The Big Picture: Shock Treatment

[Aardvaarkman]

... it means Bob has to be more to the point and concise about what he's trying to get at here, given that he's on a time limit (why is that, again?)...

Exactly my question. It's the internet, there are an infinite number of bytes available. Why shouldn't Bob be able to make a half-hour episode? Who exactly is imposing this supposed time limit?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Notice how you barely mentioned the Fitzroy narrative of freedom fighter turns into a blood lusting gang. i.e. Che, Sandinista's, Russian Revolution, etc.

Or, perhaps significantly more relevant to the topic at hand, the American Revolution.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

That's probably why I don't watch game trailers, or care very much about anything that's written or shown before the actual release of a game. The question is, why did Bob use this footage, when it's not actually representative of the game as it was released?

 

[T3hSource]

Such a pathetic character that steeps so low that he's a step away from suicidal.
Well, two games from last year made me realize full on suicidal characters. One of them is pretty obvious, it's subtle about it's under-themes, unlike BioInfinite, includes just as much killing and satisfying executions, and also somehow it fits in 'Twinkle twinkle little star' in all of it.
The other one is very simplistic in presentation and in gameplay, although the gameplay has just even more depth than BioInfinite. It preys on the player through its simplicity and presentation, until the player realizes what has happened, what will happen and what should happen.

 

[JokerboyJordan]

No one ever seems to want to talk about how much worse the gameplay was from the first game.

The first game is just the better all around game.

Story, mechanics, aesthetics.

All of it.

I'm confused, you're saying you prefer the first Bioshock, right?

If so, I completely agree. I have one example.
Big Daddies vs... uh, well, everything, but I'll take Handymen as the prime candidate.

Big daddies were a presence in the game, that if not scared you, made you nervous. They had a very specific role in the game, they were a deep part of the story and they were something you could completely avoid(as far as I remember, maybe apart from one or two instances) if you wished to, giving you a vital gameplay option.
Avoid the hassle or duke it out and gain significant rewards.

Handymen were yet another wonder of Columbia that was never really explored, explained or any big part of the story, but merely hinted at, when you weren't fighting them. Which was rare. I remember meeting them twice or so.
They were very hard to kill, very fast and didn't give you much room to hit their weak spot. They were by far the hardest single enemy in the game, but completely underexposed and unused as an idea for a powerful weapon.

This is one of the things that made Infinite feel rushed, along with the Boys of Silence that served as overglorified sentries.

Yea, I'm saying the first one was better.

They're not even in the same ball park in my opinion.

Completely agree.

They hyped up all these enemies, especially Songbird, and I expected a lot more explanation, as well as more depth in their relationship to Columbia.

What I got was "Yeah, robot dudes" "Yeah, magic powers" "Yeah, flying Big Daddy". I really felt underwhelmed overall, and the simplified gameplay (compared to Bioshock, which even itself wasn't that innovative in that department) didn't help my impressions. The 2-weapon limit, the re-skinned gun variants, the unsatisfying upgrade system, the removal of crafting/hacking/ etc.

Bioshock just felt like a much more complete game overall.

Both the game's 'end battles' sucked though.

 

[Tradjus]

The only thing that bothered be about Infinite was that it felt like a lot of bits were cut and stitched together, and thus it felt like a lot of the narrative was missing or hastily patched with quick explanations amounting too "Because multiverses!" I just didn't feel like I'd gotten the whole experience at the end.

 

[Noxshadow]

This is also, roughly, my interpretation of the story, except I didn't even really dwell on the hows and whys, because I just viewed the whole story as a Jacob's Ladder-style personal hell that Booker has to undergo. The effect on the dead-but-not-really enemies also helped the comparison quite a bit.

Lived
Lives
Will Live

Died
Dies
Will Die

 

[Jamous]

That actually makes me feel quite a bit better about the ending. Nice theory.
I'll be honest, a lot of my issues with it are the fact that it was spoiled for me and unanswered questions.

 

[Guffe]

This is something I never/seldom do.
I play a game, (try to) understand the story, maybe think a bit about what's happened and that's it.
I very seldom try to deeper understanding about the game, like Bob has done here or the Majoras Mask reviews that were very popular here on Escapist.
It's interesting to listen to these kinds of reviews but I almost never do it myself.

 

[1337mokro]

Can we just move on from this game?

Seriously people it is not the Messiah of story telling. It is not the paragon of videogaming. It is a game marketed to as many people as possible, getting rave reviews based on it's pedigree.

Moviebob trying to hastily bury all the dead plotpoints, bad gameplay and unnadressed themes in favour of what I would basically say is the most common and blandest interpretation of the story.

"It's about Booker having to accept what he did!"

Yeah we kinda get that when the game spells it out for you. What bothers me is that for that story we didn't need racism, xenophobia, classicism, religious zealotry, kidnapping, a city in the sky and basically anything else in the game. That story could have been told and has been told in better ways. You see when you add something to a game just to divert attention it ends up being a quivering addition. Something that doesn't quite belong there and is useless.

This could just as easily have been an adventure game delving into the story and characters rather than breaking things up for oh... 5 hours or so with boring shooting.

As someone who has never played the game, I am asking this out of ignorance. Wouldn't going back and stopping Booker from fighting in Wounded Knee make more sense than killing him?

Stop asking completely logical questions. It will only hurt your brain when you realize the multitudinous plotholes and the infinite time loop Booker put himself in. You see how can he travel back in time to kill himself, if he never meets the person that allows him to do so, who will only exist if he becomes Comstock etc, etc.

