No, BioShock Infinite's Ending Doesn't Suck

[ice1985]

It's possible that the vigors (which are obviously plasmids) are there as a bit of alternate reality foreshadowing, like the relatively modern music in the tears.

To me it feels like the vigors have just been introduced to the general populace of columbia, and have not yet reached the insane, mind twisting levels of daily use that were shown in the original bioshock. Columbia itself feels like it's on the verge of civil war, much like rapture was in 1958, only here we're present when the city starts to burn and the ultimate fate of the city is later implied to be the eventual total insanity of it's citizens and decay of its once grand buildings.

it's not just foreshadowing, Comstock's universe is following Rapture's fall nearly verbatim.

I completely agree with this assessment. And, I've been thinking that it would be really, really cool if one of the coming DLC packs had something to do with a tear that takes you to Rapture, circa 1949 or something, predating the madness.

They are literally given away as promos and are used as CARNIVAL GAMES.

Not allot of people would ingest an unknown substance for the sake of a carnival game that gives them literal super powers after giving them delusional visions of physical mutilation and trauma. Imagine a little 5 year old wanting to play Oust the Devil and seeing his fucking flesh melt off! Or worse what if he takes a Possession sample, shit would get fucked up in SECONDS as he enchants his mom accidentally and makes her commit suicide when it wears off.

They would also NOT have a gondola and doors that function ONLY on Vigours if nobody uses them yet. Sure those generators disappear from the game after that ONE level, but that should give you an idea of how slapped together the whole thing is. It is just a poorly implemented element that they HAD to put in there because it was in Bioshock. There is no other meaning behind it than "we have to put it in there cause it's Bioshock".

It was the beginning of the 20th century. People were constantly being sold random Snake Oil cures. I got the implication that this was the case with the vigors.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I'm sure you want your explanation to be correct, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it is stupid. It is needlessly complex to find a universe where Booker lost, lost big and was willing to sell his daughter rather than doing a simple distraction.

My interpretation is that they happened to find a universe where Booker was already in debt to male Lutece, so they had a convenient means to convince Booker to hand over Anna and for female Lutece to get an equally brilliant partner in science. Why scour multiverses for passed out booker when you've already found one where he'll just do what you need him to?
+I think that even Comstock would probably feel a little guilty about straight-up stealing a baby from his own alternate universe self.

This is why I like the ending. It can provoke this kind of discussion. And any plot holes that are there are kinda irrelevant to the idea posed: that your own worst enemy could conceivably just be you with a different ideology.

 

[Bbleds]

I agree with what he wrote, but one thing in particular he seemed to bring up about the "silliness" that is in the game I disagree with. I found it to be intriguing and of course this is just my personal opinion but let me explain. First off it is just fun; for example fighting Washington/Lincoln robots while they spout over the top "patriotic" oneliners was hilarious and just a blast. Secondly it really drew me into the world, after seeing and experiencing their supposed perfect American city I was convinced that things so inherently ridiculous could actually exist in that context. It adds to that theme park feeling that most of the game experience seemed to convey which some reviewers complained about. But for me I felt like that was the point; after all the feel good facade essentially breaks down you face the true ugliness that you were uneasy about the moment you stepped into Columbia.

 

[TheBeatlesProject]

I was very curious as to Infinite's ending and watched Cry's play of the final section. I somehow feel that even if I had watched his play though of the ending wouldn't of made any more sense than it did when I watched it. Despite this it blew me away, I can see why Yahtzee had post Infinite depression. Ken Levine needs to make more games like this.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'm sure you want your explanation to be correct, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it is stupid. It is needlessly complex to find a universe where Booker lost, lost big and was willing to sell his daughter rather than doing a simple distraction.

My interpretation is that they happened to find a universe where Booker was already in debt to male Lutece, so they had a convenient means to convince Booker to hand over Anna and for female Lutece to get an equally brilliant partner in science. Why scour multiverses for passed out booker when you've already found one where he'll just do what you need him to?
+I think that even Comstock would probably feel a little guilty about straight-up stealing a baby from his own alternate universe self.

This is why I like the ending. It can provoke this kind of discussion. And any plot holes that are there are kinda irrelevant to the idea posed: that your own worst enemy could conceivably just be you with a different ideology.

That's clearly not the case though, because there's not just a universe where this happens, it happens in as many universes as there are Comstocks.

It's also not necessary for Lutece to own the debt (and there's no evidence that he does), he only has to offer Booker the means to pay it, no matter who he owes. Booker has fairly humdrum gambling debts, Lutece, via Comstock, has vast resources he can use to pay them off. No more is needed or ever implied by the game.

This is the problem with Internet Analysis of stories, it starts with the fanfiction version it has made up and then bullies the original source material to fit. The first rule of story analysis, you are analysing the story as written, not your fanfiction of it.

 

[1337mokro]

It's possible that the vigors (which are obviously plasmids) are there as a bit of alternate reality foreshadowing, like the relatively modern music in the tears.

To me it feels like the vigors have just been introduced to the general populace of columbia, and have not yet reached the insane, mind twisting levels of daily use that were shown in the original bioshock. Columbia itself feels like it's on the verge of civil war, much like rapture was in 1958, only here we're present when the city starts to burn and the ultimate fate of the city is later implied to be the eventual total insanity of it's citizens and decay of its once grand buildings.

it's not just foreshadowing, Comstock's universe is following Rapture's fall nearly verbatim.

I completely agree with this assessment. And, I've been thinking that it would be really, really cool if one of the coming DLC packs had something to do with a tear that takes you to Rapture, circa 1949 or something, predating the madness.

They are literally given away as promos and are used as CARNIVAL GAMES.

Not allot of people would ingest an unknown substance for the sake of a carnival game that gives them literal super powers after giving them delusional visions of physical mutilation and trauma. Imagine a little 5 year old wanting to play Oust the Devil and seeing his fucking flesh melt off! Or worse what if he takes a Possession sample, shit would get fucked up in SECONDS as he enchants his mom accidentally and makes her commit suicide when it wears off.

They would also NOT have a gondola and doors that function ONLY on Vigours if nobody uses them yet. Sure those generators disappear from the game after that ONE level, but that should give you an idea of how slapped together the whole thing is. It is just a poorly implemented element that they HAD to put in there because it was in Bioshock. There is no other meaning behind it than "we have to put it in there cause it's Bioshock".

