BioShock: Infinite

[Nightshape]

^Dislike post

Bok, your rigs looking a bit old... and seriously... Bioshock is pretentious crap.

[Azure79]

I questioned the whole dimension hopping thing too. I couldn't imagine why Booker would think the original deal in another alternate would hold, once they went into another alternate. The whole point seemed to be they would snag the gunmaker in the alternate dimension, bring him back to their timeline and get going. Elizabeth even mentions that she isn't sure whether she can bring them back, which shows their intent, but once they crossover, they seem to stop caring. 

[Calax]

It also seemed like a shortcut to take the city from "intact peaceful (except for Bookers mucking about) city" to "revolutionary hellscape" because they wanted to have the stupid plot cul-de-sac instead of actually having us see the revolution kick off.

[Bokishi]

 

^Dislike post

 

Bok, your rigs looking a bit old... and seriously... Bioshock is pretentious crap.

Yeah I need to upgrade soon, just waiting for haswell and the successor to the gtx Titan. In what way do you see BioShock as pretentious? Edited April 23, 2013 by Bokishi

[Amentep]

 

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?

 

 

As Orogun mentions

 

The AD implies that this Booker is "an" Anna's dad; his lost memory is because he's moved into a world where he - as Comstock - has no children and the memories are fighting with each other. Realistically though, it doesn't matter so long as the Booker Elizabeth has is one who had the same choice of baptism - ie they're not different at the quantum level from Comstock at the time of the baptismal choice.

 

She couldn't pull a Booker who never felt remorse for what he did because that Booker diverged from the quantum path well before the baptism happened. She couldn't pull a Booker who died at Wounded Knee because again that path has diverged into its own set of alternate histories far different from the Comstock ones. But any Booker who has accepted or rejected that particular baptism (of which there would be infinite numbers) would be useable.

 

Then, by having the baptism result in death, no alternate timelines exist spun from that even that could create a Comstock. So all Comstocks and all Elizabeths are wiped from existence. This means that they also kill off all the infinite Comstocks who were really great people and who created real utopian Columbias...and the infinite Comstocks who never met a Lutrice...and so on...

 

 

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.

 

Its not odd - as I understand it Elizabeth can only open alternate worlds if she existed - however briefly - in two different realities at the same time. Other reality hoppers never get the ability to manipulate the tears and I think this is the reason.

 

Realistically, though, there should be an infinite number of Elizabeths who exist but never have the power to open tears because their Booker never tried to stop the deal.

 

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?

 

Elizabeth indicates that she once thought she was calling into being worlds she wants to have happen (which is part of why she breaks down at one point). More likely her ability allows her to pick the timelines that she wants; ie one in which a deal was made and has the guns. They don't ever really "know" the deal is on - even when Booker takes the deal he doesn't really know if Fitzroy will renege on it or not.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure the story actually plays out as if they're in the PRIME universe. If they were in the prime universe the Vox would never have their weapons so it actually couldn't play out the way the game does. What they do get is a succession of worlds that gives them the outcomes they sought - even if ultimately I think they might not have wanted those outcomes if they realized what they were asking for.

 

I questioned the whole dimension hopping thing too. I couldn't imagine why Booker would think the original deal in another alternate would hold, once they went into another alternate. The whole point seemed to be they would snag the gunmaker in the alternate dimension, bring him back to their timeline and get going. Elizabeth even mentions that she isn't sure whether she can bring them back, which shows their intent, but once they crossover, they seem to stop caring.

 

I think they stop caring because they realize by the time things get rolling good that they're not going to be able to get what they want by going back to the original universe. By the time they get the gunmaker, there's no way for them to actually get the guns (the Vox have them IIRC).

 

It also seemed like a shortcut to take the city from "intact peaceful (except for Bookers mucking about) city" to "revolutionary hellscape" because they wanted to have the stupid plot cul-de-sac instead of actually having us see the revolution kick off.

 

I think this is a problem with their plan to design the game with an illusion of choice. There doesn't appear to be real diverging paths or choices (which makes the fact that they give you a choice but the game won't progress unless you make the choice that furthers the game narrative all the more frustrating). If there was a shooter that really needed branching paths for the story, this one was it, IMO.

[Calax]

 

 

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?

 

 

As Orogun mentions

 

The AD implies that this Booker is "an" Anna's dad; his lost memory is because he's moved into a world where he - as Comstock - has no children and the memories are fighting with each other. Realistically though, it doesn't matter so long as the Booker Elizabeth has is one who had the same choice of baptism - ie they're not different at the quantum level from Comstock at the time of the baptismal choice.

 

She couldn't pull a Booker who never felt remorse for what he did because that Booker diverged from the quantum path well before the baptism happened. She couldn't pull a Booker who died at Wounded Knee because again that path has diverged into its own set of alternate histories far different from the Comstock ones. But any Booker who has accepted or rejected that particular baptism (of which there would be infinite numbers) would be useable.

