Ok, I had to get this out. It was tearing me up inside. The entire gaming world is fawning over Bioshock Infinite, and well...
I didn’t like Bioshock Infinite.
Everybody keeps talking about all this “new” stuff it did. Am I just that thick? What exactly did Infinite do that was new and interesting, or is there some sort of tacit agreement with Irrational Games that I’m unaware of, and they send a hit squad to your house if you don’t repeat the PR verbiage? It’s a shooter (and everyone seems capable of admitting that it’s not very good at that job), set in a very pretty place, with powers very similar to those in the last two Bioshock titles, and a twist ending that’s designed to make people feel dumb if they don’t get it when in fact it doesn’t make any damn sense anyway. Sorry, but Infinite just bored the piss out of me.
 |
| Sorry, Lizzy, this only gets worse. |
I loved Bioshock 1, played all of an hour of Bioshock 2 because it was retread, and must have finished Infinite because I’m a masochist. Yet the whole world keeps talking about it like it's gaming's second coming. Please, somebody, help me out here.
If I say Bioshock Infinite is a bad game, I’m the idiot. Why the hell is that? Because it’s a boring game with dead backgrounds, gameplay that feels more turned based than anything else, a floating city that does very little to convey that it’s floating, and a rehashed (and paired down, for some fucked up reason) version of a combat mechanic from Bioshock, which has been out for six years and is a far better game in nearly every respect? Is it fun to shoot at bad guys that don't react to gunshot wounds for hours at a time for the privilege of experiences an awkwardly scripted cut scene?
Yet Infinite gets amazing reviews... Why? Because they “tried something new.” Everybody keeps fucking saying that, but what exactly did they try that was new? Anybody? Please someone tell me, because the reviews don’t. They just leave it there. Bullshit, they tried something new. It’s Bioshock on a floating city. Bioshock did some new things, Bioshock Infinite doesn’t.
Does ambition preclude fair assessment of the end product? What the fuck did Infinite actually do so well? Everyone keeps saying that Columbia’s "brilliantly realized," but it’s just fucking not. It’s inhabitants barely say a word, don’t move (how long will that paperboy wave his product in my face? Until time rends itself from the universe?), and fucking vanish when combat begins. They don’t run away, they vanish. Do mothers carry their children on the skyrails? Did I miss that explanation? Why can’t I talk to anyone or buy anything, or in any way interact with this big, pretty, city they spent so much time designing? The whole of Columbia feels like the Wounded Knee exhibit from the end of act one, or a movie set from a spaghetti western.
Oh, they must be talking about the plot. The over-the-top, cheese dripping swill the likes of which I haven’t seen outside of a Lifetime movie. Other games have had better plots, or at least similar plots as far as their means of conveyance and execution, so it can’t be that.
So... Skyhooks?
But I would still be “wrong” if I wrote a bad review for it. Why? Because it was expensive to produce? Because everyone on the development team tried so hard? Has the real world started handing out fucking achievement ribbons? Do we now reward mere effort like the judges of a fifth grade science fair? I blame metacritic.
I don’t have a problem with a lot of what Infinite does, but it certainly isn’t new, it certainly isn’t innovative, and it certainly isn't blowing up any skirts in the gameplay department. I felt bored and unsatisfied every second of the Infinite experience. I’m playing Journey and Tomb Raider again to get the taste out of my mouth. Maybe a bit of Far Cry 3 or Bioshock 1. Y’know, good video games.
Really liked Elizabeth, though. 5.5/10
 |
| Doesn't make any sense to me, either. |
No comments:
Post a Comment