The Big Picture: Shock Treatment
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
In theory, but as MovieBob said, the game has that narrative about learning to deal with and accept your past. If he was able to go back and erase what he did, that wouldn't really be accepting it.kailus13 said:
I'm happy that Bob shares an opinion with me on this. I've said it once and I'll say it again, Booker DeWitt was the stand-out character for me throughout the game, not everyone's favourite Elizabeth.
The unravelling of the story combined with the as always superb voice work from Troy Baker made me fully immersed in assuming the role of Booker. The drowning of Comstock, I felt his confusion and wild anger. When he realises he sacrificed caring for his only child, I broke down in tears. It goes to show that the silent protagonist is not always the best choice in games, and the player can succeed in being as expressive and emotive as those around him/her.
The unravelling of the story combined with the as always superb voice work from Troy Baker made me fully immersed in assuming the role of Booker. The drowning of Comstock, I felt his confusion and wild anger. When he realises he sacrificed caring for his only child, I broke down in tears. It goes to show that the silent protagonist is not always the best choice in games, and the player can succeed in being as expressive and emotive as those around him/her.
Seriously, spoilerific.
Alternate interpretations abound. I personally think, due to the way multiverses work according to my understanding, that Elizabeth essentially can't cease to exist. She was capable of going anywhere she wanted after the siphon was destroyed. Because of her unleashed power, she can be anywhere any time. Even if she does something that would result in her never existing, it wouldn't matter because she can essentially always exist, even if she had the freedom to travel all dimensions for even a millisecond.
This is like the quantum physics version of "It was all a dream" the better thing is that they don't tell you it's all meaningless and you get to argue about it rather than just be pissed off.
Alternate interpretations abound. I personally think, due to the way multiverses work according to my understanding, that Elizabeth essentially can't cease to exist. She was capable of going anywhere she wanted after the siphon was destroyed. Because of her unleashed power, she can be anywhere any time. Even if she does something that would result in her never existing, it wouldn't matter because she can essentially always exist, even if she had the freedom to travel all dimensions for even a millisecond.
This is like the quantum physics version of "It was all a dream" the better thing is that they don't tell you it's all meaningless and you get to argue about it rather than just be pissed off.
I think this is a pretty good analysis of Bioshock Infinite. And an especially good analysis of what I dislike about it - I strongly felt that the dog was more interesting than the elephant, and dumping the dog in a ditch at the end of act 2 to examine the elephant for the rest of the game was a huge disappointment to me.
I remain unphazed in my opinion that it is a mediocre mishmash of ideas given no due time or honest treatment. The game has constituent elements I like (visual aesthetics, sound), but the overall product is terribly average and intellectually disingenuous at best.
Also I take issue with Bob's statement that the focus on the Booker/Elizabeth relationship makes the story "darker and bleaker". Surely the fact that the game renders a righteous rebellion against racist oppression a heinous act of barbarism which 'never should've happened' and proceeds to assume moral stances *for* the player is the darkest and bleakest and most depressingly cynical aspect of the game.
Also I take issue with Bob's statement that the focus on the Booker/Elizabeth relationship makes the story "darker and bleaker". Surely the fact that the game renders a righteous rebellion against racist oppression a heinous act of barbarism which 'never should've happened' and proceeds to assume moral stances *for* the player is the darkest and bleakest and most depressingly cynical aspect of the game.
Great analysis, and one that I think might be right on the money. Might. It's hard to tell with that ending (look, it's not a bad ending, I just feel that it is a bit rushed is all).
However, the greatest realization I had when watching the video, was about the choices that you make throughout the game, which leads you to believe that they will have some kind of great impact on the ending, but in the end are just there to mess with your expectations. Because for as much as the choices are being painted as black and white, there actually one choice which threw me for a loop, and made me ponder which decision was the "right" one.
The choice in question: whether you shoot Cornelius Slate or let him live. Normally, this would have been a cakewalk; killing is EVUL, and thus you let him live as an act of G00D (and instead leave the old coot to rot in a museum, which is just so nice of you). However, there were two things, two simple things, that made me question that decision.
1. Cornelius himself asks you to kill him.
2. The choice where you kill him is positioned where the "good" options normally are.
...
The simple act of placing one choice where it isn't expected to be in a dialouge option made me question what was the "right" choice.
Food for thought...
