Actually yes, even outside that scene, I remember that I was fighting some of the American soldiers in the civilian camp the 33rd had set up and
I was freaking out because there was gunfire from all sides and shot someone thinking that they were going to cover, but when I walked over to them after the firefight was over it was just some woman that I had killed thinking she was a combatant.
Exactly. I've seen it a dozen times before, it's a cliche at this point. I very much doubt that anyone didn't see it coming.
As for Booker, I'm going to echo chikusho's comment. The entire game was about Booker's violence and all the terrible consequences spilling out from it.
I completely agree with this, however, I felt the game often missed the mark. The point about Booker's character changing on whether he thought he could be redeemed for his violence, and how radically it changed him and history was brilliant, just spectacular.
However, my problems arise more from the details. For instance, when the ticket man attacks you, you can either preempt him and kill him, or be stabbed in the hand. Either way, you're ambushed and Elizabeth flees. Several brutal killings later, you meet back up with Elizabeth, who then dresses you down as a monster and a murderer, in exactly the same way whether or not you committed a sponaneuous act of violence. From the perspective of Booker who gets stabbed-he gets ambushed, stabbed, and a bunch of people try to kill him. He defends himself, killing them, and then gets the dressing down as a monster. I can understand Elizabeth being upset by the means, the game pulls no punches in showing that Booker is a killing machine who visits horrible ends on those who oppose him, but the judgement recieved doesn't quite fit.
Similarly, Booker and Elizabeth have no problem with arming an uprising of slaves and starving indentured servants just so that they can leave Colombia, yet condemn the violence they commit, in what I feel is the voice of the game. It's meant as a "We fucked up" moment, but really, what did they think would happen? And Elizabeth has her character moment RE: Killing AFTER she's done this. The main characters are stupid sociopaths. And, while I expect the sociopathic tendencies of Booker, he's not an idiot, he's a deeply cynical pragmatist. I can't believe for a second that he couldn't see this coming. Elizabeth did far worse than stabbing someone far earlier. The game doesn't get it really wrong, it just misses the mark, and never quite, for me at least, hit home. The two parts I feel worked well with respect to the violence, were the over the top nature, and the splitting of Booker's character.
On the supposed "racism" in the game...I have absolutely no problem with Fitzroy and the Vox Populi lashing out against their oppressors. As others have said, it is very common for revolutions to take ugly turns (for some reason I'm reminded of Orwell's pigs), and having the Vox Populi continue the cycle of violence was very in keeping with the primary themes of the game.
While I see how it could be problematic, for the most part I was just going "Fuck yeah" to the Vox. I don't see where Booker and Elizabeth feel they can judge the Vox, as they've done worse, for far more selfish reasons. And honestly, I was invested in the Vox, and was firmly in favour of their revolution. There could have been some brilliant commentary on social inequalities here, and the nature of revolution. But instead, this is sacrificed for the greater theme of violence, which I feel does a disservice to anyone who's experienced oppression. It's a bullshit tone argument.
If there was a problematic element, it was Booker solemnly intoning that Fitzroy and Comstock were two sides of the same coin. They really weren't, Booker...you chode. One of them was a PRODUCT of the other.
The game equivocates kinds of violence and where it condemns violent uprising, it tacitly endorses oppression and the status quo presented. It doesn't help that the significant criticism we get of the Vox comes from Booker "Head Smasher" DeWittless, and Elizabeth "Genocide to the Heathens" Comstock. The themes about violence were too complicated to be detailed by these characters. Had the twins detailed it, or even Comstock (As, while the world he's created is wrong, he's insulated from it by jackbooted thugs and only appearing in a tiny segment.), which could have come together in a "You and I are not so different" arrangment, it would have come across better. As such, I don't need to hear the sociopathic father daughter outing lecturing the oppressed masses they supplied with arms on the ethics of revolution.
I'm not sure a ranty serial-murdering psychopath [http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130224/monica-quan-keith-lawrence-christopher-dorners-first-victims-laid-to-rest] is a good source for sober analysis of a complex issue.
