Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #25 - shadecrenshaw (08/03/2013) [-]
Bioshock Infinite is a dissapointing game that's all flash and no substance and also the game itself has not a single ******* thing to do with the title.

#43 to #25 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Ditto for "The Last of Us"
#97 to #43 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
I really wish I could take you seriously.   
This is a great game, doe, try it if you haven't. only a couple hours long, and absolutely excellent.
I really wish I could take you seriously.

This is a great game, doe, try it if you haven't. only a couple hours long, and absolutely excellent.
#101 to #97 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Scroll down.
User avatar #103 to #101 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
Yeah, I read it all. Go play Ib!
#105 to #103 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
The point is, I did.
I didn't like it. I listed the reasons for that.
Now sod off. Not everyone is obliged to like it,
User avatar #106 to #105 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
You played Ib? I think we're talking about different games here, dude, this one isn't even addressed down there.
#107 to #106 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
The Last of Us,
What did you think I was talking about?
User avatar #110 to #107 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
I think it was just a communication breakdown overall.. The one I left a picture of is Ib, it's the one I meant was a great game. I've got no interest in playing The Last of Us, and I totally agree with what you say about not everyone having to like something. It sorta makes me wonder why you're disrespecting people for disagreeing with you... either way, I could give you a link to Ib if you want. I think it's got some great examples of scares that only work because of your interaction, it's got some really amazing atmosphere, really claustrophobic... want a link?
#112 to #110 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
No. I can find it on my own, I'm not handicapped, unlike most internet denziens.
User avatar #113 to #112 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
Hey man, I'm just trying to offer it to you to be cordial. I get the impression you watch Zero Punctuation, no?
#115 to #113 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Yes, like half the internet does, I guess.
User avatar #116 to #115 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
It's pretty popular in the gaming community, for sure. It just seems like you're really valuing Yahtzee's opinions a little irrationally highly. Not saying that he's wrong, he's a very intelligent man, and he makes decent games as well--Poacher was right up my alley, it was a blast, pun not intended--but it's worth making your own decision first.
#118 to #116 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
What I am talking about is not based on Yahtzee. He is a comedian.
What I was talking about is based on Extra Credits, for the most part.
User avatar #119 to #118 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
He does comedy, yes, but it's all to frame and accentuate the opinions. How else can you get your voice heard on the internet? You can be incredibly intelligent, but making people laugh helps you get noticed.
#122 to #119 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
He over-exagarates a lot of things for the purpose of comedy. Mostly all the negatives in the games he "reviews". Though, I wouldn't really call what he does reviewing, it's more an extended rant or a sketch.
Thus. it is dangerous to take anything he says seriously, at face value. So I don't.
Besides, I also do not agree with him on a lot of points.
User avatar #123 to #122 - dvdfaust ONLINE (08/03/2013) [-]
Fair enough. Maybe check out his written columns, you can tell he's much more serious, there, but is still humorous. And while you're at it, remember Ib. it's been good discussing this with you, try not to get so upset in the future, it's just the internet, man.
#49 to #43 - shadecrenshaw (08/03/2013) [-]
*Goes on a massive rant about how you are wrong and how The Last of Us is one of the single best stories and gameplay experiences ever made*   
 Because 			****		 your opinion its wrong.
*Goes on a massive rant about how you are wrong and how The Last of Us is one of the single best stories and gameplay experiences ever made*

