BioShock Infinite was released to almost universal praise. Now, it's a bit different. It's clear that the game is not largely hated but there's certainly a large amount of people who believe that the game is disappointing, not as great as people will often say. But in my opinion BioShock Infinite is truly a work of art, a game that showcases both entertaining and fun gameplay with an engaging an interesting world with deep and thoughtful themes and storytelling. To analyse all the different factors present in people's opinions, I'm gonna examine the three quintessential aspects of this game. They are: Presentation, gameplay, and themes/analysis.
Presentation:
Bioshock has always been presented well. All the games have great graphics, but they aren't the best of the best for their time. The visuals is what is truly remembered. Bioshock Infinite is distinctively set in the 1910s, with beautiful architecture, steampunk aesthetics and colourful locales. Infinite is truly beautiful with all of its landscapes of the blue sky and huge cityscapes. The sound design is great as always, but changed for an older approach to technology. The design of each land gives distinct differences that are more extreme than in Bioshock to give Colombia a real world quality due to the proper architecture and also just better engagement. The game greatly utilises color and lighting to emphasise different feelings. In the opening parts of the game, Colombia is bright and vibrant, even when bad things happen. But when we are meant to feel the gravity of events to come, we see the colors darker, the lighting more extreme, as the world glitches out. People generally like the presentation - the world feels realised and the sci fi feels understandable due to the way its presented, A common criticism is that the game's character's are too stylised, compared to its trailer. Personally I prefer the stylised characters. Not only does it help stand the test of time against realistic graphics that would date the game, it makes the game feel unique. Another criticism is the gore. This isn't a big one but I heard this made by some guy who did Gears of War, a franchise I know little of. The criticism is that in this colorful and magical world, the gore becomes excessive as a result of the contrast. Firstly, that also happens in the Bioshock games. Secondly, that's the point. The gore is pretty shocking, and while not sickening there's a real sense that you're guy's being pretty bad. The fact that you're guy is killing misguided people kinda makes people think it's a bit weird I guess, but that's the point. DeWitt is a morally flexible character, and the game mostly makes pacifists arguments.
Gameplay:
I remember playing the game as part of the collection in 2016, and although I still thought that the game was the best of the series, After playing Bioshock 1 and 2 I felt as though the gameplay was the weakest aspect, as it felt like an average shooter with a few little gimmicks. In replaying the game, I don't think that at all. The RPG aspects of Bioshock and the inventiveness are gone, that's true. I'm okay with that as long as it's replaced with an engaging system, and I love this system. People who dislike this game really criticise this aspect because it feels very standard and generic, and although it's more shooting focused than the other games, I'd disagree. There's a lot of room to move around in combat, and enough variety in weapons that gives you strategy coming into combat. The skyhook is the best addition, giving you a lot of momentum, and giving you the feeling of movement, which is needed. There's not too much cover, and enemies move around a lot, meaning you have to be moving and engaging. Ammo and salt is low enough so that you can't just stand in a corner and win a fight, but you also won't ever be im a situation where you're struggling to find weapons. Elizabeth to me is a clear standout of the game. She pretty much only helps, and is never a liability, which narratively helps because when you don't have her the game is more restricted, and when she's around not only do you have more dialogue you have more abilities. In replaying the game I was surprised at how many more RPG aspects there were. There was a pretty decent customisation options that was helped by the fact that you couldn't buy a lot, meaning you had to really make wise choices. I would've enjoyed wider maps with more secrets and little dialogue bits, but overall I think we get a decent bit with secrets that all lead to better combat and abilities, meaning looting is actually advisable.
Analysis:
The big one. Bioshock Infinite has been the attention of a lot of critical analysis, and for good reason. Bioshock Infinite makes much more apparent it's philosophical aspirations, delving to directly confront the player with it's questions, and refusing to give all the answers. Before all this though, there's Colombia, which is really done. Like Bioshock 1, there's the political themes, and then the story themes that become more relevant in the story. Colombia is a society dedicated on American Exceptionalism, that values the ideas of a White Man's society over all else. At first there's a lot of funny ways of this life, as although Colombia is a bit cultish, they just seem quaint and silly in their traditions. But after enjoying yourself, you're forced to watch a public beating of a black woman and an Irish man (probably one of the first things that made me and many others realise that Irish people used to be discriminated against). There's some pretty horrific imagery, and it pulls no punches. At the end of the day, it can't be stopped with a few words. This isn't Wolfenstein, the bad guys don't get stopped easily. Daisy Fitzroy simply acts on violence and revenge, justifiably so but also pointing out that revolutions can't always do the right thing - they can be misled. And unfortunately, not only do they do bad things, they ultimately don't succeed because they can't. As it is said, no matter what they do, what they change, Colombia's war with America is inevitable. Why? Because the affects of racism and nationalism cannot be undone in one generation. Maybe slow change can be made, but one person can never make this change. And this goes into the ending, which is perfectly executed. Unlike Bioshock 1, which kinda drops the ball with its ending, Infinite opts to spent lengthy time on the ending, which explains pretty much everything that's been occuring, albeit in a vague manner so you can draw your own conclusions. Infinite never concludes what happens here. Burial At Sea answers a bit, saying that Booker is dead, and that one Elizabeth survived, but she lost her powers so she can't be 100% reliable. My belief is that Booker's sacrifice could only do so much. In the scene where your cross the lighthouse, my reflection has always been that they represent the different games, because like the game says these events have things that will happen and things that won't. I personally believe that their are infinite versions of this that Elizabeth couldn't foresee, and DeWitt may have done something, but not to every universe. This goes into the idea that things cannot be removed, cannot be undone. But also, the fact that something may have happened brings an interesting question of pacifism vs. Violence, in the fact that an act on oneself rather than violence or war is what saves the day. The story shows a lot of violence, which ultimately either leads to more bloodshed, or nothing. But it's never cut and dry, and these are all questions. And these questions vary on the person.
Bioshock Infinite is a game which challenges the notion that big budget games have to fit a narrow artistic scope to satsify fans craving a similar experience. As many others who love this game, I want more games that both gives us new enjoyable experiences wrapped around with worlds that make me interested and asking questions.
4 out of 4 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
