[Megathread] Bioshock Infinite

[Jamber]

There has to be a medium balance. And in all things, there will be different ratios people like better. It can't be all about gameplay, but it can. You look back at Tetris. What was that but a puzzle game. It's a game nontheless. And Iced's comment on Heavy Rain, very atmospheric, a very different game. Gameplay as a vehicle for the story (lol, vehicle, I remember the Bear(I think) test).

That being said, if someone can do both gameplay revolutionarily amazing and story exhilarating and enthralling, we will have the best game ever made. But, until we get that, we have to take what we can get.

[Lightfist]

That's not a bad point. I suggested earlier that the linearity of Bioshock 1's gameplay worked in the context of that game's concept. But that same linearity doesn't work at all in Infinite conceptually. The scripted events do fit the context of Bioshock Infinite. It just the flatness of gameplay and perhaps.... stiffness, does not.

Talking to another MMO-C mod last night I remarked that Bioshock Infinite could either be the best or worst game I have ever played. And that is totally legit.

Because the gameplay here services nothing on a concept level. Yet the concept is so beyond what video games typically attempt OR achieve. Make no mistakes, Bioshock Infinite does nail it's concept with an aplomb rarely witnessed in video games. We have to reach back to the likes of Grim Fandango, FF6 or Ico for a concept so thoroughly and completely executed.

But I don't know why I am shooting robots with a grenade launcher...

Games have to be about gameplay. There can be nothing else.

I would have to call this out as being a hyperbole - unless you have a very, very limited library of played games.

Also, I don't agree that games have to be about gameplay. Do movies have to be about cinematography?

[Fencers]

I disagree.

You may disagree, but it actually can not be so. Games can not be games sans gameplay. They actually wouldn't function as games otherwise.

Did Heavy Rain have to have to be about gameplay?

Yes, it does.

Because, at it's core, it was about moving around and QTEs; if we're to base it on gameplay, Heavy Rain was a boring and bad "game".

"Boring" is subjective. It is of no relevance to anyone but you.

The QTE gameplay did service the method and navigation of Heavy Rain. Gameplay did not fail Heavy Rain in concept. Nor was the concept divorced of the gameplay.

Will great gameplay help a game?

Always.

There is nothing to consider in this medium of video games higher than gameplay.

Story, imagery, allegory, expression, emotion, et cetera can exist outside the medium. But gameplay can not. As words are to literature or sound to music; gameplay is to video games. It is their purpose as a medium expressly.

But the absence of compelling gameplay doesn't necessarily write off a game (usually it does, but there are a select few cases where it does not).

Yes, I do believe you are correct.

Though in the case of Bioshock Infinite here, I hesitate to say the gameplay is "bad". Using the term "bad" somewhat loosely when we should be really saying "contradictory". "Bad" gameplay is contradictory rules that define interaction and method of play.

Infinite's gameplay is... competent. It might even be accomplished-- in the manner that say Spec Ops: The Line [which Infinite reminds me of] had functional & playable gameplay.

Certainly wouldn't say there is some error in the manner of shooting George Washington in the face with a grenade launcher. Yet, I just don't understand why the gameplay is so... routine.

It's not even particularly creative within it's own rule set. For example, all the clothes you get in the game. Why? There isn't anything that really encourages or reinforces the need for such novelty existing. Or the ammo system where Liz can blink things into existence for you. It's all kinda trivial with not real drive to the concept.

To go back to Spec Ops: The Line, at least within the context of that game the "routine" gameplay is used to propel the both the narrative drive and concept. Things are harrowing precisely because it is so "routine" within the game [the individual soldiers in conflict] and in the meta context of apathy/detachment to violence & tragedy through modern media such as video games.

That's interesting. That's remarkable.

I just don't get that from Infinite while shooting lightning bolts at songbird or catching copious coinz.

I would have to call this out as being a hyperbole - unless you have a very, very limited library of played games.

I don't play many bad games.

