Bioshock Infinite's story is OBJECTIVELY better than the original Bioshock [SPOILERS]

[Festus Moonbear]

Logical narrative = competent narrative, competent narrative > incompetent narrative.

That is a subjective judgement. There really isn't anything to add to this point, other than to keep rephrasing it. As for Infinite's plot holes, they are too obvious to require elaboration. Here's a hint: there's a big clue in the title of the game itself. As soon as you introduce multiverse based on infinite branching paths, you cannot avoid reducing the plot to zero. That's just the way it is. For every 'yes', a 'no' is also played out. Infinitely. That's what the concept means. I suspect that Levine took the criticism about binary choice in Bioshock to heart, and decided to subvert it. That's a fair enough decision, but it does inevitably open a hole that needs must eliminate the 'main plot' while simultaneously affirming it, and all other possible plots. Comstock wins, Booker wins, Elizabeth wins, Hitler wins, and they all also lose, and every other possibility as well. No happy ending, no sad ending, no ending, no meaning. To talk about 'plot holes' with such a backdrop is utterly meaningless: there isn't any plot, just hole. Maybe that's the point. One big tear.

But anyway, given that caveat, here's a good old-fashioned plot hole in Bioshock Infinite for you, one which renders the entire final battle totally pointless: Elizabeth now has full control of her powers, and can open up a tear into Kansas and bring a tornado out of it - and she can do this at will, not randomly, because she threatens Booker with it for a moment. Then - inexplicably, amazingly, ridiculously - she reverts back to 'person who throws you things' for the final battle against the blimps. Why? Because they needed to give all us rootin tootin bad boys a final battle - a Call of Duty 'defend the area' battle, no less - so the story had to be ignored and indeed utterly contradicted for a few minutes. Maybe some people would have lost their hardons if the final battle had been 'won' by Elizabeth as we/Booker looked on in amazement, but it would have been more consistent with the actual story.

Anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter. Maybe in a parallel universe, Elizabeth does use her tornadoes to win the battle. If I ever play Infinite again, I'll be sure to shut it down at that moment and just imagine this is the case, to preserve my sanity. There's also a parallel universe where I don't post any more in this thread because I predict it will go round in circles and I'm supposed to be working. Hell, I'll make it this one!

 

[Imre Csete]

I like BioShock more because after the twists happened, you still had hours to play and the narrative changed accordingly. Same reason I love KotOR that much. In BioShock Infinite the twists happened at the end with basically a few minutes left from the game. And all you did was walking thereon.

Not to mention I found the whole Comstock twist underwhelming, since the Hero = Villain in multiverse stories is as basic as it can get.

 

[NickBrahz]

I am not a fan of when games have multiunivereses and time travel and paradoxes and stuff, it just makes its incredibly difficult to follow and then you have to spend an hour reading forums to actually understand the game, especially paradox endings they just suck to me.

 

[Soulrender95]

He used Ryan's half son knowing that he wouldn't die because he was engineered to be stronger against splicers, and also because, in the games lore, the security bots wouldn't do as much damage because they were engineered to not target Ryan. But because he was only his half son, they wouldn't completely leave him alone.

I don't see how this is bad storytelling.

What in the name of Yahtzee is a half son? was it DP and the sperm merged? because I don't remember that at all, and I can't say I've heard the term half son before.

Jack was the illegitimate son of Andrew Ryan due to Ryan not being married to Jack's mother, but yes engineered to age faster and obey commands, Fontaine pretty much had to use Jack as Ryans assasin because no one else could get to Ryan because of the Bathysphere Dna locks, had Ryan not screwed around Fontaine wouldn't have had his assassin.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Urm, no. Plot holes do not necessarily imply a bad story. You may not like stories with plot holes - a perfectly legitimate subjective opinion.

Now, please, if you'd like to stand in front of the palisade whilst the scarlet wearing fellows opposite stick some .455 into their Martini-Henry's...

Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

As for Infinite's plot holes, they are too obvious to require elaboration. Here's a hint: there's a big clue in the title of the game itself. As soon as you introduce multiverse based on infinite branching paths, you cannot avoid reducing the plot to zero. That's just the way it is. For every 'yes', a 'no' is also played out. Infinitely. That's what the concept means. I suspect that Levine took the criticism about binary choice in Bioshock to heart, and decided to subvert it. That's a fair enough decision, but it does inevitably open a hole that needs must eliminate the 'main plot' while simultaneously affirming it, and all other possible plots. Comstock wins, Booker wins, Elizabeth wins, Hitler wins, and they all also lose, and every other possibility as well. No happy ending, no sad ending, no ending, no meaning. To talk about 'plot holes' with such a backdrop is utterly meaningless: there isn't any plot, just hole. Maybe that's the point. One big tear.

