*entire writing team dabs*

Does it never show anything about the Songbird?

L1LE1 never lol

@@Cavs191 Really? Is it necessary to exactly spell it out for the player in what the Songbird is and could be? Honestly, with how Fink and Suchong share their ideas, the implications and the evidence for Theory Crafting are there.

If it helps, I think there's a pretty strong theory to be made that Songbird is an alternate version of Booker. At least that's my headcanon. I also believe Booker is an alternate version of Delta as well (but that's a whole other tangent), but the three of them have the strongest and most fundamental parallels. Constants and variables.

They're crazy discounted right now, you really ought to give them a try.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais Thanks, but to be perfectly honest, I have been waiting years for System Shock 3.

TheBlackB0X it's not going to happen, they don't have the rigths and irrational it's closed. Bioshock 1 has everything SS2 has and improved, give it a try Shodan will forgive you.

+TheBlackB0X i apologise if this is dated comment. but i've heard EA was already producing system shock 3. after finding out they dont have legal right to own system 3, they made a new title. in this case, its a dead space

***** ooooooo my god.... lol awesome

Kolbe Howard That is a great analysis of what she wanted to do in Rapture. Nice thinking.

Seems a little weird to boil it all down to daddy issues.

@@fuzzydunlop7928 Don't underestimate the familial love between a father and a daughter. The same between a mother and son. There's a reason the terms Mamma's Boy and Daddy's Girl exists.

It's just how his shoes fit

Umm... this is a bit late but if it's worth anything, Ken Levine stated that the Elizabeth in Burial at Sea is the exact same one you traveled with in Infinite and as evidenced by the post-credits scene of Infinite, Booker is still alive (but Comstock is hypothetically dead entirely).

Nah shut up, infinite and its dlcs are perfect. Or what, you are so called serious vocal gamer?

I also just noticed the chinese disguise in Fontaine's office referring to the original Bioshock when he proudly states "Hell I was even a chinaman for 2 years" or something.

HolidayKirk I liked the Elizabeth in it more, she's sexy!! Additionally through, I thought the level design having more optional exploration made it feel more like bioshock 1, also the scarcity of money and ammo made it feel more tactical which is also great, finally I hope whoever make the next game builds more on what this did as well as bioshock 1 and 2, set it in space or go back to rapture cause Columbia just felt boring in comparison, honestly prey 2017 was better than the entire bioshock series, probably because it's a return to the RPG-FPS style of system shock 1 and 2 versus bioshock 1 and 2, who streamlined towards FPS too much and then infinite went even further in that direction.

Definitely, especially Episode 2.

Burial at sea is better than Infinite conceptually, I just wish developers did not always want to go with the bittersweet win lose endings they have a hard-on for. There was a time when completely happy endings were the norm, and really no one would want to play a game that is more or less pointless if the ending of a game ended with the character dying anyway and the enemies still winning. Instead now they focus way too much on bittersweetness.

Thomas s Whilst I appreciate your point, I feel like a “happy” ending wouldn’t make sense at all for Burial At Sea, both chronologically and thematically.

It's basic pandering, really. Infinite's plot was awful.

I would actually argue that Infinite's plot isn't that bad, but in comparison to Bioshock 2's story, its lackluster.

TrevimusPrime Bioshock 2's story What? Bioshock 2 had some great level design and combat but the story was awful, so bad in comparison to the original Bioshock that I have yet to play the game twice. I don't even consider Bioshock 2 as a part of the series, it's just unnecessary and it doesn't fit in. As for Infinite being incomplete, I disagree, Booker's story is over at the end of the game, there are a few plot threads left open and they are explored in Burial at sea, but Booker's story ends with Infinite and I think it final enough to justify the game as a whole experience.

I didn't say Infinite was incomplete, personally I was very happy with the ending. I got a full experience out of that game, and my main argument against Burial at Sea, is I personally don't feel it was required. However you look at it, it is the true ending to the Irrational couple of games. I love all three games, I'm not hating on any of them. I do also think your being harsh on the Bioshock 2, but I respect your opinion. I personally enjoyed the fact your moral choices actually mattered, and the strong concise narrative. Saying the story is bad, is an injustice.

