Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/gametrailers-tv/124

I am digging this game so much, it looks so awesome!

I concur, however it was a little wonky how the demo player ran out of health several times and had to be saved via hacks.

Meh, they gots to show it off, you know.

It's Bioshock....
Nothing less then awesome...

The first game shall always be the best, but this one looks pretty good.

Infinitely better than both previous games, which were saved only by setting.

Looks phenomenal.

dogma wrote:Infinitely better than both previous games, which were saved only by setting.

I would like to think the Story (of the first game) was worth the admission. I don't think anyone was expecting a certain plot twist (every time I say the three words I get modded.....), so while it wasn't amazing by movie/book standards, I have yet to see another game top it.

@dogma

youre calling a 15 minute demo of a game that YOU DID NOT play, better than the two previous games?

Troll or Stupid: Can't decide

Cop out answers would include: Graphics are better, gameplay shown so far...etc.

its a demo. At least get it in your hands before you call it better than the other two. sheesh.

I had read about the demo a few weeks ago (it is possible to take down the zepellin with small arms apparently) but did not expect the skyhook to be that free form. The size of that playspace is ridiculous, i think if all action bubbles have that amount of choice it could be a very strong game indeed.

Considering it had a health bar, I would've guessed it could be taken down by small arms; it's probably going to be some sort of achievement.

Avatar 720 wrote:Considering it had a health bar, I would've guessed it could be taken down by small arms; it's probably going to be some sort of achievement.

Biggest Brass Balls?

Bakerofish wrote:@dogma

youre calling a 15 minute demo of a game that YOU DID NOT play, better than the two previous games?

Troll or Stupid: Can't decide

Cop out answers would include: Graphics are better, gameplay shown so far...etc.

its a demo. At least get it in your hands before you call it better than the other two. sheesh.

I don't know that dogma's statement is as unreasonable as you seem to think. I'd agree with him that the setting is really what made the first game stand out (tremendously overrated story, IMO -- that kind of overrating is the reason M. Night Shyamalan was allowed to direct more movie after Sixth Sense, people!) . . . and, unfortunately, Rapture was the only thing going for the second one at all. This game seems to have a lot more character in addition to an incredible setting. I was not very excited about BioShock 1 even when folks were falling all over themselves about it (played it for the first time over a year after it's initial release, when it finally came to PS3 -- even though I had a 360) and I wasn't even slightly excited about BioShock 2. But watching this demo . . . Infinite is a game that I am really looking forward to.

Looks good. But there's sooo many good releases this year, don't know what to get!!!

Manchu wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@dogma

youre calling a 15 minute demo of a game that YOU DID NOT play, better than the two previous games?

Troll or Stupid: Can't decide

Cop out answers would include: Graphics are better, gameplay shown so far...etc.

its a demo. At least get it in your hands before you call it better than the other two. sheesh.

I don't know that dogma's statement is as unreasonable as you seem to think. I'd agree with him that the setting is really what made the first game stand out (tremendously overrated story, IMO -- that kind of overrating is the reason M. Night Shyamalan was allowed to direct more movie after Sixth Sense, people!) . . . and, unfortunately, Rapture was the only thing going for the second one at all. This game seems to have a lot more character in addition to an incredible setting. I was not very excited about BioShock 1 even when folks were falling all over themselves about it (played it for the first time over a year after it's initial release, when it finally came to PS3 -- even though I had a 360) and I wasn't even slightly excited about BioShock 2. But watching this demo . . . Infinite is a game that I am really looking forward to.

I respectfully disagree; Bioshock 1 (and to a smaller extent, Bioshock 2; Minerva's Den) are the best story telling (Ok, not THE best, but high up there) because they were able to do something that no other medium could do; Get a player used to hearing something over and over to the point where they stopped paying attention to it, and then BAMM! it's a huge part of the story. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's definately a giant step in the right direction.

Also, do you count Steinman and Sander Cohen as the setting or the story?

Ayn Rand, sorry, Andrew Ryan, is my favorite video game villain. I certainly hope they have an equally awesome character in this one.

Slarg232 wrote:I respectfully disagree; Bioshock 1 (and to a smaller extent, Bioshock 2; Minerva's Den) are the best story telling (Ok, not THE best, but high up there) because they were able to do something that no other medium could do; Get a player used to hearing something over and over to the point where they stopped paying attention to it, and then BAMM! it's a huge part of the story. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's definately a giant step in the right direction.

I wouldn't give that much credence to what boils down to a cheap trick. But I'm glad you brought it up: this game's reputation is based to a large extent on this one cheap trick.

