Bioshock Infinite - the $200 million 6 hour literally on rails interactive movie with guns thread

[Sam Ecorners]

Technically a game can be considered an FPS even if the camera angle is third person.

Do tell how, please.

First person from a narrative and control perspective. "You" are being talked to by other characters, and "you" are controlling "yourself", which makes something first person. The distinction between a shooter in third person camera and a shooter in first person camera is basically irrelevant anyway (and good games should allow you to pick which camera angle you like) , so you may as well refer to them both as FPS.

 

[Shadenuat]

Elizabeth has very rich set of animations and scripted sequences which happen near specific objects. Aside from leaning, she can even do stuff like looking into a window if it has great view, and so on. What sort of AI are we talking about for immortal walking inventory/quest compass I am not sure. And it still has its limits with immersion. "Booker grab that lockpick. Booker grab that lockpick. Booker another lockpick! BOOKERLOCKPICKBOOKERIFOUNDLOCKPICK~~~ *points her little finger into a wall*
I wanted to pat her on the back and say "Good bot, I know, I know, you're smart and pretty. Now unless you have more ammo for sniper rifle, shut up, I have twelve more lunatics to kill".

 

[Average Manatee]

Truly the amount of masturbation over the ending is astounding. On a storytelling level it's the equivalent of Rocks Fall and Everyone Dies Infinite Universes.

Technically a game can be considered an FPS even if the camera angle is third person.

Do tell how, please.

First person from a narrative and control perspective. "You" are being talked to by other characters, and "you" are controlling "yourself", which makes something first person. The distinction between a shooter in third person camera and a shooter in first person camera is basically irrelevant anyway (and good games should allow you to pick which camera angle you like) , so you may as well refer to them both as FPS.

This is definitely somewhere in top10 of the most retarded things I ever read in my life and so far the strongest contender for the title of the most retarded thing of 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative

"First Person" in FPS describes camera perspective only, as narrative mode is irrelevant when defining computer game genres. E.g. Diablo uses first person narrator - are you going to call it first person or isometric ARPG?

Yes, Diablo is played from a first person point of view. Point of view != camera angle.

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

Have you ever heard anyone use the term "TPS" for Third Person Shooter? I sure haven't. It would massively mess up genre classifications, as if you literally go by camera angle you would have to include everything from rails shooters to Diablo with a ranged class.

 

[Luzur]

well everyone i seen so far is praising Elisabeth's AI to the high heavens.

What on earth is there to praise about her AI? She's invincible in combat, enemies don't even shoot at her (they probably read the script that she's in god mode), does nothing else than runs around in combat and tosses the very occasional hp/mana bottles. Unless you count facial animation as AI.

i dunno, ive been watching a Lets Play for awhile now, and i dont see anything she does as special, Alys in HL2 could take cover and give you things, and she actually shot back at the enemies.

maybe its the whole "cute doe-eyed girl who is interested in you" thing?

 

[Hoaxmetal]

 

[trais]

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

First person perspective = you're looking through your character's eyes.
Third person perspective = camera is placed somewhere outside of your character, either floating behind and slightly above him, or is fixed somewhere in the level, like in early Resident Evil games.

Have you ever heard anyone use the term "TPS" for Third Person Shooter? I sure haven't. It would massively mess up genre classifications, as if you literally go by camera angle you would have to include everything from rails shooters to Diablo with a ranged class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_shooter
Now stop being a retard.

 

[Zewp]

Holy shit. Just ran by the bay to pick the game up. Already had to do ini tweaks just to get things such as endless intro movies, fucked mouse sensitivity and rubbish max FoV fixed. This is starting out well.

 

[Average Manatee]

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

First person perspective = you're looking through your character's eyes.
Third person perspective = camera is placed somewhere outside of your character, either floating behind and slightly above him, or is fixed somewhere in the level, like in early Resident Evil games.

Missing the point. Would you distinguish the genre a movie is in by the camera angle? Would you consider Diablo with Guns to be a "TPS"?

Stop trying to interpret genres literally. Otherwise Halo becomes an RPG because you are playing the role of Master Chief. The important part of genres is the defining difference that distinguishes them from other genres.

Have you ever heard anyone use the term "TPS" for Third Person Shooter? I sure haven't. It would massively mess up genre classifications, as if you literally go by camera angle you would have to include everything from rails shooters to Diablo with a ranged class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_shooter
Now stop being a retard.

And today we learn the consoletards can edit wikipedia.

 

[Angthoron]

Truly the amount of masturbation over the ending is astounding. On a storytelling level it's the equivalent of Rocks Fall and Everyone Dies Infinite Universes.

