Bioshock: Infinite [no spoilers]

[Omnomnick]

$60 for a story is too much, no matter how good the story.

Just buy the damn game.

No excuses. Go buy it then come back to me and tell me it wasn't worth it.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I think you'd like the gameplay more than you think, Krynn. It's come quite a long way since Bioshock.

 

[Tacoeaterguy]

I feel sorry for you. Having a personal "price vs time" requirement on a game like Bioshock Infinite is stupid. The game is well worth the price tag.

It's not like he isn't going to play the game. You make it sound like he's completely against the notion of buying it. I'm sure that he'll eventually play it once the price goes down.

What's the problem with waiting a few months instead of playing it right when it releases? His experience wont be ruined in any way, and his wallet will have more money in it.

 

[Krynn72]

I think you'd like the gameplay more than you think, Krynn. It's come quite a long way since Bioshock.

I saw Giant Bomb's Quick Look, and it seemed pretty similar. The ol' bees in one hand, gun in the other, and you just run through corridors shooting bees and bullets.

I suppose its not so much me not liking Bioshock's gameplay per say, but just "shooter" gameplay in general that I have found so un-engaging these past several year.

And yes, as Taco said, I will buy it when its cheaper, as I said. Its not that I'm turned off by the gameplay, but that I don't think the value I'll personally get out of it is worth 60 of my dollars.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Guns n' Bees

This is the absolute best version of Guns n' Bees.

 

[Vegeta897]

but that I don't think the value I'll personally get out of it is worth 60 of my dollars.

What's the current exchange rate of dog dollars to human dollars anyway?

 

[Omnomnick]

I saw Giant Bomb's Quick Look, and it seemed pretty similar. The ol' bees in one hand, gun in the other, and you just run through corridors shooting bees and bullets.

I suppose its not so much me not liking Bioshock's gameplay per say, but just "shooter" gameplay in general that I have found so un-engaging these past several year.

The majority of the combat is actually located in larger and more open areas compared to the original Bioshock, which, also thanks to the inclusion of tears and skyrails, helps to speed the pace up substantially. These changes and a series of other tweaks have seriously improved the gameplay and made it extremely more engrossing and open ended.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Well said. Also: Elizabeth.

 

[Sheepo]

My understanding is that it alternates between a shooting gallery and a museum of oblivious animatronic citizens to walk through. Granted, where these two events take place is extremely breathtaking, you have a wonderful guide taking you through it, and there's an intriguing story going on at the same time. If I cared even slightly for Bioshock's gameplay I'd probably be interested.

 

[Mirage]

Just beat Infinite, the ending was so much more grandiose than the original. The overall story was more compelling than the first, too. As for the game-play, it really seems like it flows at a faster pace than the prior two, and the skyline and tears combined with the open environments give the combat a significantly different feel. I suppose I can't discuss the "mind-bending" ending, but I'm left wondering how the three dlcs will work.

If I had one complaint about the game, though, I would say the pacing is a little off, in the first Bioshock, I remember there was "room" to breathe after a fight. While there are chances for that here, they are too few and far between.

Still, a great game, and well worth the money.

 

[nofreeman]

Spoiler

Felt lost when Elizabeth runs off...

ADMIN MESSAGE: Please put spoiler tags around stuff like that next time. I had to edit your post to prevent possible spoilers for those who haven't played it.

 

[Mirage]

You know, I have mixed feelings on the ending.

 

[stemot]

Finished it. Didn't see what all this fuss was about at the start. I was feeling a little let down with the combat and there was close to no story getting revealed. A little later I was tearing down skylines like a mad man and using my crows to pick at the flesh of my enemies whilst pulling in sentry guns from tears to assist me. Then the story started heating up. By the end my mind was blown. Fantastic game that now on my second playthrough the story pieces together brilliantly. Really hope the DLC continues the story in some aspect and doesn't go down the "different character running parallel to Bookers events" route.

 

[Unfocused]

Got this yesterday and I'm enjoying the experience so far.

In terms of graphics they did go a little overboard with the bloom though. It seems the alternate post-processing helps with that at the cost of a few fps. I couldn't find any solid info or comparison screenshots showing the difference between normal and alternate, but I just some screenshots and the difference is obvious.

 

[stemot]

I like it better with the Bloom, it helps to paint the city as this magic place above the clouds painting a false image of a utopia.

 

[Krynn72]

Whatever you changed, changed the depth of field, not the bloom.

 

[Vegeta897]

Whatever you changed, changed the depth of field, not the bloom.

Looks like changed bloom to me.

 

[stemot]

The option that you change is a differed DX11 depth of field option as the options describe it, so Krynn is correct.

 

[Vegeta897]

Krynn didn't even know what the option was called, and it doesn't matter. I'm sure other things changed as well involving depth of field, but the bloom amount is definitely changed too. The difference in those pictures is not just blurring.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Yet another game I've been on the fence about. The positive impressions everyone has been giving means I'll probably pick it up eventually, likely when its cheaper though.

 

[SnakeTheLegend]

I am about 2 hours in and enjoying the game immensely. The story, art, and world are well-crafted, but the one detail that really sticks out to me that bothers me is the variety of face models for the citizens of Columbia. On several occasions, I have seen the same group of face models for at least 3 different groups of NPC's conversing in the same area. That is the one flaw that I find with the game so far, but it is a minor one. Overall, the game has had me hooked since the get-go. The first 30 minutes of the game had my jaw on the floor, it was really quite amazing how atmospheric it was.

 

[Krynn72]

Krynn didn't even know what the option was called, and it doesn't matter. I'm sure other things changed as well involving depth of field, but the bloom amount is definitely changed too. The difference in those pictures is not just blurring.

Looks to me like the DOF was processed after the bloom, thereby "enhancing" its effect by blurring the bloom. And what does it matter if I didn't know what it's called in the options, I still recognized it. Stemot confirmed that the option changes DOF and says nothing about Bloom, so unless the devs tied in bloom options to DOF and don't mention it to the player, then that's all it changed.

Go back to your 2D pixel art :arms:

 

[Vegeta897]

I don't see how that could be what's happening. You can clearly see the light of the lamp glass itself, and it's about the same blurriness in both images. The only thing drastically different is the aura of light around it, which is stronger and more spread in the first picture.

Another example:

Notice how the geometry itself looks almost identical in each version? You can see the sharpness of the edges in both. The only thing different is the light is bleeding a lot more in the first one. Isn't DOF the blurring of everything, including geometry, based on distance?

 

[Krynn72]

I don't see how that could be what's happening. You can clearly see the light of the lamp glass itself

Which doesn't have anything to do with bloom. That's probably an emissive shader.

and it's about the same blurriness in both images.

Totally disagree, the high DOF one is definitely blurrier, if only slightly.

The only thing drastically different is the aura of light around it, which is stronger and more spread in the first picture.

Because its being blurred more.

Another example:

Notice how the geometry itself looks almost identical in each version? You can see the sharpness of the edges in both. The only thing different is the light is bleeding a lot more in the first one. Isn't DOF the blurring of everything, including geometry, based on distance?

DOF, depending on the engine, will affect different components of a render to a different degree. Bloom, being a post process is usually rendered as a texture on top of everything else, so whether its a mile away or 2 inches away, the DOF process likely doesn't take the source of the bloom into consideration and simply blurs the whole post process texture equally. Geometry is different though since its not a post process rendering effect, and therefore will be less blurred when closer as opposed to farther geometry.

 

[stemot]

The options screen with the description for what it does. This is the one that changes the DOF and has the effect of reduced bloom.

 

[Vegeta897]

Because its being blurred more.

Sorry but blurring a piece of bloom does not make it look stronger, unless it's also increasing the alpha at the same time (try this yourself in any image editor). The bloom is stronger, not just more blurry. Blurring things causes spread but it does not make it stronger, unless like I said it's upping the alpha drastically at the same time.

It seems to me like this alternate DOF processing simply has a different bloom strength than the other option. So yeah, it's part of the DOF, but the effect we're talking about is the bloom, and it's different, independent of the main function of DOF which is distance-based geometry blurring.

Edit: Example of a bloom layer: http://i.imgur.com/ZluWePc.png
And applying blur to it: http://i.imgur.com/Y9rtyUW.png
And upping the alpha curve: http://i.imgur.com/3qFUukN.png

 

[Krynn72]

I'm going to email them and ask.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Dear Ken Levine,

I am a dog

Love,

Krynn72

p.s. bark bark

 

[Remus]

I've been playing it all day and I like it a lot.
Haven't finished yet though.

Also

Spoiler

Elisabeth = Olivia Dunham? With the whole "I can open portals to parallel universes at will" thing

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Just wait until you finish, Remus :V

 

[Omnomnick]

It will be ten bucks on every steam sale before you know it.

At 9 hours, I can definitely wait.

No. You can't. Irrational deserve every penny this game is currently worth. I'm starting to become annoyed with the growing gamer mentality of "it'll be cheaper soon, so let's just get it then - even if I'd like to play it at release." It'll only hurt game developers and game quality in the long run.

 

[Krynn72]

That's pretty stupid logic, for so many reasons that I don't even care to list them. Go figure them out yourself.

 

[Omnomnick]

That's pretty stupid logic, for so many reasons that I don't even care to list them. Go figure them out yourself.

You obviously missed the line about "even if I'd like to play it at release", since that part basically targets my statement only at people who put saving money ahead of everything else, regardless of quality. It generally shows a lack of confidence in developers and gaming as a whole, and while that might be helpful in saving money in risky cases such as Aliens: Colonial Marines, it is completely unnecessary for a game like Bioshock Infinite. Yeah, the Steam sales are great, but they're not designed to make gamers put off buying games they want to play entirely just to save money down the line, they're created to help promote gamers to buy more games, more specifically games they might not have ever considered.

