Tom McShea reviews Bioshock Infinite. Gives it a 4/10.

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

I haven't played Bioshock Infinite, so I can't comment on his review one way or the other. However, it's worth mentioning that Tom McShea doesn't assign the scores to his reviews. He's stated a few times that the other reviewers read his review and then determine the score from that. Make of this what you will.

If that is true that is the stupidest system I have ever heard of. It is his review, he should pick. Especially now that they are doing the multiple reviewers thing, it is no longer some overall site score.

#52 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@1PMrFister said:

I haven't played Bioshock Infinite, so I can't comment on his review one way or the other. However, it's worth mentioning that Tom McShea doesn't assign the scores to his reviews. He's stated a few times that the other reviewers read his review and then determine the score from that. Make of this what you will.

If that is true that is the stupidest system I have ever heard of. It is his review, he should pick. Especially now that they are doing the multiple reviewers thing, it is no longer some overall site score.

The review policies are insane. It's like no one wants to take responsibility for what gets posted with their name on it. Damn, I miss GregK. I miss him so bad. Good thing I got past needing reviews a while back now. As for Tommy Boy, I think if you try looking at his reviews the way people look at the reviews of Jim Sterling, as more entertainment than informative, maybe it'll help make them less painful to read.

#53 Posted by c_rakestraw (14712 posts) -
@dvader654 said:

@1PMrFister said:

I haven't played Bioshock Infinite, so I can't comment on his review one way or the other. However, it's worth mentioning that Tom McShea doesn't assign the scores to his reviews. He's stated a few times that the other reviewers read his review and then determine the score from that. Make of this what you will.

If that is true that is the stupidest system I have ever heard of. It is his review, he should pick. Especially now that they are doing the multiple reviewers thing, it is no longer some overall site score.

As I understand it, it's a mixture of both. The reviewer assigns a score to the review, then, during the editing process, he and the other editors work to determine whether the assigned score matches the text or if it should be adjusted. Once they're all in agreement, the review's posted.

It's Polygon that doesn't let the author choose a score, for the record. The reviews editors over there are who determine that, though they still need the reviewer's approval.

#54 Edited by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

@c_rake: Dark Souls is my absolute favorite game of the generation but it doesn't deserve a 10. The technical flaws keep it back from perfection, imo.

Anyway, I can understand the dissatisfaction for Bioshock Infinite even if I think a 4 is low balling it. Still, I'm really excited to see more second opinions form on this website.

#55 Posted by lozengez (509 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

Unbelievable, actually no its believable and that is sad. I guess even crazy people need a reviewer they can relate to. :P

It's a horrible game, but that doesn't make me relate with Tom McShea. I dislike the game for legitimate reasons, he's just doing it as part of his job (to get attention).

#56 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

Sounds Just about right. Bioshock Infinite was a lie

#57 Posted by c_rakestraw (14712 posts) -
@IndianaPwns39 said:

@c_rake: Dark Souls is my absolute favorite game of the generation but it doesn't deserve a 10. The technical flaws keep it back from perfection, imo.

Anyway, I can understand the dissatisfaction for Bioshock Infinite even if I think a 4 is low balling it. Still, I'm really excited to see more second opinions form on this website.

I don't see 10s as a matter of perfection -- the score would be completely pointless, in that case, since no game can ever be perfect -- but merely a distinction of it being one of the best games around. It's frame rate issues in Blighttown aside, I'd gladly give it a 10 if I were to review it.

#58 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

@c_rake said:
@IndianaPwns39 said:

@c_rake: Dark Souls is my absolute favorite game of the generation but it doesn't deserve a 10. The technical flaws keep it back from perfection, imo.

Anyway, I can understand the dissatisfaction for Bioshock Infinite even if I think a 4 is low balling it. Still, I'm really excited to see more second opinions form on this website.

I don't see 10s as a matter of perfection -- the score would be completely pointless, in that case, since no game can ever be perfect -- but merely a distinction of it being one of the best games around. It's frame rate issues in Blighttown aside, I'd gladly give it a 10 if I were to review it.

That's fair, and I shouldn't have used the word "perfection" since I agree that no game will ever be perfect. Personally, I see a "10" as being exceptional in every way. For me, that includes performance and Dark Souls suffered in a few areas (prior to patches I frequently had input lag) that were hard to ignore, despite the fact I found the game to be the most memorable experience in a long time.

