BioShock Infinite, new gameplay video

[TMRNetShark]

Why are we talking about isolation and fear in Bioshock Infinite? We have a moe ass side companion (and I mean that in every sense of the word) while the only fear I'll probably have in Bioshock Infinite is fear of falling off a rail and plummeting to my death blow.

I really just don't like the idea of a companion in a Bioshock game.  

But things have to change to stay refreshing, I guess.  

It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

[Supai]

It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

Well, you get to use Elizabeth to create covers and such, so I'd say that it affects how the game is played. 

And on to Half Life, Alyx (and the gang of rebels you work for / with) was one of the main reasons why I found Half Life 2 inferior to Half Life 1.

[TMRNetShark]

It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

Well, you get to use Elizabeth to create covers and such, so I'd say that it affects how the game is played. 

And on to Half Life, Alyx (and the gang of rebels you work for / with) was one of the main reasons why I found Half Life 2 inferior to Half Life 1.

Keywords... you GET to... not HAVE to. What difference does it make that a companion does that stuff that would make it different from you doing it yourself?

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

I mean come on, the addition of Elizabeth is story elements and makes you attached to the characters. Would it make a difference in gameplay (to you at least) to remove Elizabeth entirely and give you the power to make cover and such? Would that be better? Nope... it's the same...

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

[Supai]

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

[Unrelated]

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

I don't give a rats ass about the combat (in general too, I really don't play a game's singleplayer for it's combat (as long as it functions and doesn't just utterly bore me, I'm fine with it)) with companions , having companions and shit like that just takes away from the isolated atmosphere that I loved and would very much prefer.

And even though I generally like realism in video games to some extent, when it comes to Half Life, I really don't care about realism. At all.

I just do want my game series that started with a isolated atmosphere remain so.

[TMRNetShark]

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

[Unrelated]

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

I don't give a rats ass about the combat (in general too, I really don't play a game's singleplayer for it's combat (as long as it functions and doesn't just utterly bore me, I'm fine with it)) with companions , having companions and shit like that just takes away from the isolated atmosphere that I loved and would very much prefer.

And even though I generally like realism in video games to some extent, when it comes to Half Life, I really don't care about realism. At all.

I just do want my game series that started with a isolated atmosphere remain so.

So you don't like combat... but you like story or the atmosphere. If the player is just alone, there is only so much you can do for story elements or environmental feeling before you hit a wall in immersion. Adding in companions only adds to the story (which I'm assuming you care about more over combat, right?) and makes you attached to the game. The combat in HL was amazing and great, but it just felt like a really good shooter. HL2 on the other hand, was an amazing shooter game with an AMAZING storyline and atmosphere. The only problem I had with HL2 (over HL) was the lack of varied weapons (2 pistols, 1 shotgun, 1 smg, 2 specials, grenades) but more than made up for it with the Gravity Gun.

The issue wasn't combat... the issue was atmosphere and environmental immersion, right? How in the world did HL have a superior atmosphere over a game that nailed atmosphere perfectly (HL2)?

How will Bioshock 1&2 be superior to Infinite when (so far) the atmosphere and story look to be even better?

[Supai]

So you don't like combat... but you like story or the atmosphere. If the player is just alone, there is only so much you can do for story elements or environmental feeling before you hit a wall in immersion. Adding in companions only adds to the story (which I'm assuming you care about more over combat, right?) and makes you attached to the game. The combat in HL was amazing and great, but it just felt like a really good shooter. HL2 on the other hand, was an amazing shooter game with an AMAZING storyline and atmosphere. The only problem I had with HL2 (over HL) was the lack of varied weapons (2 pistols, 1 shotgun, 1 smg, 2 specials, grenades) but more than made up for it with the Gravity Gun.

The issue wasn't combat... the issue was atmosphere and environmental immersion, right? How in the world did HL have a superior atmosphere over a game that nailed atmosphere perfectly (HL2)?

Never did state that I don't like combat, I just don't give a shit about it.

And really, you just don't seem to get it. I want the atmosphere to remain the same as it was in the previous installations of the game series.

How will Bioshock 1&2 be superior to Infinite when (so far) the atmosphere and story look to be even better?

The atmosphere is different, I do not like it. Bioshock 1 and 2 I loved for their atmosphere.


