@TimberWolf_CLT Well I think they view Kickstarter in a different way than you do, and I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to their viewpoint than yours.
I don't really think that Kickstarter is meant to just be a distribution platform. That is, there's a little more to it than just "I put in $20 and you give me my reward." It's not a pre-purchase platform in the same way that pre-purchasing a game on Steam is.
Rather, I (and presumably those who are upset) view Kickstarter as a statement of support for a given team, product idea, or development methodology. For example, I backed Double Fine Adventure even though I have no interest in adventure games because I wanted to demonstrate the viability of game development outside of the traditional studio/distribution binary.
Thus had Double Fine eventually obtained distributor support along with all of the development restrictions, I would have felt that they betrayed their initial promise to me.
I didn't back OR, so I have no idea what the pitch actually looked like. But I imagine those who are angry likewise feel betrayed that OR's kickstarter was essentially used to garner interest and raise the value of this eventual acquisition 2 billion dollar acquisition. Considering Kickstarter's mission statement is [verbatim] a means for the little guy to have his dream turned into reality, I find it hard not to feel at least some sympathy towards the OR backers who are upset. Their anger is a far cry from feeling 'entitled to tell Oculus how to run its business.'
@Ayato_Kamina_1 I had the exact same thought when reading this article.
I despised FF13, and I've automatically written off every sequel. Why continue to make games in a FF line that was not well-liked? This combined with their FF14 snafu... it's just amazing how horribly mismanaged this series is. It's an object lesson in mismanagement.
I've actually started to build up a collection of PS1 RPGs - FFT, Vandal Hearts, Suikoden, Star Ocean, etc. and it's phenomenal just how much more enjoyable these old RPGs are than some of the new stuff.
@cratecruncher My computer IS hooked up to my TV already, so... Yeah, the steambox definitely has some strange positioning. The thing of it is, I'm not sure it matters to me whether it succeeds or not.
I'm not sure I'd say this game deserves 'better than an 8.' It's just a number, and that is subjective to the reviewer's opinion. However, I would say it deserves a better written review because this one is frankly awkward. I actually get this vibe from a lot from Gamespot reviews... it feels so artificial. Like a corrupt politician's phony speech. Too many fingers in the pie would be my guess. All personality edited out. They all feel written by formula. But then I've been around Gamespot awhile, and I've found that Tom McShea and I disagree in other ways and places too. His Bioshock Infinite 4/10 review comes to mind.
Tom seems like a pretty smart dude, which is why I always find it so surprising when he misses the point. I like to read negative reviews, of both things I like and dislike, because they give me extra insight into why I liked or disliked a thing - that is, deeper insight into myself. But this review doesn't offer any insight. It just feels bizarre.
For example, Tom's description of the characters misses the point. He says Joel is unlikeable to his core and goes on to describe how this is a negative. I, on the other hand, enjoyed the fact that characters in a video game behaved like actual human beings for once. How refreshing! They're mad, desperate, and aim to survive at all costs. And loyal! Loyal to their friends, and to their ideals, justifying to themselves the horrible things they do. I wouldn't say this makes them 'one note.' David comes to mind, with his religious undertones and the fact that he behaves nicely toward Ellie up until she breaks his fingers. And then with hints that he's only doing what he must - with reference to children under his care. But then yes he's a crazy cannibal too. No room for a nuanced interpretation there? Okay Tom.
I appreciated the courage of Naughty Dog in writing this story the way they did. There's rarely a good choice. Usually Joel has to choose between bad choice A and bad choice B. The world doesn't just get magically better. People don't always get along and sacrifice isn't always redeemed. Little details like the note from Bill's partner kept things fresh. And the ending - man. What cojones to write an ending like that (which they kept even after it playtested poorly! Artistic integrity thank you!). Most video game stories aren't like - most are a bunch of Hollywood garbage. But Tom didn't seem to see that at all.
