Why do some people think Bioshock Infinite isn't really a "Bioshock" Game?

[StaceyPowers]

I am now very close to being finished with my first playthrough of Bioshock 1. I played Infinite first, and haven’t played Bioshock 2 yet.

I’ve heard multiple people who played 1 and 2 first and later played Infinite say that to them, Infinite wasn’t really a “Bioshock” game, despite featuring plasmids (as vigors) and familiar sounds/experiences.

I’m confused as to why they say this. I know the game is in a different setting, but to me, the parallels and ties between the games go much deeper than gameplay. Both make commentaries on political systems taken to extremes, and both examine issues of free will and free choice.

So what is the complaint about?

[skyfire]

I think it's about the vibe people used to get about the game from first 2 games. Like first two gives you that cult type. 

[StaceyPowers]

On 2/1/2020 at 11:47 AM, skyfire said:

I think it's about the vibe people used to get about the game from first 2 games. Like first two gives you that cult type. 

The third game does have a completely different ambiance than the first two. As a point of interest (you may already know this), originally, the atmosphere of Columbia was going to be very different. There are some art nouveau elements in the existing version of the city, but originally the whole city was going to have that nouveau flavour rather than the Beaux-Arts and neoclassical styles it mainly ended up featuring. It wasn’t going to be so bright and expansive either—more murky and dark. In the end, they decided that the planned lighting and atmosphere would be too similar to Rapture, so they ended up going in a different direction with it.

[skyfire]

If you play all three of them one after another. It gives them feel that suddenly the cult feel and that gameplay in mind slows down. it becomes more of survival and no surrounding elements plays much in head in 3rd installment. 

[kingpotato]

I also dont get why some people think why Infinite is not a bioshock game, probably because its not entirely about rapture but still as they mentioned on Infinite, there is always a man and there is always a city. And well the gameplay is basically the same in all 3 games

[skyfire]

Yeah and the thing is you need something that motivates to move. That you won't find in BS Infinite. What and why it should make you move. 

[StaceyPowers]

On 3/3/2020 at 8:49 AM, kingpotato said:

I also dont get why some people think why Infinite is not a bioshock game, probably because its not entirely about rapture but still as they mentioned on Infinite, there is always a man and there is always a city. And well the gameplay is basically the same in all 3 games

Thematically they are linked too, which Burial of Sea makes super obvious if you somehow missed it playing the main games =D

[Shole]

Game style changed and the story didn't have that transition from the second to the third part as it had from the first to the second. It's I think something common with Bethesda, I felt the same way about Oblivion to Skyrim,  don't get me wrong both great games, but I guess the change was like somehow a lot form graphics to the general feeling of the game-play and world.

[kingpotato]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:41 PM, StaceyPowers said:

Thematically they are linked too, which Burial of Sea makes super obvious if you somehow missed it playing the main games =D

Thats why I keep wondering why some people say that its not a bioshock game, to me it was a core bioshock game from top to bottom 😁

[StaceyPowers]

3 hours ago, kingpotato said:

Thats why I keep wondering why some people say that its not a bioshock game, to me it was a core bioshock game from top to bottom 😁

I've heard some people argue that Infinite takes your choices away, when the first two games were about choice. But the third game was every bit as much about choice. It's just that Booker arguably had more of them than he wanted. And either way, the whole series was definitely about free will. Giving the gamer control of Booker's choices would've introduced arbitrariness to his existence and violated the character's will. The whole point of the story was to eliminate that arbitrariness, and in doing so, eliminate all possibility of Comstock.

[kingpotato]

1 hour ago, StaceyPowers said:

I've heard some people argue that Infinite takes your choices away, when the first two games were about choice. But the third game was every bit as much about choice. It's just that Booker arguably had more of them than he wanted. And either way, the whole series was definitely about free will. Giving the gamer control of Booker's choices would've introduced arbitrariness to his existence and violated the character's will. The whole point of the story was to eliminate that arbitrariness, and in doing so, eliminate all possibility of Comstock.

I think that infinite made the Bioshock world better, the Rapture theme was already getting overworked, Thank fully Infinite came in and gave us the idea that there can be other realities where there is always a man and there is always a city. One of the ideas that I would like to see is an underground city or maybe even one in space.

[StaceyPowers]

5 hours ago, kingpotato said:

I think that infinite made the Bioshock world better, the Rapture theme was already getting overworked, Thank fully Infinite came in and gave us the idea that there can be other realities where there is always a man and there is always a city. One of the ideas that I would like to see is an underground city or maybe even one in space.

Endless possibilities, I agree. And I'm really glad you feel the same way I do about Infinite. 

[The Blackangel]

I’ve never played a Bioshock game, but I think I may be able to offer something here. 
 

I remember when Castlevania SOTN came out, a lot of people were saying that it wasn’t a true Castlevania game because the protagonist that you play as wasn’t Richter Belmont, but instead was Dracula’s son, Alucard. Also a lot of people I know have always refused to play Majoras Mask because it’s “not a true Zelda game”. All too often, if a game deviates from its normal storyline people reject it. Link wasn’t saving Zelda from Ganon in Hyrule. Hence not a Zelda game. And I don’t know how many people I’ve talked to that refused to play Links Awakening on Game Boy, some even refuse to admit that the Switch version is a remake.

[kingpotato]

I have also heard some people say that Majoras mask was not a true Zelda game. People want game franchises to change but when it changes they get upset, for example just recently Pokemon Arceus, same thing a lot of people came out saying that this was not a real pokemon game because there was no Pokemon League or gyms. The thing is no matter what they do with the game franchise there will always be people that are going to be upset.

[Head_Hunter]

Had it been they made deep research, they wouldn't think that way, saying 'Bioshock Infinite is a totally different game from the previous edition. Their two are just the same, just a newer edition and an older edition.