No, BioShock Infinite's Ending Doesn't Suck

[Rack]

My opinion is that Bioshock Infinite's ending sucked because it was a bit long a bit self indulgent and it didn't solve the plot holes and cartoonish villains in a satisfying way. It didn't answer the questions I want answered.

So not great, but nowhere near as bad as Mass Effect 3 Fallout 3, Assassins Creed 3, Fable 3...

Huh, never noticed that pattern before.

 

[AdamG3691]

People have said that Infinite's ending was the worst ending ever? Really? Okay, I miss my happy ending that I got from BioShock and BioShock 2, but I thought Infinite's ending was fine. It took me a second to wrap my head around, but I got it--once I started viewing it through a comic-book-reality pair of lenses. Like the multiverse that's always showing up in DC.

I'm glad Yahtzee pointed out the fact that no one else was using Vigors. I found that strange. What I found even stranger was the upgrade for the Possession vigor. After you posses a human, they kill themselves after a short time. Who...who thought that was a good idea? Think about that for a moment: You are walking down the street, someone hits you with a green mist, and a few moments later you are compelled to kill yourself. And it's not like this was a secret version of Possession. This upgrade was available at any Viny-Vigor machine. That's insane, because Possession now serves no purpose beyond murdering someone.

the posession-suicide thing is booker exclusive. they are either so updet at what they've done under possession, or distressed that they've been mindraped by the guy they see pretty much as the antichrist.

for the vigors, they ARE used around the city, shock jockey for instance,but lots of them are combat oriented, so you may as well be asking why the civilians aren't using shotguns for menial tasks, and they don't have side effects because they AREN'T PLASMIDS, they work in completely different ways, plasmids alter your genes to give you an ability, vigors are created by the siphon taking elizabeth's powers, condensing them to a liquid, and giving you a limited tear opening ability

 

[Azrael the Cat]

The cultists are pretty much exactly Nazis, they even have the equivalent of the Kraft durch Freude program ("Strength through Leisure" proclaims a sign on the beach). So if there's always a man and always a city, where's Adolf Hitler's crazy city?

Interesting idea. "Bioshock: Onwards", set in Germania, the overblown Minas Tirith-y mega city Hitler had planned to remake Berlin into once he had won the wars. The only problem would be to effectively isolate it, like Columbia or Rapture. Perhaps the surrounding area are just miles upon miles of fields with robotic/biopunky harvest machines?

Although trying to make the point that nazism is bad and stupid would probably be a bit too easy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1986-029-02%2C_%22Germania%22%2C_Modell_%22Gro%C3%9Fe_Halle%22.jpg

It would make a great backdrop, though.

How's this for a way more interesting idea: the pre-Nazi Weinmar republic survived by going (literally) underground on the assumption that facism was going to be around for a long time in Germany, or that Hitler was going to win the war. Instead of exploring 'evil nazis' you're exploring a political system that is historically famed for being liberal, artistic and very modern for its time...except that the system was constantly perilously close to gridlock as it required parties to compromise with each other. You could make some interesting ideas out of other ways that could have gone wrong rather than Nazism.

 

[Farther than stars]

--snip--

The fact that you're not listening to me became fairly obvious a while ago. For the third time: "Depth is basically just the amount of themes that a piece explores, the extent to which it explores them and the amount of layers that that generates."

snip

I would define depth not as the number of themes in a story, but the number of stories told at the same time, in other words the number of themes that get explored. Anyone can cram a dozen themes into one story, but that does nothing for depth, you are basically saying that complexity equals depth which is just not true. Metal Gear Solid is complex as shit has dozens of different themes but I would not call it deep.

So... my original definition depth contains contains "the amount of themes that get explored" and you feel the need to tell me "[I would define depth as] the number of themes that get explored". Moreover, I've been saying the entire time that depth does not equal complexity. But for some reason you feel the need to constantly remind me of that as well. See, if you had actually paid attention, we might not be going around in circles.
I will, however, leave you with one final thought (not about Bioshock Infinite, since you seem to have a very rigid idea of what my views are [not that your "brick wall" attitude is helping that much]): just because Extra Credits doesn't explore one of the themes of Spec Ops: The Line, doesn't mean it's not there.