#59 Edited by c_rakestraw (14712 posts) -
@IndianaPwns39 said:

That's fair, and I shouldn't have used the word "perfection" since I agree that no game will ever be perfect. Personally, I see a "10" as being exceptional in every way. For me, that includes performance and Dark Souls suffered in a few areas (prior to patches I frequently had input lag) that were hard to ignore, despite the fact I found the game to be the most memorable experience in a long time.

I guess it helps that I didn't play Dark Souls until after it had been patched up, so the only real issue I encountered was Blighttown's poor frame rate. But even that was easily worked around once I knew my way around that god-forsaken place. (Seriously: fuck Blighttown.)

#60 Edited by Jacanuk (4720 posts) -

@c_rake said:
@Jacanuk said:

You should be banned by yourself from this forum for even mentioning Dark Souls and 10 in the same sentence, talk about a more overrated game is not possible :D

I should ban you instead for speaking such sacrilege.

You cant ban the truth ....... you cant ban the truth :D

But Dark Souls is a great game in its own right.

#61 Edited by c_rakestraw (14712 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

You cant ban the truth ....... you cant ban the truth :D

But Dark Souls is a great game in its own right.

Oh yeah? WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT!

#62 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"] I don't see 10s as a matter of perfection -- the

score would be completely pointless, in that

case, since no game can ever be perfect -- but

merely a distinction of it being one of the best

games around. It's frame rate issues in

Blighttown aside, I'd gladly give it a 10 if I were to review it. [/QUOTE] But Dark Souls isn't just technicaly flawed, its fundementally flawed, just like Bioshock Infinite is. I never assign scores to games but I will say both games are bad, just a little bit.

#63 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

damnit ! Did gamespot change the bloody formating rules ? How the hell do I quote ?

#64 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

@c_rake said:
@IndianaPwns39 said:

That's fair, and I shouldn't have used the word "perfection" since I agree that no game will ever be perfect. Personally, I see a "10" as being exceptional in every way. For me, that includes performance and Dark Souls suffered in a few areas (prior to patches I frequently had input lag) that were hard to ignore, despite the fact I found the game to be the most memorable experience in a long time.

I guess it helps that I didn't play Dark Souls until after it had been patched up, so the only real issue I encountered was Blighttown's poor frame rate. But even that was easily worked around once I knew my way around that god-forsaken place. (Seriously: fuck Blighttown.)

Since the patch, and since I know the quick way through Blighttown, I think the game deserves a 10. However, I had issues with it at launch and I think a product should be reviewed with the way it is on the shelves.

Blighttown was funny (in a sadistic way) because there's an area very similar to it in Demon's Souls. Prior to playing Dark Souls, I told a few of my friends "there's no way they can have an area worse than the Lake of Pestilence"... I was so wrong.

Also, my new avatar didn't go through. Damn.

#65 Edited by c_rakestraw (14712 posts) -
@IndianaPwns39 said:

Since the patch, and since I know the quick way through Blighttown, I think the game deserves a 10. However, I had issues with it at launch and I think a product should be reviewed with the way it is on the shelves.

Blighttown was funny (in a sadistic way) because there's an area very similar to it in Demon's Souls. Prior to playing Dark Souls, I told a few of my friends "there's no way they can have an area worse than the Lake of Pestilence"... I was so wrong.

Also, my new avatar didn't go through. Damn.

Bad as Blighttown was, the Lake of Pestilence is still worse. Playing through Demon's Souls again this year really reminded me of just how frustrating that area was. Perpetual poison, moving at a constant slog, and those big villagers... ugh! So annoying. Great game, but damn... that one area, man. Just the worst.

#66 Posted by barrybarryk (436 posts) -

I like the whole idea of doing multiple reviews if it'll lead to more personal opinions. It's fairly obvious that the lead reviews tend to be more critical. They remove the aspect of whether or not the person playing the game even enjoyed it and instead focus on critically analysing the games parts basically on technical merit alone. On that scale, sure, Bioshock Infinite rates highly, it's functionally complete, beautifully presented and none of it is broken. With all that taken into account it's no surprise that it garnered critical acclaim from every angle (even on Gamespot's lead review)

But by allowing multiple reviews to games, apart from the lead review, we can see much more personal and unique reviews that are more influenced by the reviewers own personal impressions of the game. Yes, they are biased, but that's the whole point, it isn't a bad thing. I'd much rather see games getting a much wider range of review scores across different critics. No game will please everyone, so they shouldn't get constant gushing reviews from every source, that sort of mindset just reinforces the idea that games that tick enough feature boxes will get high scores.

