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

[Declinator]

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"?

This is so absurd that I had to sign up to say something. Never had the urge before and I have been lurking for quite some time.

Almost every movie changes their camera angle multiple times during the movie. But for the few exceptions, yes, many will probably describe them in the following way: "it's just one long take on a tripod (and it's ridiculously boring)." Diablo with guns wouldn't be TPS, it would still be isometric (or some oblique fantasticular width projection or whatever the technically correct term is).

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.

Quite frankly, what the fuck kind of a game isn't a first person game by your criteria? A game where you don't control yourself?! (insert inevitable Bioshock Infinite joke about it actually being a movie and you not being able to control anything).
Indeed even C&C would be FPS because you are the commander who is ordering the troops and the people around you talk to you...At least every single shooter I've played has been a first person shooter by your definitions.

And yes, TPS is a thing and no, it's not irrelevant whether a shooter is an FPS or a TPS.

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 haven't provided any "evidence" as to why you think the genre split is not worthwhile. Basically you just said that they play the same and that the player can often switch between them. Well, from the PERSPECTIVE (see what I did there) of a an avid video game player, I sure seem to like my games FPS and not TPS. To me the difference is often so important, that I will not even try a game if it's TPS.

Now obviously this is a my own biased POINT OF VIEW but a quick googling reveals a lot of discussion about just this and the fact that there is so much discussion pretty much tells us all we need to know because to some it is important and we don't care whether YOU care. You want to eradicate the genre split because you deem it unimportant? And if someone said that "Fantasy and scifi are pretty much the same. Why don't we combine them.", would you happily take it up your ass?

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

Actually, point of view often IS camera angle. Having filmed multiple short films, I can assure you that if a cinematographer says "First person POV" he sure as hell isn't talking about the narrator.

 

[Zewp]

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.

Name a AAA game that has come out on the PC in the last few years and I've either finished it or played it extensively. I don't, in fact, bash games I've barely played simply because "it's cool." I bash games because there is a definite sharp decline in the quality of modern video games and it makes me really fucking angry beyond words because I want games to be decent, but the overwhelming majority simply aren't.

But look, most people here don't mind if you like modern games. Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game." And if I had a penny for every time you used those or similar phrases, I would have been the envy of jews all over ages ago. It makes you sound like an apologist making up excuses for why he likes certain games. If you like a game, say so. Suejak likes Diablo 3. Even though I think his opinions are wrong and the game is a total shit-fest, I respect him more for not making excuses for why he likes the game. Well, as much as one can respect someone who likes an utter train-wreck like D3.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

This is so absurd that I had to sign up to say something.

 

[Average Manatee]

Almost every movie changes their camera angle multiple times during the movie. But for the few exceptions, yes, many will probably describe them in the following way: "it's just one long take on a tripod (and it's ridiculously boring)." Diablo with guns wouldn't be TPS, it would still be isometric (or some oblique fantasticular width projection or whatever the technically correct term is).

So now you are trying to say that Diablo is not third person?

Quite frankly, what the fuck kind of a game isn't a first person game by your criteria? A game where you don't control yourself?! (insert inevitable Bioshock Infinite joke about it actually being a movie and you not being able to control anything).
Indeed even C&C would be FPS because you are the commander who is ordering the troops and the people around you talk to you...At least every single shooter I've played has been a first person shooter by your definitions.

Omniscient controller of things is not first person. If you want to define first person like that then yes. Literally everything is first person, if we consider them to be a person that doesn't exist and is a stratum of creator-defined knowledge and abilities.

And yes, TPS is a thing and no, it's not irrelevant whether a shooter is an FPS or a TPS.

If I can change from a FPS to TPS with a single keypress and both the player skills and interactions in them are exactly the same, it isn't a characteristic of a genre split. Please, figure out what a genre is. Otherwise we could separate everything endlessly into fragmented genres. That would be pretty

You haven't provided any "evidence" as to why you think the genre split is not worthwhile. Basically you just said that they play the same and that the player can often switch between them. Well, from the PERSPECTIVE (see what I did there) of a an avid video game player, I sure seem to like my games FPS and not TPS. To me the difference is often so important, that I will not even try a game if it's TPS.

The point of games is to play them. They play the same. I think that's my evidence. Preferring a different camera angle is irrelevant. You might as well say that you prefer color movies over black and white. That's all well and good, but to say that they are suddenly different genres is

Actually, point of view often IS camera angle. Having filmed multiple short films, I can assure you that if a cinematographer says "First person POV" he sure as hell isn't talking about the narrator.