Let's just leave it at this, I am the type of person that does absolutely not like changes that change the feel of something that he absolutely loves and that all this silliness has been over tastes.

[TMRNetShark]

Never did state that I don't like combat, I just don't give a shit about it.

And really, you just don't seem to get it. I want the atmosphere to remain the same as it was in the previous installations of the game series.

Yeah, same difference.

The atmosphere is different, I do not like it. Bioshock 1 and 2 I loved for their atmosphere.


Let's just leave it at this, I am the type of person that does absolutely not like changes that change the feel of something that he absolutely loves and that all this silliness has been over tastes.

So you like games like Call of Duty style... the same game every single year for... so many years that I've lost count. It's good to have CHANGE in a sequel... or else why should I buy a new game when I have the old one that is exactly the same thing? I don't want to buy the same game over and over again because "it has the same feel." I want a similar game with similar mechanics but brand new features as well (Bioshock Infinite is one of those games). HL2 was a great example of how the sequel was better than the original (and it was better than HL). Other good examples: The Witcher and The Witcher 2, BF: Bad Company and BF: Bad Company 2, Halo and Halo 2, Uncharted and Uncharted 2, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

Each of those games changed little things that they learned from the original to make the second one better. All in all, those game changes worked in the games favor. If they where just going to make Bioshock 3, I would definitely not be as interested as I am with Bioshock Infinite. Why? Cause they are changing some things in the game to warrant me to pay $60 to enjoy it (versus just playing the games that came before it). So you may like your games the same... but I'm not a square because I like new and refreshing ideas.

PS: Another big example... Fallout New Vegas is essentially Fallout 3, right? Wrong, the adding of factions, weapons modding, companions, different ammo types... ALL added to the Fallout experience and made the game better because of those additions. It's essentially the same game (you can play it without companions), but better (IMO).

[Supai]

Since you keep making annoying, incorrect assumptions, I'll just quit replying.

[TMRNetShark]

Since you keep making annoying, incorrect assumptions, I'll just quit replying.

Incorrect assumptions?! I'm sorry, I speak only the truth. Please, I dare you to name one sequel that was BETTER than the original that did not change something in either features, gameplay, or the atmosphere (graphics obviously don't apply). Please... just one game and it's sequel. Having a hard time with it? Refer to:

Monotony
mo not o ny

1  : tedious sameness
2  : sameness of tone or sound

People don't like the same thing over and over again (yet this doesn't stop people from buying CoD every year sadly)... it kinda gets tiring and monotonous after awhile of playing the same game, doing the same things, seeing similar environments level after level. Remember that level in FEAR that had you walking down that hallway and the skeleton popped out of nowhere from the water? That scared you the first time, right? After the second time, it kinda becomes ordinary and not really "scary" anymore. I loved Bioshock 1&2, but I'm kinda sick of the dark rooms and overall dark atmosphere. Infinite is still Bioshock.... but just in a completely different location that CHANGES the atmosphere (which is a GOOD thing). If you think this is the wrong direction for the Bioshock franchise... well... go back to playing the first two games? There is plenty of gameplay in both of those games to satisfy your "sameness" of tone and isolation that you like in a game. Other people want a refreshing new game that still plays like Bioshock. 

[Takeshi]

And in the end it ultimately comes down to two guys having different opinions. Oh wow, never seen that before.

Though I have to say that I too think Infinite is a great move from Irrational Games. I've played the first game for several hours and the second game for a few, and it might just be because I am late to the party, but I'm not finding them as good as other people do.

[TMRNetShark]

And in the end it ultimately comes down to two guys having different opinions. Oh wow, never seen that before.

Though I have to say that I too think Infinite is a great move from Irrational Games. I've played the first game for several hours and the second game for a few, and it might just be because I am late to the party, but I'm not finding them as good as other people do.

The controls feel more like Fallout than say... Call of Duty. Both the games are great... but they are the better type of shooter (strategic shooter versus run and gun).

[Supai]

Since you keep making annoying, incorrect assumptions, I'll just quit replying.