#67 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

@c_rake said:
@IndianaPwns39 said:

Since the patch, and since I know the quick way through Blighttown, I think the game deserves a 10. However, I had issues with it at launch and I think a product should be reviewed with the way it is on the shelves.

Blighttown was funny (in a sadistic way) because there's an area very similar to it in Demon's Souls. Prior to playing Dark Souls, I told a few of my friends "there's no way they can have an area worse than the Lake of Pestilence"... I was so wrong.

Also, my new avatar didn't go through. Damn.

Bad as Blighttown was, the Lake of Pestilence is still worse. Playing through Demon's Souls again this year really reminded me of just how frustrating that area was. Perpetual poison, moving at a constant slog, and those big villagers... ugh! So annoying. Great game, but damn... that one area, man. Just the worst.

Yeah it is. That whole area is a nightmare to play through.

I think it's called the Valley of Defilement, now that I'm more thoroughly recalling my hatred for it.

#68 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

McShae is posting on gaf, on whether there should be a score:

I actually agree with you. When I was putting my Infinite review together, I asked if I needed a score and Good/Bad entries, and we still do. However, I do have the freedom to write whatever I want, from whatever angle I want, so that's good. As I become more accustomed to this new style, I should veer further and further away from traditional reviews. I'm just a bit out of practice right now.

And though our featured reviews are going to be more personal than our old authoritarian style, they're still going to be reviews, so you won't see anything that just dissects how CoD handles war while ignoring everything else. At least not yet.

On who gets to write the review:

Well, it's more of a matter of how useful such a review would be. If people are interested to find out if Call of Duty Ghost is worth playing, they probably want the person writing the review to think the genre is worthwhile. I also don't play military shooters so I wouldn't be able to properly compare and contrast its gameplay to its competitors. Really, I could only offer a thematic breakdown, and that's only helpful to a smaller segment of people.

and this:

We didn't have a system in place for secondary reviews until yesterday. Considering my strong feelings for Infinite, I thought it would be a good test case. It's not my fault Irrational made a lousy game.

#69 Posted by Bigboi500 (29999 posts) -

Has anyone ever really believed that reviews and their scores are for the benefit of gamers, and not simply a business ploy with an agenda?

#70 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Actually I agree with him for the most part. Infinite's combat felt like a chore necessary to advance the storyline, which without getting into spoilers was decent until it blindsides you with that ending.

#71 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -


I can't agree or disagree with him. I got too bored by Infinite to even bother finishing it. Does that make me a bad person? :P

Wasn't anything personal, and I didn't hate it -- just felt no connection to the game at all, and the pointless combat feels even crappier than the first Bioshock. The only part I REALLY didn't like from what I played was how heavy-handed it was with the plot -- no subtlety whatsoever.

#72 Edited by Dog (37 posts) -

At worst I would rate it a 7... It's a nice display of art, but the gameplay doesn't impress or satisfy. Nor does the story, really.

#73 Posted by TheMierArmy (5699 posts) -
@Bigboi500 said:

Has anyone ever really believed that reviews and their scores are for the benefit of gamers, and not simply a business ploy with an agenda?

*looks at Batman Arkham City GOTY edition cover*

#74 Posted by Beagle050 (720 posts) -

I don't think it's a 4/10 game - probably 7/10. He's right about everything, though. Bioshock Infinite is a corridor shooter with an environment that isn't worth exploring. It's on-the-rails shooting as usual. The plot was decent (dare I say good for a video game) and the graphics were beautiful, but the gameplay side of things was lacking.

#75 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

More often than not, I agree with Tom's opinions (this being no exception); but his scores are always WAY off.

#76 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

well, i do agree that the powers in infinite felt out of place compared to the plasmids in the first bioshock. plasmids had a backstory and were relevant to the themes of the game while tonics in infinite feel like they're there just to spruce up the combat or because "infinite is a bioshock game and bioshock has powers."

