While the original BioShock was heavily scripted, Infinite will be a different experience every time you play.
Then there are the enemies. How they behave in combat depends entirely on how you behave. They're smart enough to adjust their tactics in real time depending on what kind of weapons you're using. Some won't even attack you at all, choosing not to get involved.
This is all thanks to an AI system that splits NPCs into three different camps: alphas, betas and gammas. Alphas are, essentially, bosses. Betas are reminiscent of Rapture's Splicers and will attack aggressively on sight.
Gammas, on the other hand, have their own lives to get on with, and may or may not get involved in any fights you start. It's a brilliantly clever and sophisticated system that should make Infinite feel much more dynamic and unpredictable than BioShock's effective, but scripted, ghost train.
Order Xbox World magazine here and have it delivered straight to your door
Comments
4 comments so far...
bamozzy on 29 Dec '11 said:
There are certain aspects about this game that I must say I am quite looking forward to, but others that I am still unsure about. I am also not sure about the shift from Rapture although I must admit I don't know where the series could go from its previous incarnations. I loved Bioshock but wasn't so keen on Bioshock 2 - the multi-player was awful and its inclusion seemed to have a detrimental impact on the Single player campaign. Bioshock seemed a much bigger game and offered a LOT of replay value - more so than 2. So many developers seem to think that ALL games must have a multi-player aspect and this usually results in a smaller campaign. Bioshock was very highly rated and that was just a single player and didn't suffer for that. If a game must have a multi-player tagged on, then can we have it on a separate disc so that the single player campaign does not suffer.
I cannot think of a game that was originally a single player only, that has delivered the same quality of story, replayability etc when they have added a multi-player. I personally am not liking the shift in focus from Single player to multi-player gaming. That is not to say I don't like multi-player games because I do, but there are times I love to play a good story too. It doesn't matter what games are released, I still return to certain games because of their Multi-player or story - I certainly have my favourites. Battlefield 3 is all about the multi-player though and the story is not that good. Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2 are also all about the story and their multi-players are awful - I would have preferred they had left the multi-player off and spent more time and disc space on the campaign
TheLastDodo on 29 Dec '11 said:
Ken Levine had this to say in regards to the possibility of multiplayer in Bioshock Infinite:
"We are never interested in making a multiplayer mode you could just play in some other game," Levine said. "Because, A) that's not creatively interesting and B), financially, you're wasting your time. They're going to go play Halo. They're going to go play Call of Duty."
This is the game I'm most looking forward to next year.
bamozzy on 29 Dec '11 said:
That at least is a relief to hear!! It may even be enough to move it up a place or two on my watch list. So far all games of 2012 that I am interested in are on my 'watchlist' only with the possible exception of Mass Effect 3 as I loved the previous two and want to see what happens in the storyline. A lot of games are looking good and 2012 could be a good year for gamers
gmcb007 on 29 Dec '11 said:
That's one of the best quotes i've heard from a developer. I wish the whole industry would share his beliefs. ( Especially you Dead Space 2 developers!)