Incorrect assumptions?! I'm sorry, I speak only the truth. Please, I dare you to name one sequel that was BETTER than the original that did not change something in either features, gameplay, or the atmosphere (graphics obviously don't apply). Please... just one game and it's sequel. Having a hard time with it? Refer to:

Monotony
mo not o ny

1  : tedious sameness
2  : sameness of tone or sound

People don't like the same thing over and over again (yet this doesn't stop people from buying CoD every year sadly)... it kinda gets tiring and monotonous after awhile of playing the same game, doing the same things, seeing similar environments level after level. Remember that level in FEAR that had you walking down that hallway and the skeleton popped out of nowhere from the water? That scared you the first time, right? After the second time, it kinda becomes ordinary and not really "scary" anymore. I loved Bioshock 1&2, but I'm kinda sick of the dark rooms and overall dark atmosphere. Infinite is still Bioshock.... but just in a completely different location that CHANGES the atmosphere (which is a GOOD thing). If you think this is the wrong direction for the Bioshock franchise... well... go back to playing the first two games? There is plenty of gameplay in both of those games to satisfy your "sameness" of tone and isolation that you like in a game. Other people want a refreshing new game that still plays like Bioshock. 

Seriousily, you STILL KEEP ON MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! You don't even know what I meant, AGAIN.

"I speak only the truth."

Oh do you now? Then how about this?

"So you like games like Call of Duty style..."

That is a stupid fucking assumption and a very incorrect one.

Don't make assumptions ON ME. Jesus Christ, how specific do I have to be?!

[TMRNetShark]

Since you keep making annoying, incorrect assumptions, I'll just quit replying.

Incorrect assumptions?! I'm sorry, I speak only the truth. Please, I dare you to name one sequel that was BETTER than the original that did not change something in either features, gameplay, or the atmosphere (graphics obviously don't apply). Please... just one game and it's sequel. Having a hard time with it? Refer to:

Monotony
mo not o ny

1  : tedious sameness
2  : sameness of tone or sound

People don't like the same thing over and over again (yet this doesn't stop people from buying CoD every year sadly)... it kinda gets tiring and monotonous after awhile of playing the same game, doing the same things, seeing similar environments level after level. Remember that level in FEAR that had you walking down that hallway and the skeleton popped out of nowhere from the water? That scared you the first time, right? After the second time, it kinda becomes ordinary and not really "scary" anymore. I loved Bioshock 1&2, but I'm kinda sick of the dark rooms and overall dark atmosphere. Infinite is still Bioshock.... but just in a completely different location that CHANGES the atmosphere (which is a GOOD thing). If you think this is the wrong direction for the Bioshock franchise... well... go back to playing the first two games? There is plenty of gameplay in both of those games to satisfy your "sameness" of tone and isolation that you like in a game. Other people want a refreshing new game that still plays like Bioshock. 

Seriousily, you STILL KEEP ON MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! You don't even know what I meant, AGAIN.

"I speak only the truth."

Oh do you now? Then how about this?

"So you like games like Call of Duty style..."

That is a stupid fucking assumption and a very incorrect one.

Don't make assumptions ON ME. Jesus Christ, how specific do I have to be?!

Because:

1. I'm calling you out on the fact that there never has been a game that was completely identical to the original and was "good"
2. You don't answer my question(s)
3. I know what you meant. You want the game sequels to be exactly the same as the original. I'm sitting here telling you that that is the dumbest idea a game developer can do... and guess what... THEY DON'T DO IT.

I'm making assumptions (and hitting a few chords while I'm at it too  ) to prove a point. This is purely what you said:

And really, you just don't seem to get it. I want the atmosphere to remain the same as it was in the previous installations of the game series.

Let's just leave it at this, I am the type of person that does absolutely not like changes that change the feel of something that he absolutely loves and that all this silliness has been over tastes.

You want the same game, just with more levels in the sequel, right? I don't see the point in buying that game then (neither would a lot of people). So no, I'm not assuming what you just said, you fucking just said it. Call of Duty hasn't changed much in terms of gameplay or atmosphere since the 4th istallment. That's a correct parallel between what you said about how you like your videogames... and what Activision has with Call of Duty.

So either answer my question (name one game series where the sequel was just as good as the original without changing anything to the atmosphere, gameplay, or tone of the game), or admit that you are wrong.

PS: pick the latter... I know my videogames and there aren't any games like that. 

