Why does it make people seethe so much?

got a link?

It's got bland gameplay and a dumb story.

watchoutforfireballs.com/227

It had my favorite production and level design out of any of the Bioshock games. The gameplay was more 'modern' than previous Bishocks but that's to be expected as the time and industry changes. It also had my favorite antagonist. It was gearing up to be a masterpiece until they started time traveling and the plot went to shit. I also didn't really like the protagonist talking in this game, though I generally prefer games where the protagonist doesn't talk, it makes the game more personal. Overall I still think it's a good game, 7.5/10 range. Had some pretty moving and impressive scenes. However, I think it would have been the best instalment in the franchise if they had kept it more like 1 and 2 story-wise. And I kind of can't forgive them for retroactively ruining 1 and 2 with the DLC and a few of the cutscene's at the end of the game. I need to replay it though, it's been 2 years. maybe I'll do that today.

Attached: infinite.jpg (1920x1080, 439.78K)

It's a decent game with jaw dropping visuals, but sadly it trashes most of the inmersive sims aspects and goes full standard FPS with some open scenary.
Also the plot is absolute bonkers and tries to be the deepest shit in existence but ends up being a comical mess.

Attached: 20200411234915_1.jpg (1920x1080, 284.27K)

>He never said any of that

The absolute state of Yas Forums.

Mostly because what we were promised and what was initially being developed was compromised severely during development both on ideological and technological grounds. What we got was an overpraised let-down. Not a horrible game by any means, but one that was a step back in many ways from what came before.
Didn't deserve the backlash it got, yet certainly didn't deserve the hype by the bought out gaming media.

It was probably one of the most overrated games of all time. It was hailed as one of the greatest games of the generation, and a pinnacle of storytelling in games, but in reality it was a completely mediocre first person shooter with a confused and horribly paced story that didn’t work at all in an FPS.

It was inferior in all aspects to Bioshock 1 & 2, yet recieved far more acclaim.

Don't know I had fun with it

the sess gave it a 5

...
out of 5

it sure is getting rarer

I paid no attention to this game in the early stages. Educate me. What was promised and how does it compare to the final product?

it was going to be an actual Bioshock game

*Was

Here's a nice summation.
youtube.com/watch?v=muJYTeQlvC4

I didn't really find it as fun to play as the previous two

Agreed.
It was a mess and nowhere near as exciting as the first gameplay trailer made it seem.

It wasn't what the e3 trailer showed. Shocking, I know. That's never happened before in the history of e3 trailers

It has a 2 weapon limit and 2 weapons means it's automatically bad for some reason

Bullet sponge enemies...which they literally had in every iteration of Bioshock.

The only real valid complaint is dumbed down puzzles which, there's like 2 in the whole game

It's a 6/10 game with a 9/10 sticker attached to it in order to sell copies.

Infinite is absolutely a bad game. Every single aspect of it, from gameplay to story to atmosphere, is a substantial step down from Bioshock 2.

It's an ok game if you only look at it from a surface level, and even then it's seriously flawed. Dig any deeper and it immediately becomes even more pants on head retarded. I've played through it a few times, and every single time I've noticed something dumber come to light. I've come to the conclusion that it was originally supposed to be just BioShock in the sky, but was made up as they went along, going further and further away from the original artist's view, then hastily reconnected back to the original two (more so the first one) after they realized how far they strayed. Burial at Sea certainly didn't help things.

-gameplay is more simplified than bioshock 1
-multiverse explanation feels terrible before and after you understand it
-Songbird has little to no gameplay impact
-Rail and rift system amount to nothing since all the environments are too small to take advantage of anything
-your choices in the game have no impact
Why did it make journalists cream in their pants soo much?

>It has a 2 weapon limit and 2 weapons means it's automatically bad for some reason

2 weapons certainly is bad when you can upgrade specific guns but you can't be sure you'll find ammo for them or even the guns themselves later on in the game.
That's just one of the things they dragged in from Bioshock 1+2 without thinking about how it'd fit in Infinite.

