• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

[Game] BioShock: Infinite

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
I'm only annoyed by the fact they threw around "a new IP" and interpreted it very liberally. Based on the initial reaction, I have to believe that was calculated on their part to drum up some hype.

It's not a new IP. It's a new game in the same relative universe. A universe of crazy morals and ethics with a lavish art style. Someone compared what they're doing to the Final Fantasy series...and I can buy that. It would at least make the whole "new IP" thing a little more sensible to the public. As it is, trying to establish a new IP largely on previous games is....confusing. If Irrational had stated that Bioshock 2 was establishing the Bioshock series as a universal IP for all their games....they could have just said "the next installment from the Bioshock universe" and no one would have batted an eye at the announcement of Bioshock: Infinite.

I thoroughly enjoyed Bioshock 1 and was satisfied with the ending. Have not been motivated to play the second. (Never played SS either.) So for me there's no investment in the actual game, just the glaring fact that what they said does not jive with what was unveiled.

However I think this one will have a fairly good story. Sounds like they aren't pulling any punches as far as it goes....racial superiority, lots of offensive propoganda used in the setting...I enjoyed Bioshocks' adventure into the gray areas of scientific and political mores. I'll probably enjoy this one.

But they've pretty much guaranteed I won't be rushing out to buy it. This one will have to get sold by the reviews, to me anyways. If they can't be totally honest about the state of their IP...why should I buy into how they describe their features?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#23
I don't see what the problem is with single player game franchises that have few or small differences between the games. Obviously if they are largely multiplayer games with just new skins/maps and maybe some weapons then you can argue that it is not worthy of a standalone release or just lazy development.

If you take books or films for example, such as James Bond, nobody berrated Flemming because he used the same characters consistently throughout his books, where Bond uses the same sorts of weapons, against the same sorts of bad guys, in the same sorts of settings. Each book has those elements in common, its what he does with those, the individual story that you place the value upon.

Bioshock was/is a very well crafted storyline which drives good gameplay and pushes it into the top tier of gaming. I bought Bioshock and Bioshock 2 for this reason, I didn't expect the gameplay to be radically different. I bought it for the next chapter in the story. I think it is unfair critising all franchises, especially when so little is known yet about this new title.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#25
SheepDip said:
Why is it about good and evil? It business vs creativity, and the balance clearly being on the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of supply and demand? You act like publishers were selling millions of copies of their games to mindless zombies. People actually want sequels because they liked the prior game, of course the developers will develop it. Good examples are Mass Effect -> Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age -> Dragon Age 2. I really agree with Psycho_Sam here. Innovation sure is good but there must always be a balance imo.
 
Upvote 0
#26
SheepDip said:
For me the difference lies in being told the story, and taking part in the story yourself - the lack of distinction is galvanised because you're the one doing it.
Click to expand...

The difference between what exactly? So you don't mind watching or reading book/movie franchises but don't like game franchises because you are not a passive audience?

Let's face it even games which are technically new IP are very often similar within the same genre anyway, so what is the problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DraKon2k
Upvote 0
#28
DraKon2k said:
Ever heard of supply and demand? You act like publishers were selling millions of copies of their games to mindless zombies. People actually want sequels because they liked the prior game, of course the developers will develop it. Good examples are Mass Effect -> Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age -> Dragon Age 2. I really agree with Psycho_Sam here. Innovation sure is good but there must always be a balance imo.
Click to expand...

I have heard of supply and demand, but the principle no longer applies if you indirectly tell people that they want it, or that they should want it. There's an inherent problem in applying a cut and dry business philosophy in a creative field because your target audience is influenced by the associated media, and the associated media is influenced by the creators themselves - thus completely losing their objectivity.

I don't have a problem with franchises that are working, and you are right, good examples do exist - Bioware seem to do well (they seem to know when to stop too) but more often than not it's just a case of rinse and repeat, tell them they want it, show them the razzle dazzle - big it up to the max and watch it fly out of the door.

Psycho_Sam said:
The difference between what exactly? So you don't mind watching or reading book/movie franchises but don't like game franchises because you are not a passive audience?

Let's face it even games which are technically new IP are very often similar within the same genre anyway, so what is the problem?
Click to expand...