OT: I play and enjoy sandbox crime games like Saints Row and GTA, even though in real life I have strong objections to the murder of police officers and bystanders. Does that count as a problematic element?
Similarly, Booker and Elizabeth have no problem with arming an uprising of slaves and starving indentured servants just so that they can leave Colombia, yet condemn the violence they commit, in what I feel is the voice of the game. It's meant as a "We fucked up" moment, but really, what did they think would happen? And Elizabeth has her character moment RE: Killing AFTER she's done this. The main characters are stupid sociopaths.
I think Elizabeth should get a pass here, due to her upbringing.
Loonyyy said:
The game equivocates kinds of violence and where it condemns violent uprising, it tacitly endorses oppression and the status quo presented. It doesn't help that the significant criticism we get of the Vox comes from Booker "Head Smasher" DeWittless, and Elizabeth "Genocide to the Heathens" Comstock. The themes about violence were too complicated to be detailed by these characters. Had the twins detailed it, or even Comstock (As, while the world he's created is wrong, he's insulated from it by jackbooted thugs and only appearing in a tiny segment.), which could have come together in a "You and I are not so different" arrangment, it would have come across better. As such, I don't need to hear the sociopathic father daughter outing lecturing the oppressed masses they supplied with arms on the ethics of revolution.
I could agree with this. I do believe Booker's hypocrisy and brutality is quite intentional. He just shouldn't be used as a mouthpiece for the game's primary themes. He should remain an illustration of them.
That part kind of annoyed me too. Booker and Elizabeth start clutching their pearls at the violent revolution they were aiming for, and equivocate the violence of the oppressed against their oppressors, and those complicit in their oppression, with the oppression in the first place.
Callous as it may be, but shit happens. The founders who supported the system that oppressed the Vox, whether or not they themselves did anything aggressive, had their chance to pick the right side. They had their chance to try to help people, and to end suffering, and they didn't. They sided with what made them more comfortable. And as the game is so insistent on pointing out, Booker and Elizabeth aren't above violence to achieve their ends, and the ends of the Vox are far more noble than what Booker thinks his are. And while the game condemns the violence of Booker, it does it in such a stupid way that I generally dismiss it as trying to have their cake and eat it too.
But the Vox are aiming for revolution, and they want Booker to give them guns for it. Booker acquieses, and helps to give them guns to further their revolution. Booker and Elizabeth are entirely willing to deliver the guns to the Vox, which makes them complicit in the outcome. Sure, it wasn't what they wanted, but it would get them what they wanted, so what did they care? And what the fuck did they think Fitzroy would do with the weapons? Nowhere did Daisy give any indication she wasn't going to use them, and even if she did, I wouldn't expect Booker to believe her.
Booker is only helping the vox because he needs the airship, right?
True. Which in my mind actually makes things worse. Booker just wants redemption for his tortured soul and to have what he thinks are his debts forgiven. Elizabeth just doesn't want to be in a tower. They're willing to support violent uprising, to enable and commit mass murder, to cause suffering through the reckless use of the tears, for these reasons, which compared to the Vox, not being slaves, not starving, not being indentured servants, freedom, representation, just doesn't match up. The game does heavily comment on how Booker is selfish and violent in pursuit of his ends, and is desensitized to slaughter, and Elizabeth has the potential to be, and this works well. But the game chooses them to give voice to the game and criticise the Vox. And this doesn't work.
*EDIT*
Just curious, what did you find stupid about the way they condemn Bookers violence? I mean, basically the entire game from start to finish does nothing but condemn Bookers violence, and it bleeds through every aspect of the game. Hell, even the soundtrack does it.
