Bioshock Infinite's infinite space, bounded in a nutshell

Ken....Ken Levine made this....You can't call it derivative of Ken Levine when he made it. I think you went into this game looking for points of reference to Bioshock's 1 and 2 and that clouded your perception of this game as an individual, seperate experience.

Sure, there are a lot of references to the first game and a lot of the same mechanics, but they've been reconfigured and re-aligned brilliantly with a fundamentally different environment that plays in a fundamentally different way. This isn't a survival horror game. It's Hollywood epic to Bioshock's arthouse horror and that is a crucial difference.

I also had no problem whatsoever with Booker speaking from the first person. I can see how it could have failed but they made sure that everything he did, and everything he could do, is something that the gamer was thinking or wanted to do anyway. He just gave a voice to our actions, which I almost preferred

So if everyone else is giving the game 9 or 10, does that mean that every critic has to conform and give the same rating?

I totally agree! He seemed to just want a new, completely unique addition to the series.

Calling the Sistine Chapel "crap" isn't a review. How about 700 words about your opinion?

I just came here to tell you that your review is beyond terrible. Many of your points don't make sense at all and some passages, like Elizabeths abilitys, you simply didn't get and are therefor described entirely wrong. This is an abysmal review if I ever saw one.
I will try and stay as far away as possible from this site. Especially considering your other terrible game reviews.

I'm very shocked by the low score (3/5, 6/10, 12/20) given by this reviewer. No matter how you look at it, this reviewer gave this great game a C-. C-, really??? C- is for games like Epic Mickey 2, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Medal of Honer Warfighter. Do you honestly believe that BioShock Infinite belongs next to those essentially unknown games? (all of which came out in 2012 by the way). I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds your score totally ridiculous. I get that you feel the gaming "experts (magazines and sites)" super high ratings/reviews are biased due to monetary gains, but that shouldn't negate the fact that this is still a fantastic game. You lost credibility with me and many other gamers, BioShock loyalists or not. I won't be back to your site and am requesting your ridiculous review be stricken from reputable sites. Every other credible reviewer disagrees with you. The least you can do is do the same as I and request your low review be taken off GameRankings.com and other similar sites. It is one thing to have an opinion, but when that opinion directly affects the hard work put into a much-anticipated game, it's no longer a luxury you should be able to afford. Because of you super low score, BioShock Infinite has been brought to a 92%, when it should be at 96+%, which is bull crap: http://www.gamerankings.com/xb...

Poorly written? And where's your Pulitzer Prize for criticism, sir?

This man must suck dick before he reviews games, it has to be the reason this son of bitch gives one of the best games of the year such low score.

You're a tough one to impress, but I have to respect you for having your own opinion. I'm a bit tired of every polished AAA shooter getting perfect marks.

But I have to ask, Tom: what makes a game successful for you? Does it have to be perfect around the edges? Does it have to be unique? Does it have to be addicting?

I was referring to the other critics on Metacritic not myself ass whipe. The other reviews for Infinite are so much more professionally written. Check out Kevin's on Gamespot.

I for one am unlikely to value criticism from someone who will both call someone else an asswipe and then misspell it.

He didn't read the review AND he hasn't played the game, and now he's got 115 upvotes. And people say comment sections are useless.

Guy does this for attention, and it works. I'd never heard of this piece of crap site before I saw that review at Gamerankings, and now I'm aware of this piece of crap site. Mission accomplished, right?

I think a 6/10 is pretty fair. I really disliked the multi-dimensional storyline of Infinite. The gameplay did not make enough improvements from BS1, which was already behind the times when it released.

edit: Double post, sorry.
double edit: I just got pwned by Disqus. Summary: My post was a somewhat strongly worded plea for everyone to get along.

I could use 700 words to describe it indeed, but I could sum it up as crap. I happen to think it is amazing but was the best thing I could muster for a compairisent. The bottom line is this. 2k realizes that if ain't broke don't fix it. Infinite simply gives you everything you could want in a game following in the footsteps of its predossor bioshock 1. Tom is directly wrong about so many things here. And yes I've played through the whole game and completely read Tom's review. And I find him to be well written despite having adverse opinions.
1) Columbia is as detailed if not more then rapture. There are scopes that give you extra background on the city history, and voxaphones for individual character stories from throughout the city.
2) One the most important things about Columbia over rapture is the changing of the timeline and sequencing. Columbia is a dynamically changing city. One moment you're the hero then you are the villain. It pushes you to constantly think try to take in your surroundings.
3) If Tom beat the game in 10 hours. He didn't spend enough time admiring the game. Infinite looks incredible, jaw-dropping at times. So what if it's the unreal engine? The game also had many discoverable areas. They unlock new dialogue between Elizabeth and Booker which adds further depth to both of their characters but is rewarded only with actually exploring the whole game. It took me around 18 hours to beat. Because I wasn't in a hurry to write a bad review on it. I took it all in and it had all the wonder of rapture with the gameplay and graphic benefits of a game that's 6 years newer. And for all that it deserves a 10.

Not sure if that's 700 words or not. I agree with you though that 2 words does not solidify an opinion. I stand corrected sir.

And excuse grammar and typos as this was written from my phone.

another good way to get attention to your site , well played.

Thank heavens for this review. I'm not saying that those who have reviewed it so highly (and I'm aware that they are in the majority) didn't adore the game, but I'm having a very difficult time enjoying it myself. Columbia, while amazing at a glance, falls apart in every way under any close scrutiny (the statue budget alone in this city must be staggering, and why is there money in every garbage can?), the gameplay loop is kind of a slog, and every encounter with a crazy so far has consisted of a disembodied voice taunting you through imaginary speakers while throwing countless soldiers at you. I'm probably not even halfway through and I've already killed more cops/soldiers/guards than citizens I've encountered in the world. What kind of economy supports that much armed cannon fodder compared to such a minimal workforce? I guess that's why they're putting in the 16-hour shifts at Fink's?

If the game were more fun in its moment-to-moment action, I wouldn't even notice the irregularities in the world-building, but it just isn't. Not to me, at least. The stories and ideas are interesting enough to get me through to the end, but just barely.

Oh my, what a surprise. Tom Chick reacts with "controversy" against a high-profile and extremely hyped game. That might work if it didn't happen so often and the level of gaming industry ignorance and ego/attention-whoring weren't such huge factors.

This is what happens when you whore out your entire credibility for just a couple more site hits.

In all seriousness, to each their own but I'd stick my own skyhook in my head if I had this guy's awful taste.