Technically a game can be considered an FPS even if the camera angle is third person.

Do tell how, please.

First person from a narrative and control perspective. "You" are being talked to by other characters, and "you" are controlling "yourself", which makes something first person. The distinction between a shooter in third person camera and a shooter in first person camera is basically irrelevant anyway (and good games should allow you to pick which camera angle you like) , so you may as well refer to them both as FPS.

This is definitely somewhere in top10 of the most retarded things I ever read in my life and so far the strongest contender for the title of the most retarded thing of 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative

I lol'd. Thanks for improving my shitty day.

 

[Blaine]

Can't we all just agree that this game is overproduced, linear, made-for-console popamole shovelware that delivered fewer than half of its promised features? And that anyone who praises its story or setting for any reason is an imbecile and/or is suffering from post-purchase rationalization?

 

[Angthoron]

Can't we all just agree that this game is overproduced, linear, made-for-console popamole shovelware that delivered fewer than half of its promised features? And that anyone who praises its story or setting for any reason is an imbecile and/or is suffering from post-purchase rationalization?

I think that's a reasonable compromise.

 

[DalekFlay]

Can't we all just agree that this game is overproduced, linear, made-for-console popamole...

Yes.

shovelware that delivered fewer than half of its promised features? And that anyone who praises its story or setting for any reason is an imbecile and/or is suffering from post-purchase rationalization?

Not so much.

Varying enjoyment levels, bro. "Fun for what it is" and all that.

 

[Zewp]

Can't we all just agree that this game is overproduced, linear, made-for-console popamole shovelware that delivered fewer than half of its promised features? And that anyone who praises its story or setting for any reason is an imbecile and/or is suffering from post-purchase rationalization?

This. Bashing shit games is more fun than arguing whether third person shooters can be considered first person shooters.

Not so much.

Varying enjoyment levels, bro. "Fun for what it is" and all that.

Dalekflay, your popamole knows no bounds. Time and again you are found defending shit games on these forums. Every time you say 'It's a fun game for what it is,' all I hear is 'I secretly love shit games.'

For someone who is very popular here, you have a very shitty taste in video games.

 

[trais]

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

First person perspective = you're looking through your character's eyes.
Third person perspective = camera is placed somewhere outside of your character, either floating behind and slightly above him, or is fixed somewhere in the level, like in early Resident Evil games.

Missing the point. Would you distinguish the genre a movie is in by the camera angle?

Computer games aren't movies for fuck's sake! If you want to talk about games you need to use games-specific nomenclature. Music genres aren't defined by lyrics used in songs, movie genres aren't defined by camera angles, literature genres isn't defined by type of font used in a book and fucking video games genres aren't defined by who is the fucking narrator.

Have you ever heard anyone use the term "TPS" for Third Person Shooter? I sure haven't. It would massively mess up genre classifications, as if you literally go by camera angle you would have to include everything from rails shooters to Diablo with a ranged class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_shooter
Now stop being a retard.

And today we learn the consoletards can edit wikipedia.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

What there's another Bioshock? What even was the point of making a second one?

 

[DalekFlay]

Dalekflay, your popamole knows no bounds. Time and again you are found defending shit games on these forums. Every time you say 'It's a fun game for what it is,' all I hear is 'I secretly love shit games.'

And your trashing decent games having barely played them because it's cool to do so here knows no bounds. It's like the goth kids in high school who think they are being soooo edgy and soooo against the rules, yet hold their fellow goths up to insanely rigid standards of how to dress and what music and movies to like.

Fuck that hivemind shit.

I post here because I enjoy cRPGs and have been a PC only gamer for 20+ years. That doesn't mean I like exactly what you like, or that I have a narrow cone of enjoyment that means only kickstarted shit is on my radar. Infinite has fun combat in large open areas for a large amount of its playtime and is fun to explore throughout. Its story can be pretty derpy but is miles above pretty much every other shooters' from the past 5 years.

It is what it is, I enjoy it. I could lie to make you feel better and to fit in, or I could tell you to fuck off.

Fuck off.

P.S. Name your top five favorite shooters.

 

[chestburster]

The reason game journalist's are masturbating over the game so much is quite simple. Compare it to every other shooter to come on in the last 4-5 years. It's not an amazing game, its just less shit then everything else.

This pretty much. It's not that great but it's also nowhere near the shit show some paint it as in response. It's a decent linear shooty-shooty in a pretty world with a half-interesting story. Take it or leave it. If you say leave it I harbor no ill will what-so-ever, but my standards are slightly lower as I like exploring pretty worlds.