You can't wave the fiction flag when you run head first into a plothole. That's LAZY and goes against the supposed high brow story of the game. If it wants to be cerebral it has to cement those holes shut, not tell the player to just ignore it. It can't have it's cake and eat it saying it's just a game for fun whenever the plotholes creep up and then at the same time want to be taken completely seriously all the rest.

With multi-verses and time travel stories, you will always run into plot holes. It's inevitable. Luckily, you can still be cerebral whilst not accounting for every detail, though I'd argue that the whole "blowing a man's head clean off with your hand grinder" does far more to disrupt the cerebral tone. I'm sure the reason for that particular period being picked is hand waved within the context of the story (you here the twins mumble something about "how far should you go back?"), and it is for the sake of irony that Booker should demand to "smother Comstock at birth", only to find that this would mean smothering himself the moment he was baptised.

As for Booker still being a terrible father and a drunken, guilty asshole in the new world...I don't think the game is trying to paint it as a happy ending as such (you did just get drowned, after all), and I think they were just going for the solace that Booker gets a second chance. The game ends before we can know if he'll squander it.

Ah, thank you! It's good to know there is still someone on this Earth who is capable of post-modernist interpretation. Honestly, I think I'd run into a brick wall with him. Well, he basically said so. But I like the way you can extrapolate plot mechanics from their intentions. Tell me, have you ever read the New York trilogy by Paul Auster? If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, you should give that a go.

There's no two ways about it. Bioshock Infinite has the deepest story ever set in a video game. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

What's deep about it?

Well, Maninahat, 1337mokro and myself have been having a fairly interesting discussion on this forum, to say the least. That might be worth reading.
But broadly speaking:

-The first layer of themes consists of racism, patriotism, poverty, technological progress and religious extremism.
-The second layer is multiple universes
-The third layer is guilt and redemption (through baptism)
-The fourth layer is what playing this game actually means to the player

So far variations on the fourth seem to be: "everything turned out OK", "nihilism", "the journey is more important than the destination" and "they killed characters I fucking cared about!".

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I haven't played Infinite yet, but I must say, if you're going through all this trouble to defend the ending (however shitty/nonsensical/pretentious/all three it may turn out to be), that does not bode well.

 

[Bug MuIdoon]

"Grim Fandango"

The best game ever made.

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

"I have a friend who's convinced that American conservatives are going to denounce Infinite as a liberal smear upon the Republican south."

Except, before and during the time period the game portrays, the South was pretty solidly Democrat. The Democrats in Congress were pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and really very racist.

Go read a history book, Yahtzee and Yahtzee's friend.

 

[MPerce]

"I have a friend who's convinced that American conservatives are going to denounce Infinite as a liberal smear upon the Republican south."

Except, before and during the time period the game portrays, the South was pretty solidly Democrat. The Democrats in Congress were pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and really very racist.

Go read a history book, Yahtzee and Yahtzee's friend.

I believe Yahtzee's friend is referring to the modern day South. Some conservative pundits thought that Infinite was going to come across as an attack against the Tea Party, what with its Founding Father talk, religious overtones, and the Vox Populi, who they thought could become an Occupy Wall Street analogy. But now that the game is out, most of these people have changed their minds, since the Founders are waaaay more extreme than Tea Partiers, and the Vox Populi are portrayed as violent antagonists. Hell, Glenn Beck's website basically calls it an anti-communism game for some reason.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I feel like you didn't really explain why it's good, and focused more on other things..

I thought the ending was weird when I first got to it, but turned the game off to go back to gw. Later, someone told me that there was stuff after the credits, so I watched it and now thought the ending was actually bad. I don't think I would have thought so if it had been a movie or a book, but since it's an interactive medium I don't like it when everything I just did turns out to be pointless. And I think that's why it's bad, since it doesn't end. The loop they're in could just go on and on for all I know. There's nothing that says it all won't happen again.

 

[John Connor M]

I don't understand people who say things like "doesn't deserve the praise"/whatever, those people obviously enjoyed it and is that such a terrible thing?

There's little nuances that most people won't get such as the protagonist having the surname of a famous physicist, the luteces being the same person but from different worlds(very obvious) etc.