Then you are working with people who either mixing up terms, or are expressing things in a shorthand with the understanding that you will understand what they mean. Narrative point of view and camera angle may coincide in some instances, they may not in others.

 

[evdk]

This is so absurd that I had to sign up to say something.

It seems to be a popular thing to do lately.

 

[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.

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.

Even fucking metacritic distinguishes between TPS and FPS
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/genre/date/third-person
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/genre/date/first-person
Literally everybody in the world (googling "third person shooter" gives like 5M results) distinguishes between these two - except for you. That means you're dumber than a metacritic. Congratulations, that's no small feat. How did you managed to get that stupid? Did it involve hitting your head repeatedly with blunt objects or is this a "special" talent you have to be born with?

 

[Declinator]

So now you are trying to say that Diablo is not third person?

I never called it TPS. No, in my opinion Diablo isn't TPS as TPS to me is something like Hitman and not something isometric or top-down (though I agree that thinking about what TPS means it seems logical to include isometric inside it even if isn't so)

Omniscient controller of things is not first person. If you want to define first person like that then yes. Literally everything is first person, if the person doesn't exist and is a stratum of create-defined knowledge.

Yes but in C&C you sometimes go these briefings and they talk to you directly. As do the units you control. People call you "commander" and one could argue that you are simply watching through some satellite or something. Anyways I don't really care whether you would really call it FPS as I simply wanted to know where the limits are (in your definitions)

If I can change from a FPS to TPS with a single keypress and both the player skills and interactions in them are exactly the same, it isn't a characteristic of a genre split. Please, figure out what a genre is. Otherwise we could separate everything endlessly into fragmented genres. That would be pretty

It doesn't matter whether it's classified as a genre. The split exists and it's important to some.

Cambridge online dictionary says genre is "a style, especially in the arts, that involves a particular set of characteristics" so it doesn't really matter how easily one can change between them either. And yes we can endlessly fragment them (see music genres for reference)

The point of games is to play them. They play the same. I think that's my evidence. Preferring a different camera angle is irrelevant. You might as well say that you prefer color movies over black and white. That's all well and good, but to say that they are suddenly different genres is

You say they play the same, I say they don't. Sure, you move the mouse and you shoot the guys but suddenly you have this guy blocking half the screen and everything seems clumsy. It may be a slight difference, certainly smaller than say, the difference between RTS and shooter but it is significant nonethless. And certainly it isn't one of the major genres. It's only an additional classification which you may or may not call genre but is still important to many.

Then you are working with people who either mixing up terms, or are expressing things in a shorthand with the understanding that you will understand what they mean. They may coincide in some instances, they may not in others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_shot

 

[Zewp]

FPS, TPS and isometric are used to describe the camera angle of a game. Anything other than that is just trying to be overly . The end. Now can we get back to discussing Infinite?

 

[chestburster]

Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game."

I actually agree with DalekFlay on this -- singleplayer wise, there are Okish popamole games, and there are "really bad" popamole games.

E.g. Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor 2012/Battlefield 3;

Crysis 3/FarCry 3 vs. Borderlands 2/Rage;

The Darkness 2 vs. Bioshlock Infinite,

etc.

The former is "good for what it is" while the latter is ulter shit.

 

[Declinator]

Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game."

I actually agree with DalekFlay on this -- singleplayer wise, there are Okish popamole games, and there are "really bad" popamole games.

E.g. Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor 2012/Battlefield 3;

Crysis 3/FarCry 3 vs. Borderlands 2/Rage;

The Darkness 2 vs. Bioshlock Infinite,

etc.

The former is "good for what it is" while the latter is ulter shit.

It's understandable but don't you think "good for what it is" sounds a bit too positive.
Basically what you are saying is that it is shit but luckily not utter shit. And that describes it much better.
Someone might get the wrong idea and think that good for what it is actually means good.

 

[chestburster]

Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game."

I actually agree with DalekFlay on this -- singleplayer wise, there are Okish popamole games, and there are "really bad" popamole games.

E.g. Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor 2012/Battlefield 3;

Crysis 3/FarCry 3 vs. Borderlands 2/Rage;

The Darkness 2 vs. Bioshlock Infinite,

etc.

The former is "good for what it is" while the latter is ulter shit.

It's understandable but don't you think "good for what it is" sounds a bit too positive.
Basically what you are saying is that it is shit but luckily not utter shit. And that describes it much better.
Someone might get the wrong idea and think that good for what it is actually means good.