 

Then, by having the baptism result in death, no alternate timelines exist spun from that even that could create a Comstock. So all Comstocks and all Elizabeths are wiped from existence. This means that they also kill off all the infinite Comstocks who were really great people and who created real utopian Columbias...and the infinite Comstocks who never met a Lutrice...and so on...

 

 

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.

 

Its not odd - as I understand it Elizabeth can only open alternate worlds if she existed - however briefly - in two different realities at the same time. Other reality hoppers never get the ability to manipulate the tears and I think this is the reason.

 

Realistically, though, there should be an infinite number of Elizabeths who exist but never have the power to open tears because their Booker never tried to stop the deal.

 

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?

 

Elizabeth indicates that she once thought she was calling into being worlds she wants to have happen (which is part of why she breaks down at one point). More likely her ability allows her to pick the timelines that she wants; ie one in which a deal was made and has the guns. They don't ever really "know" the deal is on - even when Booker takes the deal he doesn't really know if Fitzroy will renege on it or not.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure the story actually plays out as if they're in the PRIME universe. If they were in the prime universe the Vox would never have their weapons so it actually couldn't play out the way the game does. What they do get is a succession of worlds that gives them the outcomes they sought - even if ultimately I think they might not have wanted those outcomes if they realized what they were asking for.

 

I questioned the whole dimension hopping thing too. I couldn't imagine why Booker would think the original deal in another alternate would hold, once they went into another alternate. The whole point seemed to be they would snag the gunmaker in the alternate dimension, bring him back to their timeline and get going. Elizabeth even mentions that she isn't sure whether she can bring them back, which shows their intent, but once they crossover, they seem to stop caring.

 

I think they stop caring because they realize by the time things get rolling good that they're not going to be able to get what they want by going back to the original universe. By the time they get the gunmaker, there's no way for them to actually get the guns (the Vox have them IIRC).

Then there would be no reason for the deal to have started in the first place. And the universe where the Vox are already rising, Bookers been dead a while, so the deal wouldn't have been started.The deal only works in the first universe, beyond that there are so many holes in the idea that it's stopped making sense that your characters would act this way. I mean if they'd avoided all the plane hopping nonsense or just had then nip into another universe, assemble a pile of guns, and then gate back to the first one, it'd have felt better. As it is I just feel like the characters are idiots.

[Amentep]

Then there would be no reason for the deal to have started in the first place. And the universe where the Vox are already rising, Bookers been dead a while, so the deal wouldn't have been started.The deal only works in the first universe, beyond that there are so many holes in the idea that it's stopped making sense that your characters would act this way. I mean if they'd avoided all the plane hopping nonsense or just had then nip into another universe, assemble a pile of guns, and then gate back to the first one, it'd have felt better. As it is I just feel like the characters are idiots.

I don't really disagree; Booker seems to hold onto the idea that the Vox are going to give him an airship like its a floatation device in a storm.

 

 

Particularly once you know there are other airships in existence that both the Vox and the Founders have - including Comstock having his own personal transport - the obsession with getting help from the Vox seems poorly motivated by the story.

 

[Cultist]

The game was overhyped and, sadly, devs failed to deliver. It is beautiful but very shallow.

- Weapons are unspeakably dumbed down. Two weapons, plus severe lack in variety is very disappointing.

- Lack of task variety, it's in practice, battle, battle and more battle. Compared to nnumerous different tasks in Bioshock 1, Infinite is broke.

- Lack of weapon upgrades. All you get in more accurate, more damage, more clip.

- Singular developement path. No options for melee builds, stealth builds etc. Even with melee-empowering equipment.

t least story someho compensate this flaws.

[AGX-17]

The game was overhyped and, sadly, devs failed to deliver. It is beautiful but very shallow.

- Weapons are unspeakably dumbed down. Two weapons, plus severe lack in variety is very disappointing.

- Lack of task variety, it's in practice, battle, battle and more battle. Compared to nnumerous different tasks in Bioshock 1, Infinite is broke.

- Lack of weapon upgrades. All you get in more accurate, more damage, more clip.

- Singular developement path. No options for melee builds, stealth builds etc. Even with melee-empowering equipment.

t least story someho compensate this flaws.

A first person shooter with combat? What a travesty! So dumb. Like, what kind of neanderthal audience is a two-weapon limit for? There's more depth and tension in a system where you get 10 different weapons and large amounts of ammo for each of the 10 weapons which allow you to deal with every possible scenario in the ideal fashion.

