It's a very long read that switches halfway through to a critique of modern game-reviewing standards. The author makes a lot of good points (all of which can be found in most serious reviews of the game), and dramatizes them.
[quote]It’s an unjustified shooter without a single new idea. It’s a self-gratifying spectacle that confuses cunning with depth. It’s a craven, heartless game of false moral equivalencies that uses the suffering of oppressed people as window dressing, as theme, while it explores its own cold metaphysical conceits.
For its lack of humanity, for its fake guilt, for its flat boring gameplay, for its 100 million dollar cost, for its cleverness, for its cowardice, BioShock Infinite is not just the worst game of the year. It’s the worst game I’ve played this generation.[/quote]
[quote][Elizabeth] is otherwise invisible to the rest of Columbia, despite being its most wanted citizen.[/quote]
[quote]This is all by design. Irrational head Ken Levine wanted the player to forge an emotional connection with Elizabeth but not have her be a burden. Because lord knows, relationships are never burdens. In an interview, he contrasted Elizabeth with a crying, needy Microsoft Word. Who wants that? And reviewers agreed, praising Elizabeth for ‘being useful’ and ‘not getting in the way’. (From a third-party review):
“She is among the best AI companions I’ve ever had.”[/quote]
[quote]Objectivity is very convenient for the straight white middle class male gamer. Videogame culture encourages him to see his own subjectivity as the standard, as objective. He’ll invoke science, economics, statistics, and all manner of folk wisdom to defend his little kingdom. He’ll decry any challenge as ‘politics’ or ‘bad business’ or ‘whining’ or ‘here we go again’. He never considers how often objectivity is a cover for a dominant subjectivity, for a subjectivity that stays in power by not being recognized as such.[/quote]
[quote]For me, this is one reason the game is so disappointing. A beautiful, corrupt place that I can only see, not touch. That I can interact with in no meaningful way except to shoot or loot. That actively presents itself as fake, a theme park, but offers no mechanics to go behind the curtain.[/quote]
Personally, my biggest criterion for whether a game was good is: "Did I enjoy playing it?" Bioshock had a lot of problems, namely, diluted gunplay and vigors, and disappointing linearity, but this game was a hell of a ride and kept me entertained for weeks even after I finished the story. The author's 2/10 score seems overly dramatic.
-
I've never liked Bioshock The first one was boring but I've enjoyed Bioshock infinite so far.
-
Edited by God: 10/26/2013 2:57:23 AMI've read most of it, and he makes good points but can't get over how he makes it sound like he's some kind of victim of injustice because most people have different tastes than him, and practically calls for a revolution at the end. Part's 11-15 especially get ridiculously pretentious. I mean look at these sentences: [quote]Videogames have always carried with them an unfulfilled promise.[/quote] [quote]The review cycle must no longer be a source of embarrassment but a dynamic conversation that constantly puts our values on the table and invites a reckoning.[/quote] [quote]I want gaming to revel in dissent.[/quote] [quote]Most videogames are disappointing, and disappointing in dependable ways.[/quote] [quote]How long will it take before all our current scores are obsolete and the outcry over giving GTA V a 9 out of 10 is the nonsensical embarrassment of a generation past?[/quote] [i]How far up his own ass is this guy?[/i]
-
BioShock is the greatest game series of all time.
-
Have you ever heard of colonial marines, ride to hell, or survival instinct my dear sir?
-
Edited by BritLemon: 10/25/2013 3:25:17 PM[quote]"BioShock Infinite is the worst game of the year."[/quote]Has he not heard of Aliens: Colonial Marines, or Ride to Hell: Retribution?
-
No, just no...
-
Are you mental? Bioshock infinite- -took 2 years to make -next gen graphics -DLC is not released yet -judged to a 10/10 from gameinformer, the most strict critics there can be. Nuff said. "Damn near perfect"
-
I want to see this guy's opinion on the original Bioshock.
-
Not the worst but still shit
-
Edited by Sapid: 10/25/2013 11:55:29 PMObvious flame bait. "MASTERPIECE, I AM BREATHLESS 10/10" get less views then "Garbage 2/10" reviews.
-
See, any points that could be considered 'good' are defeated by the title and the final 'score.' It's clearly a person fishing for attention, which discredits pretty much anything the person may have said. :/
-
>worst game of the generation The flamebait could not possibly be more obvious.
-
The walking dead survival instinct. This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
-
I think so of his criticism is a bit much... Like I would never say its a bad game or worst game of the generation. However, I do agree that it feels like a generic first person shooter. The game got boring after playing for 3-4 hours, because there really isn't anything that makes it feel unique.