It was the beginning of the 20th century. People were constantly being sold random Snake Oil cures. I got the implication that this was the case with the vigors.

But the snake oil doesn't do anything. A vigour gives you hallucinogenic vision AND super powers. If they had explained that the vigours worked that way ONLY because Booker was a dimensional traveler, it would have made sense. But they didn't. They put elements in the game that cannot be used without the vigours, they put vending machines everywhere that sell vigours. It plays to prominent a role whilst "regular" enemies can't seem to use them. They could easily have fixed that by making the vigour vending machines accessible only by opening a tear for example, but they didn't. The first thing that would have happened in an actual living city is that when I started shooting, the cops and civilians would rush to those vending machines and start pulling out Devil's Kiss vigours and shotguns.

Even worse is when you consider Possession is the ultimate power against organic opponents. We NEVER see anyone use possession on you whilst this would have killed you instantaneously and saved the city. Which is also why no enemy could have this. You see there are gaping huge motherfucking BLACK HOLES in the plot because of these vigours. It makes NO SENSE why no one would use possession which would force you to commit suicide and stop your murderous rampage.

Bioshock did not have these kinds of Plasmids, sure they had turret and big daddy specific plasmids but nothing that would not make sense when the enemies don't use it against you. But here we have a plasmid that could literally kill you in one hit and is advertised over the entire city. This makes no sense.

Also if you USE a vigour in ANY public area, people scream and shout and run away. Vigours are NOT normal in this world even though there are advertisements for them EVERYWHERE, they are used in carnival games, samples are given out on the street to random passerby, they are sold on every street corner in vending machines and some equipment in this game runs exclusively on those vigours, even in very public areas meaning that at least ONE PERSON working at those buildings has to have the ability to use Shock Jockey just to open the fucking doors.

We have insane people who can turn into crows and are apparently drafted into the patriot army to be firemen. Yet at the same time they give them out as treats and promotional items. What I really think happened was that Levine and the team went over this game and literally said. How can we make this appeal to as many people as possible. Let's rip out any of the world building and put in MORE shooting.

If you compare THIS game with the E3 trailer where people DID use the vigours against you you see two completely different games.

 

[1337mokro]

I'm sure you want your explanation to be correct, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it is stupid. It is needlessly complex to find a universe where Booker lost, lost big and was willing to sell his daughter rather than doing a simple distraction.

My interpretation is that they happened to find a universe where Booker was already in debt to male Lutece, so they had a convenient means to convince Booker to hand over Anna and for female Lutece to get an equally brilliant partner in science. Why scour multiverses for passed out booker when you've already found one where he'll just do what you need him to?
+I think that even Comstock would probably feel a little guilty about straight-up stealing a baby from his own alternate universe self.

This is why I like the ending. It can provoke this kind of discussion. And any plot holes that are there are kinda irrelevant to the idea posed: that your own worst enemy could conceivably just be you with a different ideology.

And that is your interpretation.

The male Lutece has never told us who owes the debt. In fact it strongly suggests otherwise seeing as he says he represents Comstock, so at the most he is the middle man. At the same time you don't know if they already stumbled across an indebted Booker, maybe this was the 125th universe they had to search to find these perfect conditions. Also nothing in the story tell you why or even that Comstock does feel guilty, he is still essentially kidnapping the kid, sure he extorts her, but in the end he is still taking her by force, remember the pinky? This is also the man who murdered his own wife, framed someone else for the murder and imprisoned the child he stole to be guarded by a monster.

I don't think this man is capable of feeling actual guilt.

They give NO reason why they HAD to do it this way and we can think of at least a dozen easier different ways to do this rather than orchestrating a possible gambling racket and extortion scheme to frame Booker into a debt. You see whilst they spent the possible weeks and months setting up this scheme they could have just opened a tear near the crib and snatched her. That would have taken maybe what? 10 seconds in total? Not to mention that this plan works in every universe and only requires a distraction or Booker to be absent for a really short while.

I refuse to accept that an alcoholic gambling addict spends his time 24/7 awake and guarding his daughter with a shotgun. The dude is probably splayed out on the couch most of the day trying desperately not to choke on his own puke.

You see if there IS a simpler solution the story HAS to explain why that is not an option. Otherwise the characters look like idiots for doing things way to complicated.

Right now it is this way because they wanted to have the phrase "Erase the debt". They wrote the story then forgot to shut the plotholes. Alternate Universe Booker never HAD to be interacted with in the first place. All they needed was a universe with a baby in it.

 

[hermes]

I don't have a problem with the violence, although the rag doll technology sometimes makes execution look silly rather than disturbing. The reason for that is that, even before the reveal of the connection between Booker-Comstock, it is well established that Booker DeWitt is not a nice guy... He is not the stereotypical action hero that kills a small army to get the girl at the end and wink at the camera. He has done and seen horrible things, and he is a broken man, even before going to Columbia. In that sense, it would have been hypocritical or simplistic to expect him to kill dozens of people (although racists) and then smile to the camera, like he was Indiana Jones or Nathan Drake.

And, about the vigors, I assumed its because we see it fairly early in its discovery. Most of the characters don't use vigors, and the ones that do are rather far from "balanced" people. The reason there are not so many demented people running around like in Rapture was because there was not so many vigor users. I did have an issue with the expending machines, but I found the justification in Bioshock 1 to be tenuous at best, too.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Interesting.
I found it one of the worst endings I've ever experianced, but, I can say it is an ending that evoked more feeling out of me than just about every piece of story-driven work I've ever read/viewed/played before. Some of it anger, and some of it just pure feeling. I stared at my computer screen for 2 minutes in total disbelief after I watched the ending.
I respect it just for that.

But over all, I don't want to ransom the devoloper's children (Although, it fits in with the game's story in this case) over the ending, because I did have a lot of fun playing the game, and being led along by it, pondering, and wondering what the fuck was going on in my head, unlike Mass Effect, where I felt some manner of control, like I understood what to do, and how I had the power to change it, and then got slapped in the face. Whereas in infinate, I was being transported by ball and chain, only to be slapped at the end of the ride. Nothing extreamly enraging, but enranging still, at the least.