 

No Deus Ex style RPG options? Travesty. Bioshock totally had skill trees and perks and level ups, with stealth builds and melee builds. Bioshock Infinite is a total bait & switch, they took all the RPG elements from Bioshock and threw them out the... oh wait none of those RPG elements you're claiming were in Bioshock were actually in Bioshock. There were no RPG systems, there were no "builds." It was a first person shooter where 90% of the time you're shooting people with guns or plasmids.

Edited April 28, 2013 by AGX-17

[BruceVC]

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/04/18/the-anti-gospel-of-bioshock-infinite/?singlepage=true

 

 

Anyone feeling guilty about playing this game now?

[Zoraptor]

"No Gods or Kings, Only Men"- very first sign in B1, iirc.

 

I never quite understand evangelicals. In a way I'm quite happy about that. Because "no dunk in a river will erase what I've done" is perfectly fine theologically, because it's clear that Booker does not actually believe, so has no faith. If you don't believe then a baptism is just a dunk in some water, saying otherwise is the same approach that sees people being converted at gunpoint to save their souls.

 

And as much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand's philosophies the approach in B1 is actually exactly the same. Ryan doesn't follow Rand. He thinks he does, and at the end perhaps he does (paralleled, perhaps, by Booker finding 'faith' in a way at the end) but he has no actual faith or he would not have seized Fontaine Futuristics at barrel of gun for being too successful. That's made explicit by McDonogh's logs. In all Levine's games he takes potshots at extreme ideologies- Anarchism in Thief, Collectivism in SS2, Objectivism in B1- and it's clear that it's the extreme part that he's aiming at, not the belief itself.

 

More than anything though, I could do a better job of dissecting games on a theological basis, and I'm basically agnostic.

[Calax]

"No Gods or Kings, Only Men"- very first sign in B1, iirc.

 

I never quite understand evangelicals. In a way I'm quite happy about that. Because "no dunk in a river will erase what I've done" is perfectly fine theologically, because it's clear that Booker does not actually believe, so has no faith. If you don't believe then a baptism is just a dunk in some water, saying otherwise is the same approach that sees people being converted at gunpoint to save their souls.

 

And as much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand's philosophies the approach in B1 is actually exactly the same. Ryan doesn't follow Rand. He thinks he does, and at the end perhaps he does (paralleled, perhaps, by Booker finding 'faith' in a way at the end) but he has no actual faith or he would not have seized Fontaine Futuristics at barrel of gun for being too successful. That's made explicit by McDonogh's logs. In all Levine's games he takes potshots at extreme ideologies- Anarchism in Thief, Collectivism in SS2, Objectivism in B1- and it's clear that it's the extreme part that he's aiming at, not the belief itself.

 

More than anything though, I could do a better job of dissecting games on a theological basis, and I'm basically agnostic.

I thought it wasn't that Fontaine was to successful, but more the fact that Fontaine was using his wealth to get smugglers from the surface to work for him. 

[Zoraptor]

That was the supposed reason (ie the one Ryan used as a 'legal' justification), yes, but the telling part was that he simply seized all of Fontaine Futuristics for himself once he'd 'won'.

 

Is a Man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No says Andrew Ryan, it belongs to him.

[Calax]

Wouldn't, on one level, that takeover be something that Andrew Ryan achieved? I mean the technicality was ultimately used because Fontaine wasn't playing by objectivist rules. He didn't respect individual rights, and instead lied, cheated, and schemed his way into stealing kids and mob wars for bordellos and booze.

[Cultist]

A first person shooter with combat? What a travesty! So dumb. Like, what kind of neanderthal audience is a two-weapon limit for? There's more depth and tension in a system where you get 10 different weapons and large amounts of ammo for each of the 10 weapons which allow you to deal with every possible scenario in the ideal fashion.

 

No Deus Ex style RPG options? Travesty. Bioshock totally had skill trees and perks and level ups, with stealth builds and melee builds. Bioshock Infinite is a total bait & switch, they took all the RPG elements from Bioshock and threw them out the... oh wait none of those RPG elements you're claiming were in Bioshock were actually in Bioshock. There were no RPG systems, there were no "builds." It was a first person shooter where 90% of the time you're shooting people with guns or plasmids.

 

You are twisting my words. It took me two guns and two vigors to complete Infinite - I never changed anything because there was no need to. In B1, I had to use various guns and various plasmids to be effective, there was no universal solution.

Your upgrades were limited. You could play as stealth, melee, tank , trapper or other builds, they were equally effective. 

Also, point me where I talk about "RPG elements you're claiming were in Bioshock"

[Tagaziel]

"No Gods or Kings, Only Men"- very first sign in B1, iirc.

 

I never quite understand evangelicals. In a way I'm quite happy about that. Because "no dunk in a river will erase what I've done" is perfectly fine theologically, because it's clear that Booker does not actually believe, so has no faith. If you don't believe then a baptism is just a dunk in some water, saying otherwise is the same approach that sees people being converted at gunpoint to save their souls.

