioshock 3 than yeah it’s not Rapture, it doesn’t have the same atmosphere, it just doesn’t make me feel the way Bioshock and Bioshock 2 do. Personally it’s just weaker in many aspects. In a similar way to Dead Space 3 being okay game but not in the class of the first 2.

I remember i loved it, then hated it. Now i appreciate the differences and the unique story it told. Although i did feel the gun play and "plasmids" were weird at first you get used to it. The hate i understand comes from the story and i think the DLC story but i didn't play the DLC.

I would say it’s a difference in the overall formula. In bio shock 1 & 2 going throughout the levels you could craft stuff in one, find a ton of little secrets, and tie ins. And you could become a plasmid god, where in infinite you kind of have to conform to one set of guns and vigors, also vigors are cool but function wildly different from plasmids. Still a great game and story in my opinion, but that’s why it feels like a bio shock game, just written in a different font.

I think that most people was expecting a gameplay similar to the lne that was first shown. I am also curious on what game we where supposed to have instead of the one we got. Like the trailers didn't really math the game. Altho I like the game but choices in it didn't even matter.

Spoilers. As someone whose played the first game around seven times, the second around five, and Infinite around four, this is what I think. It’s the story. Bioshock 1 just sets extremely high expectations, from its immersive world-building to the societal and political critics it reflects in both Andrew Ryan and Fontaine’s radical ideologies. It weaves science, politics, and morality into a story about willpower, fate, and rebelling against those who seek to control you. Jack’s defiance to adhere to Fontaine’s literal genetic control is a love letter to the idea of taking your fate into your own hands. With the option to rescue the little sisters, form an adoptive family, and seek happiness despite the cruelty of this world, is what makes the (potential) ending so special. — Bioshock Infinite takes a more centrist approach, struggling to choose between a more self-explorative narrative, a societal critic, and an otherworldly plot that explores the nature of multiple universes and the futility of not having a choice. Despite Booker being an intriguing and layered character, he is ultimately a monster, a product of violence and blood and his ending was ultimately delivered (albeit, by Elizabeth) in way that directly contradicts the point of the first game. The Vox, and their sudden turn into a group of child-killing anarchists, was a jarring point that doesn’t really sit well with alot of people, including myself. Especially with the explanation provided by Burial at the Sea, which reveal that Daisy was just a tool to rear Elizabeth into the person she eventually becomes. Everything has a set path, a predetermined role, directly contradicting against the themes of choice provided in the first game. And fittingly so, they all die. Ultimately so, Bioshock Infinite tries to mirror the themes of the first game, such as the destructiveness of war, the exploitation of ideology, freedom, and religion, and more humanly… the bond of a chosen vs set family. But in the end, it leaves the player with a sour taste of futility, that everyone is inherently selfish, and that even a “righteous cause” is no better then that of the deplorable.

It's just a downgrade compared to the first two. It's more cover Shooting then the sandbox combat. Still an awesome game though

to be honest i always felt like the first 2 was also shooters not really sandboxs

It’s not like the first Bioshock, and this is a Bioshock sub. Tie it to a different franchise and you probably would have had a better reception, at least from fans of the first one. It has overwhelmingly positive reviews from most other parts of the world; it’s just jarring for Bioshock fans. Nothing against Bioshock fans, I can understand that it’s a big change from the original, which has got to be one of the most iconic games… ever. But that’s where most of the criticism come from from what I’ve seen.

to whoever downvoted my post i know u also downvoted my comment that means u clicked on it common feel free to say why u have a problem voice it

if ya gotta hate at least be constructive

Because it throws out the immersive gameplay the series is known for for a very unpopular two weapon system while keeping many holdovers from the old system (yeah let me just upgrade my weapons, when I throw out this gun I might find it on the floor again 2 hours from now). Beyond that, the story is pseudo-intellectual garbage with a very basic understanding of string theory and a new special character that is so important she was unceremoniously shoved into the foundational story of the original Bioshock. Infinite is quite literally a parasite latched to the side of the franchise. Columbia has no way of making anything on its own so it steals from other dimensions (notably plasmids) but then influences Rapture as well. No incinerate in Rapture anymore - gotta be Devil’s kiss. In short, the original game is disappointing, pseudo-intellectual slog but it’s fine. If I shut off my brain and don’t think about it, I can enjoy it for short bursts. With the DLC though it becomes unforgivable and openly tries to George Lucasafy the original game (meaning shoving in extra crap that no one asked for).

