Jimquisition: Lugoscababib Discobiscuits
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly, I've never seen anyone mention this at all until Jim's video just now. It certainly wasn't the biggest thing that most people were complaining about. Hell, if even Jim wasn't aware of it, or at least wasn't aware of many mainstream examples of it, then I feel pretty safe saying it wasn't even a big thing that the majority of the gaming press thought to bring up and run with.bringer of illumination said:
Aside from your one example there of killing an innocent person (though I don't recall this happening aside from my ending up in some woman's home with police in there ready to kill me and having to fight them when they saw me), it's easily, and quite rationally, explained by the fact that if they don't fight these people and find a way out of the city, Booker will die and Elizabeth is going back to her tower for the rest of her life.
Now maybe you missed the fact that she really, really, wanted to get away from there, but it's not something that was exactly subtly hinted at during the game. So no, I don't agree with the idea that this is dissonant at all. You can quibble as much as you want over the whole thing being a bit rushed, and maybe they didn't spend enough time showing her getting over her initial disgust to ensure their survival, but the reality is that the explanation for why she would continue on with Booker and actively help him is readily explained by information contained within the games narrative.
On a side note, it's kind of funny that Jim can do a whole episode dedicated to why these arguments are wrong, and people are still trying to make the same arguments.
A thought regarding Bioshock Infinite and it's dissonance; could it be that the dissonance is in the fact that the violence is fun? I can't say much about the story, because Bioshock Infinite is probably the most boring game I've ever played for a multitude of reasons, but it always strikes me as bizarre that brutal violence and getting shot up is meant to be a pleasurable experience/challenge. Then again, who would want to play games where you go "OH CHRIST HE'S GOT A GUN," and it feels awful? But that's also a more generalized thought on violence-as-dissonance and isn't really germane to Bioshock Infinite. Also, I found the plasmids and the whole "I can equip boots that burst into flame when I stick a landing," to be more dissonant than eating popcorn out of trash; Booker is basically an enemy of the state or something, right? Who the fuck is gonna sell him a hot dog?
I remember that part, and I remember it being specifically about strategy. When that message pops up, you're coming right off a gun battle and into a house owned by unarmed civilians. They run and cower, but they won't hurt you or run out and call authorities. I imagine the message pops up because up to that point, you have pretty much gunned down every living soul you come across, and they had to get just a bit in your face to remind you there are other ways to solve problems. And of course the violence continues after that, but the notice was simply saying there are some times when killing isn't necessary. It never made any promises that it would never happen again.Callate said:
It sort of reminds me of something I heard in the Portal 2 developer's commentary. In a bit toward the end, they said they introduced a few "mini puzzles" before a big puzzle to subtly remind the player about certain mechanics they learned much earlier in the game, but at that point haven't used in a while. This is because even though the player is knowledgable about how the mechanics work, spending so much time not in that "mode" makes them temporarily forget what they can do. So they forget they can layer gels on top of one another, or they forget they can shoot through wire fences, so they had to do something in the game to remind the player about these mechanics and how they work so they don't try to solve the puzzle without them.
So that's more or less how I took that notice. Reminding you that you do have a choice, and sort of reinforcing that overarching theme that reveals itself at the end where you feel all throughout the game your choices mean something, but ultimately they don't.
Garden Of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch.Dickdatduck said:
--
OT:
Loved the video. Personally, my problem with the combat in Bioshock Infinite wasn't the violence. It was just that I thought some parts of the combat dragged on too long. Could've used some longer breaks, basically...
Still loved the game in general though.
Also... I want that suit, Jim. Just saying.
I am putting in a crumpled piece of paper in the suggestion box:Jimothy Sterling said:
"Transcript of videos in comments, please?"
It would probably only please five people, screw up the advertising somewhat, and be extra work for you. But, I really want to hear what you're saying in silence on my phone. As in, during Calculus class, when I'm supposed to be paying attention.
To me, in Bioshock Infinite, it wasn't that it was ludonarrative dissonance to me; it was just tonally inconsistent.
You have a serious story, in a well thought out setting. It's touching on some heavy issues, then suddenly it's 1990s style gore circus with gibs, body parts, blood, and heads flying all over the place.
You have a serious story, in a well thought out setting. It's touching on some heavy issues, then suddenly it's 1990s style gore circus with gibs, body parts, blood, and heads flying all over the place.
For me gameplay enjoyment comes first and ludonarrative dissonance comes second. This is why I didn't care too much about Lara saying one thing and doing another in Tomb Raider, because the other was quite fun to do. It made no sense for this fledgling college student to stealth choke/gun down/axe murder all these mooks, but when I'm enjoying myself doing it I feel it a bit strange to start complaining about.