TrevimusPrime I agreed with you at the end of Burial part one. I thought that the ending of Infinite worked perfectly and to find out that it wasn't over yet was kind of annoying. but the end of part 2 made up for it. I don't think I'm being harsh on Bioshock 2 because I said "In comparison," and when compared to the original, it's awful. On it's own it's completely serviceable, but it's bad compared to Bioshock/Bioshock Infinite.

Yes, miss that video. Maybe it was a copyright thing with the intro music or something.

@Geralt of Trivia I appreciate the effort to write so much about a 5 year old comment on a video but fundamentally I didn't enjoy the gameplay and I didn't enjoy the writing. also some of your responses seem to just not get what I meant so I apologise for not being clear. Reading books wouldn't explain away the personality which, to my eyes, didn't mesh well with her backstory. The point about racism was that it was incredibly surface level and ultimately had little to do with the story and just seemed, to me, like an edgy talking point during the lead up to the release. If i managed to miss a massive plot point then maybe it should have been established a little bit better? The guns really didn't feel great, to me, and they were no were near as satisfying as previous games. The point about the gun limit ties into the ammo thing, i dont want to be scavenging the area in the middle of combat as i find it takes away from the main experience of combat. Its a lot less fun to me and makes it a lot more common to have to drop weapons you would rather use. The game makes it clear that each action creates a new alternative where a different choice was made, her saying its the root doesn't explain how that changes that dynamic this time. Why wouldn't it cause another universe? Again though, thanks for telling me why my opinion on a game is wrong

Well, this is embarrassing. I just looked through your channel and noticed, with much jubilation, a Half-Life video. I feel bummed I will have to wait until tomorrow morning to watch it. Thank you for your work!

I'd like to add to the Fitzroy thing that we also know from Preston Down's Voxophone that she was willing to kill children to reach her goal or make a point (I fail to see how one can expect a child to kill a man when three people who had the drop on him failed to do so), so it really isn't the contradiction so many people think it is. As for Burial at Sea Episode 1, I think Elizabeth stated in Episode 2 that she wanted Comtsock to know that he deserved, that we was being punished. Simply killing him wasn't enough for her. It does feel a tad odd, though. Additionally, Burial at Sea IS about Elizabeth and Booker. We get to see another side to Comstock as well as how Elizabeth viewed Booker. She even gets her own decent and redemption arc. Even if the setting's different, we should remember that Infinite was primarily about Booker and Elizabeth.

"It beyond the game asking me to care for characters I never got invested in, and neglects the characters that came before: Booker and Elizabeth that I was invested in." - Well, technically Jack and the sisters came before - they've got series tenure afterall. I don't think it was much about the characters, as opposed tying off the narrative of the series and forming it into a loop. That said, Comstock, Booker, and Elizabeth all do fucked up shit so I don't feel so tender-hearted towards them. In a narrative in which the protagonists do fucked up shit, anything other than redemptive sacrifice is cheap. They don't always have to die - but that sacrifice needs to be made.

I agree that retconing her actions was the wrong thing to do from a narrative perspective, the Fitzroy rebellion still has more of my sympathy, at least within the lens of "then let me do evil" to quote Frankenstein. I felt her rebellion taking that turn is a inevitable response to that level of abuse and that the citizens of Colombia kinda had that coming. Basically my problem is the lack of sympathy the narrative seemed to give the rebellion, not with their actions being framed in a negative light