I really liked it. The game hints heavily that Booker is pretty much a sociopath, and the choice between salvation and responsibility that he faced was brilliantly executed. In fact, some of the best parts of the game happen before it even starts. I loved how Booker's actions destroyed Columbia and brought about the deaths of countless innocents, and how his violent excesses contrast with the environment he finds himself in, and how the game makes it harder and harder to support his brutality when he's simply making things worse and committing unspeakable acts for comparably small reasons. The only difference between the Booker who committed Mass Murder at Wounded Knee and the one who commits it in Columbia is that this one mopes about it, and will talk about the horrors of violence whilst continuing the cycle. I love how Booker decided he couldn't be saved, not that way, and not for that, and how that changed his outlook, but how it didn't turn him into a hero. He's just a monster who's willing to stay buried in his grave. Comstock on the other hand, takes the availability of salvation, and justifies his actions, and thus has no problems with his violent means or vicious ends. Booker too reflects this in that when he thinks he'll be redeemed through his quest, he'll do unspeakable acts of violence, and go to terrible lengths to achieve his goals.
BOOKER and Comstock are two sides of the same coin. Daisy isn't even the edge of the coin.
Similarly, Booker and Elizabeth have no problem with arming an uprising of slaves and starving indentured servants just so that they can leave Colombia, yet condemn the violence they commit, in what I feel is the voice of the game. It's meant as a "We fucked up" moment, but really, what did they think would happen? And Elizabeth has her character moment RE: Killing AFTER she's done this. The main characters are stupid sociopaths.
You're probably right, I'm quite uncharitable to Elizabeth because I was quite irritated by that early scene, which just felt poorly done, and because if she asked to throw me one more coin I was going to take my savings, turn it into change and bury Ken Levine's house in it, writing "I found a coin, here, catch" in the blood of weeping bank tellers on the front yard.
I still think however, that Elizabeth really didn't think it through. Ignoring Booker for a moment, 'cause he's pretty much beyond redemption in this regard, Elizabeth does express reticience to the plan, but ultimately gives in. I feel she should have had some development with her willingness to commit violence here, because she should have understood that violence was the outcome. And she gets very used to violence very quickly, following Booker "Oh god, not the Birds!" DeChode into battle almost immediately after that scene where she condemns his violence. Even if she did consider it though, it would take some effort to make
her killing Daisy
an escalation from that. They'd have to focus on how it was so much more personal than the other deaths she's had a hand in. But the game doesn't mention the other deaths she's had a hand in, which makes her seem shallow about the whole thing. If she commented that she's seen and caused so much death, blah blah blah, this is blah blah, oh god my soul blah blah, would have been better. Instead it's: Oh god, I've got blood on my hands, I'm cursed, oh the horror.
Additionally, I think it's possible to have some growth through Elizabeth to demonstrate more of the themes of violence and desensitization, she's a battle ready companion who jumps to your assistance, seemingly without much complaint. If I were her and I saw my erstwhile rescuer (Who actually may be trying to kidnap her [Seriously, Booker's basically trying to kidnap her at the start of the game]) snapping necks, disenbowelling, tearing apart with crows, burning alive, and gouging of every conceivable surface of the human body, I'd be shell shocked. If we started off with a panicked and scared, and traumatized Elizabeth who cried her way through Booker butchering people, to one who accepted it, and eventually, can do it herself, it'd make a more compelling arc. Hell, she could even fire a shot or two of her own in the last couple of levels. Perhaps after Booker explains to her about the killing getting easier.
I could agree with this. I do believe Booker's hypocrisy and brutality is quite intentional. He just shouldn't be used as a mouthpiece for the game's primary themes. He should remain an illustration of them.
I definitely agree. I think that part of it is tone, and that, as you put is " Booker solemnly intoning that Fitzroy and Comstock were two sides of the same coin". The game doesn't try to illustrate the hypocrisy in moments like these, nor does it justify what Booker condemns to illustrate it. To make Booker the hypocrite here, either his actions and motives must be brought low (Which they aren't), or the actions and goals of the Vox must be brought higher, or at least the two must be contrasted. But it isn't, because in this moment, and several like it, Booker is the voice of the game, and he has no right to be. The role would be better left to either of the Elizabeths, or pretty much any other character.
Most of the time, Booker's hypocrisy with regards to violence is brilliantly executed. The best commentary Booker makes on violence is through his gameplay and actions, and how he justifies them. When the game uses him to provide commentary on the violence of others, it doesn't work, not only because he's a hypocrite the game has been using to criticise violence, but because he's a sociopath, and the moral musings of a sociopath are only useful to sociopaths. The rest of us couldn't give a shit.
