BioShock: Infinite

[Tagaziel]

If you look closer, the "torn" people exist only where Elizabeth opens a tear that merges her and Booker into another reality (I think the only exception is Chen Lin, and even then, his dead body was at ground zero). It's consistent in both mergers. 

 

Why, exactly, is Bioshock: Infinite bad sci-fi? The same criticisms can be levied against every sci-fi, up to and including Isaac Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. 

[Bokishi]

Can someone please explain Chen Lin better, I still have a hard time understanding why he was alive and dead, was his dead body also pulled through the tear and merged with the alive one? Elizabeth says he rembers being dead and I don't get that part

[Orogun01]

 

Why not kill the Luteces then? They are the ones responsible for Columbia and the portals into realities.

Because they were killed by Comstock, and instead transcended time and space to become transcendent quantum existences (kind of like the Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse Five, pay attention to what they say at the graveyard.) Again, it's not that there was one universe in the beginning, until Booker DeWitt got baptized, and then there were two, it's that there were always infinite parallel realities as is often suggested by cosmologists (hence the "infinite.") As has been stated (I think,) the game's story fundamentally stems from Robert Lutece's desire to fix the problem he and Rosalind created when they helped Comstock take Anna

 

They existed in a material form before they were killed, specifically during the time that they helped Columbia ascend and they opened the portal. If killed then the events of Infinite would not had taken place. Also, unlike Slaughterhouse travel across multiple universes and times is done in a physical manner rather than through projection.

 

Plus there is one glaring plot hole in the narrative, if Dewitt actually remembers selling Ana then that means that killing him won't serve any purpose since he is not the past version of himself and it wouldn't erase all the Annas/Elizabeths from existence. If he was the Dewitt meant to be Comstock, then when the Luteces bring him to Columbia that would had created a paradox that would had to solve itself by Dewitt dying or taking Comstock's place.

The only plausible explanation would be if Dewitt was at some point in time where he hadn't fathered Anna, then killing him would erase the realities. But that alternative is not possible because of  the mark on his hand. 

 

So why does killing Dewitt alters realities, why don't they ever get back to their original universe, and why there's more than one Dewitt at the lighthouses if ours was the root one?

See my theory about crazy Annas/Elizabeths across realities murdering Dewitts for the answer.

[Nonek]

One would think that Annah would instead of trying to make her father commit suicide, simply stop his involvement in Wounded Knee, from whence he came to the baptism to be shrived of his sins. This is before he became Comstock, so if the suicide works then by virtue of a normally functioning universal temporal system, anything earlier should also work.

 

To be honest the more I think about the defeatism and predestination of the ending the more i'm sickened by it, truly a slave obeys. I think Ken Levine ought to have played the Legacy of Kain games, or at least spoken with Ms Amy Hennig, they deal with predistination and the manipulation of time in a far more tasteful manner.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Nonek

[Orogun01]

See this article as to why the game isn't as good as they claim:

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3733057.htm

 

 

Disclaimer: I did enjoy the game, I think that the levels and their use of UDK was marvelous but I still consider it to have the symptoms of what it is a greater issue within this industry.

[Tagaziel]

See this article as to why the game isn't as good as they claim:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3733057.htm

As the comments section points out, the article isn't as good as the author claims. It misses the point of several parts of the game and misunderstands the story. 

 

Bioshock Infinite is a piece of the old, 19th century America, presenting the bigotry and prejudice that were present in its society. It gives insight into the mindset of the far right: rewriting history, using religion to further their goals, the "lost cause of the South", and more. Granted, it's fault might be in how it doesn't present the truth to contrast it with the lies, but I, as a person interested in history, don't mind it. It'd be more jarring to have the characters interject and explain how THIS ISN'T HOW IT REALLY WAS. 