So a game in which the gameplay is irreverent to the drive of the narrative and concept is pretty bad!

Also, I don't agree that games have to be about gameplay. Do movies have to be about cinematography?

They sorta do. And are.

I have seen Brakhage films with no narrative, actors, players or sound. They were just light at 24 frames a second.

The great trick of cinema is the hypnosis of light.

[icedwarrior]

You may disagree, but it actually can not be so. Games can not be games sans gameplay. They actually wouldn't function as games otherwise.

Why must that be so? What I look for in a video game is the entire experience, not just a deconstructed view of gameplay.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not.

"Boring" is subjective. It is of no relevance to anyone but you.

I never said that it was universal law that you must agree with me, I was just pointing out that it wasn't what many people would exactly call thrilling gameplay. I would think it's a safe assumption to assume that most people don't find moving around compelling.

The QTE gameplay did service the method and navigation of Heavy Rain. Gameplay did not fail Heavy Rain in concept. Nor was the concept divorced of the gameplay.

As does the gameplay of BioShock (although not on the same degree): eliminate the threats to Booker and Elizabeth to continue the story. I don't understand why shooting the crazed zealots of Columbia, of which are hostile and attack you on sight, is a detriment to the game.

Always.

There is nothing to consider in this medium of video games higher than gameplay.

Story, imagery, allegory, expression, emotion, et cetera can exist outside the medium. But gameplay can not. As words are to literature or sound to music; gameplay is to video games. It is their purpose as a medium expressly.

But why? So video games are now pigeon-holed into gameplay, and must hold this above all else? Why must this be so? Don't get me wrong, it's great that it does so (for the reason that you pointed out), but you can easily get the same effect from a game such as BioShock.

Certainly wouldn't say there is some error in the manner of shooting George Washington in the face with a grenade launcher. Yet, I just don't understand why the gameplay is so... routine.

So...what were you expecting, exactly? I'm not saying that the game is without flaws or that it couldn't be improved upon, but you seem to have deconstructed the game to the point where you're asking why we're shooting enemies that are hostile towards you. If I had been on the design team, I would be asking things such as:

• Why are there no more bullet types, such as ammo-piercing?

• Why are most of the plasmids vigors almost the same as from BioShock 1?

• Why did you decide to go from being able to carry all weapons to only two?

And so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean that it's "routine". Please elaborate further, because I can't really respond to such a personal opinion when you don't really give any reasoning behind it.

It's not even particularly creative within it's own rule set. For example, all the clothes you get in the game. Why? There isn't anything that really encourages or reinforces the need for such novelty existing. Or the ammo system where Liz can blink things into existence for you. It's all kinda trivial with not real drive to the concept.

Again, you're deconstructing the game farrrrrrr too much. But I'll bite. Would it be any different if vigors had these effects? And how is blinking things into existance "trivial and without real drive into the concept"? That's her power!

To go back to Spec Ops: The Line, at least within the context of that game the "routine" gameplay is used to propel the both the narrative drive and concept. Things are harrowing precisely because it is so "routine" within the game [the individual soldiers in conflict] and in the meta context of apathy/detachment to violence & tragedy through modern media such as video games.

That's interesting. That's remarkable.

I just don't get that from Infinite while shooting lightning bolts at songbird or catching copious coinz.

You're right. I mean, why does Katamari roll a ball? Why does Tidus wield a sword? Why does Booker move?



Ultimately, while I can appreciate an insight and critical analysis of a "true AAA" game, I believe you're being far to analytical.

[Korgoth]

How long have you played it? People give Call of Duty a lot of shit being short, but I have 7 hours played on Black Ops 2, with 1 play through, and I have 8 hours played on BSI with 1 play through. Compared to say 40 hours on Assassins Creed 3 and 22 Hrs for Mass Effect 3 for 1 play through.

Kind of amazed this isn't brought up much in the reviews.

[Lightfist]

Honestly, I fail to see how any of the things you've mentioned detract from or 'contradict' Infinite.

