#1 Posted by wario1988 (990 posts) - - Show Bio

Got this game yet? i may soon and grade this game out of 1 to 10 please.

There is no multiplayer for this game right?

#2 Posted by wario1988 (990 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone?

#3 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

From what I have played of it so far, I would rate it a 8.5 out or 10. If anything, I feel like I may beat it too soon, but that is just a guess considering the part in the story i am currently playing. Also, I wish there was multiplayer. Other than that I can't think of any other game changing flaws.

#4 Posted by skooks (205 posts) - - Show Bio

So far it's 9/10 for me. Stunning game. Also, I'm glad they took multiplayer out. BioShock was always meant to be a single-player experience, nothing wrong with that. Not everything has to have a multiplayer mode attached to it these days.

#5 Posted by sagejonathan (2033 posts) - - Show Bio

No multiplayer, thankfully. This game has been jaw dropping and breath taking so far. The very first scene with songbird blew me away. So far the game is perfect to me. I haven't seen a flaw and I'm having a blast.

#6 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

@skooks: @sagejonathan: But I think that if you are going to spend $65 buck on a game, then I think the experience should be expanded. I loved the multiplayer on Bio2. I don't see anything wrong with having the option. If you don't want to play it then you don't have to. Just think about all of the players swinging on the Skyline. I think it would have been a pretty cool feature.

#7 Posted by Bruxae (14008 posts) - - Show Bio

Id say its a 8 out of 10.

Its a truly wonderful game with breathtaking visuals and extremely enjoyable gameplay, the story was great too although somewhat over-hyped.

I cant really say anything bad about it except that it has a slightly worse atmosphere then the original (but its alot to live up to), well worth playing, its just getting an 8 because there's even better games out there.

#8 Posted by JohnnyGat (1580 posts) - - Show Bio

I bought it a few days ago. Planning on playing the first Bioshock that came with Infinite first but before that I still have to finish Dishonored.

#9 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

@johnnygat: As much as I think you should play the first one, you aren't doing it for story continuity, are you?

#10 Posted by sagejonathan (2033 posts) - - Show Bio

@greenlantern555: I have nothing against multiplayer but I firmly believe that there a couple of games that should solely focus on the single player. Bioshock is one of those franchises that brings magic not with multiplayer, but with their beautifully told stories that leave you awestruck. If they had to throw in a multiplayer component, the game's single player would have most definitely been weaker.

#11 Posted by JohnnyGat (1580 posts) - - Show Bio

@johnnygat: As much as I think you should play the first one, you aren't doing it for story continuity, are you?

No. But given the option of playing an old game and a new game, I'd much rather start out with the older one so moving on to the next will be more improvement then step back.

#13 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

@greenlantern555: I have nothing against multiplayer but I firmly believe that there a couple of games that should solely focus on the single player. Bioshock is one of those franchises that brings magic not with multiplayer, but with their beautifully told stories that leave you awestruck. If they had to throw in a multiplayer component, the game's single player would have most definitely been weaker.

But I don't know if it would have changed the story at all. I mean they pushed this game back so much anyway. I'm mean, Farcry 3 is one of the best games (IMO) that has came out this year and has a multiplayer. All of the Halo series have beautiful stories and the most played multiplayer in the gaming world. Battlefield, Tomb Raider, Assassins Creed all have great stories and decent multiplayer.

#14 Posted by sagejonathan (2033 posts) - - Show Bio

@greenlantern555: I think it makes a difference with the little things in the campaign that make it so good. Kevin Levine, the creator, said a while back that in those delays, they perfected Elizabeth's mechanics and actually made the characters have more depth to them since they seemed sometimes shallow. If they instead invested that time making a multiplayer, things such as those would not have had the same treatment. The campaign wouldn't be as crisp and perfect as it is; I don't mind sacrificing multiplayer for that perfection. Besides, there are other games I could go on for a great multiplayer.

#15 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

@sagejonathan: Well, I have yet to beat the game,but just hope it's not short. It sucks to spend the money on a game (no matter how great a game may be) if it doesn't take long to beat. I like games with multiplayer in it because you get more bang for your buck. If they wanted to, they could have a whole fleet of designers to focus on the multiplayer, while they focused on those minor tweeks with big affects. But I understand that sort of thing takes money. Having these new weapons and abilities would be really cool in a multiplayer setting. I think I could stand if Elizabeth didn't move her eyes or hand in couple of shots for a multiplayer.

#16 Posted by x_29 (2274 posts) - - Show Bio

Bioshock Infinite is a masterpiece

#17 Posted by skooks (205 posts) - - Show Bio

@sagejonathan said:

@greenlantern555: I have nothing against multiplayer but I firmly believe that there a couple of games that should solely focus on the single player. Bioshock is one of those franchises that brings magic not with multiplayer, but with their beautifully told stories that leave you awestruck. If they had to throw in a multiplayer component, the game's single player would have most definitely been weaker.

But I don't know if it would have changed the story at all. I mean they pushed this game back so much anyway. I'm mean, Farcry 3 is one of the best games (IMO) that has came out this year and has a multiplayer. All of the Halo series have beautiful stories and the most played multiplayer in the gaming world. Battlefield, Tomb Raider, Assassins Creed all have great stories and decent multiplayer.

Halo is the exception to the rule. Not many developers have the time, money, or talent to craft well-rounded single-player and multiplayer modes. Battlefield is primarily a multiplayer game with single-player tacked on. Battlefield 3's campaign was awful. Tomb Raider has tacked on multiplayer that will be dead in six months. The Assassin's Creed games started out as single-player games, now they too have tacked on multiplayer at the expense of the rest of the game. Far Cry 3's single-player was awesome while the multiplayer was a buggy, unfinished mess that did nothing original and again will be dead within six months. My point is that time and resources are often spent this gen on tacking on multiplayer modes that no one will play six months after release. It's not worth it just for the few people that will enjoy it for a month and then not go back. Like someone else said, BioShock is all about the story and the single-player experience. Sure the second game has multiplayer but that wasn't even made by the same people, hence that decision. Ken Levine tried multiplayer for Infinite, realised it wasn't working and was taking creativity and resources away from the main game, and scrapped it. That sounds like the better option to me.

If you're the kind of person who wants more for their money, well multiplayer doesn't necessarily give you that. If getting your money's worth is your main concern then just wait for the price to drop.

#18 Posted by Vance Astro (91416 posts) - - Show Bio

Never understood why multiplayer was an option on ANY Bioshock, it's just not that type of game.

Moderator
#19 Edited by PrinceIMC (5422 posts) - - Show Bio

I rented it and I'd give it an 8 out of 10. Not the most fun I've had playing a game but definitely the most fun I've had playing on in a while. That sky hook thing is great when you get it. And the game is just kinda creepy enough with the racism, which is kinda the point. I think my only complaint is that some of the "surprises" in the storyline were kinda obvious. Though I only played for like 8 hours, there could have been more coming. I'm definitely gonna buy this eventually when the price drops a little.

#20 Posted by GreenLantern555 (2169 posts) - - Show Bio

@skooks: Fair enough. Great points.

I finished the game and it was breathtaking. It is the first game that I beat then started all over again immediately after finishing it. 1999 is a B**** but so much fun. I am finding a lot of stuff that I didn't the first time around. Oh, and I also realized that my brightness was way down when I played it and now it's a completely new game. Haha!