Bioshock Infinite

Definitely looking forward to this one as well. I loved the first 2, I'm sure the next won't be too different.

  On 8/15/2010 at 12:36 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:33 PM, dr lopez said:

yeh but that was a rendered movie, no?

 

I imagine the game will mostly look like that, except like the very beginning, out of focus bubbles in the fishtank etc. Bioshock 1 looked awesome and it's been a while since. It's not all about hardware but how to use it, till 2012 they got a lot of time to come up with a new engine (which they hopefully will), also the Bioshock guys seem to have a good feel for how to use textures and especially lighting techniques. I got my hopes up. Also I hope this will be on PS3 and not PC-only or on some kind of futuristic billionaire console.

At the end I saw the xbox 360 logo and i might have seen a PS logo as well.

I still haven't finished Bioshock, is it worth it? Let me know please.

I am soon going to jump on the modern games bandwagon once I get myself a new PC. It's going to be awesome. Finally I will be able to play games like Bioshock 1&2 and Mass Effect 1&2 and I don't know what else.

And it's ridiculous that some titles are just coming on consoles, when a modern PC could easily run them, if not better.

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:33 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:32 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:27 PM, dr lopez said:

as someone who has never played any bioshock game or even owns a console, that trailer looked like pretty poor computer animation and a total miyazaki ripoff/steampunk.

 

 

"Last time it was under water, this time it's in the air!!"

 

"Brilliant"

 

it's a game not a movie. the animation works pretty good.

yeh but that was a rendered movie, no?

All in-game engine, from what I've read.

This is a nice direction for the series to go - I'm not too crazy about the steampunk aspect, but if done right (and tastefully), it might be interesting.

i can't stand people who post in threads that they know nothing about the subject matter, and they don't care. they just come in to troll. how fucking bored are you?

devil's advocate

  On 8/16/2010 at 6:47 AM, Sprigg said:

At the end I saw the xbox 360 logo and i might have seen a PS logo as well.

omg you're right. PS3 right there. I totally didn't pay attention to this.

  On 8/16/2010 at 10:32 AM, Dan C said:

I still haven't finished Bioshock, is it worth it? Let me know please.

Well it depends on how you liked the parts you've already played through (except Neptune's Bounty, that's kind of a lame area compared to the rest) I think it's definitely worth it, but it's not like you play through it just to see the ending. It's more about seeing new variations of the same formula, different places of Rapture and so on. There are some awesome ones, especially once Sander Cohen shows up. I think these places alone make it worth it.

I haven't played Bioshock 2 yet, what's it like?

  On 8/16/2010 at 10:32 AM, Dan C said:

I still haven't finished Bioshock, is it worth it? Let me know please.

Bioshock is one of the only games I've ever attempted to play through in one sitting, or beaten more than once. I played through it four times, and I Played the sequel three.

Just try it. The worst that can happen is that you don't like it.

*looks at Bioshock box... considers going back and finishing it*

  On 8/16/2010 at 6:17 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

I haven't played Bioshock 2 yet, what's it like?

It's like Bioshock, except you get a drill and can use plasmids and guns at the same time.

Otherwise, same basic game. A couple new plasmids, but nothing really useful for the average player.

  On 8/16/2010 at 6:25 PM, Sprigg said:

Bioshock is one of the only games I've ever attempted to play through in one sitting

I always wonder how people do this. When a game has an official playtime of about 16 hours, it takes me at least 50, cause I'm just playing so slow. Look at everything, all the textures and details, listen to the sound, try weird moves and so on. I think the only game I ever finished in one day was Aladdin for the SNES.

One thing that kinda sucked about Bioshock though was the difficulty curve. In the beginning it was pretty hard, especially the first Big Daddy fight took me so many tries (I wasn't using Vita Chambers cause I thought I'd be rewarded in the end, but I often re-loaded my save when I fucked something up), then you get the powerful weapons, the crossbow with the electric traps, and you can pretty much kill them automatically. Or the Camouflage ability which made evading cameras and fighting splicers SO much easier and also took away a lot of the tension cause you always felt like you had an advantage over them (beside your weapons), like using a cheat almost. I didn't really struggle with anything during the 2nd half of the game.