Well written and fair criticism across the board. I suspect they allowed Booker to appear to be the "voice of the game" in order to make the eventual reveal all the more jarring, but I can appreciate how it might have resulted in some cognitive dissonance at numerous points leading up to that. I myself was (lamentably) spoiled on the ending because I was stupid enough to google an unrelated Bioshock Infinite question and it was right there at the top of the search results, so I think the game's primary thematic push was evident to me almost from the get-go.
True. Which in my mind actually makes things worse. Booker just wants redemption for his tortured soul and to have what he thinks are his debts forgiven. Elizabeth just doesn't want to be in a tower. They're willing to support violent uprising, to enable and commit mass murder, to cause suffering through the reckless use of the tears, for these reasons, which compared to the Vox, not being slaves, not starving, not being indentured servants, freedom, representation, just doesn't match up. The game does heavily comment on how Booker is selfish and violent in pursuit of his ends, and is desensitized to slaughter, and Elizabeth has the potential to be, and this works well. But the game chooses them to give voice to the game and criticise the Vox. And this doesn't work.
Fair point.
But I do think that in this scenario, Booker was very much apathetic towards the conflict. He knew exactly how things could turn ugly if the vox got enough power. But, he's seeing helping them as a means to an end, etcetera.
Elizabeth on the other hand, she was still naive. At that point she had only seen the brutality of the Founders and the oppression towards the black and Irish. She views them as a starving people, slaving beneath the heel of the Founders. While she supported their revolution as a just cause, she wouldn't necessarily know that the vox would match that brutality once they got an upper hand.
Either way that situation culminates with Elizabeth actually embracing violence as a means to an end, which to me justified that sequence quite well.
Fantastic! I was wondering specifically in what way you thought it was stupid with regards to this part:
Loonyyy said:
And while the game condemns the violence of Booker, it does it in such a stupid way that I generally dismiss it as trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I'm not sure a ranty serial-murdering psychopath [http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130224/monica-quan-keith-lawrence-christopher-dorners-first-victims-laid-to-rest] is a good source for sober analysis of a complex issue.
OT: I play and enjoy sandbox crime games like Saints Row and GTA, even though in real life I have strong objections to the murder of police officers and bystanders. Does that count as a problematic element?
Unfortunately when they were looking for Christopher Donar the L.A.P.D saw a car model that looked like his and shot at it injuring two innocent black women. I think the psychopath is right.
Edit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lapd-cops-shot-women-violated-policy-article-1.1602272 A 100 bullets into a innocent person's car WTF is wrong with that police department..
True. Which in my mind actually makes things worse. Booker just wants redemption for his tortured soul and to have what he thinks are his debts forgiven. Elizabeth just doesn't want to be in a tower. They're willing to support violent uprising, to enable and commit mass murder, to cause suffering through the reckless use of the tears, for these reasons, which compared to the Vox, not being slaves, not starving, not being indentured servants, freedom, representation, just doesn't match up. The game does heavily comment on how Booker is selfish and violent in pursuit of his ends, and is desensitized to slaughter, and Elizabeth has the potential to be, and this works well. But the game chooses them to give voice to the game and criticise the Vox. And this doesn't work.
Fair point.
But I do think that in this scenario, Booker was very much apathetic towards the conflict. He knew exactly how things could turn ugly if the vox got enough power. But, he's seeing helping them as a means to an end, etcetera.
Sure. He doesn't care. He's very cynical and world-weary RE: the Vox, while Elizabeth tends towards more optimism. And I think this goes towards my characterisation of Booker as a sociopath.
Still, I'm not going to let him off the hook for stealing the guns, while I think that the game mishandled the criticism of the Vox, whether it was intended deliberately or by accident, Booker working to get them weapons is a great bit of commentary on the themes of violence and intentions. I would have preferred some follow through on that.
Elizabeth on the other hand, she was still naive. At that point she had only seen the brutality of the Founders and the oppression towards the black and Irish. She views them as a starving people, slaving beneath the heel of the Founders. While she supported their revolution as a just cause, she wouldn't necessarily know that the vox would match that brutality once they got an upper hand.