But anyway, given that caveat, here's a good old-fashioned plot hole in Bioshock Infinite for you, one which renders the entire final battle totally pointless: Elizabeth now has full control of her powers, and can open up a tear into Kansas and bring a tornado out of it - and she can do this at will, not randomly, because she threatens Booker with it for a moment. Then - inexplicably, amazingly, ridiculously - she reverts back to 'person who throws you things' for the final battle against the blimps. Why? Because they needed to give all us rootin tootin bad boys a final battle - a Call of Duty 'defend the area' battle, no less - so the story had to be ignored and indeed utterly contradicted for a few minutes. Maybe some people would have lost their hardons if the final battle had been 'won' by Elizabeth as we/Booker looked on in amazement, but it would have been more consistent with the actual story.

Your first example isn't a plot hole. The Yes (to the baptism) of the Yes/No that creates the Infinite Comstock universes was removed. The Yes of a single Booker decision was removed, there are still infinite universes and branching paths, just none that have Comstock and Columbia.

Your second example doesn't affect the main plot line, which I said was 1 of 2 properties that needed to be met. They win the battle (it doesn't matter how) and the ending still happens as it did.

 

[Yopaz]

If Story X makes sense and Story Y doesn't make sense, Story X is the objectively better story by default. That's is my point. I'm not saying Infinite's story is better because I was impressed, blown away, or even liked the story. For all anyone knows, I might hate the story, but that doesn't matter because a story making sense is better than one not making sense.

Still not an objective fact. If I say I like the original Bioshock's story better that's my opinion and quality when it comes to story isn't something you can measure. It's a matter of preference. Point out things that are flawed, point out things that doesn't add up, all of that is worthless effort.

1+1=2 is an objective statement given the values we have assigned both numbers. Even that is only objective as long as long as we have the same numerical system and the meaning of the symbol +. 1+1 could just as well be 10. Writing objective in caps doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Still not an objective fact. If I say I like the original Bioshock's story better that's my opinion and quality when it comes to story isn't something you can measure. It's a matter of preference. Point out things that are flawed, point out things that doesn't add up, all of that is worthless effort.

I literally just posted this as you replied:

Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

 

[Festus Moonbear]

Your first example isn't a plot hole. The Yes (to the baptism) of the Yes/No that creates the Infinite Comstock universes was removed. The Yes of a single Booker decision was removed, there are still infinite universes and branching paths, just none that have Comstock and Columbia.

I'm sorry, but that's not true and it shows you don't understand what 'infinite' means. You can't 'remove the single Booker decision' because there will always be a universe where you didn't choose that path. There are infinite Bookers and infinite Lizzies making infinite decisions, and they cannot be 'removed' on pain of erasing the whole concept of infinitude. That so many people apparently don't get this (if what forum discussions tell me is true) is mind-boggling to me. All it does is make another branching path: one where Lizzy drowns Booker, and another where she doesn't. Again: that's what 'infinite' means. All these diagrams you find online have the same problem: they have all multiple branches for every other decision, but only one branch for the 'original Booker' decision. No sorry dudes, you can't do it that way. That 'original' Booker also needs two branches (or rather, infinite branches): one for 'drowned', one for 'not drowned', one for 'something else entirely' (perhaps hot sweaty mansex with the priest), and so on. Sing it with me: that's what 'infinite' means.

 

[NiPah]

Urm, no. Plot holes do not necessarily imply a bad story. You may not like stories with plot holes - a perfectly legitimate subjective opinion.

Now, please, if you'd like to stand in front of the palisade whilst the scarlet wearing fellows opposite stick some .455 into their Martini-Henry's...

Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

Coherency itself is subjective in storytelling, you have a subjective opinion and thats great, argue from that angle and stop trying to apply objectivity to something that has none.

 

[IrateDonnie]

Overall though, I prefer how Bioshock 1 handled it's story. I guess I can kinda agree that the vita chamber thing is a bit weird. Do they ever explain why Andrew Ryan didn't just respawn? You know, considering the vita chambers are connected to him and his close relatives?

Ryans vita chamber in his office was turned off.

 

[Festus Moonbear]

But how can Infinite be objectively better when Bioshock is the one with Objectivism?

Does. Not. Compute.

Or: Bioshock is infinitely better because Infinite is the one with Infinitism. Or something.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Your first example isn't a plot hole. The Yes (to the baptism) of the Yes/No that creates the Infinite Comstock universes was removed. The Yes of a single Booker decision was removed, there are still infinite universes and branching paths, just none that have Comstock and Columbia.