Imagine if everyone put off buying games and simply waited for a Steam sale half a year down the line? So many gaming companies would be totally screwed, and for what? So the gaming community can ultimately lessen the value of quality within the industry and save themselves a few pounds? As I said previously, using a Time Vs Money mentality, where so many hours must equal a certain amount of cash, for a game like Bioshock is totally stupid, for so many reasons that I don't even care to list them. Would you buy a shit game for $60 if it had a 20-30 hour campaign? Even if those 20-30 hours were substantially less developed and lower quality than Bioshock Infinite's 9-11 hours?

 

[Vegeta897]

You obviously missed the line about "even if I'd like to play it at release", since that part basically targets my statement only at people who put saving money ahead of everything else, regardless of quality.

And you obviously missed the line where ZT said 9 hours wasn't worth the current price for him.

 

[Omnomnick]

And you obviously missed the line where ZT said 9 hours wasn't worth the current price for him.

Still comes across in a way that I talked about in the end of my post. It seems like few people seem to use quality as an equal measurement of a game's value anymore, or at least that is the way it comes across. Surely a short high quality experience is worth far more than a much longer lower quality one, right? Compare Portal 1 with Skyrim, for example.

 

[Vegeta897]

People are still plenty happy to purchase games at high prices when they know it's going to be good. Look at how damn successful BF and CoD preorders are. (you might say some people are too happy to preorder shit...) The people in this thread who want to wait for sales have not had enough good previous experience with the series to want the game that badly. If they end up buying it on sale and love it, then they'll probably buy the next one at full price. This is just how it works, and always has. Once I got into the arma series I became a loyal fan and was happy to pay full price (and higher than full price for arma 3) because I knew the game would be good and had time to get to know the developers. If arma was a totally new series to me then I'd be more hesitant.

 

[Omnomnick]

The people in this thread who want to wait for sales have not had enough good previous experience with the series to want the game that badly.

But ZT has only posted once and it came across as "The amount of time I will spend with this experience does no warrant X amount of money", with no clear regard for quality. Whether he played and disliked previous games in the series is irrelevant because it wasn't mentioned. And I wasn't just talking about people in this thread, I'm talking about gaming in general since the same thing happened back with Telltale's Walking Dead series and multiple other titles over the past few games.

 

[Krynn72]

But ZT has only posted once and it came across as "The amount of time I will spend with this experience does no warrant X amount of money", with no clear regard for quality.

Then the problem clearly lies in your own misinterpretation of ZT's post that was founded on baseless assumptions of his character.

And wtf? Telltale's Walking Dead series has been incredibly successful and has hooked a ton of people on for day one purchases of all future entries into the series. Waiting for it to be cheaper when someone is on the fence about buying it hasn't hurt Telltale one god damn bit.

 

[Omnomnick]

And wtf? Telltale's Walking Dead series has been incredibly successful and has hooked a ton of people on for day one purchases of all future entries into the series. Waiting for it to be cheaper when someone is on the fence about buying it hasn't hurt Telltale one god damn bit.

That isn't what I said or implied. A lot of people were initially skeptical of buying the full season on Steam or the first episode on Xbox Live for X amount of money because it only appeared as if there would be X amount of game time, despite the fact that the first episode made it clear that the game(s) would be one of the highest quality gaming experiences of the past year. See what I'm getting at yet? It seems as if people genuinely don't consider quality as a factor anymore when deciding whether to spend their money on a game or not.

 

[Krynn72]

And once it got cheaper, went on sale, more people felt secure enough to buy into it despite their concerns. So as time went on, more people were playing it, leading more people to hear about it, leading to more people playing it, leading to more people buying it. Telltale then realizes it made a shitload of money. In addition, upon realizing how good it was, these people hesitant initially are much more likely buy season two right away at higher prices. Just as Vegeta said, its a trust building thing. I didn't like Bioshock as much as everyone else seems to, so when I see Bioshock fans raving about it, I'm still not going to be convinced, its still a gamble whether its going to be worth it. So I will wait for it to be cheaper, then if the 9 hours of gameplay and story doesn't live up to the hype, I'm not as bummed, and if it blows me away I'm more inclined to buy the next one right away. This is why I bought Portal 2 day one. I know valve makes an excellent gameplay and excellent stories, so I'll pay them their reasonable asking price on day one.

So that whole "but it hurts developers to wait for it to be cheaper" line is a load of crap.

And if you don't think length of enjoyment has any correlation to value then you're just straight up dumb. I've sunk so many hours into ARMA2 that I paid them more than full price for ARMA3 as a pre-order. I paid $80 for Game of Thrones on bluray when it came out because I knew I would watch it over and over again and would be worth it. I'm almost certain Bioshock Infinite will be a play once then done type of deal for me, as it was with the first game. That decreases the value of it for me, and it does for a lot of people.

If they offer me a price that is worth it for me, I will pay it. That is not going to hurt the developers or the industry. I'm not waiting for it to go on sale for $5, I'm waiting for it to be reasonable giving all the factors.