Maybe Andrew Ryan had his hand in helping create Columbia? The man does talk all through Bioshock and Bioshock 2 how the "system" holds people back. Maybe he helped build Columbia because he was under the impression that it'd be a utopia of the sky free from oppression but he left to build Rapture after Columbia turned out to be something different.

Maybe so, but Fallout 3 still retains canon from previous installations, though altered.

With Infinite, it seems as if there's absolutely nothing in common in terms of the in-game univers the other BioShock games.

I mean because it's in the sky, which has some amount of sunlight, which in turn makes it bright. Then there was that park in the trailer, looks rather calming and colourful, compared to Rapture's Arcadia/Tea Gardens which were dark and drained of much colour because of the waters ability to block most sunlight from getting in

I didn't say it was or wasn't, I have no quarrels with F3's existence - I'm not discussing Fallout canon here, I was just using an example.

Turns out Infinte is set 30+ years(1912) before Bioshock 1(1950) so it doesn't really have an impact as a sequel, but the developers said it isn't a prequel either.

The official canon sounds dumb. I imagined Columbia was created by a bunch of idealists/optimists/hippies and somewhere down the line the place just went crazy. I can't see the design at all reconciling with the official lore.

Goverment weapon, gone AWOL in the clouds and now floating over countries unlocatably (< is that even a word?), which then went to [censored] after divisions started happening onboard with loads of civil gangs forming and being destroyed until 2 (3?) remain at the time we play.

I get that, I'm just saying that while there was a shift of location, the setting was still the same, the terminology was the same, and a some of factions are the same as before.

With Infinite, all there seems to be is the common use of BioShock as a name for the game, with yet no real connection to Andrew Ryan, Fontaine, Tennenbaum, Jack, Big Daddies, Big Sisters, Rapture or anything else established in the two previous ones. And that makes me wonder why it's called BioShock Infinite.

Why is it a part of that franchise, since it seems to have nothing in common in terms of already established lore? Just seems like they tacked on BioShock on a new idea of a steampunk city...

Well considering it's 30 years before we (Jack) gets to Rapture, there is no way he'd be in anyway involved in the goings on of Infinite.



Andrew Ryan/Fonatiane etc would all have been infants or teens at the time of Columbia so they'd have no progressive impact on the creation of the city/world. Big Daddies/Little Sisters/Big Sisters were a creation of Andrew's and the events of Bioshock 2 with [whatshername] creating the Big Sisters.

I can't see much in common either but it looks like it still uses plasmids and such, so yeah...Lets look to the future release for more answers and enjoy a good title

Aye, let's hope it'll turn out good, regardless.

1. It has the same design, i.e First person roleplaying immersive sim (but severly dumbed down)
2. The name Bioshock is extremely popular, so it will sell like hot cakes, more people know the name Bioshock than the names Irrational games or even system shock.
3. It would be a big mistake to call it anything else in this extremely competitive and risky industry. (did not used to be so bad but now big games cost at least 7x more than it used to)

Yep, they're just tacking infinite on to the Bioshock franchise to make some more money, no mystery about it.

1. How do you even know that Infinite is dumbed down from previous titles? Speculate much?
2. It's not that it's popular as much as it's in the same world.
3. A good game sells regardless of name - some exceptions.

Because if it isn't System Shock or Deus Ex, it is dumbed down. It seems from... 99% of his posts.

Hmmm forgot about that

I feel Fallout has the best system there is, completely surpasses that of previous and future titles...Actually maybe Call of Duty has a better in-depth system and storyline compared to the likes..



/EndLolSpree

Nope, even Duke nukem has been dumbed down. Final fantasy, Castlevania, Turok, Elder scrolls and so on.
The list is huge.

Oh, I'll overlook this point then
I don't think I understood myself correctly at this point....Try to explain better, the reason it's called Bioshock [-] is because it takes place in the same world, like with plasmids and failing Utopias, I'd really need to see more to help back this up but I don't believe it's a Bioshock title just for the Lulz
Minecraft is an example, an Indie game with no previous titles or games latched onto it, yet it has over 20m registered users and a quarter of them have bought the game. That's just one game that's done well as a stand alone title.
Is there really a Justin Bieber game .......

Final Fantasy now is more appealling to me now than it ever was, I don't feel it's been dumbed down as much as involves more strategy - memory is hazy though since the last one I played beofre XIII and XIII-2 was VII.
Turok seemed a lot harder for the Xbox than it was for the PS2 and felt a lot more [Insert emotion] because of the surroundings and lurking predators (though I wish someone would play online)

That depends upon perspective.

then it's a completely different universe? because the stories of 1 and 2 said plasmids and ADAM were discovered at the ocean's floor because of those slugs

apparently so.

You must not remember properly then, you are flat out wrong, sorry

Explain.

I agree with you that those games have been dumbed down, however, it more or less depends upon how you choose to look at it. "Dumbed down" or perhaps "refined and streamlined more properly".

That those games are dumbed down, is not really anything more than opinion based upon your own or my own arbitrary way of selection. It is random, but we simply assign values to it based on our personal standings.

No, games (not all, but most) have been dumbed down and streamlined in many ways. Not a matter of perspective at all, the evidence is out there.

Also, when/what was the last new IP that satisfied you?

Like System Shock 2, a dumbed down sequel to System Shock.

Crusader Kings II, by Paradox Interactive.

But now you are going to say that it's a exception and not a rule and etc...

Anyway, for me games are a form of art and entertainment, I really don't care for their complexity or "depth", I care for their entertainment value. I wouldn't play a fun-less depth game as much as I would play a extremely-fun depth-less game. (IMO)