Because **** your opinion its wrong.
#52 to #49 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
It's a genericm linear 3rd person cover-based shooter with zombies. Not even a good one, mearly an average one.
The gameplay is completely divorced from the story, and the story is told through cutscenes, and parts of the game where you aren't actually playing, instead of through gameplay. Which is the same problem Infinite has.
Games are an interactive medium. If I can know the whole story by just watching all the cutscenes...then the game fails at telling a story. No matter how good that story might be by movie terms. And the story wasn't even that good, I saw the ending from a mile away.
It is not the Citizen Kane of gaming. Far from it.
It had incredibly high production values, great directing, great graphics, and great voice acting...but I came here to play a game, not to watch a movie.
User avatar #55 to #52 - shadecrenshaw (08/03/2013) [-]
Gee, you really cannot detect a joke, can ya?
User avatar #54 to #52 - oneeyedman (08/03/2013) [-]
You're allowed to not like the game and all, but I just want to know how the gameplay was divorced from the story?
#58 to #54 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
The biggest example - enemies not noticing Ellie. That makes no sense in the story, but yet it's still a gameplay element.
Second, a thing I already mentioned - the story was told through cutscenes, or sections where you could just walk and can do nothing else. It was not told through gameplay, but through non-interactive parts. If you skipped the gamplay entirely, you would lose almost nothing of the story.
User avatar #71 to #58 - XxXRoxasXxX (08/03/2013) [-]
Did you really expect the game to be one huge escort mission?
#72 to #71 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
There was a game like that. That was also good. It was called Resident Evil 4.
#143 to #72 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #56 to #54 - shadecrenshaw (08/03/2013) [-]
Don't, don't put oil in the fire. This guy's pretty clearly a try-hard troll that will start an argument at the drop of a hat for his own amusement.

Plus, he seems to take himself way too seriously, so arguing him is even more pointless than the two idiots have been going on below us.
User avatar #67 to #56 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
It is a bit idiotic at this point, sorry for clogging up the comments.
#59 to #56 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Wow, I don't like TLU, and I give legitimate resons....and I'm a troll? Really?
Go moat yourself.
User avatar #57 to #56 - oneeyedman (08/03/2013) [-]
Good advice...
#28 to #25 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
Bioshock Infinite had the best story out of any game I've played since the original Deus Ex.
#46 to #28 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Don't you dare compare it to Deus Ex.
DE had marvelous integration of gameplay and story, and was far more open.
Infinite was linear as balls, and the gameplay was completely disconnected from the story.
User avatar #50 to #46 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
Linearity is not a bad thing. Would you complain that a book or a movie doesn't let you pick your own ending? The half-life series is linear as balls, and it's one of the best series of games there has ever been.
#145 to #50 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
#144 to #50 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
#53 to #50 - delivering (08/03/2013) [-]
Games are inherently an interactive medium. The basis of games is interactivity.
Books and movies are inherently non-interactive mediums.
You cannot make that comparison at all, because it doesn't work on a basic level.
And Half-Life was still incredibly more interactive and less linear than Infinite. Not in terms of story, sure, but in terms of gamplay, yes. And gameplay is a core part of games, as you might notice.
User avatar #62 to #53 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
I fail to see how Half-Life was any more interactive. The story is the same, all the way through, every time. The levels are the same, the dialog is the same, enemies are the same. There is no customization of anything, there are no choices, it is effectively a movie in which you have to shoot things to advance to the next scene. And it is one of the best games.
User avatar #29 to #28 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
never played any of the bioshock or systemshock games have you?
User avatar #30 to #29 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
I played Bioshock, the terrible abortion that was Bioshock 2, and System Shock 2. I liked Bioshock Infinite the best.
User avatar #32 to #31 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
36 minutes and 11 minutes? ***** I ain't watchin all that **** make your point in text
User avatar #33 to #32 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
that is all him pointing out **** in infinite, but just look at the damn story.

after the first tear is opened, why do they do anything other than leave colombia?
User avatar #34 to #33 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
What do you mean, after the first tear is opened? Do you mean after the very first tear, or after they first enter an alternate universe?
User avatar #35 to #34 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
the latter
User avatar #36 to #35 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
While the siphon was still active, Elizabeth could only open certain tears, not ones to wherever and whenever she wanted. The only tear available at that point was one that led to a universe that was only slightly different. They did try to leave Columbia in that universe by the means they had available, though.
User avatar #37 to #36 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
that's explained in both videos as stupid and a lie.

can you seriously not sit down for 36 minutes? This one is 11 minutes for the first part.

User avatar #38 to #37 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
Okay, let's just say that the fact that she can only open certain tears at that point is a lie.
(It isn't. That's how the game was set up.) Does she know that? Do you think Booker has any idea what a multiverse is yet? He was thinking of it as a way to change one thing. A solution to a problem. He had no idea that he was changing all of reality.
User avatar #40 to #38 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]

this specific scene helps too
User avatar #39 to #38 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
you are watching the video right?