The mechanical patriots are literal embodiments of the zealot nationalism found throughout all of Columbia. They are just a part of the world that you happen to have to blow the hell up.

Elizabeth tossing you coins and other helpful items helps to make her feel more like a companion and less like a burden. The items and objects she brings through tears are a way of incorporating her unique ability into the gameplay.

As for the clothes... well, they're just little RPG elements. I wouldn't argue they add to the 'concept', but they certainly help players develop different playstyles.

---------- Post added 2013-04-08 at 05:46 PM ----------

How long have you played it? People give Call of Duty a lot of shit being short, but I have 7 hours played on Black Ops 2, with 1 play through, and I have 8 hours played on BSI with 1 play through. Compared to say 40 hours on Assassins Creed 3 and 22 Hrs for Mass Effect 3 for 1 play through.

Kind of amazed this isn't brought up much in the reviews.

I think my first playthrough was around 20 hours, give or take.

[icedwarrior]

As for the clothes... well, they're just little RPG elements. I wouldn't argue they add to the 'concept', but they certainly help players develop different playstyles.

But...why? Why is Elizabeth wearing clothes? It's not advancing the story in a meaningful way. Sorry, I had to.

How long have you played it?

I beat it in 11.9 hours, according to Steam. That was with a "medium" focus on exploration and on the medium difficulty. I still plan on revisiting the game on 1999 and explore ALL THE THINGS!.

People give Call of Duty a lot of shit being short, but I have 7 hours played on Black Ops 2, with 1 play through, and I have 8 hours played on BSI with 1 play through.

Yeah, but isn't that a bit different? I mean, I'm not saying this with hate (although I do dislike the franchise), but they do kind of crank out CoD titles, and if I'm buying one every year-ish, I want more than 7 hours.

Compared to say 40 hours on Assassins Creed 3 and 22 Hrs for Mass Effect 3 for 1 play through.

Different types of games, although judging by your 8 hours, I doubt you went and explored every nook and cranny, something that you really should be doing.

Kind of amazed this isn't brought up much in the reviews.

Meh, reviews...

[Lightfist]

But...why? Why is Elizabeth wearing clothes? It's not advancing the story in a meaningful way. Sorry, I had to.

Come on, man... [I]she's your daughter.[/I]

[Jamber]

Come on, man... [I]she's your daughter.[/I]

Oh, but is it his, or the kid of a parallel version of himself?

[Korgoth]

Different types of games, although judging by your 8 hours, I doubt you went and explored every nook and cranny, something that you really should be doing.

Then they should give a reason to do so beyond just doing it. If I stuck to just the main quest line in AC3 it would probably have taken me half the time. But then they made it interesting in having side missions and ship missions. With BSI besides some really boring, go back and find the item quest, It seemed to just move you along the main story, you could explore, but for what? It's main moves along at such a pace it felt odd to stop and just look about.

[Fencers]

Why must that be so?

Because they can't function otherwise. There is no way to make them- like you literally can not. It can't be programed or played.

Gameplay is a system of rules. For example, if the player picks up this gun, presses the fire button then it triggers this effect.

On a basic level it also extends to the ability to walk, forward the dialogue, read or listen to dialogue, see the game or even start the game.

The method by which you as a player can interact with any game in any way is based on gameplay. Without gameplay you'd have a menu screen [or not] and a slideshow/movie.

Which is fine, but then no longer a video game. It would be another medium entirely.

Even something like Dear Esther is predicated on gameplay. Even when that gameplay consists of merely walking around the world, for example. The method by which players walk and come to information in Dear Esther is an active experience of gameplay.

Games literally can not exist as a medium without gameplay. You couldn't play them.

No, it does not.

If that were true Heavy Rain would not even be playable. But you do play, you can ONLY interact with the game through gameplay. There is no other method possible for playing the game.

I would think it's a safe assumption to assume that most people don't find moving around compelling.