Also, do you count Steinman and Sander Cohen as the setting or the story?

Neither, but closer to setting. Their specific personalities don't really figure into the story arc at all -- except heaping on the sense of disbelief. The whole time I played the game, I thought "who would have ever thought this city was a good idea?"

Bakerofish wrote:@dogma

youre calling a 15 minute demo of a game that YOU DID NOT play, better than the two previous games?

Yes, because I consider both previous games to be hugely overrated.

Bioshock 1 was mediocre, and Bioshock 2 was awful.


edit by Manchu

Manchu wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I respectfully disagree; Bioshock 1 (and to a smaller extent, Bioshock 2; Minerva's Den) are the best story telling (Ok, not THE best, but high up there) because they were able to do something that no other medium could do; Get a player used to hearing something over and over to the point where they stopped paying attention to it, and then BAMM! it's a huge part of the story. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's definately a giant step in the right direction.

I wouldn't give that much credence to what boils down to a cheap trick. But I'm glad you brought it up: this game's reputation is based to a large extent on this one cheap trick.

Also, do you count Steinman and Sander Cohen as the setting or the story?

Neither, but closer to setting. Their specific personalities don't really figure into the story arc at all -- except heaping on the sense of disbelief. The whole time I played the game, I thought "who would have ever thought this city was a good idea?"

But would anyone have noticed the same Cheap Trick if it had been done in a movie?

Also, I think the City is a Bad Idea was an idea you were supposed to come to while playing it. To tell the truth, that's the idea that everyone in my group came to by Steinman.

I thought the city was quite a good idea, is that bad?

corpsesarefun wrote:I thought the city was quite a good idea, is that bad?

Are Corpses fun?

I think that solves the mystery.

Nicely played, gentlemen!

@slarg: Yes, it seems the player is supposed to come to that conclusion. The trouble I'm having is not with the player but with the setting: no one with sense would have built Rapture in the first place.

I don't get the bioshock hype. I own the first and second game, but it's so repetitive. In the first, you get spammed by those damned flying sentry bots. Onevery damn corner there is an alarm. It's always the same. Turn around a corner, BAM you need to kill 6 of those bots. I like theback ground and all, but I just dons't like the gameplay.

Scrazza wrote:I don't get the bioshock hype. I own the first and second game, but it's so repetitive. In the first, you get spammed by those damned flying sentry bots. Onevery damn corner there is an alarm. It's always the same. Turn around a corner, BAM you need to kill 6 of those bots. I like theback ground and all, but I just dons't like the gameplay.

Not to mention the poor weapon progression. There's no reason to use any gun on any opponent that isn't a Big Daddy/Big Sister.

For a game that is supposedly about a crumbling world, you never really feel like you're stretched too thin in terms of ammunition or general resources.

I didn't even finish any of the two games. The repetiveness was awefull.

I always fell short in ammo because of those annoying bots though.

Bioshock 1 and 2 came into my possesionbecause I found the two games very cheap in some store. I was dissapoint.

I won't buy the third game, because the first two sucked, and I have still to get Killzone 3. See, I liked the Killzone serries much more then Bioshock.

I just used the lightning power and the wrench, then whatever ranged weapon I had against the Bosses.

Another thing is that the game was hugely linear, which isn't necessarily a problem, but when its sold as sort of an "open-world"...

Agreed, the game was just a labyrinth. You just run around in various rooms, trying to solve somethong so you can go to the next pair of rooms.

Dogma what difficulty did you play on?

Manchu wrote:Nicely played, gentlemen!

@slarg: Yes, it seems the player is supposed to come to that conclusion. The trouble I'm having is not with the player but with the setting: no one with sense would have built Rapture in the first place.

I think that's the point; Andrew Ryan was a man of great vision but little sense. Lamb even starts chastising him (in a Radio) because "Everyone in Rapture has no limits, no restraints, and no morals, but are all supposed to go about living their lives the same way. Ryan could be staggeringly naive....." Or something to that effect. I mean, we are talking about a dude who gets himself killed simply to prove a point.

Scrazza wrote:I don't get the bioshock hype. I own the first and second game, but it's so repetitive. In the first, you get spammed by those damned flying sentry bots. Onevery damn corner there is an alarm. It's always the same. Turn around a corner, BAM you need to kill 6 of those bots. I like theback ground and all, but I just dons't like the gameplay.

Really? I honestly only ever had to fight the Bots if I was being careless or during scripted moments. You can get Tonics which turn you invisible just by standing still. You can hack them to make them fight eachother. You can just pay your way past them. You can shock/freeze them to death. And all of this is after you can sneak and time your way past them. I just don't see it.