@Geralt of Trivia Huh... KZfaq did the random thing of suddenly notifying me on an old comment I made years ago. Always interesting to read back on old thoughts. Can't say I disagree too much with my original views on the game, though I think I spent way too much time talking about the story and not how the gameplay informs it. I mentioned how I got super attached to Booker and Elizabeth (despite them doing terrrible things), and as good as the acting, animation and all that stuff is, it's really because of how the gameplay works. Obviously, you get attached to Booker since you play as him, but the combat being so brutal and fun; allowing you to lose yourself in the violence puts you in his headspace in a way that makes the game's final twist all the more impactful. Elizabeth is with you for most of the game, and while they make great use of down time to flesh her out, just wandering about the environment, it's the fact that she comes into play during fights that make her feel important. She can randomly toss you items; often just when you need them, and manipulate the environment so that she feels unique. It all makes you feel like you're both in this fight together, and you want to do what it takes to get out. Now, I say all this to contrast it with Bioshock. I never cared about the Little Sisters because the gameplay gives no reason to. The whole moral choice around them being about getting more ADAM by killing them falls apart when you realize you get just as much in the grand scheme for rescuing them. It makes little to no difference. And to be honest, Bioshock gives you so much to work with weapon wise that ADAM never felt as essential as everyone said it was. The whole choice is just about giving a good/evil ending which no one likes to begin with. Literally the only time they are a factor in the gameplay is that escort mission near the end which, again, no one really likes. As for Jack, we care about him a bit because he's who we are. He is intentionally one of the blankest main characters ever so they can pull the rug out from under you. But even after that famous plot twist, he's still basically the same guy, and the way other characters to react to him is not very interesting. At least in Half-Life 2, most everyone speaks grandly of Gordon Freeman, so you kinda absorb that residual coolness even though he's just as blank. But going back to Burial At Sea, seeing the ending set up the journey of Jack kinda feels weak because we never control Jack in Burial at Sea. The gameplay is all about getting you invested in Elizabeth's story, and the way it ends is basically saying that what you did doesn't matter; it's this other guy you set up who's important. I get that they want to come full circle with Bioshock lore, but I think doing so hurt this particular story. And on this gameplay note, I feel like I gotta go into more about the Vox, Daisy, and all that cause my thoughts have changed a bit. At the time, I remember people complaining that the game forms an equivalence between the Vox and the Founders, notably when Booker remarks that the only difference between Daisy and Comstock is how they spell the name. At the time, my thought process was that the game was commenting more on how charismatic leaders can lead people to violence; regardless of what actual policy the others want. Hence why revealing Daisy to be "in on it" and was never really planning to kill Fink's child felt like a retcon. I'm not saying it was a complete betrayal of her character; fair point there, but it felt more like a response to people's criticisms than a natural progression of her character. Now, I can't pretend Black Lives Matter hasn't had an affect on my opinion. It has. There may be a point to make about how the oppressed rising up to overthrow their oppressors only to become worse; but now does not seem like the time, and certainly not by using racism the way Infinite does. Thank god it came out in 2013, because I can at least chalk up the developers to being a bit out of touch with race struggles in America rather than willfully ignorant. But going back to my main point about the game forming an equivalence with the Vox and Founders. One of the clever things about Infinite is that it makes a point not to display the enemies you fight too negatively. They're all just soldiers fighting for what they believe in; namely their leader. I still remember when the Founders stop fighting you and start praying when Comstock is displayed. Even if you start killing them when they're kneeling, they do nothing. But the problem is that from a gameplay perspective, there's virtually no difference between fighting the Vox and fighting the Founders. They are re-skinned versions of the same enemies and are functionally identical. However hard the game's story might try to tell you how oppressed they are and how unfair their plight is, the gameplay treats them as just more enemies. To be clear, I'm not saying the game making you kill them is immoral on the developers. There's no shortage of games that make you commit terrible deeds so they can make a grand point. But if they wanted to avoid this "false equivalence", they needed to do more to make fighting the Founders and fighting the Vox feel different. whoo. There goes another essay in a YT comment. Why do I do this...

