Playing A Game BioShock Infinite PC

BioShock Infinite still managed to feel good, in the end. But not as good as it felt the first time.

Infinite's value as a game is based almost completely around the strength of its shocking ending; so, knowing what was coming ahead of time dulled it a little. And this time around, I wasn't quite as anxious to forgive the game's first half being so unengaging and uninteresting.

Still, the narrative power of BioShock Infinite is hard to overstate, even with the benefit of hindsight. I hope Ken Levine feels proud of the story he was able to tell.

Better than: BioShock 2 Remastered, even though Infinite's gameplay mechanics are definitely not as good.
Not as good as: maybe Wolfenstein: The New Order (I'm waffling between the two).
Almost done with the BioShock reunion tour: Just got to go back to Rapture yet again

Rating: Good
Playing A Game BioShock Infinite PC

Talk about rose-colored glasses; even moreso than my recent attempt to replay Red Dead Redemption, embarking upon Booker's journey through BioShock Infinite a second time is humbling.

The first half of the game isn't any good. It's practically bad.

Infinite's gameplay mechanics hardly need to be called out, but I'll call them out anyway:

  • Randomized equipment upgrades are almost never useful;
  • All of the vigors are criminally useless;
  • Paying to upgrade vigors is futile, since you'll need to spend money on weapon upgrades if you actually want to kill anything;
  • Redundant weapons, like the Machine Gun versus the Repeater, feel like a cruel joke;
  • Replacing the hacking minigames with a lockpick item is borderline insulting;
  • You can only carry two weapons!?;
  • You can't save manually!;
  • There's no in-game map,
  • And the bulk of its sidequests require you to backtrack through entire levels.

Basically, in every way that might lead to deep, intricate, thoughtful gameplay, BioShock Infinite fails to deliver. In this, the year of our Comstock 2017, Dishonored and Wolfenstein: The New Order seem like sensible, unpretentious bitch-slaps to Infinite.

The star of BioShock Infinite is, and was always going to be, its story. And all the necessary conveyances are there from the start: audio recordings, ambient chatter, menacing voice-overs, evocative environments, banter between Booker and Elizabeth. But even here, the first half of the game somehow manages to trip over itself, by focusing on the predictably-shallow racist and classist story of Comstock versus Daisy Fitzroy. This is a plot that's interesting for 30 minutes; not for six hours.

So it's a damn good thing that the game's narrative starts to turn around, and focus on Elizabeth's sci-fi powers, around the halfway point. Because up to then, it's almost completely forgettable.

Progress: Finished the business in Comstock House.

Rating: Meh

Minerva's Den Remastered is a ... nice freebie, I guess; but beneath its modernized appearance, the game itself is a bit scatterbrained, and overall unimpressive.

The first of its three levels feels like an experiment in non-linear design, which mostly failed. The new laser weapon is underwhelming, and the focus on flying robot buddies fails to address their annoyances (when they block your path, or block your bullets). The pacing is obviously and somewhat deliberately broken, in its attempt to accelerate the delivery of the same arsenal that BioShock 2 accumulated over a much longer game.

Oh-- I've already written all this, haven't I.

Well, yeah. It's like I said in 2011, then. Pretty "meh."

Uninteresting sidenote: In this post-Dear Esther world, the walking-through-narrative-voiceovers ending sequence of Minerva's Den clearly sets the stage for what we now call a Walking Simulator.

Better than: Asinine Attorney
Not as good as: BioShock 2 Remastered
The best part: feeling free to move on to BioShock Infinite

Rating: Meh

Seven years later, the remaster doesn't really change my final thoughts on BioShock 2. The early game - relying as it does on "Big Daddy" mechanics to pull you in - is perhaps weaker than before, since video games have moved on somewhat. But ultimately, BioShock's sequel both thrives and suffers for its narrative attachment to the original.

The theme and plot of BioShock 2 succeed in drawing from the well that Andrew Ryan and "Would You Kindly" had already established; but fail to make an impression that really feels unique.

What BioShock really needed wasn't an additional story about Rapture in the 1960s, but something more ambitious. I guess Ken Levine knew that all along.

All that said, BioShock 2 is certainly a fun and entertaining game; and while it sure would have been nice for the remaster to fix the game's console-first UI (and its reluctance to autosave), the modern visual treatment holds up just fine.

Better than: the un-remastered BioShock 2
Not as good as: BioShock Remastered, BioShock Infinite
Next up: hey cool, they even remastered Minerva's Den

Rating: Good
Looking Forward To It Extinction PC

There are already some big things I'm worried about from the Extinction gameplay presentation: like the balance of grinding through trash mobs versus "real" combat with ogres, and how important checkpoints will be if the ogres can kill you in one hit.

But it's also ticking some important boxes for me. The traversal mechanics are robust, and flitting around rooftops and giant ogres looks super fun (with more freshness than Assassin's Creed: Pyramids). And the ogre fights have a shade of Shadow of the Colossus to them (for which I have more optimism, re: usable controls, than I do for Colossus's upcoming remake).