 

[xdiesp]

Is this the best narrative the "art" of gaming can put together?

Killing and maiming cartoons who are so totally bad guys? In the multiverse no less.

 

[chikusho]

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.

Well put, I respect your reaction to the ending.
But, while on the subject, I'd like to pose the following question: What if Elizabeth has actually turned into the same self destructive mess that we know Booker is? When she gains omniscience, and the truth about how Booker sold her is revealed, what if she simply took vengeance on Booker by killing him because of this?
If you remember, she reacted rather poorly when she learned that (what she believed at the time to be) her mother had hated her. Gaining the knowledge of her father abandoning her, she'd rather eliminate an entire series of realities than let this crime go unpunished. She does turns pretty scary and weird the moment before pushing Booker under the water. And the place where she does so, while similar to where the actual baptism takes place, it's not exactly the same. The reverend and the congregation is missing, and has been replaced by a series of different Elizabeth's. Maybe a hint of evil begets evil perhaps?

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?

First of all, no. I'm basically saying that if you're using this thread alone to gauge the depth of this story, while simultaneously avoiding every difference in experience, interpretation and discussion taking place in not only the same thread, but also several points made on this very site as well as articles posted on every major game related publication over the past few weeks, you're going in to the discussion predisposed to deny any and every one of those points based on your own interpretation.
I can gather plenty on those subjects given that the game is really a personal story, and how the game handles one individual translates very well to how the other individuals pushing the goals of the aforementioned themes can be interpreted.
Actually putting together a reply to "what's deep about bioshock infinite" would require more or less an entire books worth of words, something no one would write for a forum post. This is why I'm referring to everything that is being written and discussed rather than writing out what should be simple a google search away. But if you are not interested, that's _fine_. I just take issue with you publicly blowing something off before actually getting in to the subject.

 

[1337mokro]

Snip

However that was not my question. I did not ask you to explain what is deep about Bioshock Infinite, which could quite frankly be answered in one word in my opinion. Nothing. But apparently you seem to think to need to write a Homeran Epic just to start to explain how deep this game is. Yet you write not a single explanative word, I suspect because my opinion is closer to reality than any of you want to admit.

It's in reality an extremely simple story, redemption through reconciliation with ones past. I don't think you need Plato and Levi to back you up on explaining the simple steps the story takes in that theme. Now what our dear Levine does is complicate that story with timey-wimey-wibbly-wobbly science and themes that are meant to distract your attention and give the allure of depth when in reality it is just a giant twist build up. Nothing before or after that twist really matters, which is good because that twist is the magic trick to make it look deep.

Now if you would stop overreacting and actually read the question you completely ignored to replace it with your own interpretation of that question, which I again remind you I have absolutely no use for, and answer the question as it was written.

My question could be answered by pointing to events in the story. My questions did not ask for opinions, interpretations, speculations or any of that sort because they did not need those to be answered. It's a very simple question really.

How do these themes affect the characters and story? What changed when these were introduced? How did they impact the characters in the story? You see you can interpret up as down, left as right, day for night and all that good interpretative question dodging. However the question does not need that.

All you need to do is point to the specific scene where it happened, you see I am not asking for a specific influence I am asking for ANY influence. That is ALL you require to prove that these themes did impact the story. You are literally asked to provide ANYTHING you want to support the notion that Bioshock Infinite has depth, your interpretation is irrelevant because all I want is the location in the story where this happens. That it what is requested of you, not your novella about how deep Infinite is.

Just to explain how the characters are affected when they learn that Comstock is for example a racist, a religious zealout, a madman. Why he can just accept to walk through poverty lane without so much as handing out a single silver eagle when not a few minutes later they learn that a different Booker would have risked his live to help the people of Columbia whilst this Booker would not. You see they often voice something to pull attention to it, but never explain or state anything more than that.

"Why are there separate bathrooms, seems like a waste to me?" asks Elizabeth
"Just because that's how things are." answers Booker
"How do you mean just how things are?" Elizabeth should have asked
"It's because those bathrooms represent two groups... one of them doesn't like to mingle with the other and the other isn't particularly happy with how they get treated because of that." should Booker have answered
"Why does one group not like the other? Did something happen between them?" Should Elizabeth have asked because she does not understand this separation

Now you have a conversation that did not happen in the game (bar the first two lines) which would have been an easy way to explore all of these. You literally have a character with you that is ideal to ask these kinds of questions. The easiest possible way to both ask and answer these questions because ignorance and explanation can be used to essentially give character ideas about it and explore the theme by way of discussion.

You see this girl has spent her entire life in a cage, away from any social issues, which I find hard to believe because she did read books, but hey you again have an easy way to way lay that by Comstock selecting her Books (for example no Abe Lincoln ion the history books). Yet when she enters this big wide world she shuts up after being given a handwaving answer to the problems and inequalities she sees?

All these things pass us by in the story and nobody ever tells us what they think about it, why they think it and what it means to characters. We never learn for example whether Booker finds it easier to kill family men now that they are religious death cult bigots rather than killing Native Americans for example. It is both killing and the people you are killing are such ridiculous cartoons they might as well be splicers but still. Explain to us what goes through Booker and how he thinks about it. We again get a small scene with where that gets mentioned, but it again is just handwaved rather than having the character explored.

It also doesn't help that WHEN it happens all the violence in the entire game is reactionary. Booker is always attacked first. So when they mention it and the pretend discussion took place it rang extremely hollow, because guess what, had he not been in danger of getting facial reconstructive surgery nobody would have died.

So why not stop running circles around your wagon camp of interpretation and just answer the question.

How do these themes play a role and influence the characters and story?

You can even use a handy list someone posted of what he thought was the first layer of depth (though he again failed to explain WHY those themes were the first layer of depth).

 

[chikusho]

snippety

Given your complete avoidance of the discussion I contributed to above my reply to you, as well as the angle _in_ the reply, I can answer with this: Name any fictional story that contains depth, and anyone can simply state the main plot points and pass it off as shallow.
Your mind is already obviously set on passing this game off in the very same way, so nothing I could ever hope to put together for you in this thread would ever change that. Especially considering that you do not even consider the discussion _in this thread_. Further, still surprisingly oblivious of the discussion going on around this game, you are simply assuming a lack of planning or intent from the creators without seemingly even trying to put the themes in context to the rest of both the fictional and real world.
If you haven't gained anything from the game or the story, that's _fine_. I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
But if you really have an issue with how the plot and/or themes of Bioshock Infinite were handled, argue the points instead of making broad proclamations.

