Bioshock Infinite

[eliasfrost]

Uh, xbox 360 runs on Dx9, which is still widely used due to compatibility. Skyrim runs on it, Dishonored runs on it, Bioshock Infinite runs on it.

Also, I'm looking forward to this game and I look upon it as art and not a game, just like I did with the first one.

[the dark side]

Exactly, and it is sticking to direct x 9 wich is causing all the issues, jaggies, muddy textures, slow frame rate, it is out of date, we are on direct x 11 b now, there is no excuse other than 360 compatability to still use direct x 9, i am sorry if this sounds elitist, but, why should people who have more up to date systems like a PC or PS3 have to put up with technoligically castrated games because they have to work on an outdated system like 360, it makes buying a ps3 or pc for there superior abilities a waste of money, companies need to drop 360 support, as its resulting in too many issues in graphics and game reliability, and thats the real kicker, when i pay money for a game, i expect it to work, properly, at least 90% of the time, instead, im getting bugs and glitches every 5 minuites, and i feel like I have been ripped off.

yes, bioshock 1 was art, but it was art wrapped around a proper FPS, Infinite, sadly, is just a unique art style wrapped around a copy and paste "modern shooter" gameplay experience (wich i cannot abide!), and to me, that simply is Not good enough.

i can see why they have done it, thanks to my business education, and its to attract the younger "casual" market, but my business education, and the fates of other games that primarilly appeal to an older audience that have "gone modern" in order to attract a "casual audience", such as "Duke Nukem", tells me that all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot, the casual market, in the majority (over 80%) only buys First Person Perspective games that have one of Three golden Franchise names on them, "Call Of Duty", "HALO" and "Battlefield" , they wont buy bioshock, because it doesnt have any of those names, and the Majority of people who do buy games like Bioshock, tend to be older, hardcore/elitist players, who will flip there wigs at the modernised gameplay and will troll and flame like hell on a keyboard about it!.. sure, there are people out there who will buy the game and love the game for its art style and story, and more power to them.

But..

Mainstream, Non Indie, Games Publishing is a Business, a Big One, and Big Business has no room for Semantics or Sentimentality or Loyalty. That market who will buy the game and love it for its story and art style is 2 million Global units, tops. In todays games industry anything less than 10 million global unit sales is a "Flop", and a "Flop" is "unsustainable". so, its "franchise cancellation" due to being "an unsustainable unpopular IP that doesn't appeal in the current marketplace" and bye bye developer as it either gets sold to EA, Ubisoft or Activision to "recoup losses", or simply closed down to "save money by not having unessesary assets", because the game fell short of sales targets, and the publisher lost a lot of Money because of that, wich is bad for business. hey, if you dont beleive me, just ask a Businessman.

[Adny]

Yes. Darkely isn't as "bad" as you may have thought. Not like "the dark side" or "Gaviao".

Stop saying their names Robby, you know that summons them! D:


The game looks great btw, thanks for the share Corinthian, great find!

[eliasfrost]

Exactly, and it is sticking to direct x 9 wich is causing all the
issues, jaggies, muddy textures, slow frame rate, it is out of date, we
are on direct x 11 b now, there is no excuse other than 360
compatability to still use direct x 9, i am sorry if this sounds
elitist, but, why should people who have more up to date systems like a
PC or PS3 have to put up with technoligically castrated games because
they have to work on an outdated system like 360, it makes buying a ps3
or pc for there superior abilities a waste of money, companies need to
drop 360 support, as its resulting in too many issues in graphics and
game reliability, and thats the real kicker, when i pay money for a
game, i expect it to work, properly, at least 90% of the time, instead,
im getting bugs and glitches every 5 minuites, and i feel like I have
been ripped off.

Why they make games compatible with 360? because they want their games to be playable for everyone, and since when did gamers buy their games for the sake of their consoles features? Only when you download some benchmark maybe but not for a proper game. And that's what people want, a proper game. And who are you to say that devs "need" to get a whole lot of money (I mean a whole lot) dropped because you can't stand your games not looking pretty enough. And about bugs and glitches, that's not a console issue that's a game coding issue.

yes, bioshock 1 was art, but it was art wrapped around a proper FPS,
Infinite, sadly, is just a unique art style wrapped around a copy and
paste "modern shooter" gameplay experience (wich i cannot abide!), and
to me, that simply is Not good enough.

Except they both have the same gameplay, how exactly is Infinite a copy pasta of any other modern shooter?

i can see why they have done it, thanks to my business education, and
its to attract the younger "casual" market, but my business education,
and the fates of other games that primarilly appeal to an older audience
that have "gone modern" in order to attract a "casual audience", such
as "Duke Nukem", tells me that all they are doing is shooting themselves
in the foot, the casual market, in the majority (over 80%) only buys
FPS games that have one of Three golden Franchise names on them, "Call
Of Duty", "HALO" and "Battlefield" , they wont buy bioshock, because it
doesnt have any of those names, and the Majority of people who do buy
games like Bioshock, tend to be older, hardcore/elitist players, who
will flip there wigs at the modernised gameplay and will troll and flame
like hell on a keyboard about it!.. sure, there are people out there
who will buy the game and love the game for its art style and story, and
more power to them.