>and 2 weapons means it's automatically bad for some reason
Because not every fucking shooter needs to ape CoD, especially the third in a series that didn't have that arbitrary restriction before

Apparently who was hyped and waiting for it, hated it.

Whoever played it later, liked it or loved it.

I liked it enough, despite some really infuriating moments. It felt refreshing and I forgave the okayish plot.

Except the difference was so painful that it felt like a slap to get E3 2010/11 trailer and then the game 2 years later that was nothing like it.

>It has a 2 weapon limit and 2 weapons means it's automatically bad for some reason

Buddy I know you're here to suck cock and defend Infinite but the weapon system was dog shit stupid.

>can only carry 2 weapons because: no reason, doesn't enhance gameplay(are you hot swapping weapons mid combat in a satisfying way, or fumbling around looking for ammo because you're out?)
>have to spend money to upgrade your favorite guns, encouraging you to, that's right, use your upgraded weapons because you upgraded your favorite
>but you run out of ammo and can't carry more than two guns, so at best you carry your favorite gun and whatever piece of shit/bullet hose you carry for fodder enemies
>like the sniper rifle or rocket launcher? wanna use both? too bad, you need a reliable pistol or machine gun
>halfway through the game every gun in the game gets a variant
>this could be cool, there's little differences to appreciate and-
>separate upgrades
>you can still only carry two guns
>there is now even MORE dead weight fodder to sort through instead of using the guns you like best
>"Haha, baby wants to use the same gun all the time"
>Yes? Why would I play a FPS to use guns I don't enjoying firing? 10/10 GOTY

Maybe you could defend the ghost boss next, clearly people aren't smart enough to appreciate Infinite because "the only real valid complaint is dumbed down puzzles."

Attached: 1521116387394.gif (260x284, 1.01M)

>2 weapons certainly is bad when you can upgrade specific guns but you can't be sure you'll find ammo for them or even the guns themselves later on in the game.

Bioshock 1 and 2 had this same exact problem as well, not something that's really new or unique to the series.

God damn

Looks like this iteration focuses more on the timeline where the protag is the revolutionary you get glimpses of. This would have been a cool DLC

Except in Bioshock 1 you can fully upgrade all the weapons dipshit

it is meh, like last of us

Attached: 1437088453788.jpg (1165x1579, 411.42K)

No, 'cause you keep the fucking guns in B1+2. You can upgrade them and you get to keep them the rest of the game.
And the ammo you needed could be found throughout the game - and if you couldn't find any, you had no reason to throw away your gun (even if you could) because you always had several other guns to chose from.

In Infinite, if you want to use one gun and have it upgraded, but can't find any ammo, you either have to keep changing your other weapon or throw it away, hoping you'll find it later. That's not the same as B1+2, you chucklefuck.

You are mistaking the ability to run out of ammo for the necessity of swapping weapons for the appropriate situation.

In a game like Bioshock 1/2 or Doom Eternal you will want to use certain weapons because they work better against different enemies and allow you to conserve ammo. Conserving ammo overall will let you use your preferred weapons when you don't see a priority gun-to-enemy target. You carry your entire arsenal at all times and the worst thing that can happen is you can't shoot your preferred gun until you find ammo and it's almost always on you to aim better or to engage the enemy more intelligently.

In Infinite you are constantly shuffling weapons around because you're a moron who drops guns as he finds them and runs out of ammo until he runs over to a corpse, picks up a random gun and uses it to finish the current fight. All of the mistakes in this scenario are similar to the first in running out of ammo but they're primarily forced by the devs instead of bad play. And if the player does play poorly he will have the same problems but be more frustrated because he has far fewer back-up weapons.

That people will go to bad for Infinites gun systems is insanity, literally "aren't you glad this FPS is worse than others, how innovative"?

And yes, conservation of ammo can be a meaningful mechanic. But by itself it isn't much more than a pain in the ass, it needs to combo with other well designed combat mechanics.