 

[kingpocky]

I never like ending where you travel back in time to prevent yourself doing something. It just creates too many paradoxes.

Seriously without Comstock Elizabeth will never gain her powers, thus never be able to go back in time and drown Booker to prevent him becoming Comstock.

Look at the Luteces. They were "killed," at least in all timelines we're familiar with, so that's probably a constant. But they still exist, scattered throughout space. When the siphon is destroyed, Elizabeth becomes a physical God. Maybe she likewise survives the destruction of her own timeline because part of her exists outside of reality altogether.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

What bothers me is that for that story we didn't need racism, xenophobia, classicism, religious zealotry, kidnapping, a city in the sky and basically anything else in the game. That story could have been told and has been told in better ways. You see when you add something to a game just to divert attention it ends up being a quivering addition.

Yeah, why bother with actual themes in a story? I'm sure Shakespeare's writing would be just as good without all those annoyingly distracting details about characters, politics, and history.

 

[maxben]

I never like ending where you travel back in time to prevent yourself doing something. It just creates too many paradoxes.

Seriously without Comstock Elizabeth will never gain her powers, thus never be able to go back in time and drown Booker to prevent him becoming Comstock.

But that is why the post-credits ending is there. All possible dimensions collapse to the only one that makes sense, Booker does not become Comstock and he never sells Anna. All other possible dimensions are stuck in a paradox and therefore cannot exist leaving only one with a necessary constant.
The dimensions where he is drowned do not exist.
The dimensions where he becomes Comstock do not exist.
The dimensions when he sells Anna do not exist.
This last dimension has no paradox, the one where he refuses baptism and never sells Anna.

Or we can go with Doctor Who's explanation of timey-whimey stuff

 

[CatmanStu]

Interesting take on the story and ending that falls down right at the end. I finished the game about half an hour ago and I distinctly remember him being drowned by the Elizabeths; how does that constitute taking responsibility? He was only there because he believed he was going to kill Comstock, the person he was passing the blame onto.

The irony is that, assuming that accepting responsibility is the overall story arc, the decision is made by a character/s that will have/had/has no responsibility as there can be no consequences when you can choose all options and see all outcomes.

 

[Abomination]

As someone who has never played the game, I am asking this out of ignorance. Wouldn't going back and stopping Booker from fighting in Wounded Knee make more sense than killing him?

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.

Actually they had that covered, his comrades insulted him frequently about supposedly having Native American heritage. His attempt to prove them wrong was to become a slaughter-machine at Wounded Knee.

You would have to go further back than Wounded Knee to ensure Booker doesn't develop destructive racist tendencies.

How far back?

You'd probably have to smother him in his crib.

 

[Storm Dragon]

But what was the significance of those four gay blokes?

They were singing a song they couldn't possibly have heard. It was foreshadowing the Alternate worlds.

So, does someone write the song later in the game or what? I'm still confused and not entirely convinced that you and Yahtzee are both trolling me.

 

[1337mokro]

What bothers me is that for that story we didn't need racism, xenophobia, classicism, religious zealotry, kidnapping, a city in the sky and basically anything else in the game. That story could have been told and has been told in better ways. You see when you add something to a game just to divert attention it ends up being a quivering addition.

Yeah, why bother with actual themes in a story? I'm sure Shakespeare's writing would be just as good without all those annoyingly distracting details about characters, politics, and history.

Are you seriously comparing Shakespeare to Bioshock Infinite? Now I ain't a Shakespeare fan, but seriously? Even the worst detractor of Shakespeare would have a laugh at that. The answer is quite simple, because the themes in Shakespeare's plays tie back into the characters and the story.

I'm not even going to start delving deep into Shakespeare because you just compared an entire oeuvre to one game, heck I don't even know which particular politics you are referring to there's only about a dozen or so of them. Let's instead dive into Bioshock Infinite.

Why is the theme of racism there?
Why do Comstock's religious views never get explored, sure we know he is a fire and brim stone man but WHY? He got saved once so why is he talking about Killing people rather than Saving them?
Why does there have to be two warring parties, one a bunch of racists and the other a group of murderers?
Why did it have to be a city in the sky?

You'll find the answer to most of those questions being, cause it's a Bioshock game. Not because it adds anything to the setting. You see in MacBeth for example the politics are central to the story. A man kills another to become king, the political strive this brings fuels his fear and paranoia and the rest is quite a lovely play of death and misery.

Now what does the racism bring to Booker's story? It's kinda there... sitting around, it's an easy way to excuse killing hundreds of hardworking family men because hey they are racists, but what else does it do.... not much really. It's piece in an exhibition. Just like religious zealotry, oppression of the working class and basically most of the other things in this game. It's shown, but nothing is done with it. It plays no role in anything story wise.

After all you just finished watching a video where the story is basically reduced to "Man needs to reconcile with his past and accept it". None of the other elements impact the way he reconciles with his past. They are therefore pointless. Just try it. Start taking out elements and stop when the story no longer works. You'll notice that a mighty fine bit of fat gets trimmed off Bioshock Infinite.

 

[kailus13]

But what was the significance of those four gay blokes?

They were singing a song they couldn't possibly have heard. It was foreshadowing the Alternate worlds.

So, does someone write the song later in the game or what? I'm still confused and not entirely convinced that you and Yahtzee are both trolling me.

According to google, they were singing God Only Knows by the Beach Boys. Came out in 1966, more than 50 years after Infinite is set.
Other songs in Infinite include Girls Just Wanna Have fun which plays in the fairground.