Same would've applied to Bioshock: Infinite if the gunplay wasn't complete and total rubbish. That title would've been far better off having been a detective styled game with minimal action, since it would've fit the setting way better, but most importantly so Ken Levine would stop crowbarring flacid shooter action into his games. Seriously dude, stop it!
Same would've applied to Bioshock: Infinite if the gunplay wasn't complete and total rubbish. That title would've been far better off having been a detective styled game with minimal action, since it would've fit the setting way better, but most importantly so Ken Levine would stop crowbarring flacid shooter action into his games. Seriously dude, stop it!
Bioshock Infinite's problem is less than it suffers ludonarrative dissonance than it suffers from just straight-up narrative dissonance. Halfway through, after Booker has led a revolution and killed tons of police officers and civil servants, he basically makes the case that violence can never be justified, and that trying to use violence to stop violence is insane(and nothing in the game tries to combat that notion). And during that section of gameplay, we're supposed to find the violence unsettling and want to stop doing it.
Then, five hours later, I'm rushing to save a damsel in distress, any sense that what I'm doing is wrong has evaporated, the game is in no way trying to humanize the people I'm killing, and I'm using violence to save the world...from violence. Christ, the game ends with literally, an infinite number of murder. Literally infinite murder. That's just...inconsistent. And very, very, dissonant.
Then, five hours later, I'm rushing to save a damsel in distress, any sense that what I'm doing is wrong has evaporated, the game is in no way trying to humanize the people I'm killing, and I'm using violence to save the world...from violence. Christ, the game ends with literally, an infinite number of murder. Literally infinite murder. That's just...inconsistent. And very, very, dissonant.
That's actually much how it was introduced into usage, so to argue it's wrong is folly.ex275w said:
Besides, your examples are not offering a significant distinction. Gameplay in the above examples distinctly violates the themes given.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, gamers can't be trusted with the term "entitled" and that's not exactly an SAT word.
And as annoying as that was in GTA4, I wouldn't accuse that game of having ludoscaboobidibob discobiscuits because you could play the character that way; try to control yourself so it seems like Niko has a new found respect for life. But really, who wants to do that in a gta game?
While I don't think that the "score" (whatever that's worth) should've been lowered for that (raised maybe), I am glad it was brought up in the review. At least now I know I wont be playing as 3 tortured souls who shed a tear every time I run over some random slob on the sidewalk.Racecarlock said:
And as annoying as that was in GTA4, I wouldn't accuse that game of having ludoscaboobidibob discobiscuits because you could play the character that way; try to control yourself so it seems like Niko has a new found respect for life. But really, who wants to do that in a gta game?
I thought Adam Sessler just made up the concept of Ludonarative Dissonance because a word needed to exist then other people started using it.
The LD in Tomb Raider wasn't the violence, its was the fact that you go around collecting arrows, cards, statues and whatever else which has no point to the story.
The LD in Tomb Raider wasn't the violence, its was the fact that you go around collecting arrows, cards, statues and whatever else which has no point to the story.
The thread title is great for demonstrating how dyslexia feels. Not perfect, but great.RTR said:
I think the real source of some of these stupid dissonance arguments is that some people are unable to separate the characters from themselves.
In Bioshock and The Last of Us, you are playing an established character, one who already has a personality, and their personality and values are VERY different from yours. This isn't Skyrim or Dragon Age - you are not the one shaping their morals or projecting yourself into the game as the main character. You are simply playing through a prewritten and linear story.
You might hate violence, but the character you're playing as does not. Deal with it.
In Bioshock and The Last of Us, you are playing an established character, one who already has a personality, and their personality and values are VERY different from yours. This isn't Skyrim or Dragon Age - you are not the one shaping their morals or projecting yourself into the game as the main character. You are simply playing through a prewritten and linear story.
You might hate violence, but the character you're playing as does not. Deal with it.
That's kind of what I mean when I said that not having real choices was more the point of the thing than the violence. But the idea that that particular scene also amounted to another form of "ultimately meaningless choice" was something I hadn't really considered. Interesting point, thanks.Lilani said:
Well if that's the case, I'd have to ask if immersion is so important to you, why did you jam your hook into the face of an innocent housewife? To me it sounds like a person giving a second person a glass cup, where upon the second person smashes it with a hammer and shatters it before complaining to the first person about it being broken. If you didn't want it to be broken, then why did you try and break it in the first place?bringer of illumination said:
I was looking forward to the offended press reactions about BioShock Infinite's many themes, and I found it really stupid how they flipped out about the violence.
Booker DeWitt isn't the nicest guy around, that's pretty much estabilished a few hours in.
Booker DeWitt isn't the nicest guy around, that's pretty much estabilished a few hours in.
Jim you have a custom made Jimquistion suit? Now that is classy.
Anyway all this talk of discobiscuits has made me hungry...
Anyway all this talk of discobiscuits has made me hungry...