Did Burial At Sea ruin Bioshock? (spoilers)

#1 Posted by HipHopBeats (2846 posts) -

Burial At Sea was better than Bioshock Infinite imo. All I kept wondering was 'why couldn't Infinite play more like this'? The new stealth feature was pretty cool.

For those who played through Burial At Sea, were you satisfied with the way the ending explained the connection between Rapture and Columbia and the events that lead in Bioshock 1? I saw some fans weren't pleased with the way things wrapped up.

The Suchong and Fink connection with imprinting Big Daddies with Little Sisters and Elizabeth and Songbird was kind of cool.

I thought the twins talking Daisy into sacrificing herself to encourage Elizabeth was a last minute ploy to rectify the bad writing for Daisy suddenly becoming a senseless thug when she started out as a rebel with a cause.

Elizabeth being the key to Atlas using Jack to highjack the plane and ending up killing Andrew Ryan and Atlas all to save Sally? Innocent lives on the plane lost all because Elizabeth wanted to fix a mistake she made causing Sally's death when she baited the last Comstock?

Sad ending I guess from Elizabeth's standpoint but Burial At Sea really needed to be whole game instead of the disappointment we got with Infinite.

I liked how Bioshock and Infinite's ending left things to the interpretation and didn't completely wrap everything up. Burial At Sea was definitely more intriguing than Infinite but ultimately leaves more questions than answers.

#2 Posted by mjorh (613 posts) -

You can't say it was better or sth , it did complete the whole bioshock franchise but that doesn't mean it was better than any other bioshock games and yes i am satisfied with the ending , it wrapped up the whole franchise in the best possible way .

Atlas is the one to be blamed , Not Elizabeth

#3 Edited by Jacanuk (3688 posts) -

Burial At Sea was better than Bioshock Infinite imo. All I kept wondering was 'why couldn't Infinite play more like this'? The new stealth feature was pretty cool.

For those who played through Burial At Sea, were you satisfied with the way the ending explained the connection between Rapture and Columbia and the events that lead in Bioshock 1? I saw some fans weren't pleased with the way things wrapped up.

The Suchong and Fink connection with imprinting Big Daddies with Little Sisters and Elizabeth and Songbird was kind of cool.

I thought the twins talking Daisy into sacrificing herself to encourage Elizabeth was a last minute ploy to rectify the bad writing for Daisy suddenly becoming a senseless thug when she started out as a rebel with a cause.

Elizabeth being the key to Atlas using Jack to highjack the plane and ending up killing Andrew Ryan and Atlas all to save Sally? Innocent lives on the plane lost all because Elizabeth wanted to fix a mistake she made causing Sally's death when she baited the last Comstock?

Sad ending I guess from Elizabeth's standpoint but Burial At Sea really needed to be whole game instead of the disappointment we got with Infinite.

I liked how Bioshock and Infinite's ending left things to the interpretation and didn't completely wrap everything up. Burial At Sea was definitely more intriguing than Infinite but ultimately leaves more questions than answers.

If you take the last episode in Burial at Sea then i almost agree, Bioshock Infinite was not a very good Bioshock game and felt like a incomplete game

But Ep.2 of Burial was not very good either, gameplay wise it was a refreshing alternative to have a decent stealth option but story wise, it felt like it was a cop out and like someone was drunk while writing it.

#4 Posted by HipHopBeats (2846 posts) -

@Jacanuk: I agree. I don't understand why Levine didn't just give fans what they wanted in the first place and continue Infinite in Rapture. Instead of trying to appeal to people who have never played Bioshock before with the Columbia crap. The best things about Infinite were the graphics and the ending. Gameplay and pacing was utter shit.

#5 Edited by Minishdriveby (10002 posts) -

I never really thought BioShock was this magnum opus that people make it out to be to begin with.

#6 Posted by Jacanuk (3688 posts) -

@Jacanuk: I agree. I don't understand why Levine didn't just give fans what they wanted in the first place and continue Infinite in Rapture. Instead of trying to appeal to people who have never played Bioshock before with the Columbia crap. The best things about Infinite were the graphics and the ending. Gameplay and pacing was utter shit.

Ya, i never understood the idea behind making Columbia the way they did, or kinda if they would have continued the line they outlined in their E3 demo, that Infinite seemed more vibrant and alive. But ya he best would have been to keep it in Rapture and just expanded it like they did in burial to "columbia" as it would make 100 times more sense to have it be a alternative rapture with alternative "Ryan" as boss then what they did.

In Infinite the city feels dead and you never really feel anything towards the city or its inhabitants like you did in Rapture, the whole atmosphere down there connected, and i really liked the burial DLC, it was awesome to see Rapture alive and before all hell broke out.

#7 Posted by faizanhd (121 posts) -

I think Burial At Sea's story made everything goofy. But Burial At Sea stayed true to Bioshock's exploration based levels instead of Infinite's roller coaster style progression. Plus, ALL WEAPONS at the same time baby !!!!

#9 Posted by HipHopBeats (2846 posts) -

@Jacanuk: Same here. Even then I don't see why Levine couldn't at least include a patch with Burial At Sea episode 2 that allowed players to use all guns in Infinite. That 2 gun carry limit took a lot of fun out the already lackluster gameplay.

#10 Posted by HipHopBeats (2846 posts) -

@faizanhd: Yeah, Infinite's level design was mostly non interactive eye candy except for the skyhook gimmick.

#11 Posted by Maverick6585 (154 posts) -

I feel like it was a way to put a complete wrap on the Bioshock franchise; one that Ken Levine and Irrational would be satisfied with, so 2K couldn't mess with their creation. I do feel like they were trying to appease those who didn't like Columbia, and missed Rapture. Personally, I always hated Rapture. It felt claustrophobic, and I realize that was the intention, but just playing it made me feel uneasy. Loved the open feeling in the floating city of Columbia though. Felt free, even though the gameplay was much more linear than the first Bioshock. I only played through 1 so I could understand Burial at Sea.

#12 Posted by Gannon27 (98 posts) -

I think Burial at Sea was great and the best way to wrap up the franchise. Although I love Infinite and can see that Levine and the team were trying to bring something new (and just about succeeded) to the series. I think that there was an incredible amount of pressure to bring something new and refreshing to Bioshock. Perhaps they were afraid of losing diehard fans if the third game was too similar to the first two. In hindsight, I think that the third game should have been set in Rapture and it seems most people think the same.

#13 Edited by wiouds (4993 posts) -

I believe that Bioshock Infinite was the game that ruin Bioshock. Storywise it was bad. The whole World jumping became a moment where the story before it and anything that happens after is meaningless. It is just the writers throwing up the hands and saying they do not care about the story.

At least that is what I hope they did. It would be much worse if they think they were being smart with the story.

I think that moving to a new setting was a smart ideal. I felt there was no more to tell with Rapture since the first attack those that believe the one is all the matter and the second attack those that believe that whole is the only thing that matters.

The only story I can think of is if Rapture become uninhabitable and those living in it rush to over take an island or something.