[Supai]

Because:

1. I'm calling you out on the fact that there never has been a game that was completely identical to the original and was "good"
2. You don't answer my question(s)
3. I know what you meant. You want the game sequels to be exactly the same as the original. I'm sitting here telling you that that is the dumbest idea a game developer can do... and guess what... THEY DON'T DO IT.

I'm making assumptions (and hitting a few chords while I'm at it too  ) to prove a point. This is purely what you said:

And really, you just don't seem to get it. I want the atmosphere to remain the same as it was in the previous installations of the game series.

Let's just leave it at this, I am the type of person that does absolutely not like changes that change the feel of something that he absolutely loves and that all this silliness has been over tastes.

You want the same game, just with more levels in the sequel, right? I don't see the point in buying that game then (neither would a lot of people). So no, I'm not assuming what you just said, you fucking just said it. Call of Duty hasn't changed much in terms of gameplay or atmosphere since the 4th istallment. That's a correct parallel between what you said about how you like your videogames... and what Activision has with Call of Duty.

So either answer my question (name one game series where the sequel was just as good as the original without changing anything to the atmosphere, gameplay, or tone of the game), or admit that you are wrong.

PS: pick the latter... I know my videogames and there aren't any games like that.  

Let's just clarify some things here:

a. I have HATED every Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 1 (and I stopped giving a shit about Halo after the third game (a random example)) because they're simply just the same game multiplayerwise and story is very lacking. And thus we can say that if the game is the same or very similar in multiplayer, I will most likely not pick it up (unless it has a good, decently long story). When I look at for an FPS, I look for an FPS with a nice, decently long story and/or multiplayer that offers something that interests me (How about RPGs then? As long as the lore is kept consistent and stupid shit is not done to the mechanics, I'm pretty fine with it.)

b. I never did state that I want the EXACT SAME GAME. I stated that I want it to FEEL THE SAME (Uncharted 1 - Uncharted 2, for example). Please, understand the difference.

c. I've avoided your question(s) because I've wanted this thing to stop (and because I had a headache and was tired when posting previousily) and because your question(s) is based on a incorrect assumption.

d. As you can see from the things stated above, you have made incorrect assumptions, now fucking quit it (pretty please?).

[TMRNetShark]

Let's just clarify some things here:

a. I have HATED every Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 1 (and I stopped giving a shit about Halo after the third game (a random example)) because they're simply just the same game multiplayerwise and story is very lacking. And thus we can say that if the game is the same or very similar in multiplayer, I will most likely not pick it up (unless it has a good, decently long story). When I look at for an FPS, I look for an FPS with a nice, decently long story and/or multiplayer that offers something that interests me (How about RPGs then? As long as the lore is kept consistent and stupid shit is not done to the mechanics, I'm pretty fine with it.)

b. I never did state that I want the EXACT SAME GAME. I stated that I want it to FEEL THE SAME (Uncharted 1 - Uncharted 2, for example). Please, understand the difference.

c. I've avoided your question(s) because I've wanted this thing to stop (and because I had a headache and was tired when posting previousily) and because your question(s) is based on a incorrect assumption.

d. As you can see from the things stated above, you have made incorrect assumptions, now fucking quit it (pretty please?).

A. Name two sets of RPGs that are consistent with each other? FFX and FFXii? Tales of series? Dragon Quest series? Disgea? Persona? Hell, none of those games were consistent with each other (even though a lot of them were really good in their own unique way). Hell, even the two games you are defending in this thread (Bioshock 1&2) were different. Did you even play Bioshock 2? You played as a Big Daddy protecting a Little Sister. Bioshock didn't have a clear goal or set structure... you were just diving into the world of Rapture. In Bioshock 2, you had to protect the Little Sister or else... which was very much more blatantly linear than the first game.

B. Have you even played Uncharted 1&2? Uncharted 2 had multiplayer, better battles (on multiple levels instead of just on flat ground), and it blended the mechanics of the game much better. Uncharted 1&2 are similar, but their differences make them different for the better in the long run (Uncharted 2 was the better game with a better story, puzzles, how fights took place, etc.). In Drakes Fortune, you spent 90% of your time looking for a statue to get to the end of the level. In Among Thieves, you find little bits and pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Among Thieves added to the gameplay by using different weapons, having cooler stealth attacks, etc. I have to ask, did you even play Uncharted 1&2? Cause Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was way better than the first because of what they added in there. First game was just one island... second game took place all over the world.