@Geralt of Trivia Okay, fair bit to unpack/expand upon. Will do my best. I'm not saying that you have to control someone to care about them, but in games, it helps significantly. In the case of Jack, all goodwill one may feel about him stems from the original game. You have to play it to feel even the slightest thing for Burial at Sea's ending because he's at best referred to as "The Ace in the Hole" and nothing else. And what I'm saying isn't that putting it in there is wrong; it's kind of a fun way to tie it all up in a silk ribbon so to speak. What I am saying is that it takes the focus away from Elizabeth. She may know that she's just spelled Atlas' doom by getting Jack brought to Rapture, but from Elizabeth's perspective, Atlas is just some asshole gangster. They don't have that strong a connection, so it doesn't really feel like a culminating moment for her character. It feels like she got killed off to set up the story. You could argue the pointlessness is the point, that she sacrifices herself all to save a girl she barely knows, but I think doing the whole Bioshock callback just distracts from that idea. And to be honest (and this is selfish I'll admit), I didn't feel she deserved to die. She's mostly a victim from everyone else she knew, and while she makes one morally wrong decision by using Sally for revenge on someone else, that seems like quite the harsh price to pay. Okay, I reeeaally don't want to go into a huge long discussion about BLM and police brutality, but I feel I should expand a bit. Firstly, I'm not saying that showing a minority character in a negative light is wrong. Part of equality is showing dubious characters of all backgrounds just as we show virtuous ones of all backgrounds. And frankly, the fear of showing women and minorities negatively in media is sort of what led to a lot of tokenism and bland representation that you see still to this day. I think all anyone wants regarding representation are interesting; complex characters who can be whatever they want to be. Now what I meant about "how Bioshock Infinite uses racism" and "now not being the time" was that, as fantastical as the elements are in Bioshock Infinite with a floating city and giant mechanical creatures, the racism element feels relatively real. Which is to say, it was intentionally emblematic of the time period and the policies in place with segregation, class inequality, and so on. The echoes of which are still felt in the real world to this day. So what I'm saying is using the real-world racism to tell an alternate history where minorities rise up and go to all out war over their oppressors feels wrong right now. To be clear, I'm not going to pretend every real-world protest has been 100% peaceful, and that there aren't "bad apples" on the protestor side. But the problems that led us here haven't been properly dealt with for literally decades. If anything, they've only gotten worse. And to keep it simple, the problem isn't that there are a few bad apple cops who make mistakes that accidentally kill the people they are sworn to protect. The problem is that statistically, if you are black, you are way more likely to be killed/harrassed by police, and that even when undeniably clear evidence exists to show police being in the wrong, they are rarely (if ever) punished. Now, I don't think Bioshock Infinite was trying to get into that heavy stuff. Something else that sadly often happens in the real world is when an oppressive regime goes to war with a rebel faction, there's often a lot of innocent lives lost in the crossfire, and I think that's what it was aiming for. And again, I'm saying that in 2013, it didn't feel that tone deaf, but were a similar story were to come out now, it would. And going back to the Vox, I think the aesthetic difference between the Vox and Founders is very striking and creates a huge contrast. The Vox clearly look more rag-tag and like they worked with what they had instead. They even changed the president's head on those mini-gun robots both sides use (it's been years, I forget their names). Despite all the work they put in there, the problem is that gameplay wise, the Vox are just as deadly as the Founders. Same weapons, same robot henchmen, same tactics. Is that wrong? Not inherently, but what I am saying is that functionally, it communicates that both sides are equal in strength, and you and Elizabeth are just caught between these warring factions. And again, going back to the real world conflict of BLM and police brutality, there couldn't be more of a contrast between sides. The police have been armed to the teeth with military equipment beyond just their professional riot gear. The protestors meanwhile have strength in numbers, and while some have burned and looted places, most protests have been peaceful. I mean, they've been going on since George Floyd, and have continued till the latest police misconduct regarding Jacob Blake. But as we know, it's the moments of violence and destruction that get more headlines and attention. And even regarding weaponry, the protestors have basically random objects (bricks, bottles), plywood shields, umbrellas and leaf blowers. They do not have grenade launchers. My point is the conflict is incredibly uneven and, regardless of the side you take, and portraying it as just a conflict between two warring sides feels lazy. Also, sidenote, they don't shoot you "because you're white", they shoot you because Daisy tells them to because in that universe, you're already dead, and after you fight back, well, the Vox naturally want to take you down. I also actually quite like the bit where she turns on you because you still being alive "complicates the narrative". That feels a lot more on the nose because yeah, there people supporting the protests who won't call out the times they act out of line because of that. That temptation to boil things down simply to "us vs. them" to justify atrocities feels a lot more on point and applicable to both sides of any conflict. Finally, it's funny you bring up Star Wars and Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul. Does bringing up new information that changes what we thought we knew in a story change the original? I mean, it doesn't have to. Hell, people seem to do that with Star Wars now by forgetting the prequels ever happened and that the new ones aren't canon, but that's a whole other can of worms. Generally, I'm of the camp that often less is more, and that the more you expand on something can often make it less intriguing (ironic given I can't shut up in these long-winded YT comments). Then again, I LOVE Better Call Saul and despite knowing where it will go since it's a prequel, that somehow only makes it more compelling. Granted, it also helps that it's made by some of the best people working in TV ever and it's a damn travesty it hasn't been showered with Emmys like it deserves to be. At the end of the day, I don't know if these comments capture the nuance I'm going for here. I still really love Bioshock Infinite, despite some of my changing thoughts on it. Though I have issues with it, I still think Burial at Sea is quite good. It's just got the unfortunate job of following up such a stellar act that anything that falls short feels magnified. And criticism isn't the same thing as calling something out to be cancelled and whatnot.