I'm sorry, but that's not true and it shows you don't understand what 'infinite' means. You can't 'remove the single Booker decision' because there will always be a universe where you didn't choose that path. There are infinite Bookers and infinite Lizzies making infinite decisions, and they cannot be 'removed' on pain of erasing the whole concept of infinitude. That so many people apparently don't get this (if what forum discussions tell me is true) is mind-boggling to me. All it does is make another branching path: one where Lizzy drowns Booker, and another where she doesn't. Again: that's what 'infinite' means. All these diagrams you find online have the same problem: they have all multiple branches for every other decision, but only one branch for the 'original Booker' decision. No sorry dudes, you can't do it that way. That 'original' Booker also needs two branches (or rather, infinite branches): one for 'drowned', one for 'not drowned', one for 'something else entirely' (perhaps hot sweaty mansex with the priest), and so on. Sing it with me: that's what 'infinite' means.

Your arguing semantics now, 'removed' was a bit wrong to say but for all intents and purposes that's basically what happened. I haven't even seen any of these diagrams you speak of but it seems they just have to add a tiny little branch saying drowned (which stops all the branching that leads to the infinite Comstocks) instead of that branch being totally removed. The Booker says 'no' to the baptism, his life goes on with infinite universes from each and every decision; The Booker that says 'yes' to the baptism, gets drowned. It seems like you don't know what 'infinite' means. Infinite branches for every decision point are not a requirement for infinite universes.

 

[Festus Moonbear]

Your arguing semantics now, 'removed' was a bit wrong to say but for all intents and purposes that's basically what happened. I haven't even seen any of these diagrams you speak of but it seems they just have to add a tiny little branch saying drowned (which stops all the branching that leads to the infinite Comstocks) instead of that branch being totally removed. The Booker says 'no' to the baptism, his life goes on with infinite universes from each and every decision; The Booker that says 'yes' to the baptism, gets drowned. It seems like you don't know what 'infinite' means. Infinite branches for every decision point are not a requirement for infinite universes.

If there's a 'drowned Booker', there's also a 'not-drowned Booker'; just like there was a 'yes' branch and a 'no' branch. The game makes this very clear, and it is the whole basis for everything that happens from the moment the tears are introduced. Otherwise why are there 'infinite Comstocks' in the first place? This is obvious, and can only be explained away by (a) changing the rules arbitrarily, as you try to do in your post above, or (b) saying 'magic Lizzie did it', as others basically do. Listen to Booker and Lizzie's conversation on the boardwalks again, and think about it a bit.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If there's a 'drowned Booker', there's also a 'not-drowned Booker'; just like there was a 'yes' branch and a 'no' branch. The game makes this very clear, and it is the whole basis for everything that happens from the moment the tears are introduced. Otherwise why are there 'infinite Comstocks' in the first place? This is obvious, and can only be explained away by (a) changing the rules arbitrarily, as you try to do in your post above, or (b) saying 'magic Lizzie did it', as others basically do. Listen to Booker and Lizzie's conversation on the boardwalks again, and think about it a bit.

I'm not changing any rules, you're making up rules that don't exist. The 'drowned Booker' branch and the 'yes' branch are the same branch, the 'not-drowned Booker' branch and 'no' branch are the same branch as well. There's infinite Comstocks because every decision creates branches that result in creating an infinite set of universes. One afternoon Comstock decides on a pear or apple for lunch, that branches out into infinite universes too.

 

[Festus Moonbear]

Two quotes without any commentary:

Infinite branches for every decision point are not a requirement for infinite universes.

...

There's infinite Comstocks because every decision creates branches that result in creating an infinite set of universes. One afternoon Comstock decides on a pear or apple for lunch, that branches out into infinite universes too.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Alright, here's the thing: we won't resolve this. But here's something positive to take away that has application for the theme of your thread as a whole: I believe that Bioshock Infinite's plot destroys itself if taken to its logical conclusion, and therefore that it has a major, plot-destroying, plot hole. I am convinced of this. You, however, do not believe this to be the case, and feel my logic is misplaced. Likewise, you believe that Bioshock 1's plot is irreparably damaged, and you are convinced of this. Others do not agree, and believe your logic is misplaced. Do you see that it may be possible that just as our different approaches to Infinite prevent us from agreeing, other people's approaches to Bioshock may prevent them from agreeing, and that what seems obviously right to you may well not seem so at all to them? In other words, that this may just be a disagreement born of differing perspectives rather than a matter of OBJECTIVE fact? Just maybe.