No, BioShock Infinite's Ending Doesn't Suck

[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".

 

[1337mokro]

snip

I stopped caring about this 2 days ago.

You won't be able to light the spark again when the only thing you repeatedly give me is speculation and conjecture. It's to bad you weren't around oh.... 15 posts ago because the same questions got asked then. Which means you could have just replied to those and not spent several posts dancing around the issue and eventually still giving me the same thing the other guy was giving me.

Unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture. Something that only serves to highlight the flaws in a story when the motivations are so unclear (by virtue of never being explained) people have to make them up for the game.

Anyway, beyond caring about Bioshock Infinite now. See you when Bioshock Revengeance gets released.

 

[chikusho]

snip

I stopped caring about this 2 days ago.

You won't be able to light the spark again when the only thing you repeatedly give me is speculation and conjecture. It's to bad you weren't around oh.... 15 posts ago because the same questions got asked then. Which means you could have just replied to those and not spent several posts dancing around the issue and eventually still giving me the same thing the other guy was giving me.

Unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture. Something that only serves to highlight the flaws in a story when the motivations are so unclear (by virtue of never being explained) people have to make them up for the game.

Anyway, beyond caring about Bioshock Infinite now. See you when Bioshock Revengeance gets released.

All I'm giving you are deductions from the information the game and its story is giving me which points towards the answer to your questions. Things that I never really perceived as very complicated, but there you have it.
The author and creator of any character will always have more information about the "truth", and then use that truth to decide which actions the character would take. But once released, the character will take on a life on its own amongst the readers, viewers or players where he is judged without being told what to think. This is where the depth truly lies.

Good to know, see you then!

 

[Dunhart]

The only problem I had with Bioshock Infinite's ending was that it was... quite grim. The game had a downer ending steeped in metaphors just for the sake of it. I mean, she's got mastery over time and space, I'm sure she could have thought at least a dozen solutions other than drowning the man.