It's the Codex. People won't get the wrong ideas.

Besides, I actually think sometimes it's worthwhile to praise a modern AAA game:

E.g. Crysis 3. It's bashed to shit here and I almost didn't play it based on the reviews and the bashing here. But after I installed it for the only purpose of satifying my inner graphic whore, I found the gameplay to be surprisingly decent. It's certainly from FarCry 1 and Crysis 1, but it's from Crysis 2 and certainly miles above other popamole shit like Medal of Honor 2012 or Borderlands 2. For that, I think it's worth a little praise.

I wish more people would play it and maybe pay Crytek some money. They at least tried pretty hard to make a good game and people simply ignored them. I heard the sales number of Crysis 3 on PC is abysmal. Now Crytek is abandoning PC singleplayer and focusing entirely on Warface, which is a really, really bad popamole shit P2W game.

 

[Average Manatee]

I never called it TPS. No, in my opinion Diablo isn't TPS as TPS to me is something like Hitman and not something isometric or top-down (though I agree that thinking about what TPS means it seems logical to include isometric inside it even if isn't so)

So we can agree that camera angle is not the defining point of a game? Sounds good. That's how we can separate them out, by taking into account more important characteristics.

Yes but in C&C you sometimes go these briefings and they talk to you directly. As do the units you control. People call you "commander" and one could argue that you are simply watching through some satellite or something. Anyways I don't really care whether you would really call it FPS as I simply wanted to know where the limits are (in your definitions)

Yes, you could argue it. As I said, you could argue for anything if you wanted to stretch the definitions enough. God is a character, you can also view things from his perspective.

If I can change from a FPS to TPS with a single keypress and both the player skills and interactions in them are exactly the same, it isn't a characteristic of a genre split. Please, figure out what a genre is. Otherwise we could separate everything endlessly into fragmented genres. That would be pretty

It doesn't matter whether it's classified as a genre. The split exists and it's important to some.

Cambridge online dictionary says genre is "a style, especially in the arts, that involves a particular set of characteristics" so it doesn't really matter how easily one can change between them either. And yes we can endlessly fragment them (see music genres for reference)

Well, it does matter if it can be classified as a genre since we are arguing over whether it is a distinct genre. I'm not arguing that it can't be important for some people (not for me, but for others), but it isn't a genre.

Since we both love wikipedia, lets find something that can actually explain what genre is about. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_studies

The point of games is to play them. They play the same. I think that's my evidence. Preferring a different camera angle is irrelevant. You might as well say that you prefer color movies over black and white. That's all well and good, but to say that they are suddenly different genres is

You say they play the same, I say they don't. Sure, you move the mouse and you shoot the guys but suddenly you have this guy blocking half the screen and everything seems clumsy. It may be a slight difference, certainly smaller than say, the difference between RTS and shooter but it is significant nonethless. And certainly it isn't one of the major genres. It's only an additional classification which you may or may not call genre but is still important to many.

Can a good player play from a first person perspective and a third person perspective without having to relearn an entirely new game as they would something like an RTS? I'm pretty sure all of them can. I would compare this to, say, a good horror movie fan being able to articulate the relative merits of a horror movie even if it's not the style of Horror that said fan usually enjoys, whereas they would just say "fuck this shit" if confronted with a genre they are entirely unfamiliar with. That's all the camera angles are, stylistic differences. Of course they can have meaning for players, otherwise we wouldn't be using them.

Then you are working with people who either mixing up terms, or are expressing things in a shorthand with the understanding that you will understand what they mean. They may coincide in some instances, they may not in others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_shot[/quote]

From the perspective of the one holding the camera, this is true. From a narrative perspective, and in games a gaming perspective, camera angle is only a factor of the point of view.

 

[aris]

Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game."

I actually agree with DalekFlay on this -- singleplayer wise, there are Okish popamole games, and there are "really bad" popamole games.

E.g. Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor 2012/Battlefield 3;

Crysis 3/FarCry 3 vs. Borderlands 2/Rage;

The Darkness 2 vs. Bioshlock Infinite,

etc.

The former is "good for what it is" while the latter is ulter shit.

According to a metacritic review:
Campaign was just over six hours. I basically just walked through the whole game in stealth, it was so boring and un-engaging. The story was supposed to be psychological but I seriously had no emotional response to it. There were way too many cut-scenes that left me wondering, "Why am I not controlling my character right now?" FFS, the majority of the endgame is comprised of QuickTime events.

and the campaign in borderlands 2 was fucking rad! Much better than borderlands 1 and made me laugh quite a couple of times.