P.S. Saying Syndicate was better is insanity.

Man you need to play Syndicate COOP campaign (even better if played solo for more challenges). It's pure run-and-gun with zero-popamole and badass difficult (borderline impossibly difficult at the highest difficulty setting).

And if you fuck up with even the smallest error, you lose about 30 minutes progress.

I haven't played an FPS so hard since Far Cry 1.

So yeah, it's the best pure FPS I've played in years.

--The singleplayer is shit though.

 

[Average Manatee]

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

First person perspective = you're looking through your character's eyes.
Third person perspective = camera is placed somewhere outside of your character, either floating behind and slightly above him, or is fixed somewhere in the level, like in early Resident Evil games.

Missing the point. Would you distinguish the genre a movie is in by the camera angle?

Computer games aren't movies for fuck's sake! If you want to talk about games you need to use games-specific nomenclature. Music genres aren't defined by lyrics used in songs, movie genres aren't defined by camera angles, literature genres isn't defined by type of font used in a book and fucking video games genres aren't defined by who is the fucking narrator.

See, here is your problem. I put forth an argument for why genres can't be separated by such petty differences as camera angle. Never mind that changing the camera angle is a 5 min job, what's the point of a genre if it can be changed with so little work? The purpose of a genre is to separate something in a field into a taxonomy of important differences. I provide evidence of why TPS/FPS is not a worthwhile genre split. You, on the other hand, resort to trying to refute my argument with an argument ad hominem, ignoring the fact that that our argument is over definition of TPS/FPS in the first place, making it invalid, and that my argument comes from the definition of genre, whence the specific terms such as FPS are created, thereby preempting your argumentum ad hominem before you even started it.

This is the Codex. If I provide evidence and all you can offer is cheap deflections and appeals to wikipedia then I win. Even if my argument were that FPS = Toaster, you have yet to properly argue against me.

 

[DalekFlay]

Man you need to play Syndicate COOP campaign (better if played solo). It's pure run-and-gun with zero-popamole and badass difficult (borderline impossibly difficult at the highest difficulty setting).

I didn't know you could play coop solo. I uninstalled the game after finishing the (fucking horrible) campaign. Maybe I'll give it a go.

 

[Angthoron]

What exactly is so different between a shooter in with a third person camera angle and a shooter with first person camera angle? The point of defining a genre is to distinguish it from other genres, yet both play entirely the same (and in fact the player could switch between camera angles in many shooters not long ago).

First person perspective = you're looking through your character's eyes.
Third person perspective = camera is placed somewhere outside of your character, either floating behind and slightly above him, or is fixed somewhere in the level, like in early Resident Evil games.

Missing the point. Would you distinguish the genre a movie is in by the camera angle?

Computer games aren't movies for fuck's sake! If you want to talk about games you need to use games-specific nomenclature. Music genres aren't defined by lyrics used in songs, movie genres aren't defined by camera angles, literature genres isn't defined by type of font used in a book and fucking video games genres aren't defined by who is the fucking narrator.

No no, this isn't what you should be saying. What you should be saying is - does this, then, mean that FPS is unreliable first person while TPS is an omniscient first person?

 

[Average Manatee]

Guys, Bioware should release new DLC for ME3 that clarifies that Shepard actually created infinite universes. Everyone in the writing staff/journalists/fanbase can fellate each other over how deep it is, and we can all happily rationalize that Shepard is living happily with his or her waifu. Who may possess multiple penises in one of the universes.

 

[Heresiarch]

I'm on the verge of uninstalling this whole shit because of the shitty combat. I was MAJORLY pissed by a certain boss that it seems already earned infamy everywhere. Cheapest boss ever, and every issue related to HP bloat got magnified by it. The only way to win it without lucking out was to win it cheap too:

Spoiler

It was the Siren. I learned from some Gamefag guy to hide in a tomb and shoot her when she tries to come it. See? Hiding in rooms and shooting stuff coming into the bottle neck is THE way to win this game.

The only thing that keeps me from uninstalling is because I'm simply so late in the game, and I like the way the world is presented. However the way things are looking, I'm gonna majorly frustrated finishing the remaining few hours of the game. Especially since I've looked at a few of the final battle videos and it was just...ridiculous. I really really really fucking regret going through 1999 mode, back in 1999 it was NOT LIKE THIS, now it's actually more like playing Oblivion on max difficulty. And with skill cap to myself to boot.