 

I'd write it in more detail, but I'll have to replay the game. Instead, I'll post two comments:

 

 

 

 

Daniel argues that the troubling themes in Bioshock Infinite are only a coat of paint over the shooter mechanic but I disagree. Bioshock Infinite is not just a violent game, is is a game ABOUT violence. The violence is inherent and inextricable from the point the developers are trying to make. The main character, Booker, has led a violent life for which he is ashamed, his actions in massacering Indians is something that he is not proud of and that is made very clear in the narrative. It is his ability for violence that led to his recruitment for the mission to rescue Elizabeth but interestingly he never takes any pleasure from the killing he's forced to do. In fact, whenever you start as the player to revel in the carnage you're snapped back to a realization of your actions by Elizabeth's shocked reaction to your bloodshed. Rarely have I ever played a shooting game that made me feel somewhat guilty for performing the actions that brought me there for entertainment in the first place. I can think of the Bioshock and Mass Effect games as good examples of games which lend a deeper moral consideration to your virtual actions. That alone would qualify them as art but the other themes add further depth to the argument.

 

The author also presents a false choice around the decision to throw the baseball. The decision is not presented as "be good or be evil," it is a question of whether Booker should act out of his convictions or stay silent and blend in out of self-preservation and the desire not to be discovered in order to complete his mission. The player is warned just before this incident not to alert Comstock to their presence in the city, adding further tension to the decision. The fact that the outcome of the choice doesn't really impact the overall narrative is largely irrelevant, the point is that it forces the player to make difficult decisions in the moment and involves them in mentally in the story of that world, which is another defining characteristic of art in my book. 

 

Racism is never celebrated in the game, nor is it glorified. The museum displays are intentionally grotesque and accurately reflect the twisted mentallity of the society which created them. The Vox Populi are treated critically as well, for all their valid reasons for rebellion, they aren't the good guys. In fact there are no good guys in the game, everybody has a dark side to them, even the seemingly innocent heroine.

 

If one were to remove the violence, the racism, the religious commentary and other emotionally troubling elements then Bioshock Infinite would be nothing more than a pretty virtual diorama devoid of meaningful content. That would definitely not be art. The fact that it tackles these things at all is laudable, the fact that is is so unblinkingly frank about them is worthy of recognition.

 

 

 

"Bioshock Infinite, in an attempt to set up an antagonist, portrays the Lakota as cartoonish, vicious opponents and likely aggressors."

 

And here we see the lack of understanding that you have in full. The game is about breaking down an ideal, the idealized era of Exceptionalism, when the red white and blue was perfection incarnate. If you look at the progression of the game, that's the direction you most generally see: Beginning in a beautiful city, the game invites you to walk through the flowers, to listen to the civilians of colombia on their day to day routines, and to marvel at this beautiful, gorgeous world. And then, the walls are scraped down. This ideal we have of a time when america was perfect, when good old american values drove our lives and happiness was abundant isn't what we think it was; We were the oppressors. Racism here is used as a general way of critique, and to break down a false ideal. 

 

 

 

(AGX, I'm still getting around to responding to your reply about religion)

[AwesomeOcelot]

If you look closer, the "torn" people exist only where Elizabeth opens a tear that merges her and Booker into another reality (I think the only exception is Chen Lin, and even then, his dead body was at ground zero). It's consistent in both mergers.

Still, what is actually happening in the mergers? What is being merged? Why does it matter that his dead body was at ground zero?

[Orogun01]

@Tagaziel: The game doesn't necessarily present you with another, more righteous alternative to act as a foil to Columbia. Their nemesis; The Vox Populi, is as bad as them, so it really flies off from the themes of racism and discrimination when the "anchors" for these ideas are trying to kill you. How are we suppose to empathize with someone that's shooting at you?

The lack of overall consistency in the themes and the poor presentation is symptomatic of where the focus of the story was: Booker and Ana/Elizabeth, which ultimately proved disappointing as the ending completely broke the characters. Other themes are just there to serve a purpose within the game, which is to say that they are being used to define the characters but they lack depth in and of themselves 

[Tagaziel]

@Tagaziel: The game doesn't necessarily present you with another, more righteous alternative to act as a foil to Columbia. Their nemesis; The Vox Populi, is as bad as them, so it really flies off from the themes of racism and discrimination when the "anchors" for these ideas are trying to kill you. How are we suppose to empathize with someone that's shooting at you?