Oh, and in case you have changed your mind and are interested, here's some reading material courtesy of a single google search:

http://gamesfiends.com/2013/04/06/bioshock-infinite-an-analysis-of-the-story-and-ending/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/03/27/an-attempt-to-understand-bioshock-infinites-brilliant-and-bizarre-ending/
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/?p=55460
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/04/bioshock-infinite-ending-explained/
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=3006
http://monkeyphatt.com/ps3/why-bioshock-infinites-violence-is-necessary/
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/04/the-bird-or-the-cage-what-bioshock-infinite-says-about-choice-and-fatalism/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/bioshock-infinite-a-class-perspective
peripsuche.blogspot.se/2013/03/bioshock-infinite-thematic-analysis.html

 

[RJ 17]

Just saying this to be fair with regards to the bloody violence...at least as far as Booker using the skyhook to brutally mangle Columbia's law enforcement. The game makes it quite clear that such behavior is actually part of Booker's character. And in a way - though it might be a stretch - it ties into all the violence in Columbia's society as a whole.

Spoiler: Just in case.

Booker is a horrible man who has done horrible things in his past, hence the entire reason he seeks baptism to wash away his sinces and ultimately gives birth to Comstock. At Wounded Knee, it's said that some guys were poking fun at Booker saying that they heard he's got some teepees under his family tree. This sets Booker off into a bloody rage in which he goes out and becomes a war hero by brutally massacreing (spelling) all the natives in horrific ways.

So clearly Booker isn't above getting his hands dirty...VERY dirty, in fact.

It's also part of the story that Booker felt such remorse over the atrocities that he commited that he sought to wash away his sins by being baptised. In the universes in which he goes through with this, he becomes Comstock. Comstock, believing that Baptism has washed the evil of what he did is now able to uphold and champion all the horrific things he did as Booker back in Wounded Knee, proudly declaring and celebrating his brutality. Given how fanatical the cultists of Columbia are, it makes sense that they'd try to emulate their prophet. As such the brutality and monstrous nature of Comstock trickles down into Columbia's society as a whole. As one of the little news reel machines even says: "Columbia stands behind her prophet!" with crowds of people cheering behind Comstock.

 

[1337mokro]

snippety

Given your complete avoidance of the discussion I contributed to above my reply to you, as well as the angle _in_ the reply, I can answer with this: Name any fictional story that contains depth, and anyone can simply state the main plot points and pass it off as shallow.
Your mind is already obviously set on passing this game off in the very same way, so nothing I could ever hope to put together for you in this thread would ever change that. Especially considering that you do not even consider the discussion _in this thread_. Further, still surprisingly oblivious of the discussion going on around this game, you are simply assuming a lack of planning or intent from the creators without seemingly even trying to put the themes in context to the rest of both the fictional and real world.
If you haven't gained anything from the game or the story, that's _fine_. I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
But if you really have an issue with how the plot and/or themes of Bioshock Infinite were handled, argue the points instead of making broad proclamations.

Oh, and in case you have changed your mind and are interested, here's some reading material courtesy of a single google search:

http://gamesfiends.com/2013/04/06/bioshock-infinite-an-analysis-of-the-story-and-ending/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/03/27/an-attempt-to-understand-bioshock-infinites-brilliant-and-bizarre-ending/
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/?p=55460
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/04/bioshock-infinite-ending-explained/
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=3006
http://monkeyphatt.com/ps3/why-bioshock-infinites-violence-is-necessary/
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/04/the-bird-or-the-cage-what-bioshock-infinite-says-about-choice-and-fatalism/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/bioshock-infinite-a-class-perspective
peripsuche.blogspot.se/2013/03/bioshock-infinite-thematic-analysis.html

Clap, clap, clap.

That was some massive projection good sir. What does the human say when it start backpedalling? "If you, I am sorry for you, you obviously, in case you" That's right Bobby. Oh my if you projected any more I could run a film reel between your ears and watch a movie.

1: What discussions? Why should my discussion be influenced by others? Are stupid? I ask because basically what you are saying is, all these other people are discussing other things about the game so you should stop trying to discuss only that part that you actually want to discuss. Remember here you butted into MY discussion with someone else, yet you now berate me for discussing that instead of discussing some random opinion someone had? You know those Opinion things that in reality merit no actual discussion because it all ends in "It's my opinion" ***** PLEASE! Why would I waste my time on that?
2: It's a popcorn shooter flick catering hands over feet to the shooter demographic. It's not ground breaking. It's not going to change videogaming. It's also quite funny that apparently it's fine if you suppose some kind of groundbreaking narrative intents by the developers that spans fucking reality and fiction, but when I say it was a hack job based on nothing but the holes and warts in the game, you know the things I can point at objectively, then I am the one imagining things

Whilst I haven't read all of these, some of them I had already, some of them I did now and some of them are just not worth my time because hey you just listed 8 articles, that's allot of time your asking me to invent rather than just summarizing what they said that supports you. The funny thing being though that they the ones I did read seem to discuss the only the last part of the story (PC gamer, Wired) or restate and if you want to call it that back up what I said was wrong with the entire game.

Seriously did YOU read them before referencing them? The guy at actionbutton basically delivers what is quite a badly written article on a horrible eye-hurting white text on black background where he basically says exactly what I said. He says what I said about the city, he says what I said about the racism, he basically re-voices parts of my arguments here in an article that hurt my eyes to read it. (Thank you for that btw you literally turned into an eye-sore)

The one common thread between all these articles is "The story is good, but all these other things are weak, flimsy, barely explored and poorly explained. The gameplay barely manages to work and fails to justify itself in it's own world."

So thanks for essentially posting 8 articles that I can refer people to for reading if they wish to know more about why I said what I did (or want their eyes to burned out, seriously action button WTF?). To bad we still have no idea where you get your apparent ideas from that this game is a deep engrossing story with multiple themes and elements that were all totally necessary to include.