On balance, Extinction looks like a pleasant surprise from the studio best known for ruining Batman: Arkham Knight on PC. Let's see how they fare with an original production.

This is not a reveal, Nintendo. You just put the words "Metroid" and "Prime" and "4" next to each other. Call me back when you're confident enough in the game's existence to show it.

Maybe I'm the only person on Earth who played Beyond Good & Evil and didn't like it. Over a decade later, all I can say is that it was profoundly un-memorable; the story wasn't noteworthy and the gameplay was very routine.

(I do remember that Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time came out around the same time, and that game was super frickin' sweet.)

So it's doubly mystifying to me how the no-gameplay prequel trailer is driving so much hype. Is it because the monkey says "motherfucker?" It certainly can't be because of the hackneyed and Michael Bay-esque police chase.

Maybe if I could borrow Playtonic's time machine, I could go back to 2004, play BG&E again, and try to understand why the game became so beloved. For now, I don't remember the game as anything but wholly unremarkable.

So The New Colossus takes New Order's alternate-history resistance to the Nazi empire, and moves it to America? One, please.

I only hope that New Colossus can meet the storytelling bar set by its predecessor -- and the trailer shows some great potential.

Playing A Game Book of Demons PC

Book of Demons is immediately jarring, not just because of its slickly-animated high-definition papercraft presentation (like an amped-up Epistory), but also because it's a clear "homage" to Diablo. And when I say "homage," I mean that there is an old man standing by the tiny, depressed village's well, and he asks you to delve under the haunted church, into the 3/4-isometric catacombs to fight evil.

They're clearly going for a nostalgia angle, but to me it just feels uninspired. At least Torchlight, for all it cribbed from Diablo, tried a little bit to make a game world of its own. Book of Demons puts forth no effort whatsoever.

That said, Book of Demons does propose a suitably unique set of gameplay systems: equipment, spells, and passive skills are all squashed into virtual cards. Your mana is consumed either by a card's base/equip cost, or by using an ability -- so, with six mana points, you could equip a four-mana weapon and cast a one-mana spell twice. (If I understood the system correctly.)

The game also makes an attempt to streamline combat, although I think it is somewhat misguided. There is an auto-attack feature, so you will automatically hit the closest enemy at a slow rate, but if you click and hold on the enemy your attacks will be more rapid. Which makes the auto-attack more of a nuisance than anything, as coming in range of an enemy will just annoy it with slow attacks.

There are some fun twists on click-and-hold combat, like shields that have to be clicked before you can start damaging the enemy underneath, or infected enemies that explode when they die, requiring some tactical movement.

There is also an irritating mechanic where removing poison requires clicking on your health orb at the right time. (My guess, at this point, is that they are designing primarily for mobile/touch-based platforms.)

Dungeon movement is also ... streamlined, in a way. Dungeons are mapped out with grid lines, and when you click on a line, you'll keep moving in that direction until it ends, or until an enemy stops you. It may free the player from having to click-and-hold, or hold a keyboard button, to move; but it makes stopping, or reversing direction, more fiddly and error-prone than it should be.

The last thing I saw in my brief playtime was the game's system for choosing dungeon length. Every time you enter the dungeon, you choose how many floors will be generated, based on how long you want to play. But ... what if you want to go right to a more difficult level, like how Diablo allowed you to quickly travel to deeper floors? It isn't clear to me if the game has a feature like this, or if it wants me to keep playing freshly-generated "early" floors, over and over again.

Book of Demons has a really cool visual style, and there are a couple interesting mechanical riffs on Diablo-like clicking. But its clear efforts to court the mobile-games audience do it more damage than favor, in the form of a shallow narrative, an unnecessary "card" metaphor, and mouse-unfriendly controls.

Progress: Played the demo, finished two short dungeons.

Rating: Meh

As with the un-remastered BioShock 2, the worst thing about BioShock 2 Remastered is that it just isn't as interesting as the first game. Especially in its opening levels, which lean very heavily on the implicit appeal of Rapture and the Big Daddy/Little Sister motif, offering very little intrigue of their own.

To wit, I started playing it shortly after finishing BioShock Remastered and didn't muster enough interest to return to it for almost six months.

And - frustratingly - also like the 2010 version, BioShock 2 Remastered suffers from console-first design. Hacking is dumbed-down. There's no UI for quickly switching between weapons or plasmids. If you have a gamepad plugged in when the game starts, the keyboard just doesn't work. I feel almost grateful that there are graphics options at all.

While the core gameplay is still engaging enough, and the remaster does add some appreciated graphical polish, there's nothing to really do about BioShock 2's biggest problem: Andrew Ryan's story was better.

To lazily quote myself from about seven years ago:

Once it gets going, BioShock 2's combat is fun -- but as in the first game, it isn't really enough to make the game great. What made the first game great was the freshness and mystique of its atmosphere, which simply can't be bottled up and re-released.

Progress: Dionysis Park

Rating: Good