That's not really important though.

To use Dear Esther again as an example; that is exactly what players did in the game... move around. Nothing more!

Now how compelling that is super subjective. The gameplay is not. It is absolute, a hard fact of playing the game.

As does the gameplay of BioShock (although not on the same degree): eliminate the threats to Booker and Elizabeth to continue the story. I don't understand why shooting the crazed zealots of Columbia, of which are hostile and attack you on sight, is a detriment to the game.

I am not sure if it is a detriment exactly. To be honest.

Though I do think the gameplay doesn't service the concept in any cohesive way. Especially given the sheer volume, frequency and almost nonstop insistence on shooting things.

That your only method of interaction is shooting and pressing ka-thunk! buttons with vigor [pun intended] is pretty disappointing when there is no method to effect things that actually drive the concept/story. Stuff just sort of happens regardless of your agency.

That kinda-sorta-mostly works in the context of Bioshock 1. That's what Bioshock 1 is about afterall.

But why? So video games are now pigeon-holed into gameplay, and must hold this above all else?

Sorta explained this already above. But gameplay is an absolute in video games. It's pretty unique in media in that it is an objective truth a sword deals 500 damage in Princess Rescue Simulator 2013 or pressing A in mid air causes Rocco the Hamster to double jump, etc.

We just don't have a method to the play a video game without gameplay. There are theoretical games that exist outside of video games like paper games, card games, physical games, asymmetrical goal orientated, imaginary games and so forth.

Natch, those may not be video games necessarily. One can play Chess in video game form but that would be an electronic translation of existing gameplay rules as govern Chess. Can only play chess via that system of rules. Or football and whathaveyou.

So...what were you expecting, exactly? I'm not saying that the game is without flaws or that it couldn't be improved upon, but you seem to have deconstructed the game to the point where you're asking why we're shooting enemies that are hostile towards you. If I had been on the design team, I would be asking things such as:

• Why are there no more bullet types, such as ammo-piercing?

• Why are most of the plasmids vigors almost the same as from BioShock 1?

• Why did you decide to go from being able to carry all weapons to only two?

And so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean that it's "routine". Please elaborate further, because I can't really respond to such a personal opinion when you don't really give any reasoning behind it.

I don't really have expectations of games personally. I play things that seem to be well regarded, remarkable, hotly debated or noteworthy in some manner. Rarely for personal pleasure. I find games /interesting/ more so than /fun/.

Also, why AM I shooting things in the face nonstop?

"It's a shooter", okay sure. Yes, the huge/obvious fact we saved the girl in the locked tower and now the king has sent his men after us is not too high minded.

Yet when I look to something like a Half-Life the gameplay informs the concept and vice versa. Like that gravity gun or why combine are cracking down on you- that stuff is both narrative and gameplay.

Or as in the previously mentioned, Spec Ops The Line. Which I don't think is a better game than Infinite, but the gameplay and concept informed each other.

A lot of the mechanical causes of the game were okay-ish. Though you hit a couple of mechanical "why is this here?" gripes. Like the 2 weapon system [not in contrast to BS1 though] which didn't really seem to have any reason in gameplay. It's a pretty arbitrary decision as there are few if any tactical choices or the need to forsake X over Y and maybe never getting N.

I thought the vigors were pretty interesting. Though the salts mechanic was likewise nullified by potions everywhere, Elizabeth tossing your packages of Morton's and very little to inspire or reward creativity in their use. Unlike say, Dishonored.

Would it be any different if vigors had these effects?

I think it would, yea. Especially if it was defined by some tradeoff that you as a player have to make.

If you are making those choices for defensive barriers, ammo stashes, turrets and so forth at the cost of maybe throwing crows on people or setting them on fire that would put a real and definite price to those decisions. And you would be the agent of those moments.

And how is blinking things into existance "trivial and without real drive into the concept"? That's her power!

It's actually fine if Liz does them. However it's not too taxing on her, tears are fairly plentiful and for the most part their usage is pretty much a no-brainer in many cases.