It must be hard to voice a coherent argument to defend this game's themes, elements, design choices and basically anything else outside of "Opinions" or else you might have actually done it.

The last time I gained something, besides joy or frustration, from a piece of entertainment it was a headache from the 3D.

 

[chikusho]

The last time I gained something, besides joy or frustration, from a piece of entertainment it was a headache from the 3D

Haha, I'm sorry you lead a sad life.

All unnecessary jokes aside...

The point of most of those articles were that I wanted to present divergent opinions on the matter where points were made on the topic at hand. My own point being, if there was no depth to be found within the walls of Columbia, how come so much discussion has risen around it? Are you implying that we are simply fools led by cheap trickery?
And even if so, who are you to deny us the still extremely relevant interpretations of the themes, story and characters that have led us to those conclusions? They exist, and will continue to matter whether or not you deny them. And they will also continue to be relevant as long as they are presented within the concept and contecfrom which they are derived.

However, OK! You got me. I'll give you a _single_ reason why the themes of _oppression and slavery_ is presented with a depth beyond mindless setting.
We learn early on that the player character Booker Dewitt is a former soldier in the oppression and slaughter of numerous native americans. Later we learn that he was a particularly brutal person, who collected, and I quote "grisly trophies", alluding to the scalping traditionally done by their enemy.
This tells us that Booker once approved of this massacre, more so than was necessary for the task at hand.
Also, we know that he's a former Pinkerton, called in to brutally quell any and all resistance from the disobedient working class.

Now, a similar oppression is occurring in Columbia. Occurring at the hands of a possible _himself_. It even states that a _possible himself_ takes one side over the other. The game takes you through a metaphorical retread of not only his past, but also his now, when his self preservation is prioritized well above what's right or wrong. The first power upgrade you are offered, after the Raffle (where you learn of the ongoing oppression) is the "Possession" one, where you make people fight for you, and then kill themselves. Now, I sincerely hope that you don't need anyone to tell you that "slavery is bad". However, the themes presented within Bioshock Infinite applies itself to every individual motivation that drives every individuals actions. It might not explicitly say "slavery is bad", but it does say that every individual person in the rebellion as well as in the oppression believes themselves to have justification for his or her actions. The same way that Comstock, Fitzroy, and even Booker (including the player controlling Booker), believes themselves (for various reasons) to have justification for their actions. This ultimately comments on both the slavery and oppression of the lower classes, the rebellion against their overlords and the player agency of the actions taken within this virtual world.
And this is not even mentioning the real world similarities and comments on American politics, which warrants a discussion on its own.

If you disagree with the above statement, then please let me reiterate: if you are not interested, that's _fine_. It's just a part of what makes Bioshock Infinite deep.

 

[1337mokro]

The last time I gained something, besides joy or frustration, from a piece of entertainment it was a headache from the 3D

Haha, I'm sorry you lead a sad life.

All unnecessary jokes aside...

The point of most of those articles were that I wanted to present divergent opinions on the matter where points were made on the topic at hand. My own point being, if there was no depth to be found within the walls of Columbia, how come so much discussion has risen around it? Are you implying that we are simply fools led by cheap trickery?
And even if so, who are you to deny us the still extremely relevant interpretations of the themes, story and characters that have led us to those conclusions? They exist, and will continue to matter whether or not you deny them. And they will also continue to be relevant as long as they are presented within the concept and contecfrom which they are derived.

However, OK! You got me. I'll give you a _single_ reason why the themes of _oppression and slavery_ is presented with a depth beyond mindless setting.
We learn early on that the player character Booker Dewitt is a former soldier in the oppression and slaughter of numerous native americans. Later we learn that he was a particularly brutal person, who collected, and I quote "grisly trophies", alluding to the scalping traditionally done by their enemy.
This tells us that Booker once approved of this massacre, more so than was necessary for the task at hand.
Also, we know that he's a former Pinkerton, called in to brutally quell any and all resistance from the disobedient working class.

Now, a similar oppression is occurring in Columbia. Occurring at the hands of a possible _himself_. It even states that a _possible himself_ takes one side over the other. The game takes you through a metaphorical retread of not only his past, but also his now, when his self preservation is prioritized well above what's right or wrong. The first power upgrade you are offered, after the Raffle (where you learn of the ongoing oppression) is the "Possession" one, where you make people fight for you, and then kill themselves. Now, I sincerely hope that you don't need anyone to tell you that "slavery is bad". However, the themes presented within Bioshock Infinite applies itself to every individual motivation that drives every individuals actions. It might not explicitly say "slavery is bad", but it does say that every individual person in the rebellion as well as in the oppression believes themselves to have justification for his or her actions. The same way that Comstock, Fitzroy, and even Booker (including the player controlling Booker), believes themselves (for various reasons) to have justification for their actions. This ultimately comments on both the slavery and oppression of the lower classes, the rebellion against their overlords and the player agency of the actions taken within this virtual world.
And this is not even mentioning the real world similarities and comments on American politics, which warrants a discussion on its own.

If you disagree with the above statement, then please let me reiterate: if you are not interested, that's _fine_.

Yes a person who is capable of experiencing joy from entertainment must lead a sad life. Or a person who gets headaches from 3D movies leads a sad life. Or a person who gets frustrated from bad entertainment leads a sad life.

Your joke makes no sense. BUT IT'S MUTHERFUCKING BRILLIANT!!! It can be interpreted so many different ways. It must be the best joke in history! ZOMG you are going to change joking forever!

Now I want to focus on this apparent notion that Discussion = Depth.

Depth =/= amount of discussion. Twilight is one of the most discussed and parodied franchises. Are you gonna say it's deep? Heck I'll go even more specific, can you say it is intentionally deep? Because I can get behind unintentional depth, as in it being a look into how a sexually repressed Mormon woman views sex and relationships, but intentional depth? Just because people talk about something doesn't mean it's deep. The Phantom Menace is discussed, the entire prequillogy is extensively discussed, does that mean they are deep?

Nope!

When it was released Citizen Kane was not that discussed, it quickly faded from the scene and yet several years later it became basically instructional material regarding filmmaking when the French got their hands on it. Did that mean it had no depth then suddenly gained depth by merit of years? Of course not.

Now let's move on to the rest of your comment.