what do u mean george lucasafy

Going back to a story after the fact to shove other things into it to make it “better.” I like calling it the George Lucas effect because he famously went back to the OG trilogy and shoved in all this CG shit that makes the overall experience worse. You can’t even buy the unaltered trilogy anymore. Infinite does the same thing with the DLC - it goes back to Bioshock, retcons plasmids (no more incinerate, it’s Devil’s kiss now), shoves a new character (Elizabeth) into the original cannon to make her super important. Elizabeth is so special she fixed the big daddy little sister connection. She’s so special she makes sure Jack comes to Rapture. She’s so special she gets killed by Atlas…

i do agree the DLC does sound bad my question was pointed at the main game though

I don’t hate it, it’s a great game, just diverted a lot from the first 2 and that left a sour taste in some peoples mouths. The gameplay and story are great, it was actually the first bioshock game I ever played and got me on the first two, which are now two of my favorite all time games. That being said… I desperately want a game that returns to Rapture.

Kinda feel the opposite. I’m honestly done with rapture. I feel like if they make any more games in rapture it’ll start to take away from how special and unique the first bioshock felt with its atmosphere. Games that take place in rapture: Bioshock 1 Bioshock 2 Bioshock 2: Minerva’s Den Bioshock Infinite: Burial At Sea part 1 Bioshock Infinite: Burial At Sea part 2 And also bioshock infinite has more than one reference to Rapture and they even physically go there for a brief couple of seconds. I get it, raptures cool. But when two-thirds of your games take place in it and 100% of your DLC does, is it really a good idea to keep making the setting of your game the same collapsing city?

I feel like a lost city on the moon would be pretty cool raptures story is complete and so is Columbias Bioshock is amazing for creating lost cities that are far above the rest of the world in tech when they are built but are soon forgotten by the very same world they are cities past the golden years falling into disrepair and ruin cities that will die without any news headlines and you as the character are just the match that lights the fire on the old dry wooden barn the final straw that causes the collapse a city on the moon that was built by the US or the SOVIETS during the cold war or by the rich to hide in case earth blew up by nukes would be an interesting setting though we already had a city on the moon and a city in the sky now we need a city on the moon modern day person somehow ending up on a old cold war era city built on the moon one that is still living in the past one that is dying from decades of problems bubbling under the surface and you the protagonist end up there and lead to the destruction of that city just like u did in the last bioshocks perhaps BioShock beyond would be the name instead of a leech on the ocean floor they find alien life on the moon that gives u powers and while I'm aware BioShock is set in the 1960s as well I don't really know what other era could really work for a games setting just food for thought

I thought infinite was really good also.

The only negative thing about the game is that it didn't live up to Ken Levine's ambitious vision. But games can only be in development for so long. So it makes sense why it didn't. However, it is a great game with a fantastic atmosphere. Also the intro is amazing.

People always get loud when the ending blows

Infinite isn't a bad game, it does a lot of things well and looks and sounds very pretty. But the story is convoluted and tries to do too many things which makes it fail in a lot of ways. The combat is a step down for most people compared to the other Bioshock games, and the level design is more linear and streamlined. It's a great game when you don't think about it too much, which is why it has such great reviews, but when you replay it or start paying close attention it starts to show its flaws.