#77 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

I will never understand people that say the combat was bad. What other game has super powers mixed with all sorts of weapons, the ability to summon into existance all sorts of aids and skyhooks that allow you to fly around a gigantic combat area. It seems to me that many people just didnt understand the combat. It is fantastic.

#78 Posted by barrybarryk (436 posts) -
@dvader654 said:

I will never understand people that say the combat was bad. What other game has super powers mixed with all sorts of weapons, the ability to summon into existance all sorts of aids and skyhooks that allow you to fly around a gigantic combat area. It seems to me that many people just didnt understand the combat. It is fantastic.


Go install any game in the Doom or Quake series, kill something with a shotgun, then tell me using any of the weapons or powers in Bioshock Infinite felt that fun

#79 Posted by SteelAttack (10520 posts) -

Can't say I agree or disagree on the review or score as I haven't played the game. However, I won't do such thing as write off the review (or the writer) on the basis of a score that is the outlier in a cavalcade of 11/10s when it comes to big budget blockbusters.

#80 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@barrybarryk said:
@dvader654 said:

I will never understand people that say the combat was bad. What other game has super powers mixed with all sorts of weapons, the ability to summon into existance all sorts of aids and skyhooks that allow you to fly around a gigantic combat area. It seems to me that many people just didnt understand the combat. It is fantastic.

Go install any game in the Doom or Quake series, kill something with a shotgun, then tell me using any of the weapons or powers in Bioshock Infinite felt that fun

So, I love Doom, what does that have to do with what I said. Bioshock has a very different kind of combat system that is not about just shooting everything in the head that pops up. It is nothing like the boring linear shooters you see all the time, it has far better combat than most FPS out there cause its not just about shooting.

#81 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

^ Bioshock WAS just about shooting. 4 of the vigors seemed redundant (devils kiss, murder of crows, bucking bronco and shock jockey) adding gear into the mix further increased that redundancy specifically the one that stuns multiple enemies for doing critical damage, and only one or two of the vigors served a practical purpose outside of combat, even that was a redundant let down. Whatever it is thats so special about this game, its not the gameplay.

#82 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

oh and lets not forget the Simple AI that does nothing but run into position to establish an uninterupted line of sight and shoot with no concept of intelligence or self preservation. Oh and how the pistol becomes abolutely useless once you find Elizabeth. Oh and the duplicate weapons that need seperate ammo like the flak cannon and the hail fire or the carbine and the burst gun the machine gun and the Reciprocator. Only difference is one is common to the vox and the other is common to the founders . The only weapons that were simular without being redundant was the shotgun and the heater, however you needed bucking bronco to really distinguish the heater from the shotgun.

#83 Posted by destroyerman455 (112 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

^ Bioshock WAS just about shooting. 4 of the vigors seemed redundant (devils kiss, murder of crows, bucking bronco and shock jockey) adding gear into the mix further increased that redundancy specifically the one that stuns multiple enemies for doing critical damage, and only one or two of the vigors served a practical purpose outside of combat, even that was a redundant let down. Whatever it is thats so special about this game, its not the gameplay.

The fact that it's Bioshock is one of the special things about the game.

Sure it isn't in Rapture again, but its still a part of that franchise and to me, it had the same feel. Infinite also had a pretty good plot and story. People may sit back and say "Oh its trying too hard, or it isn't original", well that may be true, but it still executes the process very well. The twists going through it were very well done and the idea of cross dimensional tears leaves the possibilities endless. I think the concept of the game leaving a ton of answers left open for questioning with a limitless amount of answers kinda makes the game unique. It isn't the same like Mass Effect 3's ending where you are left angered for answers, but it more so makes you think more about it all.

I am hoping Burial at Sea explains more, but I am honestly fairly content with what we have now. It leaves that sense of mystery to the game and keeps the door open for future installments. There is also the whole debate on whether its connected with Bioshocks 1 and 2 in anyway and that alone is an interesting debate to be involved in.

#84 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

^ Bioshock WAS just about shooting. 4 of the vigors seemed redundant (devils kiss, murder of crows, bucking bronco and shock jockey) adding gear into the mix further increased that redundancy specifically the one that stuns multiple enemies for doing critical damage, and only one or two of the vigors served a practical purpose outside of combat, even that was a redundant let down. Whatever it is thats so special about this game, its not the gameplay.