***** Yeah Buldur's gate is too damn long. I wanted to invest the time into it because I have the 2nd one on GOG, but 100 hours,,, yeah not anytime soon.

I *want* to do both. But I took a second job recently, so we'll see how it goes. And after Skyrim/Dragon Age I'm a little Bioware'd out for the moment. Glad you're enjoying the videos, though!

thanks for the replies, everyone. Also, for the record, baldur's Gate Can take over 100 hours to play through, but really, unless you're trying to explore every single location on the map, it can be done satisfyingly in half that time. Of course. i'd suggest taking your time with it and playing 1-2 hours a night for a month or two. Playing it that way can give you a really satisfying sensation, like a long DnD campaign. BG2 on the other hand is more modern in it's approach to pacing. It's funny, i used to think the type of story telling in DA and ME started with KOTOR, but really, it's BG2 that first nailed down a lot of the classic Bioware tropes. I'd love to talk with you all a bit more, but if you'll excuse me, my cat has just puked all over the armchair. :D

c7b3rw0lf Ken said hes always up for it. But he wont take anything under an R rating and an extremely high budget. And agree with him. I would not want a cheap ass movie thats 12+.

Oh I agree completely. BioShock is definitely not suited for a 12+ rating or anything of the sort. and given what it is, you would need to have a decent budget. I would support the development of it under the right team.

I see it more as a continuation/final act of the same story but interesting interpretation nonetheless.

its still a amazing story in my opinion

I think the most obvious jumping off point for a future Bioshock would be with the Luteces. I don't much want to see more of Rapture or Columbia because I feel like they've done what they wanted to do with it, and spending more time with these specific locations, especially Rapture, wouldn't amount to much. The idea behind tears and the, well, Infinite aspects of the plot lend themselves very well to starting something new, though. I wouldn't say no to the Bioshock that jumps off from the Columbian assault on 1980's New York, though. '80s-Shock hasn't been done yet, and it would do well with the period-pilfering the -Shock series is so good at.. Bioshock: The New Wave.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais I agree with you, but also think a Bioshock MMO where you get to build your own custom splicer in Rapture would be my dream.

Barf, let's not water down the carefully-schemed writing and production value if this series by taking the easy way out with an mmo. Losing this franchise to such an undertaking would be downright depressing. A modern take on the Rickenbacker would be unreal. I would love to see a return to this setting. Can you imagine a universe with Shodan and tears? It seems contrived and egotistical (if not logistically impossible) but nonetheless one with undeniable potential.

well with the multitude of endings for Bioshock 2 its DLC's and Infinite, it could be a great mix don't you think? Like Subject Delta being a part of Elanor... Or Minervas Den where Porter is a big daddy including Tennenbaum that escaped Rapture... what could of happened to them afterwards...

Well Anna could still be alive in other universes

Alex Gavin Oh I agree. Anna Dewitt is still around, being a normal girl rather than a girl with god like powers and a life full of tragedy. Though her father isn't exactly a great role model, but it can't be as bad as being locked away in a tower all her life, being forced to kill people and then die in a terrible underwater city for the greater good. I'd rather she have a rough childhood but have a chance at happiness than that. Now we just have to hope Booker gets his shit together for Anna's sake.

Completely disagree, 2 was a good game but compared to Infinite and Bioshock it just was severely lacking in the story, world, and characters department. And I would have hated Infinite if it was a stealth game. It would have been slow, and boring compared to what it was. Infinite was a fast paced swashbuckling adventure in terms of gameplay and it was much more fun, and much better paced as a result. The story and characters (What really matters in a "Shock" game) moved lighting fast and never got boring. If it was stealth it would have been twice as long and It would have been slowed to a crawl.

