One of the biggest draws for Infinite is its story. Now I wont get into what I think of the story itself(its meh) but as far as the way the story is told it actually hurts the story. The gameplay(which sucks) adds almost nothing to the story and in the long run hurts the story. One problem with the story is its god awful pacing. This game should have been atleast half as long as it currently is but becuase games are expected to be a certain length. As a reslut you destory the pacing of the story with wave after wave of repetitive shooting gallery. Do these add anything to the story? Does it add anything to character development? The awser is no its just filler. These waves also hurt hurt the believablitily of the story. Booker kills hundreds of people and just acts he and elizabeth act like nothing happened. Some people might say well its just a game but when they are trying to craft a fully fleshed out world it kinda hurts the immersion when you are playing a one man army. Also another thing that doesnt get mentioned a lot is the vigors. They seem to have no place in the world of Colombia. Why can you use all these magic powers and barely any enemy soldiers do and they are so easily attainible? This wouldnt be an issue in most games but in a game that strives for a fully believable world they hurt the immersiion the game strives for. The vigors were thrown in there so the gameplay wasnt completely terrible and it ended up hurting the aspect of the game that is most highly regarded.

I think the Bioshock does one thing right when it comes to telling stories in games and that is having such a beautiful world. The world itself tells a story. Unfortunetly in Infinite I think Colombia was much weaker than Rapture and it let the characters get in the way of the most important part of the story in a game like this the enviorment

Dark Souls sucks becuase

-Horrible checkpoint placement
-Thunder Weapons
-Bed of Chaos
-Covenants not explained
-Bad Level design(no direction,sens fortress,anor londo archers)
-The game forces you to die (Traps/Hidden Enemies)
-Curse
-Trial and error gamplay
-terrible AI
-terrible netcode
-broken sound
-broken visuals on PC
-unbalanced PvP
-no way to consistently co-op with friends
-clipping issues
-wonky geometery

The game is way overrated becuase of the "HARDCORE CULTURE" If you say anything bad about the game people can just pull the you suck card. 

I have not read the thread but I will throw in my 2 cents. As the future of gaming like the gaming "journalists" call it its a massive failure. As a Bioshock game it is a minor failure. As just another game it is decent.

My issues with it

Story- It kept me interested but after about 3/4 of the way through but after that it was dull and the ending just went a little too crazy

Too long- The pacing is just terrible. Large sections of this game are just shooting galleries and could be taken out entirly. Especially the ghost part that was awful

Gameplay was bad- It was so repetitive and easy. Weapons and Vigors were boring.

World was meh- The start of the game and certain sections, like the part with slate, was good but the res didnt really seem that good. I dont think this world is nearly as interesting as Rapture. Also it a city but since the game is so linear it doesnt feel like a city that was lived in. Also vigors seemed out of place

Because Spec Ops has really terrible gameplay that makes it really hard to get into the story.

Whiteblade999

How is that any diffrent from Bioshock?

Spec Ops is a lot less popular. Bioshock is a mainstream franchise. Spec Ops is a fifteen year old franchise of FPS games that sucked and someone at Take Two decided to resurrect. What resulted was the first actually good game in the franchise, Spec Ops: The Line. However, unlike Bioshock, The Line featured unremarkable gameplay. Bioshock has a high quality story and awesome gameplay to boot. Spec Ops: The Line, while still an a great and remarkable game, lacks the gamepaly and mainstream appeal of Bioshock.

Link3301

Then why didn't it get a similar response from critics? They have to play it. Bioshocks gameplay is just as unremarkable as Spec Ops

[QUOTE="_Judge_Gabranth"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]The point with Spec Ops is that its gameplay is supposed to be mediocre and repetitive. It plays like a generic modern military shooter throughout, but then comes the big twist that puts everything in perspective. You feel a sense of guilt for abetting Walker's actions and continuing the unavoidably tragic, violent story. princeofshapeir

You are telling me they couldnt have gotten that across whitout intentionally boring the player? Anyway whats Bioshocks excuse for the boring and repetitive gameplay?

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Bioshock is super repetive. There is like 4 enemy types and most of them are rare. You just fight normal dudes with normal weapons and a few vigors that arent that interesting. The game is repetitive bro

The point with Spec Ops is that its gameplay is supposed to be mediocre and repetitive. It plays like a generic modern military shooter throughout, but then comes the big twist that puts everything in perspective. You feel a sense of guilt for abetting Walker's actions and continuing the unavoidably tragic, violent story. princeofshapeir

You are telling me they couldnt have gotten that across whitout intentionally boring the player? Anyway whats Bioshocks excuse for the boring and repetitive gameplay?

Outside of the story, isn't Spec Ops just another run of the mill shooter?

metroidfood

I would say Bioshock is a run of the mill shooter. (Ok I shouldnt say its run of the mill but its not very good. It is super repetive)

How come Bioshock Infinte is praised by nearly everyone as the greatest thing since sliced bread and Spec Ops the line gets no recognition?