Just because you have a business education doesn't mean that you understand everything, just sayin'. Now, Duke Nukem didn't fail because it went "modern" it failed because it did just the exact thing it did a decade ago, just worse. It had outdated gameplay, outdated story-telling and most importantly: outdated morals and values. Which made the game flopp so hard it destroyed one whole franchise.
Modern games don't have to be bad, dishonored is EXTREMELY streamlined but it's a very very good game despite of that, the same goes with Skyrim (even though it's a bit overrated) and Mass Effect. And please don't use elitist and hardcore gamer as if it was the same, because it isn't, I'm a hardcore gamer, I've been around a long time and I love gaming and competetive gameplay, but for the love of good I would never be something as ignorant and conservative as an elitist, for my sake, ok?

Games Publishimg is a Business, a Big One, and Big Business has no room
for Semantics. that market who will buy the game and love it for its
story and art style is 2 million, tops. In the games industry anything
less than 10 million units is a "Flop", and a "Flop" is "unsustainable".
so, its franchise cancellation and bye bye developer as it either gets
sold to EA or Activision to "recoup losses", or simply closed down to
"save money by not having unessesary assets", because the game fell
short of sales targets, and the publisher lost a lot of Money because of
that, wich is bad for business. hey, if you dont beleive me, just ask a
Businessman.

I understand that, and I understand that Games are the biggest, fastest growing entertainment business in the world, and that's exactly why things are the way they are. The same happened to music, the same happened to films and it's not as suprising as some make it up to be that it happens to gaming.

You don't like it? Start a petition and send it to EA or Activition, or better yet to the developer. That might be better than whining on a forum where noone hears you cry.

[rndmnwierd]

I'm beginning to see a pattern in these 'I'm excited for this game' thread..

[failedALIAS]

Yes. Darkely isn't as "bad" as you may have thought. Not like "the dark side" or "Gaviao".

Don't insult him.

Actually, I got Darkely mixed up with The Dark Side. Which is justifiable based on what dark side just said.

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

nope, im sticking with dishonoured for my action RPG fix for now, it has got better graphics and the "correct" gameplay for a first person game in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, Dishonored is awesome, its definitely my Game of the Year so far. But I don't get why you keep praising its graphics so much. (Especially since you weren't really impressed by Unreal engine 3 so far and this game runs on it) Yes, the art style is unique and fitting and the hand-painted style works well to hide texture muddiness somewhat but that doesn't change the fact that many textures in that game are very muddy. I put it to highest settings possible and it still didn't look very impressive to me on the technical side. Maybe your view on a games "technical" graphics is a little bit jaded by whether or not you like the art style?

Anyway, Bioshock Infinite. Pff... I dunno. It seems weird to me. They are obviously trying to make something entirely new that doesn't have much to do with the previous titles (which I guess is why they didn't call it "Bioshock 3") and thats very admirable.
But then why does it have to be a Bioshock game in the first place? Why not something really new? My bet is that they're afraid it might not sell without the famous name. And that makes me wonder how many creative ideas were scrapped during development because they may have not pleased the Bioshock fan crowd.

[Kreekakon]

Anyway, Bioshock Infinite. Pff... I dunno. It seems weird to me. They are obviously trying to make something entirely new that doesn't have much to do with the previous titles (which I guess is why they didn't call it "Bioshock 3") and thats very admirable.
But then why does it have to be a Bioshock game in the first place? Why not something really new? My bet is that they're afraid it might not sell without the famous name. And that makes me wonder how many creative ideas were scrapped during development because they may have not pleased the Bioshock fan crowd.

I'm guessing that there will at least be some shout-outs to the fans of the original two games. If there aren't, then I don't really see why it's Bioshock if it has nothing to do with the universe.

The developers did state the below, but still:

To me, there's two things that make a BioShock game BioShock.
They take place in a world that is both fantastic and ridiculous.
Something that you've never seen before and something that nobody else
could create except Irrational, but it's also strangely grounded and
believable. The other thing that makes it a BioShock game, it's
about having a huge toolset of power and a huge range of challenges, and
you being able to drive how you solve those challenges.

Also, for the actual game itself, I don't think there's any denying that the game will be gorgeous in its setting. I can't say that much about the actual gameplay yet, since I've yet to see any "true" gameplay. The demos I saw a while back feel VERY scripted, and feel more like an in-engine tech demo rather than the actual gameplay of the actual game itself.

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The demos I saw a while back feel VERY scripted, and feel more like an in-engine tech demo rather than the actual gameplay of the actual game itself.

This pretty much. The trailers make it look like a very linear experience. Doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad...but I really hope it will not be a mere "sightseeing tour".

As for the developer quote - that's a very bold statement to make in my opinion. I mean all they've released in terms of Bioshock so far are two games that not only took place in exactly the same world but were also pretty much identical in every other aspect exept for some slight changes to the fighting system.
Saying that there are certain aspects that define a "Bioshock" game, as if that was a genre on its own, when there's actually only one Bioshock game in existence (two identical ones = one game in my book) seems a bit strange to me. But we'll see. Maybe with Infinite they'll kick off a franchise that defines itself by having interesting changes with every installment from now on? You never know...

[Ghieri]

I think there will be two kinds of people playing:

-The ones who are comparing this game to the previous games. These guys will probably be in the majority, the also will probably think poorly of the game.

-Those who try to look at this game on it's own merits, not just the merits of the previous two. They are probably going to be more objective of the gameplay.

That's my prediction, we'll see if it's right.