I completely agree. I also think it was good that she expressed caution about doing it. I still think though that she should have expected bloodshed. That's just what guns tend to be for. I can understand her shock at the extent bloodshed, and horror, but not suprise that it happened, and certainly not moral condemnation of the underprivileged.
But I do agree that Elizabeth works far better in this regard. We don't get a Fitzroy~=Comstock bit, and her animation and non-verbal cues in the voice acting towards the attrocities she percieves really do give the sense of how wrong she thinks this is. Her animation, and voice acting, is faultless, and does convey well how horrible she thinks the outcome is.
I think it could be tightened up to fit better with Elizabeth's arc RE: her willingness to use violence, which becomes focal later on, and by showing greater empathy for the Vox, rather than transforming them into yet another mostly faceless goon army. I detailed a bit of this in one of my replies to Guppy.
It's also a shame that the game chooses to pit you against the Vox rather than try to argue with them, or try to improve things, before having them throw you out. It may not fit exactly fit with the theme, but if there were an actual discussion with the Vox, they could even stick with Elizabeth and Booker as the mouthpieces, because there would be a ready counterpoint that didn't make their voices so isolated, and didn't make their condemnation of the Vox one of the few times the game gives an unambiguous message.
Either way that situation culminates with Elizabeth actually embracing violence as a means to an end, which to me justified that sequence quite well.
Elizabeth's arc in general, from abhorring violence, to tolerating it, to causing it (On a massive scale), to committing it on a personal one, and then, over time, finding herself able to commit the genocide Comstock wanted, was brilliant.
Particularly, I liked how the game made sure to morally justify her first personally violent act. How could we complain? She's saving someone, a child. She's being heroic. But as the game makes clear later, it's her intentions and willingness to use and justify violence that cause the problem. She doesn't change her ways and forswear violence, she instead chooses to justify it. Similarly, Booker, whether he accepts the baptism or not, willingly accepts hyper-violence as the answer to a problem, if he feels he can justify it. These justifications tend to be flimsy, or post-hoc nonsense, but they satisfy their impulse to smash whatever's in their way. The child doesn't pop up again. For all intents and purposes, Elizabeth's actions are trying to prevent a single raindrop from falling in the ocean. It's about her. She can't accept that her actions caused this uprising, and that her actions could result in the death of a child, and so she uses violence to assuage her guilt. Which is stunningly like Booker's motivations. It's not what she did was wrong, per se, but it speaks to her changing character, it's that her rationalisations for it change her. I love that the game presents this in an action that we, the audience, are almost certain to agree with and support, which makes us more implicit in Elizabeth's changes. We are more Elizabeth's mentor than we know, and it makes it all the more jarring when we see what she's ultimately capable of.
Fantastic! I was wondering specifically in what way you thought it was stupid with regards to this part:
Loonyyy said:
And while the game condemns the violence of Booker, it does it in such a stupid way that I generally dismiss it as trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Yeah, that's a bit of a misstep in my wording, I see what you mean. I probably overstated my problem there, and should have clarified what I had a problem with.
The game does a great job of implicitly condemning Booker. As you said, the music, the art, all are trying to let you know something's wrong. The story itself hinges on Booker's willingness to use violence.
But when it explicitly tries to condemn him, namely through Elizabeth at the start of the game, it doesn't really hold up. It also fails to explicitly condemn his, and thus the players actions, when they try to use Booker to espouse the moral "failings" of the Vox. The dialogue fails much more often than the story does, and the art design and direction perfectly illustrate the themes of violence.
Unfortunately when they were looking for Christopher Donar the L.A.P.D saw a car model that looked like his and shot at it injuring two innocent black women. I think the psychopath is right.
Edit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lapd-cops-shot-women-violated-policy-article-1.1602272 A 100 bullets into a innocent person's car WTF is wrong with that police department..
The women, Emma Hernandez and Margie Carranza, were Hispanic, actually.
Dorner's rap on the LAPD was for racism, not incompetence, which is actually what was on display in that shooting. This does nothing to vindicate Dorner's paranoia.