And he fails to note so many other excellent aspects of the game: *The long stretches of empty desolation which truly bring home the loneliness and isolation. Few other games would have the courage to have so much 'white space' because (as these comments reveal) the ADD crowd starts foaming at the mouth if they aren't shooting things non-stop. *The evolution of Joel and Ellie's relationship. And the fact that you (or least I) eventually ended up feeling exactly like Joel: protect Ellie, at all costs. And to see Ellie go from baggage to freakin' ninja. *The complete lack of loading between or during stages. One load at the beginning and that's it. How come no one ever mentions this about Naughty Dog's creations? It's amazing. *All the little notes you can find that tell a story - like Ish, in the sewers. These give context to the environment. *Beautiful texturing, smooth animation. I agree that the post-apocalyptic environments weren't exactly original, but they were beautiful.
As far as gameplay complaints of it being too easy or forgiving or that AI companions should alert enemies, well, I just say: stop playing it on easy (or normal for that matter). On hard, even with a 70%+ accuracy, I rarely had enough ammo to rambo it up. I had to play carefully and meticulously, or I was toast. Usually a single mistake meant I was done for. If that's not tense and exciting, then *shrug* I really don't know what to say.
In summary, I respect Tom's opinion, but I wish his review had been better written. Frankly, it feels like it was written by a robot, who was attempting to analyze a piece of art and not understanding because art doesn't follow a formula.
Disappointing. Unlike many, I had no problems whatsoever with Bioshock Infinite, even though it's story was considerably less accessible than the original Bioshock's. It sounds like they made a mistake trying to combine the two worlds / narratives, which notwithstanding some superficial thematic similarities (man / city / lighthouse), are pretty disparate.
@Rechact @Rechact I should have expanded upon my earlier statements (but was trying to keep the length down) to say that it also explores the illusion of choice in real life, and last I checked the arguments of determinism vs free will are anything but trite. After all, the search for a physical "Theory of Everything" or "Unified Theory" is, at least according to Laplace and notwithstanding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, a search for a theory which can predict all interactions. There's a difference between 'trite' and 'has been done before.' As well make the argument that all romance everywhere is trite because love stories have been done ad nauseam since human civilization began.
As far as why would you retread the same ground... it's pretty clear that they've done exactly that. After all, they specifically mention, "There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city."
Randian ideology is more than background in Bioshock... but racism and exceptionalism are not in Infinite. I'm going to quote Ken Levine:
"As a student of American history, it is a much broader story than what’s shown in Columbia, but I don’t feel that it’s the purpose of the game or the responsibility of the game to be a survey of American history. Certainly there are many things that are in Columbia that were very prevalent at the time, whether it’s charismatic religious movements, whether it’s a sense of growing nationalism—which was very present at the time. I’ve talked about that before, so I won’t bore you with that again. Or the deeply institutionalized racism and classism, which were… It was so prevalent that when you go back and read the writings of known figures like Teddy Roosevelt, who was extremely progressive in so many ways… I’m not using “progressive” in the sort of “Fox News versus MSNBC” way. I’m just saying that he was involved in anti-trust, in splitting up large corporations like Standard Oil. He was also a champion of the rights of the poor. But he was also what you would call a neoconservative in a lot of ways. He was very keen on American expansion. When you read his writings as sort of what you would call, at the very least, an extremely compassionate conservative, he would refer to Jews and African-Americans in the most horrible of terms. He was a man of his time. Abraham Lincoln, if you read his writings now, you would ascribe him? Even though he’s the most important abolitionist of all time, and a great man, he was a man of his time. He viewed African-Americans as a lesser race. He just thought they should be free. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. George Washington owned slaves. People were men of their times, and this is a game that’s set in a time where, if you don’t have those elements in the game, it’s just dishonest, you know?"
The quote makes it pretty clear that he included them as authentic elements but that the game AS A WHOLE was not about that.