  On 8/16/2010 at 3:50 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:33 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:32 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:27 PM, dr lopez said:

as someone who has never played any bioshock game or even owns a console, that trailer looked like pretty poor computer animation and a total miyazaki ripoff/steampunk.

 

 

"Last time it was under water, this time it's in the air!!"

 

"Brilliant"

 

it's a game not a movie. the animation works pretty good.

yeh but that was a rendered movie, no?

 

All in-game engine, from what I've read.

No way.

For each BioShock game they've created CG teaser videos, just like this one, of what the games will be like, plus they have already released high definition screenshots and it will look no where as crisp and clean as the CG teaser.

  On 8/16/2010 at 9:20 PM, Squee said:

  On 8/16/2010 at 3:50 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:33 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:32 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:27 PM, dr lopez said:

as someone who has never played any bioshock game or even owns a console, that trailer looked like pretty poor computer animation and a total miyazaki ripoff/steampunk.

 

 

"Last time it was under water, this time it's in the air!!"

 

"Brilliant"

 

it's a game not a movie. the animation works pretty good.

yeh but that was a rendered movie, no?

 

All in-game engine, from what I've read.

 

No way.

For each BioShock game they've created CG teaser videos, just like this one, of what the games will be like, plus they have already released high definition screenshots and it will look no where as crisp and clean as the CG teaser.

Well, those screenshots were from the PC version mind you...

Let's see what the console versions look like, hmmmm?

These do look worse than the movie, in fact they look even less impressive than Bioshock 1, but if they really take their time for the development, they could (almost) reach the quality of the trailer. But yeah, it's actually a bit silly to assume that they'd have a complete ingame-graphic-trailer ready while the game is still in earlier states of development. I hope it's their goal to make it look like the trailer.

  On 8/16/2010 at 7:38 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

  On 8/16/2010 at 6:25 PM, Sprigg said:

Bioshock is one of the only games I've ever attempted to play through in one sitting

 

I always wonder how people do this. When a game has an official playtime of about 16 hours, it takes me at least 50, cause I'm just playing so slow. Look at everything, all the textures and details, listen to the sound, try weird moves and so on. I think the only game I ever finished in one day was Aladdin for the SNES.

 

 

One thing that kinda sucked about Bioshock though was the difficulty curve. In the beginning it was pretty hard, especially the first Big Daddy fight took me so many tries (I wasn't using Vita Chambers cause I thought I'd be rewarded in the end, but I often re-loaded my save when I fucked something up), then you get the powerful weapons, the crossbow with the electric traps, and you can pretty much kill them automatically. Or the Camouflage ability which made evading cameras and fighting splicers SO much easier and also took away a lot of the tension cause you always felt like you had an advantage over them (beside your weapons), like using a cheat almost. I didn't really struggle with anything during the 2nd half of the game.

I liked it.. actually made me feel like I was becoming more powerful as things died easier. I did one no-vita chamber run, but really after about the third or fourth big daddy, even on hard they aren't too difficult.

Now, my wrench-only run... BD's were quite hard in that, throughout, unless I spammed plasmids.

I'm everything but a pro-gamer, I just meant that the game was a little too hard in the beginning and a little too easy in comparison later on. I'd have loved more strategically working enemies or something like that in order to maintain difficulty. But it's still a great game with an awesome artistic style. I may like the new one even better though. What gets me more than anything is the logo and its colors for some reason. Also the fields.

Okay yeah, I see what you're saying for sure. It was an extremely difficult game in the beginning, having little ammo and no powers. Enemy AI could have been much, much better, and I would have liked the game to force the player to kill things in more ways than electrobolt/wrench or something.

Though half the fun for me was definitely finding interesting ways to kill Big daddies... my favourite by far is to kill someone, then shoot as many proximity mines onto the corpse as it can hold, then launch said corpse at a Big Daddy.

More things like that would have been pretty awesome.

  On 8/16/2010 at 9:51 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

These do look worse than the movie, in fact they look even less impressive than Bioshock 1, but if they really take their time for the development, they could (almost) reach the quality of the trailer. But yeah, it's actually a bit silly to assume that they'd have a complete ingame-graphic-trailer ready while the game is still in earlier states of development. I hope it's their goal to make it look like the trailer.