Now thank you. That was all I wanted. Was it so hard to tell me that? Really? That was the big deal? Pointing out how Bookers approval of slaughtering ethnic groups and his actions as Comstock later link together? Why all the reluctance and secrecy? Why keep that behind some kind of white sheet as if it was some big reveal?

Was it because of my next action where I point out that it is then completely ignored why Booker is still a racist as Comstock when the initial motivation was to seek redemption for killing those people? Why we never learn of Comstocks motivation for it, sure we find a voxaphone in a bathroom stating something about a dog but it doesn't tell us why he thinks that way. Did he ever try to emancipate Black people and it backfired on him thus setting him back in his ways?

Or was it because I then ask you why you think any of those issues are reflected in Booker when he literally says out loud that both of these people are the same basically equating a racist zealot to an failed anarchist analogy. You see for Comstock his motivation is religious zealoutry, which is never explored in detail, why does he think the people are scum worthy of only death, whilst he himself was saved from that very flock, why are his efforts not directed towards salvation through baptism rather than fire and brimstone, the same can go for Fitzroy, why is her entire motivation for turning on Booker that "she want's a good story" when there could be no better story than a triumphant return of the saviour of the revolution.

Sure the themes are motivations for the characters. But we never explore the motivations and by extension never explore the why's or in other words the themes themselves. Which I have been saying for the past 20 posts over and over and over. In the end Booker gets up and fights both of them, which really strikes me as not much of a metaphorical retread seeing as he fights both the power in place and the revolutionaries. For his own self interest which I might remind you he reaffirms multiple times as seeing them both as one and the same thing.

You see all these themes do nothing but raise more unanswered questions. Like I said much earlier they are raised, presented and then walk off the stage when we still have questions for them. They are not explored but only serve as window dressing which makes them unnecessary as they muddy up the story they actually want to tell.

Also I think we can quickly wipe away any real world allegories the second you walked into a giant John Wilkes Booth cathedral. The people of Columbia stopped being a satire and instead became farcical cartoons.

 

[chikusho]

Yes a person who is capable of experiencing joy from entertainment must lead a sad life. Or a person who gets headaches from 3D movies leads a sad life. Or a person who gets frustrated from bad entertainment leads a sad life.

Your joke makes no sense. BUT IT'S MUTHERFUCKING BRILLIANT!!! It can be interpreted so many different ways. It must be the best joke in history! ZOMG you are going to change joking forever!

Whatever.

Now I want to focus on this apparent notion that Discussion = Depth.

Depth =/= amount of discussion. Twilight is one of the most discussed and parodied franchises. Are you gonna say it's deep? Heck intentionally deep? Because I can get behind unintentional depth. Just because people talk about something doesn't mean it's deep. The Phantom Menace is discussed, heck the entire prequillogy is extensively discussed, does that mean they are deep?

Nope!

When it was released Citizen Kane was not that discussed, it quickly faded from the scene and yet several years later it became basically instructional material regarding filmmaking. Did that mean it had no depth then suddenly gained depth by merit of years? Of course not.

Actually, the same way you are blowing off the entirety of this game works similarly to how you are also blowing off the twilight series and star wars prequels.
Maybe they aren't _intentionally deep_, but as with any artform they are naturally prone to analysis.
Like, how Twilight is a study in maintaining virginity against all of Robert Pattinson, and how the prequels are a study in how the original Star Wars were three strokes of luck (not counting the stroke George Lucas apparently had before writing and directing the prequels).

Now thank you. That was all I wanted. Was it so hard to tell me that? Really? That was the big deal? Pointing out how Bookers approval of slaughtering ethnic groups and his actions as Comstock later link together? Why all the reluctance and secrecy? Why keep that behind some kind of white sheet as if it was some big reveal?

Not at all. I just argued, which my previous post quite clearly explained, that since your mind is already set there would be no point in trying to convince you otherwise. Among the pointers to why is the fact that you are ignoring all of the points being made, interpretations being discussed and applications of those to a larger narrative about the human condition.

Was it because of my next action where I point out that it is then completely ignored why Booker is still a racist as Comstock when the initial motivation was to seek redemption for killing those people? Why we never learn of Comstocks motivation for it, sure we find a voxaphone in a bathroom stating something about a dog but it doesn't tell us why he thinks that way. Did he ever try to emancipate Black people and it backfired on him thus setting him back in his ways?

I think this is clearly explained. Comstock represents an acceptance of Bookers sins where he turns his past into something honorable, through righteous belief and religion. The Booker that you are controlling, represents apathy, and choosing to accept your past by ignoring its implications and instead living up to the monster that has become your self image.

Or was it because I then ask you why you think any of those issues are reflected in Booker when he literally says out loud that both of these people are the same basically equating a racist zealot to an failed anarchist analogy. You see for Comstock his motivation is religious zealoutry, which is never explored in detail, why does he think the people are scum worthy of only death, whilst he himself was saved from that very flock, why are his efforts not directed towards salvation through baptism rather than fire and brimstone, the same can go for Fitzroy, why is her entire motivation for turning on Booker that "she want's a good story" when there could be no better story than a triumphant return of the saviour of the revolution.

I refer to the above comment.
The religious zealotry is a form of escapism that has, arguably overly successfully (within an infinite number of realities), lead to the power which Comstock possesses.

Sure the themes are motivations for the characters. But we never explore the motivations and by extension never explore the why's or in other words the themes themselves. Which I have been saying for the past 20 posts over and over and over. In the end Booker gets up and fights both of them, which really strikes me as not much of a metaphorical retread seeing as he fights both the power in place and the revolutionaries. For his own self interest which I might remind you he reaffirms multiple times as seeing them both as one and the same thing.

And it's within this apathy and self justification where you find the core of the themes. If you started in columbia as a Vox Populi struggling against an oppressive dictatorship, you would probably sympathize with Fitzroy. If you started as a Columbian citizen during the rebellion, you would probably Sympathize with Comstock. Wrong keeps being wrong, and Booker (and the player by extension) considers himself apart from all conflict due to his distant, neutral, apathetic nature.

You see all these themes do nothing but raise more unanswered questions. Like I said much earlier they are raised, presented and then walk off the stage when we still have questions for them. They are not explored but only serve as window dressing which makes them unnecessary as they muddy up the story they actually want to tell.