Devils kiss and shock were damage vigors, they did serve the same fuction but some enemies had weaknesses to certain elements. Murder of Crows was a stun attack, great against the handyman. Bronco sends people into the air, nothing like the other three you mentioned, again works wonders against certain enemies and does nothing to other. The key was mixing the vigors and gears into insane combos that turned you into an unstoppable force.

The octopus vigor allowing you to grab multiple enemies from afar was key in large areas.You can take over ceratin enemies, excellent when you have the big gunner type robots. The absorb bullets vigor was excellent in huge firefights for offense and defense and one of the best attacks for the ghosts. Mix the melee for health gear, with a gear where you gain vigor for kills and charge attack and you become a monster of death. Start chaining grab vigors, knock them on fire then charge at them with the critical damage vigor and everyone explodes.

Once you are fully powered up you can go almost the final half of the game without firing a gun.

All that without even mentioning using railings nor Elizabeths powers. Play the DLC survival mode and tell me the combat is poor. Its a ridiculous statement to make. This game has exceptional combat.

#85 Edited by Minishdriveby (10005 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@S0lidSnake said:

We were just talking about his reviews in the Beyond thread and realized that it's not Gamespot mandating review scores that go against the metacritic average, it's probably just Tom who has an awful taste in video games.

So just to recap. No gameplay Beyond 9/10. TLOU, Zelda and Bioshock Infinite.... lots of (non-existant) issues with gameplay 8,7.5 and 4 respectively. Awesome!

BioShock Infinite / PC

THE GOOD
Gorgeous visual design
Amazing soundtrack
THE BAD
Tedious, never-ending combat
Story refuses to explore difficult situations the premise presents
Mechanics clash with the narrative
4.0
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/bioshock-infinite-a-fan-scorned/1900-6415464/
Bioshock Infinite is a poorly conceived adventure that struggles to form a cohesive whole. By borrowing the core elements of BioShock but never working them properly into the narrative, the action is constantly at odds with the story. Infinite stands as one of the greatest disappointments in my gaming life because I know what Irrational is capable of and could only see the squandered potential of its latest foray. Infinite has a fascinating world, in both visual design and story premise, so it's a shame that its vision falters, shying away from exploring any potentially unsettling plot thread in favor of focusing on choppy action sequences that endlessly drag on. BioShock Infinite is an incoherent mess that fails in both its shooting and its story.Credit Tom McShea

Not sure if thats a joke but a 4 might be a bit too harsh, i would 100% agree with a 6 or 7. But great review and he is right in his "The Bad" conclusions.

Yeah I would too. His criticisms are spot on, but for me those aspects didn't utterly ruin the game. There was still enjoyment to be have and thus a 4 doesn't really make sense to me.

I'd also give the original BioShock a 7 for a couple of different reasons.

#86 Posted by Planeforger (15792 posts) -

It's interesting to hear that many agree with the content of the review, but not with the score. Are we all so set in our ways that a 7/10 is the average score, and that a 4/10 (or two stars, to put it another way) is reserved for the lowliest of the low?And if so, what is the point of a 10-point rating system?

#87 Edited by BranKetra (48730 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

I haven't played Bioshock Infinite, so I can't comment on his review one way or the other. However, it's worth mentioning that Tom McShea doesn't assign the scores to his reviews. He's stated a few times that the other reviewers read his review and then determine the score from that. Make of this what you will.

That would mean S0lidSnake is misinformed.

#88 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

@ destroyerman455

I agree about the story's execution, but the gameplay in the harder difficulties will always be counterintuitive in my experience. I could do it, but it was more annoying than it was challenging.

#89 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

^ Bioshock WAS just about shooting. 4 of the vigors seemed redundant (devils kiss, murder of crows, bucking bronco and shock jockey) adding gear into the mix further increased that redundancy specifically the one that stuns multiple enemies for doing critical damage, and only one or two of the vigors served a practical purpose outside of combat, even that was a redundant let down. Whatever it is thats so special about this game, its not the gameplay.

Bioshock Infinite is only all about shooting if you choose to play it that way.

I agree with what dvader said about not even firing a shot after a certain point. I poured all my money into the vigors, choosing to rely on them heavily and I had a lot of fun doing so. The only weapon I upgraded was the shotgun, and that was so I could blast enemies after I pulled them close with undertow. Elizabeth's tears provided me with the support I needed.