You're right. I mean, why does Katamari roll a ball? Why does Tidus wield a sword? Why does Booker move?

I do think those are worth questioning or investigating though.

Heh, what is also interesting is the first Bioshock answered the "why does the PC move" question. So I don't feel it is inappropriate to ask,"Why does Booker move?" either.

Well made games are not beneath serious or rigorous consideration. Infinite is an extremely well made game. There is quite a lot to reflect on I feel.

[Myrrar]

You are trying to claim games are about gameplay, it's what makes them a game instead of a movie. That's correct. But what does that have to do with this game?

What have almost all RPGs been? You have a target goal, things come up between you reaching that goal, you take care of them, you reach the goal. You fight enemies because they attack you. You have the gear option because they wanted to give you some sort of choice on how to fight those enemies.

Bioshock is a shooter. When you play a shooter, you want to shoot shit. Most of the combat in any game is simply there for combats sake. They build the stories around the type of game style the game is supposed to be about. Sure, Infinite could have been a Dishonored type rpg where if you're smart you can avoid almost all combat, but that wasn't the point of the game. That wasn't what they wanted their game to be.

It's like saying FF7s combat was useless because you could have just not stepped on the random mobs toe and sent him into rage wanting to fight you. Ofc you could have realistically, but it's a game. A game where that type of combat was the point of the gameplay. The story worked around that gameplay. World of Warcraft you pick poop up for a random NPC that doesn't matter while Deathwing flew around burning people alive.

The mobs, the types of mobs, the types of weapons, the amount of fighting, was there just to be there. To be something other than sitting there watching a movie.

Gameplay wise Infinite was just a newer Bioshock, if you think that makes it a bad game gameplay wise that's an opinion, not fact. DA2 was just an advanced DA:O gameplay wise, some loved it, some hated it. ME2 was ME1 but more advanced. FF8 was more advanced than 7, and 9 more advanced than both. Bioshock was a shooter, it wasn't Dishonored, it wasn't Dues Ex, it was just a basic shooter.

[shokter]

Games have to be about gameplay. There can be nothing else.

Interesting little discussion/debate going on here. I feel the AV Club's review of Infinite touched upon this pretty well. It is an interesting perspective (as they often bring to game reviews). This review is one of their best (check out their Hotline Miami and Binding of Isaac reviews as well if you want to see game reviews brought to the next level).

I don't agree with everything the reviewer says, but a good point is made regarding the rationale behind the gameplay in Bioshock vs Infinite.

http://gameological.com/2013/03/revi...hock-infinite/

An excerpt (from AV Club's Gameological Society reviewer John Teti)

"Whatever the merits of its component parts, BioShock Infinite has a larger problem of coherence. The game takes a preexisting structure, with surprisingly little modification, and grafts a new set of ideas onto it. The surgery is expert, but the seams still show.

The guns-and-magic combat that proves so gripping in BioShock’s Rapture is not such a perfect fit in Columbia. The submarine claustrophobia of Rapture makes for short sight lines that limit the effectiveness of your superpowers. Yes, you can fire bolts of lightning from your hands, but that does nothing for the son of a bitch hiding around the corner—or creeping across the ceiling behind your back. In the wide-open spaces of Columbia, however, battles often prove anticlimactic, as you can pick off enemies from a great distance. So even if the grump with the rocket launcher is a hundred yards away as the crow flies, the crows will indeed fly there, and then they will peck him into submission.

Other parts of the BioShock carryover simply don’t make sense. It’s all well and good that the plasmids of the old game have been rechristened as Vigors for Infinite, but in the BioShock, plasmid abuse was an integral part of Rapture’s downfall. More to the point, plasmids made sense in the culture of Rapture, where self-worship was the norm, and man’s freedom to improve his lot was sacrosanct.