I disagree. As previously stated, they just require a deeper comparison to everything else going on within the game.

Also I think we can quickly wipe away any real world allegories the second you walked into a giant John Wilkes Booth cathedral. The people of Columbia stopped being a satire and instead became farcical cartoons.

First of all, do you really mean to understate the fact that Lincoln had made some serious enemies after making the _political decision_ to abolish slavery?
Also, can you not imagine that said enemies would praise his assassin, after seceding from the US?
Not only did I think that Columbias answer to the KKK was a brilliant touch to the overall experience to the game, but I also consider it a highlight of the experience given its root in history.

 

[1337mokro]

snip

I hate it when people break up the comment into individual responses. Makes it so much trickery to reply. If you are just gonna answer in chronological order then do so. Just a personal pet peeve.

So you can dish out jokes but not take a joke? Interesting to know

Now I find it funny that you call them studies, when a study is something that sets out with intent to understand and or prove something. Like I already said you can find unintentional meaning in something but when it isn't what the author intended then it does not translate into depth. An unintentional commentary is exactly that, unintentional, non-deliberate, an accident. It says something about something without ever realizing that it did. The same way that people are claiming Bioshock Infinite is a metacommentary on ludonarrative dissonance so is MOH: Warfighter a metacritique of the current state of modern military shooters. An utterly unintentional critique of the genre they are in made apparent by their failings rather than the intent of the developers.

What you have given here as the reasoning behind the character is simply a transcription of events. This happened after this but again failing to say why it happened or what motivated them into doing so. So Comstock decided to do what he did because of his baptism... but why. You see all the why's have not been answered. So he decided to reshape his past into something noble. Why? Wasn't he ashamed of his past and seeking redemption from it? At what point did religion make his past noble again, I think the "So you want to wash away your Sin" pamphlet the priests hand out quite clearly state that they are sins, not something to be proud of and parade, not even after the baptism.

Now I never talked about apathy as NOT being part of Bookers character. I stated instead how a completely apathetic character cannot possibly in anyway be affected at all by these themes passing by. They might as well not be there because he equates them to zero garnering no influence in his actions from them. Racism, class struggle, inequality, the burning of New York, etc, in the end all equate to a big flat 0 in his decisions and thoughts.

So Booker refused the baptism stating that a dunk in the water cannot magically poof away your actions. Why did this result in apathy? Why did this not result in a desire to change oneself? Was it events in his life afterwards? Why is Booker still the same after dying each time the working theory being that an alternate you from another timeline that made it to the same point replaces you? Why did Booker in another timeline decide to support the Vox? We know our brooding Booker wouldn't but why would that Booker suddenly choose to do so?

That last argument about Citizens naturally supporting Comstock is undone the second we see the Columbia equivalent of the Underground Railroad. There is quite a clear wrong here and it is the writing. I do say that the Vox go quite a long stretch from revolt of the people to murderous roving bands in just a single cutscene, again not explaining why this happened, just that it did happen. Not to mention that the patriots also underwent a change from police force to military death squad quite quickly again without motivation at to why that change happened. Again Bioshock Infinite tells us about things that happaned, and only tells us part of the things leaving any motivation out of the picture. It shows us a bit of the things that transpired, but leaves the clinging points out of focus. It never shows and tells us the why's.

"Comstock decided genocide was the only way because he washed his sins away during a baptism."

Nice thanks you for that Ken Levine I have fucking eyes and I could see that to but WHY did he decide that? What denomination did he adhere to? Was it Mormonism? I could understand the racism a bit better if he was a fundamentalist Mormon where Black Skin = Evil, but even then the motivation behind it all still isn't clear. Why did he do it, what made him think that way. Did a black man eat his dog? What does he have against the Irish? Why would he EVER allow a vigour called Devils Kiss to be produced if he is such a religious zealout?

The Comstock citizens go from casual racists to practicing it like a religion. Giving it roots in Historical events only serves to highlight just how insanely farcical it is seeing as even the deepest of the deep south did not erect a cathedral to John Wilkes Booth, which also seems kind of weird because it is again not explained why Comstock and Lincoln disagree to the point where Comstock vilifies him. In many ways that little voxophone recording shows more comparison between him and Lincoln than anything else, yet the main reason we are given for secession is that Columbia gets recalled after almost starting an international incident, not because of disagreements in politics, so again the utter vilification makes no sense.

Again the actions are told to us and partially shown but the motivations behind the actions are obscured in narrative mist. The villains in both cases are also so cartoonish because I think they were afraid of offending people by drawing those links you see. They are at best implied and even if they are implied the best they serve as is a weak allegory rather than a harsh critique.


Now I would write more but time is short and I HAVE to go so I left this video to do the talking for me. It almost perfectly words what gripes I have with the game.

No matter how good this story might be to you nor how shitty it appears to me, the one thing that is undeniable is the middle of the road gameplay and bad design. Though you will probably say that my joking jab at it being a metacommentary about ludonarrative dissonance is spot on. You will have to forgive me for having the idea that this game is some kind of messiah of videogaming to you and you will defend anything about it to the bitter end. To such a response I only have to say the following:

When the commentary is indistinguishable from the thing it is commenting on. It failed at it's job.

 

[chikusho]

I hate it when people break up the comment into individual responses. Makes it so much trickery to reply. If you are just gonna answer in chronological order then do so. Just a personal pet peeve.

I hate it when people answer in a long continuous post. It's very inconvenient having to scroll back and forth so much.

Now I find it funny that you call them studies, when a study is something that sets out with intent to understand and or prove something. Like I already said you can find unintentional meaning in something but when it isn't what the author intended then it does not translate into depth. An unintentional commentary is exactly that, unintentional, non-deliberate, an accident. It says something about something without ever realizing that it did. The same way that people are claiming Bioshock Infinite is a metacommentary on ludonarrative dissonance so is MOH: Warfighter a metacritique of the current state of modern military shooters. An utterly unintentional critique of the genre they are in made apparent by their failings rather than the intent of the developers.

First of all, unintentional meaning is still very meaningful. For instance, unintended meaning can highlight a lack of understanding of the issues by the developers, publishers and marketers of the product, which in turn reflects back on society and gaming at large. Also, many of the greatest classics in cinema became such due to random events caught on film, lack of budget, mistakes and last second things thrown together in a panic, that accidentally changed the entire tone of the work.
Secondly, all art is born in the eye of the beholder, without which no art could exist.

