No, BioShock Infinite's Ending Doesn't Suck

[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.

 

[1337mokro]

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.

So you're basically saying "I could explain it, but you just won't get it."

Can you get any more transparent? You do understand that is basically the 5 year-old approach when they don't know something. Is to allude that the person asking the question would not understand the answer. It also quite apparent that Bioshock Infinite does absolutely nothing with those themes except display them. We see slavery, we see religious zealoutry, we see a class struggle, but we learn nothing about those things.

We don't delve into what the characters think about those issues, what they mean to them, what it means to the other characters, why they believe what they do, the list goes on. You say "all the other things being said on the internet about them" like what? You quite quickly failed to give even a single quote and my entire discussion about the themes of Infinite with someone else has failed to yield anything regarding those themes, he was quite happy to get to the ending and discuss only that part as quickly as possible.

It seems to me what is being said about those themes is that Bioshock shows them. Yes it does. That's all it does.

I don't think you need to do much digging to get to the "deeper" message behind slavery. I think mister Mackey said it best. "It's bad mkay" it's even worse when you think about what it is also used for, it's basically used to give us Saturday morning cartoon villains that we won't feel bad about when we jam a rotary saw up their chest cavity,

Now instead of reading verbatim from the idiots guide to interpretation why not actually tell us how these themes play a role and influence the characters and story. Rather than just being sideshow attractions. After all you apparently are privy to the internet's secret debate about the subversive elements and influences these themes bring so why not share?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So you're basically saying "I could explain it, but you just won't get it."

I can't speak for the person you were replying to, but from my past interactions with you, and observations of your other "discussions," it's not really worth it. You seem to consistently ignore the opinions and arguments of others, and just assert that you are right.

What's the point? Whenever somebody else says something, you just dismiss it and continue on the same rant.

 

[1337mokro]

So you're basically saying "I could explain it, but you just won't get it."

I can't speak for the person you were replying to, but from my past interactions with you, and observations of your other "discussions," it's not really worth it. You seem to consistently ignore the opinions and arguments of others, and just assert that you are right.

What's the point? Whenever somebody else says something, you just dismiss it and continue on the same rant.

Though I wonder why you seem to think that. Have you seen them admit points and given any ground? No, they just repeated over and over the same stuff. One conversation eventually devolved into pure speculation about the inner workings of the multiverse that even the game has no idea actually functions.

Oh sure you can now go on to say "Oh but I am right, so you should have given me a point for every argument" but really what's the point here? It's just a shift of perception and what you just said applies from my point of view as well.

It's kind of the pot calling the kettle black here. When I asked them to explain how they saw the themes were explored they didn't even make an initial attempt at answering they just dodged it. Wanting to get to the ending as quickly as possible to discuss that part which is filled with metaphysical bullshit that all comes down to opinion.

It's basically what allot of people are doing ignoring everything but the last 20 minutes of story. They ignore the bad gameplay, the out of place elements, the strange gear shifts in tone, the "Bioshock had it so we have to put it in somewhere" elements that are scattered around Columbia and the fact you could have made this game into an adventure game with in total maybe 3 gun fights and have lost absolutely nothing in terms of story and characters.

If the story and characters are all people seem to care about... then why not?

Again, not really a mature answer, but more of a 5 year old answer that supposes first that a discussion about people's opinions about a game has a Right answer and that one party is the sole instigator because it does not align with your opinion.

 

[LetalisK]

Just got done with the game and I give a great big...meh. It's decent. Kinda, I guess. I mean, I was half-way through and was wondering when it was going to end, which can't be a good sign. Then I got to the ending and Yahtzee was right, lots of up-the-butt action. My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets. I did like how they setup a very tropish twist for the ending, that was very easy to predict for anyone paying attention btw, "revealed" it, then quickly zigged again. Too bad the zig was weak pretty much fell flat for me.(Edit: Actually, reverse that. The weak twist came first, the "No shit sherlock" twist was second.) I thought the little twists in the middle of the game were way more entertaining than the big ones at the end. But, they tried doing something new with the narrative. They get some points for that.

As far as the sheer amount of violence, I thought it was a delicious juxtaposition to the clean and sterile appearance of the city in the beginning. It jarred me actually, but in a good way.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

They ignore the bad gameplay, the out of place elements, the strange gear shifts in tone, the "Bioshock had it so we have to put it in somewhere" elements that are scattered around Columbia and the fact you could have made this game into an adventure game with in total maybe 3 gun fights and have lost absolutely nothing in terms of story and characters.

