Do you need to have played previous games to play this one properly? I've paid no attention to these before, but this one looks genuinely intriguing to me, and the critics have been having orgasms over it.
... and while I would have hoped and even expected the political undertones of the first few hours to carry through to the end (like the extended critique of Objectivism in the first Bioshock), I am rather pleased with the way the story actually played out.
So, you mean it isn't going to be 10 more hours of 'Rapture in the sky with Dominionists'? Because, while I appreciate the sentiment - and was giddy and suchlike while the game allowed me to indulge a lifelong fantasy - and all, I felt like they've been beating a dead horse made of **** for the 3 or 4 hours I've played so far.
Translation: they were too chicken to actually take it to American Exceptionalism. Objecitivism was an easier target.
So, you mean it isn't going to be 10 more hours of 'Rapture in the sky with Dominionists'? Because, while I appreciate the sentiment - and was giddy and suchlike while the game allowed me to indulge a lifelong fantasy - and all, I felt like they've been beating a dead horse made of **** for the 3 or 4 hours I've played so far.
After the first third or so of the game, the political conflict fades quickly into the background. The conflict between the Founders and the Vox Populi is definitely still there, but the narrative shifts focus from the larger political themes to a much more personal story.
Think of it this way: the game spends the first few hours building the world you've been dropped into, and then uses what it's built as the backdrop for the real story, which is about Booker and Elizabeth.
"American Exceptionalism" is complete bollocks anyway.
If they had chosen the worlds story rather than the characters story the game probably would have been average at best.
You bastards are making me want to drop $60 right now and play this immediately, you know :P
On reflection, I am gonna echo the sentiments expressed by Ben Kuchera at PAR: BSI is a great game that would have been even better if it wasn't a shooter. There is no real reason why this story had to be told in an FPS, in fact the over the top brutality of the action is detrimental to the tone.
On reflection, I am gonna echo the sentiments expressed by Ben Kuchera at PAR: BSI is a great game that would have been even better if it wasn't a shooter. There is no real reason why this story had to be told in an FPS, in fact the over the top brutality of the action is detrimental to the tone.
Yep, totally agree. By the end of the game the combat sections felt like chores that I desperately wanted to get through to get more sweet sweet story and dialogue. The mechanics were also stripped back from BioShock and far less interesting, and there was a ton of ludonarrative dissonance - most of the abilities and enemies felt like they had no reason to exist in the setting.
What adult plays games for shooty gameplay, anyway?
What adult plays games for shooty gameplay, anyway?
What adult plays games for shooty gameplay, anyway?
Lots of them? There's some really fun shooters out there. I will absolutely zone out with some Tribes or even Battlefield.
I've had time to collect some thoughts about this game's story and I think it might actually be nonsense. The moment to moment execution is fantastic but I'm pretty sure this is just a Lost-level ****up.
I won't deny game mechanics are what add to replay and are a requirement to make any game fun, but - for the most part -I don't buy singleplayer games that don't have a good to exceptional story.This is pretty much the exact opposite of how I feel about singleplayer games.
What adult plays games for shooty gameplay, anyway?
You mean you prefer games with bad stories? :confused:I won't deny game mechanics are what add to replay and are a requirement to make any game fun, but - for the most part -I don't buy singleplayer games that don't have a good to exceptional story.This is pretty much the exact opposite of how I feel about singleplayer games.
Sorry, I should have made that less ambiguous. I meant that I don't usually buy games that rely on extrinsic story stuff to keep me engaged. I want the actual interaction with the game to be the point, not just a vehicle to get me to the next plot twist. I don't object to games having narrative elements or anything, it's just not what I showed up to the party for, and it makes sense and is not a problem for me when it is the most underdeveloped part of a game.You mean you prefer games with bad stories? :confused:I won't deny game mechanics are what add to replay and are a requirement to make any game fun, but - for the most part -I don't buy singleplayer games that don't have a good to exceptional story.This is pretty much the exact opposite of how I feel about singleplayer games.
Same for me. Gameplay > all else.
I like gameplay, narrative, audio, and visuals. Why can't I have all four? Why must I choose between them?
I like gameplay, narrative, audio, and visuals. Why can't I have all four? Why must I choose between them?
Because reality and budgets?
I like gameplay, narrative, audio, and visuals. Why can't I have all four? Why must I choose between them?
Because reality and budgets?
There are games out there that managed to hit most (and in a few cases all) of those with good measure on a relatively low budget.
I care about ludonarrative harmony more than the ludo or the narrative bits alone.I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience. Yeah, you can have a game with both an engaging story and engaging gameplay (and good on you if you do), but do they actually interact meaningfully? I mean, one can provide a reprieve from the other (to help control the ebb and flow of the experience or change the tone or something like that), but so could a different kind of play or some comic relief or whatever.
I care about ludonarrative harmony more than the ludo or the narrative bits alone.I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience.
I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience.
I thought someone might bring that one up; I wish I had played it. I would if I owned any platform that could, so sorry if my ignorance is causing me to miss the point here. Anyway, forcing the player to slaughter a bunch of people and then feel bad about it is definitely a step up in my book from forcing the player to slaughter a bunch of people and then feel great about it (Achievement!), but the tension I'm talking about is expressed in the forcing itself on the part of the game designers that has to happen in order for that narrative to work.I care about ludonarrative harmony more than the ludo or the narrative bits alone.I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience.
Spec Ops: The Line
I thought someone might bring that one up; I wish I had played it. I would if I owned any platform that could, so sorry if my ignorance is causing me to miss the point here. Anyway, forcing the player to slaughter a bunch of people and then feel bad about it is definitely a step up in my book from forcing the player to slaughter a bunch of people and then feel great about it (Achievement!), but the tension I'm talking about is expressed in the forcing itself on the part of the game designers that has to happen in order for that narrative to work.I care about ludonarrative harmony more than the ludo or the narrative bits alone.I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience.
Spec Ops: The Line
From what I gather, the game progression in Spec Ops is just as linear as in the Call of Duty type games it critiques, with the differences being in the emotional/tonal/thematic content. Correct me if I'm wrong about this stuff, but I believe the underlying idea that the game finally makes explicit in the end is that you can either play and do these very bad things or not play at all. I think that that is subversive and clever and no doubt really resonates with people who grew up with military shooter games, but it's really the only thing you can say after railroading your players from beginning to end. Do what the story dictates or turn it off.
So yeah, that's cool, I'm just saying that I generally prefer for the story to play second fiddle because when it does make itself heard it tends to take me out of the game.
I'm curious about this. I'm guessing that by first person you mean with the consumer actually having game-like input and interaction with the experience, otherwise you could just as easily tell your story in a first person movie, right? As an aside, something like Dear Esther might be a good example of that, where the game mechanics are barely more involved than pressing the "Play" button on a movie. But yeah, if you mean with game elements like in the above Spec Ops example (where it's important that the player actually does the things in order for the author's point to come across), I'd be interested to learn about other types of stories that could only work that way.I can appreciate how the limitations imposed by the tension between storytelling and interactivity might help focus the creative process, but I think that the two forces are fundamentally at odds with each other in a way that doesn't really help the whole experience.
There are stories that can only be told well in the first person, which rather hurts that theory.
I'm curious about this. I'm guessing that by first person you mean with the consumer actually having game-like input and interaction with the experience, otherwise you could just as easily tell your story in a first person movie, right?