I wouldn’t be too sure about that, when Bioshock was coming out I remember some of my stupider friends discussing how bioshock was a cleaver name because it was like water-shock. Anyways it seems like because of the first games gamers have development a connotation of bio and water.
The facepalm emote sure made it seem like he was being sarcastic.
^truth
A city underwater was a good idea. But an entire fucking city just floating around in the sky doesn’t make any sense at all when the could just as well have put in on the ground with lesser problems than having to use huge amount of fuel or steam or whatever to keep it afloat. Asides from that I’m sure it will have great gameplay. Well, as long as you can’t fall of the edge of the city, because that would be annoying as hell.
BTW has any gameplay been released yet?
It looks like their finally upgrading to the UE3 engine instead of using the ancient UE2.5 engine.
Does the space needle make sense? It’s the world’s fair.
Oh, and yes, before, that was sarcasm.
We had this argument in steam chat a few weeks back. BioShock uses UE3. It’s listed on here as using UE3.
In the Gamespot interview with Ken Levine, Ken confirms that they built an entirely new engine for Bioshock Infinite.
I believe they had to in order to handle the draw distances. Even from the little we have seen of infinite, the first two bioshocks are claustrophobic in comparison.
yup yup
I’m actually quite sure the “city” is mostly just a large group of balloons or zeppelins floating in the sky connected with bridges made out of wood or something. There are also parts that do contain steel but I bet that’s only small.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Yeah it makes as much sense as one under water really, just have it held up by extremely powerful balloons and or zeppelins.
Neither make actual sense, though.
The underwater city is more feasible than a floating one.
Well, I’d say Rapture was actually completely impossible. Having glass windows at pressures as high as the bottom of the ocean would be pretty impossible.
However, a city in the sky is at least slightly plausible. It looks like from the trailer they use a hot helium system with jets underneath the structures. This could in theory lift something pretty large.
The main thing that makes it less realistic in my mind is that the air pressure at high altitudes might affect the populous of a floating city. Might just be headaches, but if it is high enough, you could suffer from lack of oxygen.
Yeah, with rapture, the moment there is a crack in that glass (I’m assuming its reinforced), the whole thing will break. In the sky, it repairable, so it will last longer as long as the fuel remains.
What if it was diamond glass?
Rapture didn’t necessarily have to be at a TERRIBLY deep part of the ocean floor, and in fact it probably WASN’T too deep, considering the species seen in the water.
Exactly. How in the hell is a city floating on balloons and fans make more sense? Winds would push the already top-heavy buildings over. If they were going for REALISM, they would need balloons about 10x the size of the ones shown in the trailer, with the buildings attached UNDERNEATH the balloons.
It should be noted that even Rapture didn’t make any sense in a design aspect. The game was aware of it and brought it up in an audio diary. Something to the tune of one of the designers saying “It should be built like a bath tub there are inherent flaws (it actually went in depth about the flaws but I can’t remember) with this design but Ryan just had to have it his way” <not exact quote.
Edit: also its a game and there is a thing called suspension of disbelief but I don’t think they were going for realism.