 

The lack of overall consistency in the themes and the poor presentation is symptomatic of where the focus of the story was: Booker and Ana/Elizabeth, which ultimately proved disappointing as the ending completely broke the characters. Other themes are just there to serve a purpose within the game, which is to say that they are being used to define the characters but they lack depth in and of themselves 

 

But why would the game present you with a foil, when the foil already exists: you? A gamer desn't exist in a cultural and historical vacuum. He *knows* the other, righteous alternative, unless he's a racist moron. I think the fact that the game *doesn't* offer a foil for Columbia enriches it. It's a glimpse into the mentality of the extreme right wing, but not so damaging to your sanity as The Turner Diaries. 

 

The themes the game uses need to be seen in the context of Elizabeth and, most importantly, DeWitt. If you look closely, the experiences DeWitt goes through are related to what he's gone through in his life, Wounded Knee and service (Hall of Heroes), Finkton (Pinkerton's and putting down the rioters), and, of course, his failure as a father.

 

@AwesomeOcelotPerson: Elizabeth, Booker, their surroundings, and people in immediate proximity are pasted into another reality, apparently overwriting/merging with their egos in that reality. That's why Chen Lin, the dead troopers, and others are going crazy. Booker is shielded from insanity by Elizabeth, it seems.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Tagaziel

[Orogun01]

 

But why would the game present you with a foil, when the foil already exists: you? A gamer desn't exist in a cultural and historical vacuum. He *knows* the other, righteous alternative, unless he's a racist moron. I think the fact that the game *doesn't* offer a foil for Columbia enriches it. It's a glimpse into the mentality of the extreme right wing, but not so damaging to your sanity as The Turner Diaries. 

 

The themes the game uses need to be seen in the context of Elizabeth and, most importantly, DeWitt. If you look closely, the experiences DeWitt goes through are related to what he's gone through in his life, Wounded Knee and service (Hall of Heroes), Finkton (Pinkerton's and putting down the rioters), and, of course, his failure as a father.

 

@AwesomeOcelotPerson: Elizabeth, Booker, their surroundings, and people in immediate proximity are pasted into another reality, apparently overwriting/merging with their egos in that reality. That's why Chen Lin, the dead troopers, and others are going crazy. Booker is shielded from insanity by Elizabeth, it seems.

Whenever I hear that something requires me too have a prior understanding too enjoy it I just feel that's a cop-out for laziness or incompetence. I don't need to be a classically trained musician to enjoy Bach, I only need to like his music. I don't need a history degree to understand the themes in a game, they only need to be well presented and they weren't. Also, the first Bioshock didn't require you to have an understanding of Objectivism in order to show you what it was all about, you gained that understanding through the environment, the audio diaries and through the bosses.

 

DeWitt is not a good foil as most of the events you describe take place before Infinite and the player has no reason to empathize with him. This is a major issue with game writing, where you a just presented with a situation bluntly designed to get a cheap emotional response and their usage is as crude as the developers poking you with a stick and telling "Come on! Feel something!. Why should the player care about events they have no knowledge of or participated in? Why should they care that Ana/Elizabeth is their daughter when they have spent most of the game ogling down her brassiere? The story didn't move in any way to support or establish these connections and instead it leaves up to the player.

Ana/Elizabeth was a good foil until she became vicious and murderous, arguably the result of DeWitt's influence. By the end of the game she is making threats and has no problem killing you.  

 

Lastly, I know it wasn't directed at me but the way I understood it people only gained the memories and bleed through their noses when their alternate selves had died. The game wasn't really clear on that matter.

[Meshugger]

I haven't played the game yet, but judging from comments in this thread, it seems that the story is pretty prententious.

[Orogun01]

I haven't played the game yet, but judging from comments in this thread, it seems that the story is pretty prententious.

First of all, you shouldn't have come here: Spoilers.

 

Secondly, the story is not pretentious, it's just the same level of shallow we have come to expect from video game writing. The pretentious ones are the ones praising it for its story and the social issues it tackles. For them the mere representation of these issues is enough to call it a masterpiece.

 

The game itself is pretty solid, just not the industry savior some people claim it to be.

[Meshugger]

Well, spoilers smoilers, it didn't stop me from enjoying PS:T to the fullest  

 

Anyhoo, i always get iffy when i hear about some game designer being heralded as gaming's answer to Tarkovsky or his or her creation is the next Citizen Kane.

[Azure79]

FInished it and enjoyed the story and atmosphere more than the gameplay. I found most of the special abilities redundant and only ever used shock + headshots while on an advantageous perch throughout most of the game. 