 

[Denamic]

:/ I liked the ending and hated it. I would still give the game glaringly good reviews but i really don't like how everyone is talking about the ending as if it was sheer brilliance.

It was nice but it was FAR from original and magnificent: "YOU'RE THE BAD GUY THE WHOLE TIME!!!" :/ I mean really.

Spoiler

But you're not the antagonist. You fight the man you could have become but didn't. And to truly remove the man you didn't become, you had to die before you could have become him, thereby erasing the possibility of Comstock and Columbia existing in the first place. Also, because it's Elizabeth that enables Booker to die before Comstock comes to be, there's a paradox that causes that timeline to be impossible, because Booker dying also means Elizabeth never gets her timey wimey wibbly wobbly powers, so she cannot cause Booker to die.

Basically, that whole timeline breaks down completely, so Booker and Anna lives on in an alternate time line where none of that ever happens.

I wouldn't call that unoriginal.

 

[MarsProbe]

This might even encourage players to use those two vigours you pick up right at the end: you know, the ones you cast a confused glance at for a second before returning to the vigours that you know and have spend the last few hours using.

I 'unno, Return to Sender and Undertow were probably the ones I used most towards the end of the game.

I didn't use Return to Sender near enough as I perhaps should have during the game, until a quick search on the internet for any kind of help during the games final conflict revealed a perfect use for it, namely

Spoiler

sticking an RtS trap down in front of the Hand of the Prophets core can seriously reduce the amount of damage it takes during the battle

I had been floundering on that battle for a few days and then put down the vigor and got through it in the first try after that. On the subject of the ending

Spoiler

The thing that hit me the most was the trip to Rapture. Wouldn't have minded spending a little bit longer there, if even just to find out at what point in it's history you had arrived.

 

[Astro]

--snip--

The fact that you're not listening to me became fairly obvious a while ago. For the third time: "Depth is basically just the amount of themes that a piece explores, the extent to which it explores them and the amount of layers that that generates."

snip

I would define depth not as the number of themes in a story, but the number of stories told at the same time, in other words the number of themes that get explored. Anyone can cram a dozen themes into one story, but that does nothing for depth, you are basically saying that complexity equals depth which is just not true. Metal Gear Solid is complex as shit has dozens of different themes but I would not call it deep.

So... my original definition depth contains contains "the amount of themes that get explored" and you feel the need to tell me "[I would define depth as] the number of themes that get explored". Moreover, I've been saying the entire time that depth does not equal complexity. But for some reason you feel the need to constantly remind me of that as well. See, if you had actually paid attention, we might not be going around in circles.
I will, however, leave you with one final thought (not about Bioshock Infinite, since you seem to have a very rigid idea of what my views are [not that your "brick wall" attitude is helping that much]): just because Extra Credits doesn't explore one of the themes of Spec Ops: The Line, doesn't mean it's not there.

You can't wave the fiction flag when you run head first into a plothole. That's LAZY and goes against the supposed high brow story of the game. If it wants to be cerebral it has to cement those holes shut, not tell the player to just ignore it. It can't have it's cake and eat it saying it's just a game for fun whenever the plotholes creep up and then at the same time want to be taken completely seriously all the rest.

With multi-verses and time travel stories, you will always run into plot holes. It's inevitable. Luckily, you can still be cerebral whilst not accounting for every detail, though I'd argue that the whole "blowing a man's head clean off with your hand grinder" does far more to disrupt the cerebral tone. I'm sure the reason for that particular period being picked is hand waved within the context of the story (you here the twins mumble something about "how far should you go back?"), and it is for the sake of irony that Booker should demand to "smother Comstock at birth", only to find that this would mean smothering himself the moment he was baptised.

As for Booker still being a terrible father and a drunken, guilty asshole in the new world...I don't think the game is trying to paint it as a happy ending as such (you did just get drowned, after all), and I think they were just going for the solace that Booker gets a second chance. The game ends before we can know if he'll squander it.

Ah, thank you! It's good to know there is still someone on this Earth who is capable of post-modernist interpretation. Honestly, I think I'd run into a brick wall with him. Well, he basically said so. But I like the way you can extrapolate plot mechanics from their intentions. Tell me, have you ever read the New York trilogy by Paul Auster? If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, you should give that a go.

