It didn't do as good a job drip-feeding you the clues required to support the reveals and revalations as the first Bioshock did, either, leaving some twists to feel a mite limp.
Or cutting onions.
Your finger hasn’t severed, it's wave-form has merely temporarily collapsed….
And the PS4 is like Pepsi instead of Coke. It's still bad for you!
other than that, a nice game.
Yeah a finger is a better prize, at least it's more creative than the jumbled paradoxical ending they force fed us.
The mind-control of Bioshock 1, while relevant to the plot, had nothing to do with the ending. Whether you became an underseas tyrant or a father to five girls was based on choices made outside of the influence of the command phrase. The key to the ending was always your choice as a player, not one forced on you.
Which goes into the question of game endings. Some have one ending based on a strict path progression, others have multiple endings based on certain variables, some are so open ended they go on even after the main story ends (Skyrim or any MMO).
I'm not saying every game need multiple endings, but when it's been a feature in your series, you sense its absence.
With Bioshock Infinite, in all honesty though the ending is in the same camp as Super Mario Bros II. It was all a dream.
And do you really think that wasn't intentional?
The Bioshock series has always been good at subverting your expectations. In the case of Infinite, they made a conscious decision to throw in a bunch of red herring "choice" moments that the player is expected to believe is important. . . but in the end, they aren't. Because everything that you do is intended to funnel you into a single moment of truth: the moment where the multiverse collapses and the timelines merge.
Remember that Bioshock Infinite uses the "Many Worlds" explanation for Quantum Uncertainty: any time a choice is made, the timelines split. But as long as the timelines are split, the villain still has power. The only way to stop that is to collapse the timelines and annihilate the timeline where the villain exists.
Given that the entire plot revolves around creating that joining of timelines. . . given that you have to negate choice. . . how can you expect the game to have multiple endings?
i beg pardon for my por English and for that giving you a medal of pure imagination.
Further more, to me, I felt they reached for too many things at once. The previous games had one target (objectivism in Bioshock, and collectivism in Bioshock 2) and swung at those targets with big sticks. The critiques stuck you right in the gut (Ex. In Bioshock, we saw a society literally rotting from the inside because it had no social contract between the people and it's leader. In Bioshock 2, we saw the madness and unfairness of a society that de-value's the individual rights in favor of social cohesion.)
But Bioshock Infinite took on SO MUCH STUFF (Manifest Destiny, American Exceptional-ism, Cult of Personality, Religious Extremism, populist anger, the Dangers of Revolution, the Occupy Movement, etc.) that the messages of their criticisms didn't land quite as hard.
Again, It was an AMAZING game and I agree that this ending was better than the murky unresolved nature of the previous two endings in the franchise. But they didn't give us enough time to process the two major twists, we didn't see how that one character (spoiler), Much ado was made about how Fitzroy was as bad as Comstock but she wasn't made enough of a villain for the Vox to seem anything more than a bunch of angry people. I wanted more.
It's a great game, in fact I would dare say that it's a game changer, but I just wanted more out of it's ending.
O.o i wonder if cloe has er exsperianced that....? good question