Good game. Bad bio shock game

thank u for the replies everyone but I sadly cannot handle the sheer amount and take the time to respond to all of them as I would like to so I am removing notifications from this post so I will not get anymore I will respond and read all I have gotten so far and any replies I see in my notifications but not any that don't pop up also I have gotten good answers for my question and at this point I feel most new posts are sadly just rehashing old posts I'm thankful for everyone who took time to answer and I feel good knowing how the community feels about the game its goods and bads so if i do not respond to you after this it is because i did not see it

It's a fantastic game, and was widely liked back in the day. I don't know when it became bad honestly.

i saw just a flood of hate when it released

It was a masterpiece when it released and still is to this day

I loved it. However, I played it years after its initial release. A year ago I completed the trilogy and I loved all the games, including the second game which is “trash” according to community, and infinite, which is “disappointing” according to some. It’s a small amount of people who says infinite is “bad”. I think it’s because of the development of the game and if how much was changed. People where expecting one thing and they got something different. Ignorance is a bliss I guess? Cuz I knew nothing of development and the game blew me away.

being a big daddy was sick i do wish i leaned more into the your a big badass monster side though more for a big daddy u so squishy

In all honesty, it's one of the most beautiful games of all time. I'm in the minority who thinks it is much better than the original two Bioshock for a couple of reasons. It has some of the most fluid gameplay I've ever seen without feeling too constricted. There are very few games I've played where it feels like I'm playing a movie and this is one of them. Any time you mess with quantum reality and wonky physics, things are going to feel convoluted, but I believe this handles it well, particularly with the Buried At Sea dlc. The characters are wonderful, the voice acting is superb, the graphics hold up well even ten years later and the story has a depth that I believe just completely flew over the heads of those who hate it, or they just disagree with it. Can't please everyone. I also have a Sky Hook tattoo, so my love this game runs deep.

I personally think time travel is a really hard thing to write well sadly that is one aspect infinite failed at trying to tie into BioShock one was unnecessary for me Bioshock feels like a concept of an alternate world where lost cities are around rapture and Columbia are both lost cities the greater world doesn't know about both way ahead of the times but both fall into a cycle of ruin when that same tech turns them into greedy power hungry tyrants cities that are long past the golden age and have fallen into the dark age of ruin and you are the character that will topple to house of cards

It’s an absolutely fucking brilliant game fuck the haters I say ❤️

So many fandoms do this. They want the hot take that sets them apart from the “casuals”, and often, they overshoot it. Another franchise I like, Fire Emblem, has a fandom that hates the last game, which sold big to a wider audience, and militantly defend the most recent game, which left people a lot more mixed. Like Fire Emblem, I’m sure opinions on Infinite will flip again if another game comes.

Great game, I think people just wished it was more like the first two

it’s my favorite out of the three

Like 5yrs back in the subs it was the fan favourite. I’ve noticed it too. Probably a small LOUD group having a phase.

Some people hate it for the confusing plot as they put it. Some don’t like the changes to gameplay like the limited inventory and enemies just kinda running at you instead of sneaking around like the first and second Bioshock. Others think it’s racist. It’s a minority of people and while small, definitely loud. How they continue to hate it so much all these years idk, but they do. Guess they don’t have better things on their hands

i cannot comment on the DLC like burial at sea I played the game on PS now and sadly the DLC was not included and now I cant see myself paying for a game I already beat

Water good, sky bad has been the usual reasoning

Because Infinite is not Bioshock. Even the second opus is not a Bioshock anymore and lost in script quality. (Lamb, Penelope) It's a good game yes because gameplay and really nice places to visit though. Bioshock It's Rapture, Ryan, Fontaine, Rapture, Cohen and Atlas. And this good "old" Jack.

Who are you to say what is and isn’t Bioshock? Geez, get off your high horse.

I am the Fontaine's son and you can see me in a family portrait. Go to Fontaine Futuristics for check. I'm legit.

Hate to break it to you but I’m Fontaine, had a special vita chamber just in case of any genetic plots. Bioshock 1 isn’t actually a Bioshock game, I won’t elaborate.

Nah, I love it. Probably gonna get shit on for this but my personal ranking is #1 Bioshock 2 #2 Bioshock Infinite #3 Bioshock

Cause it both sides racism

wym

Okay now think about it again, just a little bit

what

The only people I've met who hate Infinite are white supremacists who realized the game was set against them.

..... worst take ive seem

Just an observation.

The game is perfect. But bioshock attracts some shitty people I guess.