Well, I'm not ignoring that - but it's not really the topic at hand, is it? The article we are talking about specifically discusses the ending, not the gameplay in general. I thought the gameplay was pretty average, but the story was decent enough.

In the other thread, you certainly said some very strange things, which I don't think are worth arguing about, because you're being so stubborn and keep changing the topic. Like how you think there didn't need to be racism or religion in the story, just... because?

Oh sure you can now go on to say "Oh but I am right, so you should have given me a point for every argument"

That's supremely ironic. Can you point out anywhere that I simply said "I'm right"? That seems to be more like what you're doing when you dismiss different opinions.

Again, not really a mature answer, but more of a 5 year old answer that supposes first that a discussion about people's opinions about a game has a Right answer and that one party is the sole instigator because it does not align with your opinion.

Yeah, this doesn't help, when you call people 5-year-olds, when they are just trying to have a discussion. And that's something that seems to come up again and again in your posts - everybody else isn't as smart as you, and you're just right.

Also see where you mockingly asked "how old are you?" of someone in one of your posts. Not a very mature way to debate.

 

[Weaver]

I really liked infinite's story.
I really liked it's ending.

However, my problem with the ending is it was a fucking massive info dump. Bioshock sort of slowly pulled back the curtain on what was happening more and more with a great twist I didn't see coming. Not to say infinite didn't drop its fair share of of hints as I very early on figured there was some sort of time travel involved. I also noticed this game started at a lighthouse as well, just like Bioshock. I thought it was just a sort of weird nod to the first game, but it was so much more.

 

[Farther than stars]

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!

See, it wasn't just enough for you to have a discussion, was it? You had to go and make it personal. Well, fine, this is what I think of you as a person: You are so obsessed with the need to be right that you had to go negative; throw some personal insults into the mix. You couldn't just let me have my opinion and keep your own. No, you need to prove to me how your's is superior, because nobody other than you can be right. Nobody other than you can judge a game from the get-go. No, I need to sit in my corner and think about it for a decade before I, as a stupid person, can formulate my own ideas.
But speaking of intelligence, I'm not saying you need to know anything about literature, that's fine, but spouting out random things like "post-modern-neo-classisitical-hellenian-ming-ching" is really just an insult to yourself. (For one post-modernism and neoclassicism are two different things and for another Bioshock Infinite is definitely a post-modernist work.) And again, it's fine if you don't know anything about the terminology, but there's no need to criticize me if I do.
One thing you were right about, however, we are done here.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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."

No. Depth is not "amount of themes". A story can be deep whilst having one theme, if it explores that theme in detail. That's what depth actually is, the detail in which themes are explored, the number of perspectives on a single theme it shows and allows the reader, through experiencing them in the narrative, to consider.

Take, for instance, Foucault's Pendulum. That's a story with real depth, even though it only has one real central theme, (it's about what attracts people to secret societies and hidden "ultimate" truths) the fact that it explores so many facets of that theme in the many characters in the book, not only the three central ones (who are to varying degrees outsiders drawn in, but each for different reasons), but also the many incidental characters who are genuine "truth" seekers, is what gives it depth. (It's also genuinely postmodern, in that the structure of the narrative mirrors the holistic nature of the game the main characters play)

You've confused breadth with depth. Having lots of "themes" but a shallow treatment of each one isn't depth.

Bioshock Infinite doesn't deal in detail with any of the themes it touches on, it doesn't have depth.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Well yeah, in the original Bioshock it was part of the universe that the enemies were actually insane because they were all spliced up to fuck.

In Infinite they're supposedly people, but they're all suicidally heroic in the face of the walking mincing machine that is Booker DeWitt.

 

[1337mokro]

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!

See, it wasn't just enough for you to have a discussion, was it? You had to go and make it personal. Well, fine, this is what I think of you as a person: You are so obsessed with the need to be right that you had to go negative; throw some personal insults into the mix. You couldn't just let me have my opinion and keep your own. No, you need to prove to me how your's is superior, because nobody other than you can be right. Nobody other than you can judge a game from the get-go. No, I need to sit in my corner and think about it for a decade before I, as a stupid person, can formulate my own ideas.
But speaking of intelligence, I'm not saying you need to know anything about literature, that's fine, but spouting out random things like "post-modern-neo-classisitical-hellenian-ming-ching" is really just an insult to yourself. (For one post-modernism and neoclassicism are two different things and for another Bioshock Infinite is definitely a post-modernist work.) And again, it's fine if you don't know anything about the terminology, but there's no need to criticize me if I do.
One thing you were right about, however, we are done here.

I think you just insulted yourself by not getting the joke when I said "post-modern-neo-classisitical-hellenian-ming-ching". You see that was a gibberish word mocking your constant attempts at going into the discussion about how people interpret the game. For all your attempts at literary analyses you don't seem to get when I basically said "I do not care how you interpret the story". I don't quite get how but apparently I have to spell it out.

The opinion someone has about this game DOES NOT MATTER. There is enough wrong with it story structure wise, world wise, gameplay wise, simple theoretical science wise to talk about objectively rather than go into opinion flaming.

What I cared to hear from you was:

1: How the themes in this game were supposedly explored, how did they impact the story and characters.
2: How the facade of depth seems to have people fooled simply by asking questions, just asking questions by the way it never bothers giving it's own opinion on anything.
3: Why you keep handwaving plotholes when it is the authors responsibility not to have these in the story. You see this did not need to be a time travel story it could have been a simple story about a man getting his estranged daughter back, through that action redeeming himself and making peace with his past. By choosing to go for time travel they chose style over substance.
4: Why do you continue to praise style over substance. If they wanted style so badly they should have made a movie, not an interactive game where 6-7 hours are spent in boring fights during which NOTHING happens story wise, except showing us what was promised in the E3 demo but never delivered.
5: Why focus on only the story when 90% of the game has NOTHING to do with the story itself. Most of your time is spent fighting in arenas that are closed off and linear. Why are you ignoring that in favour of a basic sci-fi plot? Let me guess your favourite Futurama episode is where fry goes back in time and becomes his own grandfather.

I did not ask for your opinion. I wanted explanations, you gave me your opinion. I wanted clarity, you gave me your opinion. I demanded that you explain your position, you gave me an interpretation based on your opinion.

I cannot do anything with your opinion. Because it is an opinion. Same for mine I did not want to go into opinions, yet eventually I did. That was maybe my biggest mistake I should have just said no and refused to talk further. Now if you excuse me I am going back in time to strange myself before I reply with my opinion so as to kill this timeline and cause an infinite loop paradox at the same time that everybody will ignore because the story is so AWESOME!!!

 

[1337mokro]

They ignore the bad gameplay, the out of place elements, the strange gear shifts in tone, the "Bioshock had it so we have to put it in somewhere" elements that are scattered around Columbia and the fact you could have made this game into an adventure game with in total maybe 3 gun fights and have lost absolutely nothing in terms of story and characters.

Well, I'm not ignoring that - but it's not really the topic at hand, is it? The article we are talking about specifically discusses the ending, not the gameplay in general. I thought the gameplay was pretty average, but the story was decent enough.

In the other thread, you certainly said some very strange things, which I don't think are worth arguing about, because you're being so stubborn and keep changing the topic. Like how you think there didn't need to be racism or religion in the story, just... because?

Oh sure you can now go on to say "Oh but I am right, so you should have given me a point for every argument"

That's supremely ironic. Can you point out anywhere that I simply said "I'm right"? That seems to be more like what you're doing when you dismiss different opinions.

Again, not really a mature answer, but more of a 5 year old answer that supposes first that a discussion about people's opinions about a game has a Right answer and that one party is the sole instigator because it does not align with your opinion.

Yeah, this doesn't help, when you call people 5-year-olds, when they are just trying to have a discussion. And that's something that seems to come up again and again in your posts - everybody else isn't as smart as you, and you're just right.

Also see where you mockingly asked "how old are you?" of someone in one of your posts. Not a very mature way to debate.

I did not say any of that. In fact I said that Bioshock Infinite should have explored the racism more. It should have explored the religious zealoutry more. It should have explored the class struggle more. I wanted much much more exploration of the themes it mentioned, but never bothered to delve into.

However you interpret that is not relevant seeing as you were quite intent on painting me that way, even ignoring my last message literally stating what I said just a few sentences ago. What I actually said was that if the game was not going to do anything with it, why have it at all. It's kind of like if in 2001 the computer didn't go crazy and just sat there diligently doing it's job the entire journey. The story is not actually about the AI going mad, but the theme of technology turning against us plays a role in the story. It influences the story and the characters, changes them or at least shows us something about them. If the AI hadn't gone rogue you could have left it out entirely without it influencing the story ONE BIT. Same with Bioshock Infinite. Most of the themes are superfluous.

Slavery, religious zealotry, class struggle, fatherhood, most of Columbia, the citizens of Columbia, 90% of the game, is utterly irrelevant and has zero influence on the story. You spend literally 2 hours trying to get a gunsmith to make weapons for you only to teleport into a universe where the revolution is up and going where you have played some part in it that we never see you fulfill and the game just goes "Well guess you don't need them guns anymore! Now go blow up that airship as a poor substitute for a boss fight!" The Booker in that universe went through a MASSIVE character development summed up in a recording. The Booker we are playing gets none of that.