 

And as much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand's philosophies the approach in B1 is actually exactly the same. Ryan doesn't follow Rand. He thinks he does, and at the end perhaps he does (paralleled, perhaps, by Booker finding 'faith' in a way at the end) but he has no actual faith or he would not have seized Fontaine Futuristics at barrel of gun for being too successful. That's made explicit by McDonogh's logs. In all Levine's games he takes potshots at extreme ideologies- Anarchism in Thief, Collectivism in SS2, Objectivism in B1- and it's clear that it's the extreme part that he's aiming at, not the belief itself.

 

More than anything though, I could do a better job of dissecting games on a theological basis, and I'm basically agnostic.

The greatest irony of life is that the more you know about religion and the better your understanding of it and its tenets, the higher the likelihood of you being a non-theist. I have no problem with Bioshock Infinite taking apart religion and its redeeming properties (and let's not forget how it makes your laundry 100% cleaner and gives it a nice oaken smell to boot). People should take responsibility for their actions, instead of using religion as a Waive Responsibility For What You Do 100% Free card. 

 

(I enjoyed the bit about "congenital more defects" in the article. Maybe I'm speaking for myself, but I don't need religion to keep my instincts and wickedness in check, lest I start murdering people left and right.)

[BruceVC]

 

"No Gods or Kings, Only Men"- very first sign in B1, iirc.

 

I never quite understand evangelicals. In a way I'm quite happy about that. Because "no dunk in a river will erase what I've done" is perfectly fine theologically, because it's clear that Booker does not actually believe, so has no faith. If you don't believe then a baptism is just a dunk in some water, saying otherwise is the same approach that sees people being converted at gunpoint to save their souls.

 

And as much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand's philosophies the approach in B1 is actually exactly the same. Ryan doesn't follow Rand. He thinks he does, and at the end perhaps he does (paralleled, perhaps, by Booker finding 'faith' in a way at the end) but he has no actual faith or he would not have seized Fontaine Futuristics at barrel of gun for being too successful. That's made explicit by McDonogh's logs. In all Levine's games he takes potshots at extreme ideologies- Anarchism in Thief, Collectivism in SS2, Objectivism in B1- and it's clear that it's the extreme part that he's aiming at, not the belief itself.

 

More than anything though, I could do a better job of dissecting games on a theological basis, and I'm basically agnostic.

The greatest irony of life is that the more you know about religion and the better your understanding of it and its tenets, the higher the likelihood of you being a non-theist. I have no problem with Bioshock Infinite taking apart religion and its redeeming properties (and let's not forget how it makes your laundry 100% cleaner and gives it a nice oaken smell to boot). People should take responsibility for their actions, instead of using religion as a Waive Responsibility For What You Do 100% Free card. 

 

(I enjoyed the bit about "congenital more defects" in the article. Maybe I'm speaking for myself, but I don't need religion to keep my instincts and wickedness in check, lest I start murdering people left and right.)

 

 

Thats what happened to me, the more I started looking at the logic and insight behind religion the more illogical it became for me. So nowadays I don't prescribe to any religion, I don't knock them and I suppose I am more of a spiritualist?

[Zoraptor]

Wouldn't, on one level, that takeover be something that Andrew Ryan achieved? I mean the technicality was ultimately used because Fontaine wasn't playing by objectivist rules. He didn't respect individual rights, and instead lied, cheated, and schemed his way into stealing kids and mob wars for bordellos and booze.

Fontaine was objectivist 'agnostic'- and probably a plain old sociopath- for sure, but Ryan was not, he was not just a believer by The Believer. In the end Ryan took Fontaine Futuristics because he wanted it and he had the bigger army, not out of righteous indignation at the soiling of his dream, and once he had it he kept it in contravention of his own rules. From a philosophical perspective the Fontlas combination were the logical result of objectivism in the non-abstract, non-perfect 'real' world, Fontaine does not play by the rules in a commercial sense and Atlas does not play by the rules in a violent revolution sense. But Ryan is worse from the philosophical stand point, as he ends up corrupted and not holding to the tenets he purports to believe. At least Fontaine is consistently loyal to his nature...

 

In a more religious sense it's like the devil tempting Eve with an apple. That's what the devil does. But if it were Jesus tempting Eve with the apple that would be a lot worse, as he isn't supposed to do that sort of thing.

 

There's also a similar thing in System Shock 2. The Many is a collective, and supposed to banish want and hurt. Yet while the big cheeses like Korenchkin are perfectly happy being Psi Reavers the plebs clearly aren't happy being hybrids, as they run around saying 'kill me' and actively warning you before they attack. And that's pretty much the experience with communism as applied in the real world.