 

I'm not sure I quite understand the ending.

I understand that Booker DeWitt needed to die, but if there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Bookers, how will killing that specific Booker fix anything? Actually my head hurts trying to think of all the possibilities and there probably isn't a good answer so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Great game though. I enjoyed it as much as Dishonored. 

[Amentep]

@Tagaziel: The game doesn't necessarily present you with another, more righteous alternative to act as a foil to Columbia. Their nemesis; The Vox Populi, is as bad as them, so it really flies off from the themes of racism and discrimination when the "anchors" for these ideas are trying to kill you. How are we suppose to empathize with someone that's shooting at you?

 

The lack of overall consistency in the themes and the poor presentation is symptomatic of where the focus of the story was: Booker and Ana/Elizabeth, which ultimately proved disappointing as the ending completely broke the characters. Other themes are just there to serve a purpose within the game, which is to say that they are being used to define the characters but they lack depth in and of themselves

I thought that the Vox Populi being as bad as the Founders was part of the point of the story. Because, in essence the Founders create the Vox Populi by their own actions; they are - from the story's perspective - a dark mirror of the other. (I'd argue that the themes ultimately aren't racism and discrimination - the theme is about how the past creates you. Comstock, Fitzroy, DeWitt, the Luteces are all trapped by their past. The question of the game is, can Elizabeth - in being freed from her literal cage, free the others from their historical cage? Can the past be changed (or metaphorically, can one escape ones own past?))

 

At least that's how I saw it.

 

 

FInished it and enjoyed the story and atmosphere more than the gameplay. I found most of the special abilities redundant and only ever used shock + headshots while on an advantageous perch throughout most of the game. 

 

I'm not sure I quite understand the ending.

I understand that Booker DeWitt needed to die, but if there are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Bookers, how will killing that specific Booker fix anything? Actually my head hurts trying to think of all the possibilities and there probably isn't a good answer so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Great game though. I enjoyed it as much as Dishonored.

I think the idea, with respect to your spoiler is

 

 

that while alternate realities exist - they're part of quantum theory - the problem isn't that they existed but that Comstock and the Luteces created a system for them to meet - and thus put them on the path to create Elizabeth who could force the alternate universes to overlap (possibly even call them into being based on her wishes, depending on how correct she is at guessing what she can do). What killing DeWitt prior to becoming Comstock does is destroy all the alternate realities of DeWitt that would involve him becoming Comstock and in turn meeting a Lutece and getting an Elizabeth from a DeWitt in another reality. As we see, the realities where DeWitt doesn't get baptized and become Comstock remain (hence DeWitt's coda at the end with possibly Anna and possibly some memories of the lost reality)

 

 

I enjoyed the game. Mostly for the novel setting and the "look". I thought the story was okay but not great. Can't really speak to the shooter stuff that much because its not really my style of game, ultimately.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Amentep

[Nightshape]

Crap game. Don't buy it.

[Bokishi]

^Dislike post

[AGX-17]

I haven't played the game yet, but judging from comments in this thread, it seems that the story is pretty prententious.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/7105-BioShock-Infinite

[Azure79]

@ Amentep,

 

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I still don't understand why the Booker you play throughout the game dying can solve anything. That Booker is the Booker who already rejected the baptism, and sold Elizabeth to Comstock. He is not the Booker that needed to die as killing him doesn't change anything. Elizabeth and your Booker, should have gone back in time to the point of the Baptism where the original Booker, pre-baptism, should have been confronted and killed. The end battle literally is you battling your megalomaniac alter ego at the Baptism site. We know that different version of yourselves can exist in the same timeline and you can kill your alternate self, so that's what I thought should have happened. This would have as you said erased all the Comstock timelines. This makes more sense to me which was why I was confused at the ending. I didn't think it really solved anything.

 

[Amentep]

 

 

@ Amentep, I understand where you're coming from.

However, I still don't understand why the Booker you play throughout the game dying can solve anything. That Booker is the Booker who already rejected the baptism, and sold Elizabeth to Comstock. He is not the Booker that needed to die as killing him doesn't change anything. Elizabeth and your Booker, should have gone back in time to the point of the Baptism where the original Booker, pre-baptism, should have been confronted and killed. The end battle literally is you battling your megalomaniac alter ego at the Baptism site. We know that different version of yourselves can exist in the same timeline and you can kill your alternate self, so that's what I thought should have happened. This would have as you said erased all the Comstock timelines. This makes more sense to me which was why I was confused at the ending. I didn't think it really solved anything.