***** You're welcome to disagree however the facts speak differently. 2 gave us Eleanor, whom your actions (like a real-life parent) shape and you are made to care for, new perspectives on the Little Sisters, as well as improved gameplay (the most important thing in a video _game_). If the BioShock series were films, you might be right, but as games, simply being CoD clones is not what they should aim for, and they often fell victim to this in the gameplay department. We don't need another CoD because CoD exists already, BioShock should embrace it's dystopian steampunk and relish in the fictional elements it invents. They are far more interesting than trying to make another basic move and shoot game. Infinite falls victim to this the most, trying to reuse elements of the BioShock world but adapted in a way that doesn't make sense. Hand-waving it as "constants and variables" as though reusing ideas must have some deeper meaning insults our intelligence and ruins immersion. Columbia could have been a fascinating world to explore and interact with, but it's marred by being Rapture, in the sky, and not even as good due to gameplay choices. We should have been able to enjoy Columbia by how it was _different_ from Rapture, not how it was the same, or worse, how it somehow tied into the latter through an attempt to create an over-complicated narrative for the sake of appearing "deep". A world should come alive by how you interact with it; gameplay is key.

EuroMIX2 You misunderstand how I said "Story and characters are what matter in a Shock game." You are talking about combat, there is much more to the gameplay than just the combat. Exploration is also part of it and it's pointless in Bioshock 2 because the world and characters are dull and uninteresting. They don't provide a reason to explore unlike Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite. And they can't be films ever, the way the story is told is the best part since a large portion of it is told through audio logs and the environment. Making it interactive since the player has to find it. Columbia wasn't as good as Rapture, I will admit, but it was still an amazing setting. The problem is Bioshock was about Rapture, Bioshock Infinite wasn't about Rapture, it was about Booker and Elizabeth so the focus lies elsewhere. Which is why Rapture is a slightly better setting.

***** "Exploration is also part of it and it's pointless in Bioshock 2 because the world and characters are dull and uninteresting." The exploration in all of the BioShock games is hardly that deep seeing as it's a fairly linear FPS series. Also, Ryan is probably the only truly interesting character with many others being as dull as you may claim the BioShock 2 cast to be. Admittedly I didn't care as much for Lamb, but Eleanor was interesting due to how your acts shaped her, and I thought that 2 handled the elements of race and racism with Grace Holloway far better than Infinite's ham-fisted approach ever did. Rapture is better because its characters come alive through the setting itself.

EuroMIX2 Ryan the only interesting character? Mcdonaugh, Suchong, Tenenbaum, Sullivan, Steinman? Bioshock has one of the best casts of characters ever put in a game. Bioshock 2 has nobody besides Sinclair, Eleanor wasn't interesting at all, she was just a Little Sister with no personality or charm to her, unlike Elizabeth who undergoes real change and growth throughout the story from your actions. Even Bioshock Infinite where the primary focus was on Booker and Elizabeth has Fink, Fitzroy, Comstock, Lady Comstock, and Preston Downs. Like I said Bioshock 2 was severely lacking in the world, characters, and story department. And that makes the shooting extremely hollow and boring.

I'd assume he's doing a remake video like he did with Half Life and just took it down earlier. That's certainly what I hope, anyway.

I think it speaks a lot of credit to these games that people continue to discuss, analyze, and argue over them which is more than what can be said for almost every other game out there. Even with the hate, it's doubtful the games will ever be forgotten.

Agreed, I thought that the plot-holes were fine. I considered myself lucky at that point; How many games can put together an intriguing, provocative (even if it has plotholes) story like this? I mean, Skyrim had horrible questlines. Yes its a different genre of game, but thats the only one i can think of right now, hah. I usually don't play games with weak plots, so yea.

So you think the internet fighting over "Wait, how exactly does this time bullshit work? Why did the bookers have to die with their Comstocks? Why not just show up after and shoot them?" was part of deliberate ambiguity meant to create potentially game-selling Buzz?

How many breaks did you need to produce so much ejaculate in one paragraph?