 

[chestburster]

According to a metacritic review:
Campaign was just over six hours. I basically just walked through the whole game in stealth, it was so boring and un-engaging. The story was supposed to be psychological but I seriously had no emotional response to it. There were way too many cut-scenes that left me wondering, "Why am I not controlling my character right now?" FFS, the majority of the endgame is comprised of QuickTime events.

and the campaign in borderlands 2 was fucking rad! Much better than borderlands 1 and made me laugh quite a couple of times.

1. The reviewer guy is retarded and can only blame himself for ruining the game if he stealthed through the whole game. --Yes the game has a built-in cheat option (stealth+bow) but he doesn't have to use it. There are many other options to play crysis 3.

2. He played the game on easy if he thinks "the majority of the endgame is comprised of QTE". --Crysis 3 had TWO fucking END-BOSSES, with traditional three-stage fights and on verteran difficulty they're fucking HARD requiring some serious run-and-gun shooting! How many other recent AAA FPSes havetraditional end boss?

3. I guess each to his own. For me, Bored-land 2 is overly long; its "humor" obnoxious; the looting very limited and ruined by leveled enemies; the shooting unsatisfying; and I hate Gearbox, hillbilly Picthfork and his shady behaviors.

 

[aris]

Maybe I'll try it, I liked Crysis.

 

[Metro]

Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game."

I actually agree with DalekFlay on this -- singleplayer wise, there are Okish popamole games, and there are "really bad" popamole games.

E.g. Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor 2012/Battlefield 3;

Crysis 3/FarCry 3 vs. Borderlands 2/Rage;

The Darkness 2 vs. Bioshlock Infinite,

etc.

The former is "good for what it is" while the latter is ulter shit.

Splitting hairs.

 

[DalekFlay]

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:

I just sniped her while using fire on her summoned hordes. Was super easy. That was normal mode though.

 

[DalekFlay]

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.

Not a problem, I got it for $7.50 a while back I think, that's why I suffered through to the end of singleplayer.

 

[DalekFlay]

Name a AAA game that has come out on the PC in the last few years and I've either finished it or played it extensively. I don't, in fact, bash games I've barely played simply because "it's cool." I bash games because there is a definite sharp decline in the quality of modern video games and it makes me really fucking angry beyond words because I want games to be decent, but the overwhelming majority simply aren't.

I agree 100%.

But look, most people here don't mind if you like modern games. Just stop saying things like "it's good for what it is" or "it's good for a popamole game." And if I had a penny for every time you used those or similar phrases, I would have been the envy of jews all over ages ago. It makes you sound like an apologist making up excuses for why he likes certain games. If you like a game, say so. Suejak likes Diablo 3. Even though I think his opinions are wrong and the game is a total shit-fest, I respect him more for not making excuses for why he likes the game. Well, as much as one can respect someone who likes an utter train-wreck like D3.

I'll try to vary my adjectives, but I think "good for what it is" is the best way to describe these games. All three Bioshock games and the Crysis series are shooters I enjoy for their somewhat open environments, somewhat tactical gameplay and in Bioshock's case good exploration. They're still decline though for various reasons from console focus to, in Infinite's case, being more linear for some stupid reason than the original and some derp story elements.

But they're... dun dun dun... good for what they are. They're enjoyable. Compared to Call of Duty or Bulletstorm or a ton of others they're fucking prized diamonds.

 

[Azarkon]

Gotta say, this game is challenging on hard. Still haven't finished it because I'm stuck on the ghost fight.

Mind you, I'm going into it without exploiting ridiculous vigor combos. Just playing with a sniper rifle / machine gun duo and using the lift and possession vigors as my primaries. Run out of ammo a lot during set battles. Sure, it's not that bad when you have ammo shops every two rooms, but they're not always around when you need them.

Handymen stomp me. I imagine they stomp everybody who isn't exploiting a combo, but I'm sure there are plenty of bros who think it's ez mode. Those fire dudes used to stomp me too till I figured out they're liftable. Then it was pretty easy.

All in all, the game's balance is not very far off from being about where it needs to be to be enjoyable without being easy / frustrating.

The ghost fight, though, fuck that.