I don't really like poor franchises or "re-makes" in any media and can think of very few I own (In literature - Dune, Patrick O'Brians Aubrey-Maturin Novels, the Jurassic Park books and In film Mad Max, Evil Dead, Original Star Wars etc I do have others but they get weak after 2 instalments).

Games are far more interactive than films/TV/literature - so yes I do find it harder to swallow when the big names keep coming up with the same thing with such lack of creative thinking - and that's all they do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#29
SheepDip said:
I have heard of supply and demand, but the principle no longer applies if you indirectly tell people that they want it, or that they should want it. There's an inherent problem in applying a cut and dry business philosophy in a creative field because your target audience is influenced by the associated media, and the associated media is influenced by the creators themselves - thus completely losing their objectivity.

I don't have a problem with franchises that are working, and you are right, good examples do exist - Bioware seem to do well (they seem to know when to stop too) but more often than not it's just a case of rinse and repeat, tell them they want it, show them the razzle dazzle - big it up to the max and watch it fly out of the door.



I don't really like poor franchises or "re-makes" in any media and can think of very few I own (In literature - Dune, Patrick O'Brians Aubrey-Maturin Novels, the Jurassic Park books and In film Mad Max, Evil Dead, Original Star Wars etc I do have others but they get weak after 2 instalments).

Games are far more interactive than films/TV/literature - so yes I do find it harder to swallow when the big names keep coming up with the same thing with such lack of creative thinking - and that's all they do.
Click to expand...

This.

People bought MW2 because everyone bought it and because they were told to buy it everywhere. Most even agreed that the game was bad but still told their friends to buy it because they all play it.
 
Upvote 0
#30
Again, I'd point to the Final Fantasy series as what we expect an IP to be. Square/Nintendo doesn't go off about "creating new IPs" when they make a new Mario game, a new FF knock off or any of that jazz.

I mean, honestly. Are we supposed to credit them for multiple IPs when the games have the same names? Does Carmack say he's making a new IP when he releases every successive new DOOM game, which tends to tweak this and that and be different from the rest? No.

Hell, isn't he announcing DOOM4 this week? He talks about all their IPs, Wolfenstein, Rage, DOOM and one other. What if he turned around tomorrow and just blanketly declared "Oh, Doom 4 is a new IP. Still got demons, still got space marines, but it's new. Trust me. Be excited."

This is industry buzz generation, plain and simple. I'm not making any judgment on the game itself, but their marketing team needs a reality check. Maybe it's the fact Bioshock 2 underwhelmed so many, they didn't want to risk being ignored. Because they might have well been without all the suspense they purposefully built up. If it smells like a bait and switch, it probably is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DraKon2k
Upvote 0
#31
Tbh I think most people here who complain are just being overcareful because they can't differ between franchises that get milked to death(CoD, Guiter Hero, etc.) And if you agree that ME2, DA etc. are good franchises and there it doesn't matter, what's the difference to BioShock? If you look at it that way ME2 and DA2 is / will be also just more of the same with some changes, yet they're totally awesome. Just because you couldn't get warm with the BioShock series doesn't mean it automatically is on the bad side. Especcially as this is not Underwater BioShock 3 but a completely different game nobody should condemn it just yet. Being skeptical is ok especcially if you didn't like the first BioShocks I guess, but what I'm asking for on these forums for years -> be fair at least.
 
Upvote 0
#32
I always assumed that Rapture was the first of it's kind, and that the world outside of Rapture was the same as we currently know it. Now, if the game is set in 1912 there is a floating city that is essentially a copy of Rapture, then I have to assume Andrew Ryan wasn't the original founder of such an idea, and that now the story will be completely screwed up for the sake of another game.

Oh, and cleavage.
 
Upvote 0
#34
Then why include big daddy-like creatures, plasmid-like abilities, and a surreal floating city? I know that the name Bioshock has nothing to do with water, but it's more likely to assume that these two games are in the same universe than System Shock is. If they wanted to create a new thriller based around genetic and biological modification they could have done something a little different.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Volodnikov said:
I always assumed that Rapture was the first of it's kind, and that the world outside of Rapture was the same as we currently know it. Now, if the game is set in 1912 there is a floating city that is essentially a copy of Rapture, then I have to assume Andrew Ryan wasn't the original founder of such an idea, and that now the story will be completely screwed up for the sake of another game.

Oh, and cleavage.
Click to expand...

Me too. I think things will get retconned pretty absurdly.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu