Bioshock v. Bioshock Infinite

Over the past week or two, I've played through the entirety of Bioshock Infinite, Bioshock and I've also gotten through Episode One of Bioshock Infinite's DLC, Burial at Sea. I enjoyed all of them. Despite the fact that some may write it off as trite or too M. Night Shyamalan, I like narratives that end with a big twist---the only caveat to that being that the twist actually make sense and add depth to the narrative. The fact that it is not a "new"twist that has never been done before doesn't bother me (unless, of course, it's so obvious that I see it coming from a mile away and I think that has more to do with execution than anything).

Here's the thing, though, and I think it's something that people who have been longtime fans of the franchise (as in fans since the first game) would probably ream me over: I like Bioshock Infinite better. It's not that Bioshock is a bad game, but I think that as a matter of my own personal preferences and certain production values, Bioshock Infinite just ends up being the better game.

Now, there are some things that Bioshock does better, especially in terms of gameplay: being able to store health packs and Eve syringes is fantastic. Using "A" to select instead of "X" and clicking the left thumbstick to crouch instead of "B" is just more intuitive and easier to use. Being able to save wherever you are instead of having to find an autosave makes stopping the game when you need to way better. You can carry more than two guns. And so on. Honestly, with only the exception of the fact that in Bioshock you have to switch between your plasmids and your guns rather than being able to use both simply based on which trigger you pull (which is how it works in Bioshock Infinite), Bioshock is actually the mechanically superior game, which is unusual. Normally, the first game in a series has the better story but worse mechanics. Here, the overall story and atmosphere of Bioshock Infinite are better, but the mechanics are actually worse.

That said, mechanics is not to be confused with gameplay---I found the gameplay in Bioshock Infinite more enjoyable, mostly due to little things. Fighting soldiers instead of splicers meant my enemies were less spazzy simply because it was not in their nature to run around randomly and act like crazy loons. This mostly had the effect of me missing my enemies left because, let's face it, I'm not a terribly great FPS player. I set the difficulty to easy and turn down the look sensitivity. Having enemies that are orderly and easier to hit does matter to me. I also found the fact that ammo was at less of a premium in Bioshock Infinite as opposed to in Bioshock to be a very good thing. Now, much of this comes from the addition of Elizabeth, whom I loved as a character, but who was also just damn useful. You simply don't have to worry about ammo as much when she's just going to throw it to you at the right time. It's a life-saver and I loved it. Where in Bioshock I spent a lot of time not being able to use the gun I liked---or even any of the guns I liked (and there were several I hated and didn't want to be forced to use)---in Bioshock Infinite I tended to try not to spend money on ammo and instead hoard it for other improvements (and hoard it I did---because unlike Bioshock, there's no upward money limit in Bioshock Infinite).

Columbia

Rapture as seen in Bioshock.

Rapture as seen in Burial at Sea

Returning to my assertion that the atmosphere of Bioshock Infinite is better is admittedly something of  a matter of preference. I'm not much for post-apocalyptic stuff as a rule---I tend to find the ruination off-putting---which is probably much of the reason why I prefer Bioshock Infinite to Bioshock. We come upon Columbia as a whole, functioning world. We get to see it in all its glory and its gorgeous. Rapture, on the other hand, we come upon when it's in ruins. Indeed, I much preferred being in Rapture in the beginning of Burial at Sea, when we get to see the city as it was in its glory days. Again, it's gorgeous. Now, both dystopias masquerading as utopias, so it is inevitable that both would eventually fall apart, but I think there is still something to be said for allowing the player to fall in love with the city when it's at its best.
cities are

I also preferred the slightly more RPG-esque feel of Bioshock Infinite. Now, neither Bioshock nor Bioshock Infinite could fairly be called an RPG. Not even close. Both are shooters with a linear storyline. That said, the fact that Elizabeth is with the protagonist, Booker DeWitt, and has a lot of different conversations with him reminds me very strongly of the conversations your companions in games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age or Knights of the Old Republic would have and that is most definitely a good thing. It helps the game feel more real, fleshes it out a bit. Where in Bioshock my character is completely silent and rarely interacts with anyone---after all he is stuck on the bottom of the ocean in a city full of complete wackjobs---in Bioshock Infinite there are constantly people having conversations around me and a person with whom my character is constantly having a back and forth with (rather than someone simply telling him what to do, as is the case with Tenenbaum and Atlas). Indeed, this back and forth was very important because it made me feel as though Booker was a real character rather than just a cardboard cut-out. This "cardboard cut-out" problem is a problem that I think many first person shooters have---they're trying so hard to make the player identify with the protagonist by making him (and it's always a him) silent, someone they think that the player can simply project himself on to. Except, of course, we never get to make any choices, because the prevailing story-telling style in first person shooters is linear, so the "character" is basically just a blank. There's nothing there for the player to identify with. Booker, by contrast, has a voice and will make offhand comments. He wasn't my favorite character in the game, but he was much more likeable and interesting than Jack from Bioshock, because it felt like I was playing as a real character.

Indeed character was another place where Bioshock Infinite shined overall in comparison to Bioshock. In Bioshock Tenenbaum was pretty okay, and could have been interesting, except she really only exists as a surrogate mother to the Little Sisters for most of the game. They're her primary concern and while that provides a nice little redemption arc for her, it means that you don't really get to know the character enough to like her. Fontaine was good for plot purposes, but he really wasn't that great and overall acted as a (necessary) plot device more than a character. Andrew Ryan was interesting, but he was also pretty batty and you only got to interact with him, really, for one scene. And that was a cutscene. Otherwise he was just a voice on the radio.

Heads? Or Tails?

By contrast, Bioshock Infinite had the Luteces and Elizabeth, both of whom I really liked. The Luteces were simply delightful, basically just popping into the game to give vague advice to the protagonist and having witty repartee with one another. Also, Jennifer Hale voices the female Lutece, so your know they have to be awesome.

Elizabeth is a more controversial character, partially because there is a certain amount of debate over whether she is a good "feminist" combatant to be a good feminist character (and, notably, despite the overall sexist atmosphere of Columbia, there are some female combatants) and I think she really comes into her own at the end of the game. Where she was not deciding her own fate before, and simply being dragged along, by the end she has given Booker a mandate and noted that there is basically nothing he can do to stop her. She goes from an innocent who's been locked away from the world her entire life to someone who has an agency that others are powerless to stop. Elizabeth's story is one about gaining agency and that seems pretty feminist to me.
character. She's a noncombat character who is depending on a man to protect her (sort of---she's actually ignored in combat by the attacking characters and you're told not to worry about her because she can "take care of herself") and she spends much of her time with people fighting over her and using her as a tool despite the fact that she has some pretty fantastic powers. That said, I personally fall on the "she's totally a good feminist character" side of the spectrum. She doesn't need to be a

Beyond that, I find Elizabeth to be a likeable, well developed character. We get to see quite a lot of her, since she's a companion to the protagonist and thus she really gets the chance to be a real character. Indeed, by the end of the game she really is more of a character than Booker is, and has, in many ways, had a much more dramatic and interesting story arc.

Finally, I also liked the twist in Bioshock Infinite better than the twist in Bioshock. Now admittedly, I was spoiled on the twists before I played both games and it's possible that the Bioshock twist is simply one that only plays well if you don't know it's coming (that said, even preferring the twist from Bioshock Infinite, I did thing they played the twist in Bioshock well---the execution of you finding out is very well done), but I found the Bioshock Infinite twist more fascinating. I felt it was less about shock value and trying to screw with the player than it was about really change and exploiting the relationships between the characters and I liked that. I like characters more than I like plots, so something that serves characters is just going to be a hit with me.

So, there you have it. Bioshock may be a pretty okay game (I did enjoy it), but I like Bioshock Infinite better. I find the atmosphere and storyline to be better, and I actually like the gameplay better too, even if the mechanics are slightly worse.