Also, you know whether or not the meaning or perceived depth is not intended _how_ exactly?

So Comstock decided to do what he did because of his baptism... but why. You see all the why's have not been answered. So he decided to reshape his past into something noble. Why? Wasn't he ashamed of his past and seeking redemption from it? At what point did religion make his past noble again, I think the "So you want to wash away your Sin" pamphlet the priests hand out quite clearly state that they are sins, not something to be proud of and parade, not even after the baptism.

Because by his baptism, he received (in his mind) a divine cleansing that freed him of all guilt associated with his past. A cleansing that changed his perception of himself and the world. Gaining influence and eventually being worshiped as a divine prophet he believed himself infallible, and so none of his previous actions could have been wrong. No, they must be noble!

Or perhaps the guilt still remained, which would be more in line with the themes of the game. The only way he thought to rid himself of his past was to have his people worship _his past_ as much as they already worshiped _him_.

Now I never talked about apathy as NOT being part of Bookers character. I stated instead how a completely apathetic character cannot possibly in anyway be affected at all by these themes passing by. They might as well not be there because he equates them to zero garnering no influence in his actions from them. Racism, class struggle, inequality, the burning of New York, etc, in the end all equate to a big flat 0 in his decisions and thoughts.

He equates them to obstacles, that he want's no part in. They must be there; you are forgetting about the players reaction.

So Booker refused the baptism stating that a dunk in the water cannot magically poof away your actions. Why did this result in apathy? Why did this not result in a desire to change oneself? Was it events in his life afterwards? Why is Booker still the same after dying each time the working theory being that an alternate you from another timeline that made it to the same point replaces you? Why did Booker in another timeline decide to support the Vox? We know our brooding Booker wouldn't but why would that Booker suddenly choose to do so?

There may be an infinite number of Bookers in an infinite number of New Yorks that never went to the baptism and changed their life for the better. Also yes, not getting an excuse for his past he continued wallowing in self pity, most likely further strengthened by the loss of his wife and later selling his child. Years of depression is a pretty good way to become apathetic.

In the timeline where Booker supports the Vox, Elizabeth was moved from the tower before he got there. So, Booker joined the rebellion in order to get to Elizabeth, and when he died he was used as a martyr and a symbol for the rebellion.

That last argument about Citizens naturally supporting Comstock is undone the second we see the Columbia equivalent of the Underground Railroad. There is quite a clear wrong here and it is the writing. I do say that the Vox go quite a long stretch from revolt of the people to murderous roving bands in just a single cutscene, again not explaining why this happened, just that it did happen.

Not to mention that the patriots also underwent a change from police force to military death squad quite quickly again without motivation at to why that change happened.

The rebellion had been going for a long time before Bookers arrival so military existed on both sides. There's no sudden change, only in what is thrown at you specifically. And the point is that suddenly gaining immense power over your oppressors can fundamentally change you. Fitzroys Voxophones attest to this. Besides, the rebellion started much earlier in the alternate timeline, so the actual path to their particular brutality can only be viewed through Fitzroy. Her path is pretty clearly paved if you payed attention.

Again Bioshock Infinite tells us about things that happaned, and only tells us part of the things leaving any motivation out of the picture. It shows us a bit of the things that transpired, but leaves the clinging points out of focus. It never shows and tells us the why's.

I consider the need to spell every motivation out to be very poor storytelling.

Nice thanks you for that Ken Levine I have fucking eyes and I could see that to but WHY did he decide that? What denomination did he adhere to? Was it Mormonism? I could understand the racism a bit better if he was a fundamentalist Mormon where Black Skin = Evil, but even then the motivation behind it all still isn't clear. Why did he do it, what made him think that way. Did a black man eat his dog? What does he have against the Irish?

Good, now you're asking questions. The first step towards figuring out the truth.

Why would he EVER allow a vigour called Devils Kiss to be produced if he is such a religious zealout?

Fink created the vigors. Comstock gained a lot from Fink, so he has pretty much free reign.
And yeah, if he really is such a religious zealot, then he would not allow the devils name or likeness to be on anything!
Hmm, I guess he's not such a cartoon character after all.

The Comstock citizens go from casual racists to practicing it like a religion. Giving it roots in Historical events only serves to highlight just how insanely farcical it is seeing as even the deepest of the deep south did not erect a cathedral to John Wilkes Booth, which also seems kind of weird because it is again not explained why Comstock and Lincoln disagree to the point where Comstock vilifies him.

I wouldn't exactly call the KKK subtle if that's what you're referring to. And they've never exactly been given free reign to do whatever they want to, yet still managed to create a ritualistic racist organization making no sense whatsoever. Columbia has had the time to inbreed the ideals it was founded upon for a number of years, with a leader worshiped as the second coming endorsing their beliefs.
While it's never stated that Comstock vilifies Lincoln, he might very well have let the raven worshiping KKK people erect those statues for themselves.

...the main reason we are given for secession is that Columbia gets recalled after almost starting an international incident, not because of disagreements in politics, so again the utter vilification makes no sense.

And you don't think the international incident was started due to political disagreements?
Comstock considers his actions righteous, America does not, hence Columbia secedes from America.

Again the actions are told to us and partially shown but the motivations behind the actions are obscured in narrative mist.

Unless you start to consider how they interlock and see a pattern leading back to their cause.
_Every story_ is a stating of a series of events, that can be broken down into bullet points and called shallow, should you so desire.
You are asking all of these questions, expecting the game to simply tell you instead of thinking about the implications of the dissassociations the story is presenting you with.

No matter how good this story might be to you nor how shitty it appears to me, the one thing that is undeniable is the middle of the road gameplay and bad design.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

You will have to forgive me for having the idea that this game is some kind of messiah of videogaming to you and you will defend anything about it to the bitter end. To such a response I only have to say the following:

I never claimed any such thing. I just think that you're wrong in making broad proclamations about how shallow it is, while the opposite is obvious to so many of us.

When the commentary is indistinguishable from the thing it is commenting on. It failed at it's job.

You are confusing "commentary" with "criticism".