 

[Azarkon]

They were smart to include the companion stuff though. I'm pretty sure that aspect of the game alone took what would have been considered an average 7/10 game by the gaming media up to a fantastic/majestic/revolutionary 9/10 or 10/10 game.

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

There's not much AI there. They've decent pathfinding( think I just managed to lose her three-four times, and she quickly teleported back), and there's some cosmetically interesting stuff like having her lean against walls and check out stuff lying around, which makes her feel more alive than what most games have managed. However, she's immortal and isn't actually targeted by enemies at all. Often she'll seek cover right in front of a dozen guys shooting at you.

Take away the cosmetic stuff and it's not really different from other modern games with AI companions. But the cosmetic stuff really is quite good.

well i told the same to a guy over at youtube who said she was the next gen of game AI, and got rude swearwords in reply.

Elizabeth's 'AI' being praised to the high heavens has a lot to do with the low standards we have for in game companions.

There are two things that Elizabeth does that very few other in game characters do -

Have facial expressions that change throughout the game, and not just in cut scenes
Engage in activities other than auto follow the PC around the map

Neither of these require 'AI' per se, and the scripting is pretty obvious when she does the same 'hmm' expression to the same puddle of mud every time, but it's better than what 99% of in game characters out there do.

Even in our vaunted companion driven RPGs, all the characters do is auto follow you and provide scripted dialogue at scripted moments, all the while having atrocious AI in battles that you want to turn off whenever given the option.

The design of the character's gameplay also makes it easier to tolerate her, because practically speaking she gives you loot and we love loot, and therefore its giver.

But this again makes me feel that Bioshock Infinite is better off as an adventure / RPG game than a 'massacre them all' FPS game.

 

[ohWOW]

Gotta say, this game is challenging on hard. Still haven't finished it because I'm stuck on the ghost fight.

lolwut? Just headshot your way to victory with the carbine (way better than the sniper rifle, that scope is just annoying). On Lady Comstock make a rpg-gangbang on her. There's always a supply automaton in her fighting areas.
If you die, don't give a fuck. You will just respawn and enemies that you killed will remain dead and the lady ghost will just regen few % of her hp. This game was just shamelessly easy, coming from a guy who's not a pro in shooters, only a pew-pew whore.


Elizabeth's AI? what AI? She's just an immortal doll taking cover under a hostile handy man's feet you can blow a missile into her face and she will be all like "don't point that at me". Same with the enemies. She's your bottom whore for lockpicking and giving free cash/ammo/salts/hp - 3 last being scripted somehow, as she gives a free hpz or ammoz in the very moment we shoot out from everything we had/bleed out/loose mana.

 

[Azarkon]

Gotta say, this game is challenging on hard. Still haven't finished it because I'm stuck on the ghost fight.

lolwut? Just headshot your way to victory with the carbine (way better than the sniper rifle, that scope is just annoying). On Lady Comstock make a rpg-gangbang on her. There's always a supply automaton in her fighting areas.
If you die, don't give a fuck. You will just respawn and enemies that you killed will remain dead and the lady ghost will just regen few % of her hp. This game was just shamelessly easy, coming from a guy who's not a pro in shooters, only a pew-pew whore.

Trouble is, I don't have a RPG and never upgraded it, nor have gear for it. I heard the fight is easy when you specialize in AoE abilities but I don't and none of my vigors are upgraded for AoE either. I heard Devil's Kiss prevents her from raising the dead but it doesn't work for me. The fire just blackens the corpses and she raises them anyhow. Hitting them with that 70% set on fire hat doesn't work. I imagine I have to abuse the Tomb trick to beat her.

 

[ohWOW]

I never upgraded any of my weapons or vigors.

Always carry a carbine and a RPG, other weapons are piss useless and abysmal in comparision. You can replace carbine with a hand cannon, but I was forced to do it in the final fighting sequence of the game (a typical filler of hp-bloated trash mobs that take 5 headshots before they die, stacked in a group of 20 in an every fucking room)

 

[DalekFlay]

Trouble is, I don't have a RPG and never upgraded it, nor have gear for it. I heard the fight is easy when you specialize in AoE abilities but I don't and none of my vigors are upgraded for AoE either. I heard Devil's Kiss prevents her from raising the dead but it doesn't work for me. The fire just blackens the corpses and she raises them anyhow. Hitting them with that 70% set on fire hat doesn't work. I imagine I have to abuse the Tomb trick to beat her.

I don't think the fire vigor stops them from raising up but if you time it right it should kill them all immediately as soon as they do.