I think pretty poorly of it. Campster's got similar complaints, but he's a lot less abrasive about it-- if I was going to choose a best argument against Infinite, I'd give Errant Signal the prize.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais You seem to got the narrative more or less figured out, so let me bounce some questions I had off of you. Did they ever explain why Elizabeth doesn't just open up a portal to Paris if she wanted to go to Paris so badly? The very first portal thing you see her do is opening a portal to Paris, but she closes it after the close call with an ambulance. Why doesn't she just crack it open again and go to Paris? It can't because she wants revenge on Comstock, because her motivation in the plot isn't to get revenge on her father until later. Also, if entering a universe with an existing version of yourself in it makes you amalgamate with them, resulting in sharing memories, how can Booker and Comstock exist in the same universe without amalgamating? Why doesn't Comstock suffer from brain damage from having a dead Booker in his universe? How does combat in the Infinite DLCs weigh up to the combat in Bioshock 2?

CardboardBlueMage 1.)Elizabeth doesn't decide which Tears are available, something she makes clear outside of the Hall of Heroes. The Tear she opened at the start probably vanished after she closed it (That's what I figure, seeing as it couldn't be seen after the matter. 2.) What I understand of Infinite's transdimensional travel is that when you head to a reality where you lived the same life you merge (Comstock and Booker can't), if you head to one where you are different your brain has to construc new memories to make sense of it, and if you head to a reality where you are dead you inherit their memories (In response to that last question. I don't think having a Booker die in his world would have affected Comstock, but it would have if he had traveled there himself).

GameCat16 1) I thought she was a goddess after the siphon was destroyed? She's become similar to the Luteces yea? Some wacky interdimensional jumping woman.

You're not asking me, but i just had to answer. I think that his critique has far too much nitpicking in it. He did say it wasnt really a review though. I think its just a video for him to vent about what he didnt like about the game. It sounds like something I would do after i watched something absolutely horrible (for example, Legend of Korra season 1.)

I'll sum it up for you. TLoU is a complete ripoff of the walking dead, fallout, bioshock, and little house of the prairie staring Laura Ingles with a potty mouth. Basically TloU of a fancy sandwich filled with leftover, nicely put together but no real or a least long lasting nutrition. bioshock on the other hand is a beautifully made sandwich which delivers the nutrition and more. Far too many mistakes and misbeats in TLoU to make it interesting with it's soap opera plot

max rav Seems like you're talking out of your ass buddy. I doubt you even played the game. The Last of US will age just as well as BioShock did. Even Bioshock had its doubters at the time, and you are one of the doubters of TLOU. It's anything but a soup opera....it features likable characters and nothing is forced in this game. Each sequence feels like it fits and comes naturally. Stealth works well and the gunplay is more satisfying than BioShock Infinite. Also there's more meaningful interaction between Joel and Ellie than between Booker and Elizabeth. The only thing that BioShock Infinite had that TLOU didn't was better level design (debatable), and more weapons\powers and an original setting (although not as atmospheric and down to earth as TLOU). Plot was great...if convoluted and delivered rather poorly to the audience. The plot in TLOU was well written and the flow was near perfect. Naughty Dog set out to tell a story of two characters, and they delivered in spades. You really become attached to them by the end of the game and wish you could know more about this fascinating world and its inhabitants. Bioshock Infinite on the other hand...while very good, can't compare. Weak gunplay, convoluted story, characters that never reallreach their full potential. Not to mention the flaws and the loopholes in the story mentioned by countless gamers.

123doomdoom Im late but have the flaws you mentioned with infinite literally exists TLOU.

@@aname3288 wat

6 years later

You gotta go play them they are all great!

@@Malice-and-tragedy I don’t like scary stuff, so it’s a non starter for me. It’s too creepy and tense.

The problem with this is that you can never truly experience video games through someone else, because that person's and your experience will always differ and experiencing art by proxy doesn't actually work. You should always play the games, ideally before watching a video analyzing them, but definitely after you've done so.

@@zlodrim9284 Son, I've been playing video games from the day Atari 2600 was sold at Sears. Don't tell me how to experience them. Run along and play now.

+Tim Tims (timmahh) Ken Levine acknowledged some time ago on twitter that the original ideas were too ambitious for what they could accomplish at the time but he seems to be trying to make some of them work in his new unannounced title so you might sort of get to see a game like what was shown at E3 in the future.