Unless one thinks the officers saw into the dark interior of that car on that low-light street and decided to fire on the occupants because they were Hispanic, as opposed to because the car matched his description and was driving slowly down the street toward the house of someone who was on Dorner's hit list, this incident, awful as it was, has nothing to do with racism.
Unfortunately when they were looking for Christopher Donar the L.A.P.D saw a car model that looked like his and shot at it injuring two innocent black women. I think the psychopath is right.
Edit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lapd-cops-shot-women-violated-policy-article-1.1602272 A 100 bullets into a innocent person's car WTF is wrong with that police department..
The women, Emma Hernandez and Margie Carranza, were Hispanic, actually.
Dorner's rap on the LAPD was for racism, not incompetence, which is actually what was on display in that shooting. This does nothing to vindicate Dorner's paranoia.
Unless one thinks the officers saw into the dark interior of that car on that low-light street and decided to fire on the occupants because they were Hispanic, as opposed to because the car matched his description and was driving slowly down the street toward the house of someone who was on Dorner's hit list, this incident, awful as it was, has nothing to do with racism.
This was wrong of me but I just assumed the women were black. I thought they shared some characteristic with Christopher Dorner. They didn't Check if the car was the correct color, if the person in the car was black, if the person was a man or if the person was Christopher Dorner before unloading a 100 bullets into a innocent person car. Why didn't they at least check the license plate number. Has there been any time in this country where a innocent white women has been shot at almost 50 times
Now I'll give you Black Ops II and Ghosts because they really do seem to portray ALL Hispanics as evil. I mean just look at BLOPS in particular: every single Hispanic on Earth is your enemy and the one guy who isn't, betrays you for no fucking reason whatsoever!
BLOPS, I can kind of see this but on the other hand, you can also read a class struggle thing in there too, with the West having decandent floating cities and death drones while everyone else is pretty much starving. Not to mention the fact that Menendez actually comes across as the most sympathetic villain in the entire series(not that the bar is very high for CoD) does a lot to balance out the "evil brown people" protrayl.
Ghosts, OTOH, comes across as more racist, less nuanced retread of the BLOPS II plot. I haven't played it, partially because of this reason.
True, but at the risk of sounding insufferably smug, I thought the class warfare and wealth disparity trappings were fairly obvious (although I liked how the Yemeni government forces were much better equipped then the usual COD Arab militas we've seen). But unless I'm remembering incorrectly, EVERY SINGLE enemy was Hispanic. Ok they come from the poorer nations of the world in the game's future, but where are the non-whites for the "good guys"? There was....a black dude who dies and....a Hispanic dude who betrays you because, Hispanics are evil? I wouldn't have cared if there was any hint or information that Salazar (I think) was considering defection but the first time you get any inkling of his betrayal is when he hands over the keys to the Obama to Menendez and then calmly awaits retribution with not even a single attempt at explaining himself!
(Op just remembered there was the highly competent Arab infiltrator on your side, which as far as COD goes is almost the Holy Grail of positive non-white racial depictions)
Actually yes, even outside that scene, I remember that I was fighting some of the American soldiers in the civilian camp the 33rd had set up and
I was freaking out because there was gunfire from all sides and shot someone thinking that they were going to cover, but when I walked over to them after the firefight was over it was just some woman that I had killed thinking she was a combatant.
Was that before the Willy Pete antics? Because I thought the 33rd were rounding up civilians for execution in that area and thus loaded the mortar with righteous fury, only to experience one hell of a mood whiplash when the truth was revealed!
The best I can think of is that I began to like T. Hawk from Street Fighter once I got accustomed to playing as him, despite being a Native American stereotype.
Sandal in Dragon Age 2. Now, I didn't mind Sandal in DA Origins that much. I found him endearing, and while he was slow and didn't speak much, they didn't play up his mental block that much.
Then Dragon Age 2 came out, and he's completely playing up horrible mentally handicapped stereotypes and jumping up and down like a total moron. All done for comedy. I honestly did not like the change at all, and his expanded vocabulary just made him sound even dumber in a game full of dumb, bad writing.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