-
Edited by KilljoyDetective: 10/25/2013 5:34:58 AMIt's funny, not too long ago someone on here offhandedly said that Infinite was also a terrible piece of work, after about 3 comments back and forth, he never bothered to even add to what made it bad. So I took it as someone stating something that they weren't ready to defend. I myself had not had a chance to play the game yet because as soon as I purchased a cheap copy from Gamefly, my Xbox's Disc Drive laser gave out and wouldn't read any discs. So a wrench right into that of course, which means I'll have to try it on my PS3 at some point. Back to the article though, I feel like he was trying to be way too critical and dramatic about it. I've seen other reviews that were very harsh on a game, there's a few problems with Gameplay and story, or something else, and they immediately give it a trash can rating. I almost feel like the review despite some of his good points, doesn't know what a truly terrible piece of gaming is. Sonic Free Riders or the Retribution game another poster mentioned being two good examples, but despite those problems, it's not outright broken or unplayable. You should never be giving a game that low of a rating unless it's busted beyond belief. And Bioshock Infinite does not seem like one of those games. [quote]This is an old problem, but one that even relatively new sites show no inclination to address. When Polygon launched last year and began putting out higher caliber feature stories, I had some hope that they might approach reviews differently as well. I read their review policy and saw a lot of fuss about updating reviews over time but nothing new when it came to the scale. Worse, the scale they put forward actually validated and reinforced our current low standards, only gussied up with professional language. 9’s “may not innovate or be overly ambitious but are masterfully executed.” 7’s are good but “have some big ‘buts’”. A 5 “indicates a bland, underwhelming game that’s functional but little else.” Not 5 as average, as commonplace, the middle instead of the bottom of the scale. [b](Their 2’s, 3’s, & 4’s list some silly trinity of ‘complete’ failures to justify their existence.[/b])[/quote] That whole section is silly to me, but the bolded part is the worst. I haven't seen what Polygon had in their sections of very low ratings, but if this guy wants to give a 2 or 3 to this then make the offhanded remark that whatever they're giving low ratings is just to "justify their existence", then he's just rambling at this point. [quote]I continued to play highly reviewed games that not only underwhelmed but often stunned me with their failures. There were more 3’s [b](Skyward Sword, Halo 4, New Super Mario Bros 2)[/b][i](I didn't like Halo 4 after awhile, but lol at a 3 rating for it and the others)[/i] and 4’s [b](Skyrim, Dear Esther, Tomb Raider)[/b][i](head explodes)[/i] but not so many 5’s (Arkham City, Bastion), since my feelings didn’t often fall in the middle. Even 6’s that I mostly enjoyed (Red Dead Redemption, Fire Emblem: Awakening, Journey) were nothing to get that excited about. Only 7’s (Gone Home, The Last of Us, Wii Sports Resort)[lol Wii Sports Resort rated higher than RDR or FE:A, this guy is insane] and 8’s (The Walking Dead, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, Far Cry 2)[i][Someone I know played TWD, and he said it wasn't anything to be amazed at, some parts were terrible even, unless this is the decent version of it out there and not that other one I've heard about][/i] really started to get interesting, and there were a handful of amazing 9’s (The Binding of Isaac, Kentucky Route Zero, Spelunky). While I did play two 2’s (the other was Limbo), [b]I also played two 10’s (Minecraft[/b] and Demon’s Souls).[/quote] He's just -blam!-ing picking fights at this point: [quote][b]Of this sampling, you might agree with some of the scores,[/b](Lol no I -blam!-ing don't!) but how could anyone agree with all of them? That’s precisely the point – no one could, or should. And without an explanation, why should anyone care about numbers alone anyway? If I were to write a review, it would be my task to articulate why I thought the game deserved that number. And of course readers could decide how convincing they found it. [b]But some of these scores no doubt look ridiculous to anyone familiar with most reviews. The very outlandishness of my numbers points to how ingrained our pitiful review scale remains[/b](I don't read reviews for every game I come across and I still think you're a nut at this point Tevis, even if you're an articulated and longly-complicated one at that). It speaks to how easily we submit to the tyranny of the perceived majority. It’s the same kind of thinking that leads to the many ridiculous sacrosanct positions held by the gaming community. [b]To say you consider Ocarina of Time not a great Zelda or find Half-Life 2 overrated or prefer Metroid to Super Metroid, as I do, demands an explanation.[/b] [i]I'm breaking it down a bit to address that last bolded part, this is just ridiculous. I disagree with all of those points, Ocarina of Time was a great game, a great [b]Zelda[/b] game, and even though there are people out there who would willingly die to defend that statement, I don't understand how he can do a 180 and go after Half-Life 2 next. It's outdated to me and nothing impressive for me, since I've never played it probably, but it has a huge following for some reason right?[/i] [b] It invites skepticism of not only your opinions but of your very motives. What’s your deal? You’re just trolling for clicks. And why should I listen to you anyway? You didn't design the game. You don't represent the average gamer. You’re just some vocal minority.[/b][/quote] Them's fightin words pardner. I can't do it, I can't read past part 10, it's just too much...Go on...Without me...*dies*
-
all i have to say to you sir, is were is your cave located, so i can destroy it
-
[i] [/i]
-
Can't wait for his GTA V review.
-
Bioshock Infinite was shit. Glad I didnt waste $60 on it. I hope that they dont make any more Bioshock games. The first Bioshock was perfect. They should have stopped with that one.
-
The story was good but you have to go through the boring gameplay to follow it.
-
So wait, he gives Bioshock Infinite a 2, and Last of Us a 7? I mean, Last of Us was basically "Escort Mission: The Game".
-
It wasn't THAT bad, but it wasn't that good either. 6/10
-
Bioshock Infinite is very fun and it has a lot of replay value. I really enjoyed it.
-
I hated that game with a passion, but it's not the worst game of the year
-
Edited by Porsche 914: 10/25/2013 1:39:29 PMI hate that guy.