There's no two ways about it. Bioshock Infinite has the deepest story ever set in a video game. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

What's deep about it?

Well, Maninahat, 1337mokro and myself have been having a fairly interesting discussion on this forum, to say the least. That might be worth reading.
But broadly speaking:

-The first layer of themes consists of racism, patriotism, poverty, technological progress and religious extremism.
-The second layer is multiple universes
-The third layer is guilt and redemption (through baptism)
-The fourth layer is what playing this game actually means to the player

So far variations on the fourth seem to be: "everything turned out OK", "nihilism", "the journey is more important than the destination" and "they killed characters I fucking cared about!".

Excuse me, I'll try to be more clear. How does depth manifest itself in BioShock: Infinite, e.g., in what way do the present themes achieve depth?

Before you answer, let's look at the etymology of the word 'deep':
"profound, awful, mysterious; serious, solemn; deepness, depth," deope (adv.), from Proto-Germanic *deupaz (cf. Old Saxon diop, Old Frisian diap, Dutch diep, Old High German tiof, German tief, Old Norse djupr, Danish dyb, Swedish djup, Gothic diups "deep"), from PIE *dheub- "deep, hollow" (cf. Lithuanian dubus "deep, hollow, Old Church Slavonic duno "bottom, foundation," Welsh dwfn "deep," Old Irish domun "world," via sense development from "bottom" to "foundation" to "earth" to "world").

So we're looking for a profound, mysterious sense of development from surface to foundation. Personally I would argue that themes in a vessel such as these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vt9vZOVC_oM#t=138s are not very deep.

 

[1337mokro]

Excuse me, I'll try to be more clear. How does depth manifest itself in BioShock: Infinite, e.g., what is deep about the themes?

Nothing this guy just equates the fact Bioshock has those things TO depth. There is no depth in those subjects just that they have them and therefore it is deep according to what he thinks is depth.

It's really quite weird in my opinion that someone would call a story deep because it mentions and shows racism, then shows nothing regarding to the background, what the characters think about it or anything else really.

You are about to talk to someone that claims this story is the deepest ever made in a videogame, when it is essentially about one thing with a whole lot of window dressing around it.

 

[1337mokro]

SNIP

-The first layer of themes consists of racism, patriotism, poverty, technological progress and religious extremism.
-The second layer is multiple universes
-The third layer is guilt and redemption (through baptism)
-The fourth layer is what playing this game actually means to the player

So far variations on the fourth seem to be: "everything turned out OK", "nihilism", "the journey is more important than the destination" and "they killed characters I fucking cared about!".

You can repeat it how many times you want, but I am telling over and over just HAVING those themes is not depth when those themes are relegated to the side line.

The first layer is completely IGNORED, it has no effect on the plot or the characters, I have now asked you multiple times to answer how these themes affect the character... which you have failed to answer because I don't think you know. All it does is attempt to flesh out a world and failing at it. Not to forget that you have said multiple times that world building apparently has nothing to do with depth so I have no idea why you even consider that the first layer. You said so yourself. Yet now you do a 180 and include world building themes in the depth? Come on at least be consistent with yourself, I know you are defending a story full of plotholes (which good writers can reduce to a minimum) but that doesn't mean your defence of it has to be as well.

If you want to prove these are themes that actually get explored maybe when all the planets align will you actually attempt to tell me how your first layer affects the story and the characters.

Why does multiple universes give it depth? They don't explore what this means for the character. It just shows you, it is a means to an end, meaning the universe skipping is nothing but a plot engine. It's there to move the story forward, not to be a story in itself. The plot engine does not add to the depth, it just puff ahead and pushes the plot forward whenever it needs to.

This is also where the plot shits itself. Because it uses these explanations to justify it's ending. You can't do that when the entire THING is FULL of plotholes. If this is going to be the defining argument behind your actions then it better not be full of holes. You see everyone of that holes give us an alternate solution, meaning that the impact of the ending is nullified when someone raised the simple question... why not just stop Booker from going to wounded knee, which the answer is Because the story said so.