Where do Vigors fit into Columbia? I don’t know, and neither does Infinite. There are advertisements for Vigors all over the city, and you can find bottles of the stuff lying around, but very few Columbians use them. In a society that espouses racial purity, you’d think Vigors would be more of an issue. After all, they can turn a person into a demigod regardless of race. But this never comes up. If anything, Comstock appears to tacitly embrace the sale of Vigors. There’s a difference between plot holes, which are excusable, and a disregard for internal logic. Vigors belong to the latter category."


and the pithy:


"...the present-day studio system is built, both in terms of its creative methods and its talent pool, to produce high-quality shooters. They’ve become banal, to the point that admiring BioShock Infinite because of its merit as a shooter feels like praising your dog for licking his balls. It may be entertaining, but it’s hardly worthy of applause."

The review is much less scathing than those above quotes might lead one to believe, and worth a read. I loved Infinite, but concede some of his points.

[Fencers]

You are trying to claim games are about gameplay, it's what makes them a game instead of a movie. That's correct. But what does that have to do with this game?

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post20765584

I didn't feel the gameplay serviced the concept very well. Some of it was rather pointless within the structure of the game [in total] too.

Gameplay wise Infinite was just a newer Bioshock, if you think that makes it a bad game gameplay wise that's an opinion, not fact.

Just a note, I didn't say the gameplay was "bad". Was careful to say the gameplay was quite accomplished if you read above.

http://gameological.com/2013/03/revi...hock-infinite/

Oh, quite a nice read there. Really interesting.

The contrast from BS1 & BS3 really has me thinking since finishing the game.

[icedwarrior]

Because they can't function otherwise. There is no way to make them- like you literally can not. It can't be programed or played.

Gameplay is a system of rules. For example, if the player picks up this gun, presses the fire button then it triggers this effect.

What I'm trying to get across is that the actions of the player shouldn't always be 100% the main focus. Again, I turn to Heavy Rain. I am perfectly content with minimal input and watching the scene unfold. To me, that's perfect: input from the user, a compelling story, and events to unfold based upon what I have selected. In this regard, it's more of a "movie" than a "game", but I don't really care about conventional definitions. The Walking Dead was another good example of this: sure, there was light shooting and doing stuff, but it was more about "shit, I have 5 seconds to decide if X person lives or Y person lives...what happens now? Did I just fuck the group?" Watching that unfold, to me, is more compelling than shooting 74 zombies in the face and advancing to level 45.

Which is fine, but then no longer a video game. It would be another medium entirely.

And why can't we challenge the definition of what a video game is? Even a game such as Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead has input from the user; it can't be called a "movie".

Even something like Dear Esther is predicated on gameplay. Even when that gameplay consists of merely walking around the world, for example. The method by which players walk and come to information in Dear Esther is an active experience of gameplay.

Games literally can not exist as a medium without gameplay. You couldn't play them.

For the basis of this discussion, I'm going to use the Wikipedia definition:

Gameplay is the specific way in which players interact with a game, and in particular with video games. Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them, plot and player's connection with it.

By this very definition, wouldn't it be permissible to say that if a video game had some sort of user input, it is, without fail, a video game with gameplay elements?

I am not sure if it is a detriment exactly. To be honest.

Though I do think the gameplay doesn't service the concept in any cohesive way. Especially given the sheer volume, frequency and almost nonstop insistence on shooting things.

That your only method of interaction is shooting and pressing ka-thunk! buttons with vigor [pun intended] is pretty disappointing when there is no method to effect things that actually drive the concept/story. Stuff just sort of happens regardless of your agency.

While I agree with the premise that the game would have been "better" if there was a reason as to why you're using Vigors, etc, I don't think that it is at all hurting the game (not that you're making that argument).

Sorta explained this already above. But gameplay is an absolute in video games. It's pretty unique in media in that it is an objective truth a sword deals 500 damage in Princess Rescue Simulator 2013 or pressing A in mid air causes Rocco the Hamster to double jump, etc.