However, the greatest realization I had when watching the video, was about the choices that you make throughout the game, which leads you to believe that they will have some kind of great impact on the ending, but in the end are just there to mess with your expectations. Because for as much as the choices are being painted as black and white, there actually one choice which threw me for a loop, and made me ponder which decision was the "right" one.
The choice in question: whether you shoot Cornelius Slate or let him live. Normally, this would have been a cakewalk; killing is EVUL, and thus you let him live as an act of G00D (and instead leave the old coot to rot in a museum, which is just so nice of you). However, there were two things, two simple things, that made me question that decision.
1. Cornelius himself asks you to kill him.
2. The choice where you kill him is positioned where the "good" options normally are.
...
The simple act of placing one choice where it isn't expected to be in a dialouge option made me question what was the "right" choice.
Food for thought...
Or maybe they just crammed so many ideas together because they couldn't commit to a single thought. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Human Revolution doesn't have a central theme, and yet all the different perspectives on Augmentation help to expand the world itself.
Well...
Anyway, those were my two cents about the game. I'm wondering what's going to happen with the Bioshock series. Are they going to make another sequel or is Ken Levine finally going to pull the System Shock license away from the greedy hands of EA? Well, time will tell.
I felt sorry for the songbird after it was pulled into the deadly high pressurized waters of Rapture. She could have pulled open an alternate dimension where a huge birdcage would have stopped it's attack.
Anyway, those were my two cents about the game. I'm wondering what's going to happen with the Bioshock series. Are they going to make another sequel or is Ken Levine finally going to pull the System Shock license away from the greedy hands of EA? Well, time will tell.
It is still the Fringe in the end... and that stopped me to like this game. Also I wanted to get bigger things as an ending here and then ... nothing. For example a final epic bossbatle with the birdmachine on a falling city while the girl is opening new citywide portals to other dimensions to give me time to fight ... and such. No, I'm drowned and Fringe.
You know, that's actually the most acceptable interpretation of the ending that I've heard. Really want to thank you for this video because you reminded me that the Bioshock games are about anything other than what actually happens. It's all about symbolism and commentary. It's hard to describe, it's like the story that it's telling is bigger than the story thhat's actually experienced. This whole time I've been stewing over the ending because - quite honestly - I don't think their plan would have worked, I don't think there's any way they could perma-kill Comstock.
But really that's not what matters at all. The story is about the character, not what happens at the end.
In short: Thanks Bob, great video.
Now I can go back to loving Bioshock Infinite like I did before I got to the ending.
But really that's not what matters at all. The story is about the character, not what happens at the end.
In short: Thanks Bob, great video.
Now I can go back to loving Bioshock Infinite like I did before I got to the ending.
This was probably the best review of Bioshock Infinite I've seen.
One thing, though - a bunch of the clips show stuff that I've never seen in the game - and I've played it through twice. What's up with that?
One thing, though - a bunch of the clips show stuff that I've never seen in the game - and I've played it through twice. What's up with that?
I'm glad Bob liked it, just as I'm glad he liked the ME3 ending.
Can't say that I did, on either one. Although, to be fair, comparing the two is like comparing drinking acid to eating stale bread.
And no, I don't believe that BS:I's ending was a "sad" ending, it was positively joyous, esp if you stick around after the credits. However, to me the ending seemed pretentious and needlessly complicated (which is not the same as nonsensical).
Remember when Bob bagged on Tarantino for his show-boating in Inglourious Basterds? Yeah, that's how I felt here. I didn't care much for the twists either.
The world, however, was extremely engaging, the characters were compelling (even the ones you felt compelled to kill), and the game as a whole was a peerless experience (totally deserving of 8.5 or 9 out of 10).
Can't say that I did, on either one. Although, to be fair, comparing the two is like comparing drinking acid to eating stale bread.
And no, I don't believe that BS:I's ending was a "sad" ending, it was positively joyous, esp if you stick around after the credits. However, to me the ending seemed pretentious and needlessly complicated (which is not the same as nonsensical).
Remember when Bob bagged on Tarantino for his show-boating in Inglourious Basterds? Yeah, that's how I felt here. I didn't care much for the twists either.
The world, however, was extremely engaging, the characters were compelling (even the ones you felt compelled to kill), and the game as a whole was a peerless experience (totally deserving of 8.5 or 9 out of 10).
Cinematics and preview material from before the release. I get the impression they iterated a decent number of details between then and now. Like Elizabeth coming across as more of a telepath than dimension hopper.Aardvaarkman said: