Why BioShock: Infinite Is Better For Developers Than Gamers

Before anyone begins to raise up their pitchforks and torches in protest, I need to make one thing very clear. Bioshock: Infinite is a very well written, stylized, voice-acted, and programmed video game. In a time where most first person shooters depend on a Michael Bay-type narrative in order to cause as much visual stimulus as possible, it's nice to exercise a mental sweat while still blowing up as much stuff as possible.

This is a game that can be debated and hypothesized about for years, especially considering when you take the gameplay aspects of the story, and how the game incorporates what "death" means in different dimensions. But this article isn't about how much fun it is to play. This article is about how the games is more valuable as a learning tool to other developers. For example, Bioshock: Infinite took a huge gamble by integrating one of the most annoying aspects of all gaming into the main structure. For those of you whose video game experience consists of Angry Birds or whatever drek Facebook is suggesting you play with your friends, the aspect I speak of is the dreaded escort quest. Nothing was worse than having to leash yourself to a character whose main purpose was to get shot. Not only that, but the "VIP" would seemingly do anything and everything in their power to make themselves as useless and needy as possible. This was originally designed to provide a change-up in game tactics and fighting styles during repetitive action games. It worked, but it was also just awful. Infinite differs from these because they made a character for you to escort that isn't a walking bullet-magnet. Elizabeth is wanted back by Comstock and the other antagonists alive. You see, the programmers developed Elizabeth so that she didn't take damage. This way you can focus on killing the people who are trying to stop you from escaping, as opposed to killing the one guy that wasn't programmed to engage in an all out firefight and is shooting her in a corner without you knowing it. Nothing was more annoying than being mentally engrossed in a game, then to have the mission suddenly end because your escort wasn't smart enough to duck in a gunfight.

It also shows that changing up gameplay doesn't mean making the game less fun. Innovation can come in any form, be it previously annoying or not. Elizabeth, however, stays out of danger, cannot take damage, and doesn't path like an NPC so she can appear with you as a helper instead of a crutch. She finds ammo, money, and other useful items that actually make her valuable. Because of this value, you become more attached to the character. When she isn't around you are left to find these things for yourself, and that creates a sense of loss that connects you closer to her. It's smart game development, and it takes a once cumbersome game mechanic and turns it into an effective story-telling tool. The levels are also extremely well designed. In games like Call of Duty or Bulletstorm (for the 8 people reading this who might have played that) the backgrounds merely serve as visual guides on where you can't go. There isn't really anything that makes you want to stop and observe your surroundings. Halo 4 had a few moments like this, but nothing in comparison to the engrossing and beautifully crafted world of Columbia. Although Infinite isn't as graphically advanced as some of the others games that have been mentioned, it uses what it has well, and creatively. It shows that you don't need the newest and best graphics system in order to provide atmosphere, as long as you have something as simple as creative-care. The last thing I'll point out is the story, and how it correlated with the game's pacing. Pacing is an extremely underrated and under appreciated aspect of gaming. Games like Journey, as well as the previous installments of Bioshock have done a magnificent job of putting a well crafted story together with a good in-game pace. The last Black Ops game was hailed as having its story written by David S. Goyer (of Nolan's Batman fame), but the game's pacing was so off and random that it couldn't get the right exposure.

You might be wondering, if the game has all the wonderful qualities, why it serves better as an example of good game construction, and why it isn't as good for the gamers? Simple. The rest of the game mechanics are lacking in some pretty heavy areas. I don't want anyone to think I'm making these claims as a way of bashing on what some people are already calling a "Game of the Year" just to get attention. Despite all the things that are well done, there are some areas that are almost unforgivingly lackluster. For example, the fighting system is wonky and a bit boring. The "Vigors" that you get don't provide anything (on most difficulty settings) that a shotgun or pistol can't accomplish. The added benefits are cosmetic at best, and don't really do anything to provide a unique or creative method of combatting your enemies. Instead, they just make it easier to hit your attackers. The ratio for how much salt is required to use each Vigor isn't very user-friendly. More often than not you'll find yourself out of salts and unable to use these amazing powers you obtain along the way. You become so worried about using them at the wrong time that you'll often hold off on using them for a tougher enemy, only to be presented with a new Vigor or gun that negates the need to have kept it activated in your left hand in the first place.

The guns, simply put, are boring. Pistol, rifle, shotgun, rocket launcher, grenade launcher, all serve to help you kill your enemies. But in a world that is so wonderfully steampunk and creative it seems as if the developers just got lazy when it came to the types of weapons that would be used in this environment. The Fink corporation, that is responsible for a wide variety of the advanced technology that keeps the city afloat, apparently decided not to put any money into armament design. There is no multiplayer, which is odd considering the linear story line. Games like Skyrim don't need a multiplayer because of the vastness of the campaign. With BioShock, we are given a game that literally rides on rails, yet offers no multiplayer, or any kind of coop. Even games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which also was entirely single player, provided a strong incentive to go back through and play the game by presenting the character with three different endings. Infinite, has one (albeit jaw-dropping) ending that seems to be completely independent of how you chose to play the game. The first BioShock at least offered up two different endings, depending on how you interacted with some of the villain types. The story is the only thing that provides any real replay value. This is rare in today's games that a narrative is so well written it supersedes the need to develop additional gameplay modes, but it isn't an excuse for it. Although the game is fun, it works better as an example to the other major companies. It shows them that there is more to making a game fun than big guns and fast action. The combat aspect of the Infinite lacks, and takes away from the overall point of having a first-person-shooter. Because of this, the other areas of the game -- that are so well done -- should be modeled with other titles that DO have their shooting mechanics down. Even though Infinite is a great game, it's not necessarily a game I'd recommend to a vast majority of players who aren't already with the cerebral action the BioShock series are known for. It might be a comment on the state of the gaming industry and what sells, or on my own prejudices, but this game is about the construct and the story, and less about the "play" factor. For that reason, BioShock: Infinite is a wonderful example of how to integrate what has been missing from the genre back into the system, and not as much about creating a game that is extremely "playable."