You can interpret that in any post-modern-neo-classisitical-hellenian-ming-ching style you fucking want, it won't change the fact the story just crapped itself. It offered you a single solution when there were half a dozen more because it's story demanded that one solution. This is a false ultimatum.

Thirdly correct, that is the only theme that gets explored. Nothing else. This story is about guilt and ACCEPTANCE of that guilt. Redemption doesn't so much factor in as the acceptance is basically the redemption.

Fourth I pointed out why the story fails. Not because there are multiple interpretations. But because it is not consistent with it's own rules. You see a story can have multiple interpretations because of the very plotholes you constantly try to handwave. When there are multiple solutions and the characters zero in on ONE solution for the sake of the story, that is bad writing. That is not depth.

Like I have already said depth is not the amount of themes, but the amount of explored themes. If we use your definition we arrive to the conclusion that Skyrim has the bestest story evar! Simply because it explores a numerically higher amount of themes that you laid out here.

I don't think I have to tell you Skyrim wasn't very deep. So in other words the amount of simultaneously told stories, the exploration of these themes is what gives a story depth not just having the theme on display.

But I think we are quite done here. We've talked to a point where we basically have you on one side of a tear and me on another. I say enjoy your game and I hope that you one day will actually re-examine this game once the adoration for it wears off. Maybe when you find your next Greatest Game Story Ever!


PS:

You forgot to add fatherhood to that first layer. If we are going to make a first layer of ignored themes might as well pile em all on there.

 

[Zeras]

I'm glad I decided to wait on purchasing this game, and instead got Bioshock for $4 on Live; it's already a much better experience with actual philosophical themes and meaningful, thought provoking themes.

 

[chikusho]

Excuse me, I'll try to be more clear. How does depth manifest itself in BioShock: Infinite, e.g., in what way do the present themes achieve depth?

Nothing this guy just equates the fact Bioshock has those things TO depth. There is no depth in those subjects just that they have them and therefore it is deep according to what he thinks is depth.

Or, well, the fact that those themes are represented serve as a basis for discussion on how they interact within themselves as well as with each other. Ultimately Breaking them down, piecing together underlying messages and applying them to real world influences and situations.

You are asking "what is deep about this" while nonchalantly disregarding all of the things being written and discussed all over the internet right now, so putting together an answer for you on that question would end up being an even bigger waste of time.

Point one: You're drowned by Elizabeths who wouldn't have been around to drown you if you didn't become Comstock. Paradox.

This has many answers if you care to look for them and think a little outside the box.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533205

Two: Silly M. Night. Shyamalan Plot Twists: The bad guy is evil you from another dimension; Elizabeth is your daughter. Really, guys? Is this really the best you can do?

This is essential, since Booker needs to experience his own past through a villain instead of through himself.

Three: All that I saw throughout the game disagrees with the hypothesis that Elizabeth is the sort of person to resolutely murder Brooker by drowning him.

She understands why it's necessary to murder people way before the final scene.
Also, she's now omniscient, and knows why it's necessary to murder him.

I followed it just fine, and it does what it sets out to do masterfully. I just fundamentally disagree with (some of) the messages and philosophy in it, and so I just really don't like it. My core problem boils directly down to the fact that the ending seems to be saying that a man must be held responsible for the choices he could make, not the choices he does make. And that bothers me on a fundamental level.

In that case, I don't think you followed the ending very well.
Booker had never been held responsible for anything he did in Wounded Knee, because he chose apathy instead. In some very obvious ways, all events taking place in Columbia is Booker being punished for what Booker did, not for what he could have done as Comstock.

Comstock let religion prove that he was right for those same sins. Among the many philosophies and themes in the game, a major one is that you can't simply escape from those sins and have all be well, and neither can you use past or others atrocities to justify new atrocities.

 

[Agayek]

In that case, I don't think you followed the ending very well.
Booker had never been held responsible for anything he did in Wounded Knee, because he chose apathy instead.
Comstock let religion prove that he was right for those same sins. Among the many philosophies and themes in the game, a major one is that you can't simply escape from those sins and have all be well, and neither can you use past or others atrocities to justify new atrocities.