We just don't have a method to the play a video game without gameplay. There are theoretical games that exist outside of video games like paper games, card games, physical games, asymmetrical goal orientated, imaginary games and so forth.

Natch, those may not be video games necessarily. One can play Chess in video game form but that would be an electronic translation of existing gameplay rules as govern Chess. Can only play chess via that system of rules. Or football and whathaveyou.

I think I either didn't get my point across well enough, or you're missing my point that I'm making: I'm not stating that a game must have gameplay, but the importance in relation to the story, atmosphere, etc. To me, a great story means I'll muck through even shitty gameplay games. I'm hoping that games such as Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead makes people reconsider their priorities.

Also, why AM I shooting things in the face nonstop?

"It's a shooter", okay sure. Yes, the huge/obvious fact we saved the girl in the locked tower and now the king has sent his men after us is not too high minded.

Yet when I look to something like a Half-Life the gameplay informs the concept and vice versa. Like that gravity gun or why combine are cracking down on you- that stuff is both narrative and gameplay.

Or as in the previously mentioned, Spec Ops The Line. Which I don't think is a better game than Infinite, but the gameplay and concept informed each other.

Perhaps because they pose a challenge to you in regards to your escaping Columbia? After all, Elizabeth is told to be their next-in-line Prophet, so it's not like they're going to be letting you go willingly...and, after all, look what Booker did to get her freed: he destroyed the tower in which she was held captive. He's not exactly taking her and leaving quietly in the night.

A lot of the mechanical causes of the game were okay-ish. Though you hit a couple of mechanical "why is this here?" gripes. Like the 2 weapon system [not in contrast to BS1 though] which didn't really seem to have any reason in gameplay. It's a pretty arbitrary decision as there are few if any tactical choices or the need to forsake X over Y and maybe never getting N.

I thought the vigors were pretty interesting. Though the salts mechanic was likewise nullified by potions everywhere, Elizabeth tossing your packages of Morton's and very little to inspire or reward creativity in their use. Unlike say, Dishonored.

I won't comment on the guns mechanic, as I've already discussed it and have nothing new to say in this regard, although I'm near certain that Elizabeth throwing you stuff in combat has a cooldown. This makes combat significantly easier with the aforementioned Vigors, although you can't just infinitely spam it. A nice middle ground.

I think it would, yea. Especially if it was defined by some tradeoff that you as a player have to make.

I don't think so. You're never really "without" your Vigors, so what's the difference in having them on Vigors as opposed to gear? It's the same thing. Now, if the upgrades were on guns, then yes, that would have definite tradeoff, and be more compelling.

I do think those are worth questioning or investigating though.

Addressing the motivation of the important characters of the game is definitely worth exploring, but asking why a player is collecting coins in a video game isn't in the same league of discussion.

Well made games are not beneath serious or rigorous consideration. Infinite is an extremely well made game. There is quite a lot to reflect on I feel.

As stated before, I believe the same as you do in this regard, but, again, I feel that you're deconstructing it a bit to much.

[Fencers]

And why can't we challenge the definition of what a video game is?

Well, it's already defined.

If we have no gameplay and scenes simple unfold that is a film. Long or short form.

If there is a method of rule set & interaction that governs the scenes that is a video game. No matter how slight the interaction may be.

Even a game such as Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead has input from the user; it can't be called a "movie".

They aren't movies. They are games. You interact with them as defined by the rule set of those games; called gameplay.

Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead are not challenging the "definition" of games. They are games. Both have gameplay and rule sets. Which are hard rules. You can't even operate outside of the rules those games. The possibility doesn't even exist. Heh.

We can't make The Walking Dead "go" [so to speak] without gameplay. It is designed to be played, we can play, by playing is how we progress the narrative, the game can not progress without us, etc, etc.

Dragon's Lair is a video game. Dear Esther is a video game. The Cat and the Coup is a video game. Blah blah blah.

They all have gameplay. Gameplay drives them.