The plotline does, in fact, make perfect sense and highlights an interesting element to Bioshock Infinite: it requires thought and investigation to get the full meaning of it. Other parts in the game make it clear that the universe is "self-healing." That is, it seeks to cancel out any paradoxes or foreign elements in a dimension. I quote: "The universe doesn't like peas mixed with its porridge." An infinite number of Elizabeths (symbolized by all the different ones drowning Booker) drown Booker in an infinite number of universes, thereby 'fixing' the universe by removing the paradox. It's hard to talk about whether this "makes sense" because the physics are not well understood. When encountering infinite mathematics, both relativity and quantum mechanics break down. But we DO know that the universe can handle infinite pathways because that's essentially how electrons choose the "path" they travel - by Feynmann's "sum over [infinite] histories."
I don't really take issue with Tom's score (or with Tom himself, for that matter). It reflects his disappointment and anyone who reads the review should be able to see that and judge accordingly. Rather it is that his review reminds me of one of Roger Ebert's later film reviews (see Thor, for example). In his old age, he began to miss KEY plot points, or mis-interpret what the film was trying to do entirely, an important metric when writing criticism. Tom, in his fan-scorned disappointment, appears to have misunderstood what the game was trying to do.
Tom makes some good points, but I'm a little stunned at how far off the mark he is with regards to what this story is "about."
In his entire review, he fails to mention the word "choice" a single time - despite the fact that almost every aspect of this game is blatantly about choice & free will. Everything from the Heads / Tails board to 'actual' choices like the symbol for Elizabeth's necklace (which doesn't make a difference) all point to the notion of the illusion of choice.
Instead Tom chose to focus on 'American exceptionalism' & racism & such, topics which were blatantly subordinate to the main. Of course they're atrophied - it's better to consider those characterization of Columbia, rather than major plot points. It'd be like if I watched Gravity and complained about how the film messed up their commentary on space trash & pollution of our skies & such. It's like, well, dur, that's not the point. That's just background.
Rather Bioshock Infinite is an almost unparalleled commentary on the nature of 'choice' in games. Which is that - in reality - very few games, even those which tout branching plot-lines, offer any real choice; all pathways basically lead to the same ending.
While harping on a so-called divorce of gameplay & story via vigors, Tom fails to mention other brilliant aspects. For example, that every death represents a branching pathway (why do you think, after dying, that Booker has the grainy black dream in his office - it represents a NEW Booker being 'chosen' by the twins, one who will make slightly different choices and therefore live where the first one died). That's a rather cool mind-blowing aspect, a far cry cooler than Bioshock's rather magical vita-chambers. Or that the player's relationship with Elizabeth is built up because she actually does serve some useful purpose (playing on the hardest difficulty - the health, ammo, and salt can and will save your life).
Speaking of Elizabeth - bad characterization? Saying she plays the "typical" role of a prize is a cheap and easy cultural shot since it's in vogue to do so. But honestly, what "prize" female kills a rebel leader WITH A PAIR OF SCISSORS? And gimme a break in complaining about Booker's characterization, as if it were any different from Adam's? In the end, I agree with the writer Elmore Leonard, who always disliked describing his characters. Rather he wanted readers to picture his characters based off how they talked, and their actions, and I think Bioshock Infinite does a pretty good job with that.
So, in the end, Tom brought up a lot of good points, but the review over-all is marred by an apparent misunderstanding of what the game was even trying to do. Certainly one of the big differences of Bioshock and Infinite is that Bioshock's deeper themes are readily apparent and the 'trick' ending is understandable without much thought. Not so with Infinite - it's only if you discuss and truly ponder the full course of the game that you'll come to appreciate its genius.
Just for the fun of it, my sister and I got a 360 on day one (waited out in a freezing cold storm, eugh) and lo and behold, it was broken straight out of the box. In the next 2-3 years, I went through no less than 4 360's and my latest is sitting in a closet, broken, having given up its spot to my PS3. Which has never broken.
The lesson I learned, besides don't buy a Microsoft console, is that adopting a console from the get-go can easily be more trouble than it's worth.
Xenrathe's comments