I just don't want to waste both our times by writing down **** that's already in video format. the ending is the worst part anyway. why do they need to save the multiverse?
User avatar #41 to #39 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
I am not watching either of the videos. If you want to have an internet argument, make your own points.

They don't "need" to do anything. Elizabeth was trying to prevent the timelines that involve Columbia from existing to prevent the suffering that happens in them because of her, Booker, and Comstock. With those timelines eliminated, the only ones remaining were the ones where she remained with Booker.
User avatar #42 to #41 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
but why?

There are infinite colombias with comstock, but there are also infinite comstocks who love their people. infinity is infinity. you can't damn infinite universes just to save the same amount.
User avatar #45 to #42 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
Pardon me, a city, a man, and a lighthouse.
User avatar #44 to #42 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
"Some things are different, but some things stay the same. There's always a city, a girl, and a lighthouse." There are infinite universes, but there are constants between all of them. And every universe where Elizabeth has the power to open a tear is a threat to both that universe and all other universes. That's why those timelines needed to be pruned out.
User avatar #47 to #44 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
how? what does our Elizabeth do?

also constants are ******** and contrary to the multiverse theory. How does Elizabeth know that anyway?
User avatar #48 to #47 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
Our Elizabeth doesn't do anything besides explain things to Booker, actually. In the final scene, she's not even there; it's several Elizabeths from other universes that drown Booker. The multiverse theory in the game has constants, unlike the multiverse theory we think about in this universe. She knows that because she can see every possible universe simultaneously, all of them at once. She has, for lack of a better term, become omniscient, though not omnipotent. So she does what she can to close off the possibility of the universes where she has her powers, but is not omniscient, from doing any harm. Our Elizabeth likely exists outside of time and space, like the Luteces, but with full knowledge.
User avatar #51 to #48 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
******** , for one they don't say that in-game and for another thing is that she is still removing universes that will end without comstock.

assuming there are constants, which is retarded as she shouldn't know that, comstock can be a **** ton of **** . he can be a genius, or a humanitarian. For every Hitler comstock there is a Ghandi comstock.

Elizabeth had a **** ton of power with no set limits, only what was convenient for the plot, so she gains magical knowledge, not power from the siphon being destroyed? Why is that? why is an alternate world's siphon getting power from her? where is that world's Liz?
User avatar #66 to #51 - articulate (08/03/2013) [-]
Yeah, articulate them points.
User avatar #63 to #51 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
It is pointless, but the reason I didn't watch the videos is not because I didn't have time, but because if I'm going to have an argument on the internet then the person I'm arguing with damn well better be able to articulate their own points.
User avatar #65 to #63 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
I can articulate the points, it's just stupid that you have all this time to write this and respond but not watch the videos.

If you had just watched them, you would see the points against the game as opposed to closing yourself off with a ****** medium of communication.
User avatar #64 to #63 - articulate (08/03/2013) [-]
Its an internet argument... what do you expect?
User avatar #60 to #51 - dedaluminus (08/03/2013) [-]
They don't say what in game? That she isn't there? That the multiverse has constants? That she can see all of the universes, and knows what happens in all of them? All of that is said, directly, in game. And since there are constants, every universe with Columbia and Comstock goes wrong. You're still thinking about our multiverse theory. Stop it. In the multiverse theory of the game, there are constants. That's explained right from the beginning of the game. " He doesn't row?" "No, he DOESN'T row." There are only "hitler" Comstocks. Elizabeth did not have universal knowledge until the very end of the game. She did gain a lot of power from the siphon being destroyed, but the most important thing she gained is knowledge. The siphon, in every world, is tuned to absorb the power of someone who can alter reality, and Elizabeth, in every world, is the only one who can do that. Where that world's Liz is is never explained, but nobody is talking about there being two Elizabeths, so she's not there any more. Maybe after Booker died she did just what you think is logical and tore a tear to paris? I know, speculation, not mentioned in the game, but that particular plot hole is incredibly minor.
User avatar #61 to #60 - thewowpimp (08/03/2013) [-]
You know what?

This is pointless. Am I going to change your belief? no.

Are you going to change mine? again, no. If, you don't have the time to watch videos explaining my point, then I won't bother you and your busy scheduled.
 Friends (0)