Sure, this is not the first time I got frustrated by a game, I got my own share in Dark Souls and Monster Hunter series too. But dying to the Capra Demon or the Rajang for 20 times because my skill sucked at first is different from losing to some bullshit enemies that can take fucking 5 critical headshots but still not die, while he can blow through my shield and take off 30% of my life with one fireball and then I'm forced to hide again.

In theory I think I can just restart the whole game from Normal difficulty or heck, Easy, and to plow through everything within a few hours. Having a retrospective view replaying this shit (and I'm already spoiled of everything anyway) could actually make me understand or notice interesting things better. But then again I have exams to do Friday and I'm really feeling stupid wasting any more time on this piece of shit. Fuck this game.

 

[trais]

See, here is your problem. I put forth an argument for why genres can't be separated by such petty differences as camera angle. Never mind that changing the camera angle is a 5 min job, what's the point of a genre if it can be changed with so little work? The purpose of a genre is to separate something in a field into a taxonomy of important differences.

I'm gonna quote that wikipedia link I poster earlier because I don't feel like typing.

These games [TPS] are closely related to first-person shooters,[3] which also tie the perspective of the player to an avatar,[4] but the two genres are distinct.[5] While the first-person perspective allows players to aim and shoot without their avatar blocking their view,[4] the third-person shooter shows the protagonist from an "over the shoulder shot" or "behind the back" perspective.[3][6] Thus, the third-person perspective allows the game designer to create a more strongly characterized avatar,[4] and directs the player's attention as if watching a film. In contrast, a first-person perspective provides the player with greater immersion into the game universe.[7]

This difference in perspective also has an impact on gameplay. Third-person shooters allow players to see the area surrounding the avatar more clearly.[4] This viewpoint facilitates more interaction between the character and their surrounding environment, such as the use of tactical cover in Gears of War,[8] or navigating tight quarters.[9] As such, the third-person perspective is better for interacting with objects in the game world, such as jumping on platforms, engaging in close combat, or driving a vehicle. However, the third-person perspective can interfere with tasks that require fine aiming.[10]

You're going full retard here. Please stop.

 

[chestburster]

Man you need to play Syndicate COOP campaign (better if played solo). It's pure run-and-gun with zero-popamole and badass difficult (borderline impossibly difficult at the highest difficulty setting).

I didn't know you could play coop solo. I uninstalled the game after finishing the (fucking horrible) campaign. Maybe I'll give it a go.

You still need to go online to play the coop, even when playing solo. You'd have to pay evil EA a small sum of money though. I paid $5 during Xmas sale and considering the adrenaline rush I had playing this game and that Starbreeze probably gets $1 from it, I think it's $5 well spent.

 

[Average Manatee]

See, here is your problem. I put forth an argument for why genres can't be separated by such petty differences as camera angle. Never mind that changing the camera angle is a 5 min job, what's the point of a genre if it can be changed with so little work? The purpose of a genre is to separate something in a field into a taxonomy of important differences.

I'm gonna quote that wikipedia link I poster earlier because I don't feel like typing.

These games [TPS] are closely related to first-person shooters,[3] which also tie the perspective of the player to an avatar,[4] but the two genres are distinct.[5] While the first-person perspective allows players to aim and shoot without their avatar blocking their view,[4] the third-person shooter shows the protagonist from an "over the shoulder shot" or "behind the back" perspective.[3][6] Thus, the third-person perspective allows the game designer to create a more strongly characterized avatar,[4] and directs the player's attention as if watching a film. In contrast, a first-person perspective provides the player with greater immersion into the game universe.[7]

This difference in perspective also has an impact on gameplay. Third-person shooters allow players to see the area surrounding the avatar more clearly.[4] This viewpoint facilitates more interaction between the character and their surrounding environment, such as the use of tactical cover in Gears of War,[8] or navigating tight quarters.[9] As such, the third-person perspective is better for interacting with objects in the game world, such as jumping on platforms, engaging in close combat, or driving a vehicle. However, the third-person perspective can interfere with tasks that require fine aiming.[10]

You're going full retard here. Please stop.

Assuming you stop I'll take that as an honorable concession of defeat.

None of those are necessarily true (you certainly aren't proving them, and I can offer counterproof if needed), and none of them would create a genre schism even if true. We call those artistic techniques. They aren't what defines a genre, they are what creates variety within the genre. FPS is defined by direct control of a character and their aiming/camera, either as a shooter or a slasher. What's next, are you going to quote Todd Howard on how First Person is a more immersive camera angle? Because even if that proves First Person is a more immersive camera angle, it doesn't prove that camera angle is a genre splitter.