I think it's amusing how such a large group of gamers complain about how fps games can seem stale and rote, or have repetitive gameplay, but Infinite doesn't get enough credit for having a fairly diverse combat system. One way or another isn't forced upon you, you can approach the combat however you see fit.

#90 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

I'm interested in these second opinion reviews. I think more sites should do this. Anybody know if this will be a regular thing or just for very specific games?

#91 Posted by firefox59 (4402 posts) -

@Blueresident87 said:

@Lulu_Lulu said:

^ Bioshock WAS just about shooting. 4 of the vigors seemed redundant (devils kiss, murder of crows, bucking bronco and shock jockey) adding gear into the mix further increased that redundancy specifically the one that stuns multiple enemies for doing critical damage, and only one or two of the vigors served a practical purpose outside of combat, even that was a redundant let down. Whatever it is thats so special about this game, its not the gameplay.

Bioshock Infinite is only all about shooting if you choose to play it that way.

I agree with what dvader said about not even firing a shot after a certain point. I poured all my money into the vigors, choosing to rely on them heavily and I had a lot of fun doing so. The only weapon I upgraded was the shotgun, and that was so I could blast enemies after I pulled them close with undertow. Elizabeth's tears provided me with the support I needed.

I think it's amusing how such a large group of gamers complain about how fps games can seem stale and rote, or have repetitive gameplay, but Infinite doesn't get enough credit for having a fairly diverse combat system. One way or another isn't forced upon you, you can approach the combat however you see fit.

This is a good point. These young gamers these days are too lazy to explore the different ways to play a game. If you choose to play a game with options the same way over and over than of course it will become monotonous.

#92 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

@ dvader654

Devils Kiss stuns an enemy, damages (its primary function) and deals enhanced damage when enemies are are still aflame, and can be upgraded to cluster and chain (AOE) doesn't work against firemen.

Murder Of Crows Stuns and Damages the enemies (both are primary functions) deals enhanced damage while enemies are distracted, it already has Area of Effect capabilities and can be upgraded to chain. Doesn't work on Handymen or those Raven guys.

Bucking Bronco, stuns enemies (its primary function), damages them alil when the hit the floor, deals enhanced damage while enemies suspended (adds exclusive cluster effect in combination with heater and RPG), already has area of effect capabalities and can be upgraded to chain. Doesn't work on anything not touching the ground or on heavies like the HandyMan or Motarised Patriots, actually it does work, but only a little bit, not enough to be viable.

Shock Jockey, Stuns enemy (its primary function), deals immediate minor damage and deals enhanced damage while enemy is stunned, targets individual enemy but can be upgraded to chain for Area of Effect capabilities. Works on just about every baddy, it struggles against the heavies though, like the siren.

So lets do a quick comparison.

Stun= all four are capable, doesnt matter what the stun looks like, be it flaming, distracting, shocking or suspending. Its all the same.

Damage = Only Devils kiss and Murder of Crows stand out in this category.

Damage enhancement/ double damage = all are capable with Bucking Bronco having its own unique exclusive feature.

Area of Effect/ = BB and MoC are pretty much the same in the begining both having AoE from the get go and can be upgrade chain, SJ only achieves AoE by upgrading to chain, DK can be upgraded to cluster AND chain for an AoE with in an AoE, it doesn't get more redundant than that.

And thats just the vigors, things enter a whole new level of redundancy when you include gear that mimicks some of those effects. Skyline was impractical, couldn't shoot anything while riding it . Well some people can, because they are freaks of nature, not because the skyline was executed properly. Theres more but my thumb hurts, give me alil break.

#93 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

@Blueresident87

I also experimented on easy and medium, and it was fun. But that sh!t doesn't fly on hard and 99 mode. If you experiment, you die, lose money, cant buy upgrades, die again, lose more money, cant buy more upgrades, die even more times and so on and if you're playing it on hard mode about 10 deaths in, the game will take pitty on you and gimp the enemies health just enough to let you win. Its just a stupid design regardless of whether you die or not. not to mention the difficulty is lazy. If you want the the medium difficulty experience simply play it on easy with out buying an atrribute/stat based upgrades, do the samething on hard if you want the 99 mode experience. Trust me I've experimented this game back and forth not even for fun but just out of plain curiousity and boredom and my conclusion is its gameplay design was lazy and condescending....... And counter intuitive. The only time I enjoyed it was the 1st I played through it, its flaws become exposed on multiple playthroughs. It might win the GOTY, but it won't be cause of its gameplay, or maybe it will, lord knows what kind of games people have in their collection that would actually make them believe infinites gameplay is good. I suppose if you have Skyrim or President Evil 4 as games with good gameplay then it seem logical to deem infinites gameplay as better. Its all relative.

#94 Edited by Ish_basic (4029 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ dvader654

Devils Kiss stuns an enemy, damages (its primary function) and deals enhanced damage when enemies are are still aflame, and can be upgraded to cluster and chain (AOE) doesn't work against firemen.

Murder Of Crows Stuns and Damages the enemies (both are primary functions) deals enhanced damage while enemies are distracted, it already has Area of Effect capabilities and can be upgraded to chain. Doesn't work on Handymen or those Raven guys.....

.

....So lets do a quick comparison.

....And thats just the vigors, things enter a whole new level of redundancy when you include gear that mimicks some of those effects. Skyline was impractical, couldn't shoot anything while riding it . Well some people can, because they are freaks of nature, not because the skyline was executed properly. Theres more but my thumb hurts, give me alil break.

All this analysis. Let's just say the vigors are little more than glorified grenades and leave it that. Remember in Psi-Ops how you could lift a guy up in the air with TK, light him on fire (while he is still in the air), then throw him into a pile of oil drums to cause a massive explosion? Yeah, that's how vigors should have worked - easy combos, tons of possibilities, and levels designed to explore your inner psycho.

Bioshock is a garbage shooter with dated mechanics. It appeals artistically, and I desperately want a good Bioshock game for that reason, but that's not what I've been given through the first 3.

#95 Edited by iampenguin (223 posts) -

He was trolling

#96 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (13630 posts) -

^ Psi-ops ey ? I read about that game somewhere, should check it out, Please don't be exclusive.

#97 Posted by lozengez (509 posts) -

@contracts420 said:

I'm interested in these second opinion reviews. I think more sites should do this. Anybody know if this will be a regular thing or just for very specific games?

In the description of the changes to the site they said they needed to facilitate multiple reviews for games, so seems like it will be a regular thing.

As someone else commented though, if they are going to do more of this, it would be more interesting/ useful to have the second opinion reviews launch at the same time as the official one. Which raises the question, which number will metacritic use?

Given that GS has such a small review staff, I don't see this being a wide-spread feature.

#98 Posted by Icarian (1499 posts) -
@S0lidSnake said:
BioShock Infinite is an incoherent mess that fails in both its shooting and its story.Credit Tom McShea

Tom's right. BioShock Infinite is a mess. Bad shooting mechanics and the story is all over the place.

#99 Edited by Ish_basic (4029 posts) -

@loafofgame said:

@GodModeEnabled said:
@drekula2 said:
@Ish_basic said:

All these comments make me think that dropping scores alltogether is the best way to go. They either show that the score isn't particularly relevant when agreeing or disagreeing with a review, or they point out that what constitutes a fair score is mostly a subjective judgment. Somehow a lot of people can't help but connect numbers to some (in my opinion largely imaginary) objective consensus about what aspects/arguments have more or less weight when scoring a game. People read other people's opinions (at least, that's what I naively assume), some agreeing and some disagreeing and a lot also give their view on what the score should have been (which range from 1 to 10). Shouldn't that alone make every individual aware of the illusion of objective scoring and the utter uselessness (in my opinion) of scores? Tom didn't like the story and some vital gameplay elements. For him that defines a poor game, and he was backed up by (let's just cautiously say) a significant amount of people. Whether his arguments were good or bad is up for debate. Whether his score was correct or not is an absolutely meaningless discussion in my view.

I'm all for dropping scores and forcing people to *gasp* read the review. I think scores are there for convenience as a summary at a glance, but somehow are often given more weight than the content of the review itself.

It's gotten out of control and I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the bigger sites just dropped scoring altogether, because unfortunately a discussion about score isn't meaningless anymore. Publishers use the metacritic average to determine the future of a title and often base potential bonuses paid to developers on that average. To me, a review without a score is just as meaningful if not more so with respect to helping gamers make a purchase. But scoring can do potential harm to devs and does little more than spark antagonism in gaming forums.

#100 Posted by longtonguecat (2498 posts) -

Man so many indications lately I should start ignoring Gamespot's reviews. :P