Not silly at all - most big-name games are running on some sort of 'engine' (CryEngine, FrostByte, Unreal, etc.), and since that is the core of these types of games, making a non-interactive trailer is very feasible. It's getting the game (with all the interactivity, collision detection, art assets, streaming textures and the like) running as good as the non-interactive trailer is where unfortunately a lot of games fall flat.

I meant it was silly of me to assume such a thing while also assuming that they will come up with a new engine

I agree, even if it's using the game engine that trailer really tells me very little of anything about the game. Half Life 2 was the last game that I got amazed by any kind of scripted animation - everything now just has an air of 'blah, whatever' about it. I think I'm just becoming old and jaded - but give me a brand spanking new play mechanic any day over something with a few more million polygons and rendered clouds

To me these trailers are infinitely more interesting:

And not an inverse b-spline or diffusive lighting uv-map in sight....

(edit, oops - replying to something back from Friday afternoon. I'm clearly a little slow on the uptake)

  On 8/16/2010 at 9:45 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 8/16/2010 at 9:20 PM, Squee said:

  On 8/16/2010 at 3:50 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:33 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:32 PM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 8/13/2010 at 5:27 PM, dr lopez said:

as someone who has never played any bioshock game or even owns a console, that trailer looked like pretty poor computer animation and a total miyazaki ripoff/steampunk.

 

 

"Last time it was under water, this time it's in the air!!"

 

"Brilliant"

 

it's a game not a movie. the animation works pretty good.

yeh but that was a rendered movie, no?

 

All in-game engine, from what I've read.

 

No way.

For each BioShock game they've created CG teaser videos, just like this one, of what the games will be like, plus they have already released high definition screenshots and it will look no where as crisp and clean as the CG teaser.

 

Well, those screenshots were from the PC version mind you...

 

Let's see what the console versions look like, hmmmm?

Haha, dream on, man... dream on...

We have just about already seen the limits of console hardware, the Crysis 2 engine will push current generation consoles to their limits and that paramount will probably not be exceeded until next generation console hardware. PCs on the other hand with current graphics cards, CPU's, solid state hard drive's, dozens of gigs of DD3 have the capability of producing real time games that look every bit as impressive as the pre rendered trailer for B.I. (not referring to the boner index)

If it looks like the Crysis 2 trailer, I'll be happy.

  On 8/17/2010 at 7:21 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

We have just about already seen the limits of console hardware, the Crysis 2 engine will push current generation consoles to their limits and that paramount will probably not be exceeded until next generation console hardware. PCs on the other hand with current graphics cards, CPU's, solid state hard drive's, dozens of gigs of DD3 have the capability of producing real time games that look every bit as impressive as the pre rendered trailer for B.I. (not referring to the boner index)

I certainly don't doubt that, but how many people are willing to pay more for their graphics card alone than what they could get for a console, that produces perhaps not the state-of-the-art, but quick and easy experience? I've never contended that consoles are technically superior to PCs, but when it comes to configuration, ease of use, and intuitive control input, consoles are and probably will be the choice of the mass-market. Look at how the PC gaming industry has taken a back seat to console gaming - it's very common to hear the PC version of the big name titles being delayed, held back, or canceled altogether. Another dimension to this is how many people want to play games in their living room versus their den or bedroom on a screen that's typically much smaller than their television, and usually lacking any sort of surround-sound system that is becoming more and more common in today's living rooms? Sure, there's those who have their PC in their living room, connected to their large HDTV and audio system, but I would wager those are again in the minority as well.

Everyone thought console gaming was at it's "peak" during the PSX/XBOX days when the biggest thing holding back consoles then was high-resolution graphics, which PCs had been doing quite well for some time at that point - no one was going to get a VGA monitor to play console games (and even then, the resolution was still not much higher than the base resolution on PCs), but then HDTV came into the mainstream, became affordable, and look at the marketplace now - two consoles which almost require HDTV, are dominating, and even though the financially successful Wii is still around, it was lamented by developers and gamers alike for NOT supporting HD.

For PC gaming to truly become akin to console gaming (I think), things need to become as easy as using a console, and a unified, dedicated hardware standard or device become the base for it (perhaps a "more than a graphics card" card that also handles specific OS and drivers for the game portion of your PC, almost like a console on a card concept), and allow for almost any standard home PC to be able to accommodate it - THEN, I think we'll see a upsurge in PC gaming, if the price is right and is supported by the development community and industry.