I have no problem with Booker being held accountable for Wounded Knee. I never have. I rather liked the whole "you can't escape your past" stuff that kept popping up.

The game explicitly holds Booker accountable for the actions of Comstock however, and that's the part I disagree with.

My problem is that Elizabeth tells you, straight out, that Booker needs to die at the Baptism so that the sins Comstock committed can never occur. There's all sorts of narrative reasons why this makes sense and works as well as it does, but that doesn't change the fact that, at its core, the message is "You have to die because you could potentially become a complete monster".

That's what the ending was all saying. If they were trying to prevent Booker's actions in Wounded Knee, you would have a point, but they weren't. They were explicitly trying to stop Comstock's actions. And their solution is that Booker must die because in some worlds, he chooses to become Comstock.

That right there is, pardon my French, complete fucking bullshit. The game is explicitly saying that a man must be held accountable for what he could potentially become. Not what he is.

And that's my only real problem with the ending. It was told quite well, and for what it is, it's really, really good, I just fundamentally disagree with its philosophy.

 

[chikusho]

The game explicitly holds Booker accountable for the actions of Comstock however, and that's the part I disagree with.

My problem is that Elizabeth tells you, straight out, that Booker needs to die at the Baptism so that the sins Comstock committed can never occur. There's all sorts of narrative reasons why this makes sense and works as well as it does, but that doesn't change the fact that, at its core, the message is "You have to die because you could potentially become a complete monster".

That's what the ending was all saying. If they were trying to prevent Booker's actions in Wounded Knee, you would have a point, but they weren't. They were explicitly trying to stop Comstock's actions. And their solution is that Booker must die because in some worlds, he chooses to become Comstock.

That right there is, pardon my French, complete fucking bullshit. The game is explicitly saying that a man must be held accountable for what he could potentially become. Not what he is.

And that's my only real problem with the ending. It was told quite well, and for what it is, it's really, really good, I just fundamentally disagree with its philosophy.

There are a few theories that consider Elizabeth only drowning the Bookers that chose to get baptized.
Take a look at the explanation in this thread, for instance: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533205
(search for Paradox on the page and you should come right down to where the endings are accounted for)

But I disagree that he is punished for what he could become. There are a few things that spring to mind right now. Booker continued to be a very brutal, selfish person, and throughout the game you are really committing atrocities based on others atrocities for Bookers personal gain. Even when he's trying to do the "right thing", it's only to use the monster he has become (without any hope of personally ever changing) to make sure others don't have to become what he is.
In the end, he's even ended up taking Comstocks place, using Comstocks weapons against the Vox.
Also, Booker actually DID get baptized the very first thing when he got to Columbia, which thematically is the split for the where he goes bad in the first place.

 

[Agayek]

But I disagree that he is punished for what he could become. There are a few things that spring to mind right now. Booker continued to be a very brutal, selfish person, and throughout the game you are really committing atrocities based on others atrocities for Bookers personal gain. Even when he's trying to do the "right thing", it's only to use the monster he has become (without any hope of personally ever changing) to make sure others don't have to become what he is.
In the end, he's even ended up taking Comstocks place, using Comstocks weapons against the Vox.
Also, Booker actually DID get baptized the very first thing when he got to Columbia, which thematically is the split for the where he goes bad in the first place.

Yes. Booker is a bad man. If they had drowned him for being a bad man, I would have had no problem with it (though the rest of the ending would have had to change to account for it).

It's not the fact that Booker died that is the problem here. There's nothing inherently wrong with the protagonist dying, and Infinite handled it really quite well.

Again, my problem is specifically that Elizabeth explicitly explains that Booker has to die to prevent the sins of Comstock. You would have a very good point if the exact reasoning was left vague, or they had explained it differently, but that's not what happens. Elizabeth explicitly says "You have to die, here at this Baptism, or Comstock's sins will be repeated infinitely."

She is not killing Booker because of his past. She is not killing him because he's a terrible human being. She is explicitly holding him responsible for Comstock's actions and killing him for it.

Like I said, it's masterfully executed and well done, but it espouses a fucking ridiculous philosophy that I just can't get behind. If you can look beyond the metanarrative and enjoy it, all the more power to you. I can't. It bothers me something fierce.