 

I think the thing is that for quantum theory, Booker pre-Baptismal is the same whether he later makes the choice to be Baptised and becomes Comstock or not.If "A" is Booker at the time of choice and B is for no Baptism and C is for Baptism then the alternate universes all start like:A--BorA--CElizabeth kills Booker at point A.In this sense, then, rolling Booker back before his choice and killing him is the same as rolling Comstock back and killing him. It is only after the baptism (accepting/refusing) that a divergent path is created for this Booker to become Comstock or not.Note that there are an infinite amount of Bookers built around other choices, but going back further would kill off more Bookers - possibly including the Booker helping Elizabeth. Instead using the point of choice to kill off the alternate realities that create Comstock ensures that the Booker of the story survives.

[Orogun01]

Or we can all agree that it was thinly veiled plot device to make the story appear more edgy, because happy endings are not mature and growing up is suffering.
Ken Levine confirmed for EMO.

[mute688]

 

 

 

@ Amentep,

 

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I still don't understand why the Booker you play throughout the game dying can solve anything. That Booker is the Booker who already rejected the baptism, and sold Elizabeth to Comstock. He is not the Booker that needed to die as killing him doesn't change anything. Elizabeth and your Booker, should have gone back in time to the point of the Baptism where the original Booker, pre-baptism, should have been confronted and killed. The end battle literally is you battling your megalomaniac alter ego at the Baptism site. We know that different version of yourselves can exist in the same timeline and you can kill your alternate self, so that's what I thought should have happened. This would have as you said erased all the Comstock timelines. This makes more sense to me which was why I was confused at the ending. I didn't think it really solved anything.

 

 

I think the thing is that for quantum theory, Booker pre-Baptismal is the same whether he later makes the choice to be Baptised and becomes Comstock or not.

 

If "A" is Booker at the time of choice and B is for no Baptism and C is for Baptism then the alternate universes all start like:

 

A--B

 

or

 

A--C

 

Elizabeth kills Booker at point A.

 

In this sense, then, rolling Booker back before his choice and killing him is the same as rolling Comstock back and killing him. It is only after the baptism (accepting/refusing) that a divergent path is created for this Booker to become Comstock or not.

 

Note that there are an infinite amount of Bookers built around other choices, but going back further would kill off more Bookers - possibly including the Booker helping Elizabeth. Instead using the point of choice to kill off the alternate realities that create Comstock ensures that the Booker of the story survives.

 

 

 

If I understand the story though, the Booker that we play in game is not Elizabeth's Booker. He has no memory of having a child at the start and it isn't until they jump to alternate realities that he starts having memories of baby Elizabeth imprinted on his actual memories. An alternate Booker is responsible for selling Elizabeth. Also, the death of Booker, regardless of which one, has no affect on the infinite number of other Bookers. Killing the Gunsmith in one reality doesn't kill him in all realities, so killing our Booker doesn't affect the alternate Bookers. There are still infinite other Bookers selling Elizabeth and becoming Comstock. Each Elizabeth would have to kill their own Booker. Or am I missing something?

 

[Orogun01]

Yes you are, AD = Anna DeWitt a brand of guilt.

[FourLetters]

I just finished Bioshock and I have to admit - I'm impressed! It'll be one of the best games in 2013! You'll see!

[Calax]

You know whats odd to me though? Anna has always lost her finger... but you're swapping between alternate timelines like crazy. I feel like the Anna you see jump through the portal shouldn't have been the Anna you spend the game with.

 

ANd another point, How is it that Anna and Booker keep thinking that their deal with the Vox is still on, when they've dimension hopped twice?

 

Finally, and I realize this is more personal, I can't help but feel that the dimension hopping takes wayy to much from the story.  You're in one dimension and everything is fine, and then you hop three dimensions (where there's an alternate Booker and Anna), and yet the story still plays out like you're back in the "prime" universe. It makes that entire bit of the story just feel... wrong.