C. I'm not assuming, I'm questioning what you said about games and you still avoid the question like the plague. What is even the assumption? You claim you want games that have the same feel to them. Great, what games out there have nearly the same feel to them as the game before without changing major elements? Uncharted 1&2 changed major elements in how the game played out, the general "feel" of the game changed from the first one (moving environments, changing locations, etc). You are just simply wrong...

D. Why is this a different point? You still havn't proved jack shit and I've disproved everything you "claimed." So what was my assumption again? That you don't know what your talking about? 

[Supai]

Let's just clarify some things here:

a. I have HATED every Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 1 (and I stopped giving a shit about Halo after the third game (a random example)) because they're simply just the same game multiplayerwise and story is very lacking. And thus we can say that if the game is the same or very similar in multiplayer, I will most likely not pick it up (unless it has a good, decently long story). When I look at for an FPS, I look for an FPS with a nice, decently long story and/or multiplayer that offers something that interests me (How about RPGs then? As long as the lore is kept consistent and stupid shit is not done to the mechanics, I'm pretty fine with it.)

b. I never did state that I want the EXACT SAME GAME. I stated that I want it to FEEL THE SAME (Uncharted 1 - Uncharted 2, for example). Please, understand the difference.

c. I've avoided your question(s) because I've wanted this thing to stop (and because I had a headache and was tired when posting previousily) and because your question(s) is based on a incorrect assumption.

d. As you can see from the things stated above, you have made incorrect assumptions, now fucking quit it (pretty please?).

A. Name two sets of RPGs that are consistent with each other? FFX and FFXii? Tales of series? Dragon Quest series? Disgea? Persona? Hell, none of those games were consistent with each other (even though a lot of them were really good in their own unique way). Hell, even the two games you are defending in this thread (Bioshock 1&2) were different. Did you even play Bioshock 2? You played as a Big Daddy protecting a Little Sister. Bioshock didn't have a clear goal or set structure... you were just diving into the world of Rapture. In Bioshock 2, you had to protect the Little Sister or else... which was very much more blatantly linear than the first game.

B. Have you even played Uncharted 1&2? Uncharted 2 had multiplayer, better battles (on multiple levels instead of just on flat ground), and it blended the mechanics of the game much better. Uncharted 1&2 are similar, but their differences make them different for the better in the long run (Uncharted 2 was the better game with a better story, puzzles, how fights took place, etc.). In Drakes Fortune, you spent 90% of your time looking for a statue to get to the end of the level. In Among Thieves, you find little bits and pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Among Thieves added to the gameplay by using different weapons, having cooler stealth attacks, etc. I have to ask, did you even play Uncharted 1&2? Cause Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was way better than the first because of what they added in there. First game was just one island... second game took place all over the world.

C. I'm not assuming, I'm questioning what you said about games and you still avoid the question like the plague. What is even the assumption? You claim you want games that have the same feel to them. Great, what games out there have nearly the same feel to them as the game before without changing major elements? Uncharted 1&2 changed major elements in how the game played out, the general "feel" of the game changed from the first one (moving environments, changing locations, etc). You are just simply wrong...

D. Why is this a different point? You still havn't proved jack shit and I've disproved everything you "claimed." So what was my assumption again? That you don't know what your talking about? 

You are still not getting. How fucking hard is it to get it... oh never mind, no matter how much I try to explain, you'll just be an asshole about and pick things that you feel like picking up.

I'm done, bye.

[TMRNetShark]

You are still not getting. How fucking hard is it to get it... oh never mind, no matter how much I try to explain, you'll just be an asshole about and pick things that you feel like picking up.

I'm done, bye.

Lol, what is there to get? You never explained yourself, except say "Oh, you are making assumptions." Please state CLEARLY what I don't get. Please... I ask you. It's a simple question and you time and time again fail to answer it. Stop making yourself look dumb and admit that making the same game over and over again without changing anything is dumb. It's that simple. If I'm not getting it, point out what I'm not getting... because you clearly didn't tell me in your posts whatsoever and you are just trying to brush me off. I'm not gonna stop until you either give up or admit that your wrong.  

EDIT:
Here are all the things you had to say and my retort for each of them:

On how a companion would affect gameplay:

(click to show/hide)

It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

Well, you get to use Elizabeth to create covers and such, so I'd say that it affects how the game is played. 

And on to Half Life, Alyx (and the gang of rebels you work for / with) was one of the main reasons why I found Half Life 2 inferior to Half Life 1.

Keywords... you GET to... not HAVE to. What difference does it make that a companion does that stuff that would make it different from you doing it yourself?

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

I mean come on, the addition of Elizabeth is story elements and makes you attached to the characters. Would it make a difference in gameplay (to you at least) to remove Elizabeth entirely and give you the power to make cover and such? Would that be better? Nope... it's the same...

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

On how you like story more than the gameplay... yet you don't want companions because it ruins "isolation":

(click to show/hide)

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

[Unrelated]

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

I don't give a rats ass about the combat (in general too, I really don't play a game's singleplayer for it's combat (as long as it functions and doesn't just utterly bore me, I'm fine with it)) with companions , having companions and shit like that just takes away from the isolated atmosphere that I loved and would very much prefer.

And even though I generally like realism in video games to some extent, when it comes to Half Life, I really don't care about realism. At all.

I just do want my game series that started with a isolated atmosphere remain so.

So you don't like combat... but you like story or the atmosphere. If the player is just alone, there is only so much you can do for story elements or environmental feeling before you hit a wall in immersion. Adding in companions only adds to the story (which I'm assuming you care about more over combat, right?) and makes you attached to the game. The combat in HL was amazing and great, but it just felt like a really good shooter. HL2 on the other hand, was an amazing shooter game with an AMAZING storyline and atmosphere. The only problem I had with HL2 (over HL) was the lack of varied weapons (2 pistols, 1 shotgun, 1 smg, 2 specials, grenades) but more than made up for it with the Gravity Gun.

The issue wasn't combat... the issue was atmosphere and environmental immersion, right? How in the world did HL have a superior atmosphere over a game that nailed atmosphere perfectly (HL2)?

How will Bioshock 1&2 be superior to Infinite when (so far) the atmosphere and story look to be even better?

It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

On why no game developer has kept the same feel or atmosphere in a game twice without changing major elements to gameplay:

(click to show/hide)

A. Name two sets of RPGs that are consistent with each other? FFX and FFXii? Tales of series? Dragon Quest series? Disgea? Persona? Hell, none of those games were consistent with each other (even though a lot of them were really good in their own unique way). Hell, even the two games you are defending in this thread (Bioshock 1&2) were different. Did you even play Bioshock 2? You played as a Big Daddy protecting a Little Sister. Bioshock didn't have a clear goal or set structure... you were just diving into the world of Rapture. In Bioshock 2, you had to protect the Little Sister or else... which was very much more blatantly linear than the first game.

B. Have you even played Uncharted 1&2? Uncharted 2 had multiplayer, better battles (on multiple levels instead of just on flat ground), and it blended the mechanics of the game much better. Uncharted 1&2 are similar, but their differences make them different for the better in the long run (Uncharted 2 was the better game with a better story, puzzles, how fights took place, etc.). In Drakes Fortune, you spent 90% of your time looking for a statue to get to the end of the level. In Among Thieves, you find little bits and pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Among Thieves added to the gameplay by using different weapons, having cooler stealth attacks, etc. I have to ask, did you even play Uncharted 1&2? Cause Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was way better than the first because of what they added in there. First game was just one island... second game took place all over the world.

C. I'm not assuming, I'm questioning what you said about games and you still avoid the question like the plague. What is even the assumption? You claim you want games that have the same feel to them. Great, what games out there have nearly the same feel to them as the game before without changing major elements? Uncharted 1&2 changed major elements in how the game played out, the general "feel" of the game changed from the first one (moving environments, changing locations, etc). You are just simply wrong...

D. Why is this a different point? You still havn't proved jack shit and I've disproved everything you "claimed." So what was my assumption again? That you don't know what your talking about? 

So yeah, where is the thing I'm not getting? Is it because you didn't say it or that the cat has got your tongue and... well... you're wrong.