He starts as brooding Booker and ends as brooding Booker. His interaction with Elizabeth is minimal and actually was completely ruined in my game because after every emotional scene she would toss me money breaking the immersion (bad game design choice #25). I JUST killed the ghost of her mother, she holds an emotional conversation with her, then says in her standard chipper voice "Here take this". I got fucking whiplash from the sudden gear shift, if that wasn't a figure of speech I'd sue Ken Levine for assault. She sometimes even does it OVER HER OWN DIALOGUE, which I suspect to be a bug, but in the middle of her sentences her voice would fade to the background and she would shout "Here take this".

This is supposedly a discussion about the ending, did you read the article? 90% of it, like Infinite, had nothing to do with the ending. What is mostly being discussed is the content of the game and it's mechanics, the ending is mentioned in the first two paragraphs and then gets substituted with what mattered, how the game stumbles over it's Big Daddy novelty shoes.

PS: When someone writes in Bold font "Bioshock Infinite has the deepest story ever. Prove me wrong" I can't help but question the person's age when he supposedly wanted to have a serious discussion, which he now laments he didn't get after making such ridiculous statements and repeatedly failing to address the issues in favour of going into an opinion war (which I did which was stupid of me). Again I find it funny how you continue to sift through comments picking out anything you don't like about me, yet ignore the cause of such a reaction.

Like I said, just because I don't agree with you and the rest, does not mean you get to use two different measuring sticks.

 

[Farther than stars]

I did not ask for your opinion. I wanted explanations, you gave me your opinion. I wanted clarity, you gave me your opinion. I demanded that you explain your position, you gave me an interpretation based on your opinion.

So... this about you not getting what you want, is it? Well, you can "want" and "demand" all you like, but then basic pedagogy tells me that in a situation like this I shouldn't give you what you want. And that would be my second reason to stop talking about substantive arguments, the first being, of course, that you were no longer listening anyway.

 

[1337mokro]

I did not ask for your opinion. I wanted explanations, you gave me your opinion. I wanted clarity, you gave me your opinion. I demanded that you explain your position, you gave me an interpretation based on your opinion.

So... this about you not getting what you want, is it? Well, you can "want" and "demand" all you like, but then basic pedagogy tells me that in a situation like this I shouldn't give you what you want. And that would be my second reason to stop talking about substantive arguments, the first being, of course, that you were no longer listening anyway.

So... you want a discussion... but refuse to answer questions asked at earlier points in this supposed discussion. I guess you are right, this was never a discussion to begin with because you were more interested in swinging around your opinion than actual substantive discussion about the game itself. I ask to explain holes and contrivances in the story and I get answers back like "That's normal with timetravelling" or "That's just how they planned it, it being more contrived doesn't matter". That is all handwaving, ignoring the questions by offering non-answers.

As for listening to you, why should I when you repeatedly ignore what I say in favour of talking about your all important opinion, which you just blatantly admitted you did merely out of spite, over me daring to say that a videogame you really really liked was not all it was made out to be by pointing at holes, inconsistencies, flaws in logic and character motivation in it.

Also did you play Eternal Darkness yet? You really should. It might sway your opinion about Bioshock Infinite being the Deepest Story in Videogame History and Future. (opinion)

Now with all that said I do want to stress that if you like the game there is nothing wrong with that, here is where the opinions come in. As much as it might not look like it I don't actually want to say that you cannot enjoy Bioshock Infinite if you don't want to. Just that allot of people are ignoring the fact the street is crumbling beneath them because they are staring at the sky. You can like something DESPITE the plotholes, not by ignoring them.

 

[Farther than stars]

Also did you play Eternal Darkness yet? You really should. it will cure your opinion about Bioshock Infinite being the Deepest Story in Videogame History and Future.

So opinions need to be cured, huh? That's a pretty dangerous attitude to take, not to mention the most dour.

You've confused breadth with depth. Having lots of "themes" but a shallow treatment of each one isn't depth.

Slander! I'm not confusing anything with anything!
But you do have a point. The definition I gave was more of an off-the-cuff generalization, but I meant that you have to strike a balance between the different elements of that definition. Of course exploring one theme can be enough to achieve depth, but a story can be even deeper when it does that to multiple themes. Really, it depends on the individual story. And of course there will be exceptions, but isn't that the same for any generalization?