By this very definition, wouldn't it be permissible to say that if a video game had some sort of user input, it is, without fail, a video game with gameplay elements?

Of course, that is exactly what I defined above in multiple posts now. A video game is necessarily a set of rules by which the player(s) interact with the product/work.

It is the very first thing I am outlining in the very post you quoted: link

"The method by which you as a player can interact with any game in any way is based on gameplay. Without gameplay you'd have a menu screen [or not] and a slideshow/movie.

Which is fine, but then no longer a video game. It would be another medium entirely." <-- me

While I agree with the premise that the game would have been "better" if there was a reason as to why you're using Vigors, etc, I don't think that it is at all hurting the game (not that you're making that argument).

Or perhaps if there was need.

This may also be a factor of how plentiful things are in the game. So there isn't quite the sense of urgency as I think the devs expected there to be. So even stuff like the +hp/-salt mechanic feels pretty arbitrary. Liz tossing you stuff all the time or the already talked about ammo dispensers EVERYWHERE. XD

I'm hoping that games such as Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead makes people reconsider their priorities.

I am not sure why one would have to reconsider priorities. TWD and Heavy Rain are definitely playable.

Their respective gameplay models service the concepts and narrative quite well. In the case of TWD, they do so really well! In TWD the gameplay even creates tension that is cohesive to the theme and narrative as a function of gameplay.

I don't think so. You're never really "without" your Vigors, so what's the difference in having them on Vigors as opposed to gear? It's the same thing. Now, if the upgrades were on guns, then yes, that would have definite tradeoff, and be more compelling.

Would likely redesign the vigor system, of course. Because it would be a pretty big change from how those mechanics work currently.

The basic idea would be that usage or ability to makes decisions of that kind would have some sort of significant cost or exclusion. Admittedly that wouldn't be the only way to do it though. There are likely some creative ways to leverage player choices in a way that encourages creativity.

How Infinite does it now isn't too shabby an idea. Where Liz has some powers and stuff. As I said, maybe it's all a little too plentiful. Too convenient as to reveal the thinness of what is a essentially a shooting gallery.

Perhaps I will try 1999 mode and see how much of this dynamic is changed from the standard game.

Addressing the motivation of the important characters of the game is definitely worth exploring, but asking why a player is collecting coins in a video game isn't in the same league of discussion.

I think it is though.

One of the most interesting articles I read on game design was why the baby cried in Yoshi's Island. Don't have a link anymore. Was a few years ago at this point. But it was great design and very much worth asking why you were collecting coins. Actually, I think it was star collecting in that games. Been awhile as well.

[Adam Jensen]

I loved these two.

Possible spoilers, watch with discretion.

[Very Tired]

I don't get the coin flip scene. I'm assuming he lands it on heads just like the many Booker Dewitts in other universes. Why don't they stop the cycle before he does?

[Jamber]

I don't get the coin flip scene. I'm assuming he lands it on heads just like the many Booker Dewitts in other universes. Why don't they stop the cycle before he does?

The coin flip does not denote that every attempt was to succeed or fail. It was merely a way of them to experiment while they were going through universes. Some things never changed, while some did. It's more flavor than plot device. It was also probably wishful thinking. They might have thought "hey, if this one is tails, it could be the one to fix everything!" They seemed slightly disappointed that it was heads again, but in a way that they knew it was going to be that way. They didn't have to power to stop the cycle, they could only guide and watch as it unfolded. That's why the had to get Booker in the first place.

[Deleted]

I'm not entirely sure about that: but are the Luteces in fact twins ooooor - that's what i think - are they the exact same person ? only that in one reality it's a female and in another it's a male ... and that they both worked on their quantum physics stuff and happened to open tears to each others universe where they then met and decided that their incredible smartness x2 would be better for further research?

as far as i can recall while playing Bioshock:Infinite is was mentioned that Luteces (female) brother (male of course) showed up out of nowhere and nobody ever new that she had a brother in the first place.

what do you think ?