So how good is Bioshock:Infinite really ?(Spoiler free)

[Jaeke]

At the end of the day, it's a unique experience that only itself could cause such sprawling rifts and differentiating opinion, not only on a subjective view of how well the game is played and enjoyed, but what the game is itself and what it's trying to accomplish. That's something that I don't think I've seen replicated in other acclaimed games, both in the public and critical eye.

I myself, don't really want to submit my own critical opinion of how well it plays, or how enjoyable it is to play, because I feel that kind of critique hurts what BioShock stands for as a series, from what I can infer how Ken Levine views his products, is trying to accomplish. And what that is, in my opinion, is a narrative experience uniquely borne in the player through interpretation that can only be rectified by playing a video game. This may sound ridiculous, as it is just a video game and it should be fairly judged on its mechanics, but I think it's a fair point to acknowledge, and I think this thread supports my thoughts. To summarize, I believe BioShock stands as a marker of narrative story-TELLING through a lens that is solely found through the interactivity of video games.

I'm not going to tell you the shooting isn't great, or the exploration isn't grandiose, or that you may find plot holes (I'm going to break my own rule here for a second about not subjectively critiquing the game and tell you that there really aren't any, at least on the plot-ruinous scale that some proclaim, that aren't explained either through the player's will to find their in-game explanations or popular opinion) but what I can tell you is this:
There are great pieces of literature with boring or banal writing; fantastic movies with bland or overbearing cinematography; and engaging video games with their own mechanical faults, much like the original BioShock was.

I'm sorry if this sounds like an incredibly pretentious answer (which it basically is) but it is my honest opinion of how I see this video-game.

And I think that should be enough reason you should play it.

 

[RJ 17]

Story: 5/10

Sorry guys, but it wasn't as good as you thought it was.

Well...shit. And here I thought it was! I'm going to use this rebuttal on you for your next ME3 thread. "It's not as good as you think it is. CASE CLOSED."

Personal tastes my friend, personal tastes. And the reason why I feel it wasn't that good is because...

It's got plotholes big enough to pilot a sky-barge through.

Out of curiosity, are you another one of the "The writers don't properly understand Quantum Physics, and therefore X isn't scientifically accurate, and therefore this is Bad Fiction, because the purpose of all fiction is scientific rigor" complaintants?

The ending - purely based on the very core concept of the game - does not work, and Elizabeth basically explains how it can't work.

It "works" just fine, both emotionally and thematically.

Except for the fact that the guy in the video whose accent you just love so much has a very valid point, and it's the point that I thought of the moment I watched the ending: drowning Booker is pointless. Whether or not you agree with the timelines that the guy in that video displays, the fact remains that by making a decision to go and drown Booker, a universe that's the opposite of that one - one in which Booker refuses the sacrifice - is also made, thus ensuring that the cycle repeats itself. I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics or even the multi-universe theory well enough to call "BULLSHIT!" on technicalities, all I know is from a NatGeo documentary and what was explained in the game: for every choice, a universe is made based on the opposite of that choice. Booker getting Baptized leads to Comstock, Booker rejecting the Baptism leads to drunk gambling-debt Booker. A decision is made, and both outcomes play out in their own universes. Elizabeth wants to kill off every possible incarnation of Comstock, and so a decision is made: drown Booker before the Baptism. Well then the opposite of that decision is also made: Booker says "To hell with that, I'm not letting you drown me" and Comstock lives.

And OMG that fucking video again. What is WRONG with that guy's VOICE!? This is the same fucking guy who made the "Bioshock Infinite is basically Space Invaders with better graphics hurr hurr" argument. That is not a good argument. This is not a good video. Never post this video again or I will find you, and I will get you. And your little dog, too.

Personally I liked it better when you were going to vomit in my shoes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Except for the fact that the guy in the video whose accent you just love so much has a very valid point, and it's the point that I thought of the moment I watched the ending: drowning Booker is pointless. Whether or not you agree with the timelines that the guy in that video displays, the fact remains that by making a decision to go and drown Booker, a universe that's the opposite of that one - one in which Booker refuses the sacrifice - is also made, thus ensuring that the cycle repeats itself. I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics or even the multi-universe theory well enough to call "BULLSHIT!" on technicalities, all I know is from a NatGeo documentary and what was explained in the game: for every choice, a universe is made based on the opposite of that choice. Booker getting Baptized leads to Comstock, Booker rejecting the Baptism leads to drunk gambling-debt Booker. A decision is made, and both outcomes play out in their own universes. Elizabeth wants to kill off every possible incarnation of Comstock, and so a decision is made: drown Booker before the Baptism. Well then the opposite of that decision is also made: Booker says "To hell with that, I'm not letting you drown me" and Comstock lives.

Your whole post here actually proves you didn't understand the ending (nor did the idiot that made the video, there's so many things he didn't get about the story either). Did you not take note about what is said and happens before Booker opens that last door? Elizabeth asks Booker, "Are you sure this is what you want?" so that his decision is made in Limbo (outside of each and every universe) so that another universe doesn't spring from the opposite choice being made, which would cause everything all to happen again (and Elizabeth is fully aware of that fact). If you actually pay attention to what is said and what happens, they aren't any plot holes, but I guess that's too much to ask.

 

[RJ 17]

Except for the fact that the guy in the video whose accent you just love so much has a very valid point, and it's the point that I thought of the moment I watched the ending: drowning Booker is pointless. Whether or not you agree with the timelines that the guy in that video displays, the fact remains that by making a decision to go and drown Booker, a universe that's the opposite of that one - one in which Booker refuses the sacrifice - is also made, thus ensuring that the cycle repeats itself. I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics or even the multi-universe theory well enough to call "BULLSHIT!" on technicalities, all I know is from a NatGeo documentary and what was explained in the game: for every choice, a universe is made based on the opposite of that choice. Booker getting Baptized leads to Comstock, Booker rejecting the Baptism leads to drunk gambling-debt Booker. A decision is made, and both outcomes play out in their own universes. Elizabeth wants to kill off every possible incarnation of Comstock, and so a decision is made: drown Booker before the Baptism. Well then the opposite of that decision is also made: Booker says "To hell with that, I'm not letting you drown me" and Comstock lives.

Your whole post here actually proves you didn't understand the ending (nor did the idiot that made the video, there's so many things he didn't get about the story either). Did you not take note about what is said and happens before Booker opens that last door? Elizabeth asks Booker, "Are you sure this is what you want?" so that his decision is made in Limbo (outside of each and every universe) so that another universe doesn't spring from the opposite choice being made, which would cause everything all to happen again (and Elizabeth is fully aware of that fact). If you actually pay attention to what is said and what happens, they aren't any plot holes, but I guess that's too much to ask.

Oh don't give me that "it happened in Limbo so it doesn't count!" rubbish.

Firstly: When is it ever established that "What Happens in Limbo Stays in Limbo?"
Secondly: The decision that's made outside that door is "Yeah, I wanna go in there and kill Comstock!" He doesn't know he has to drown himself yet, this is something he realizes right before he drowns. The decision to let Elizabeth drown him is made right there just before he's actually drown, which means that another universe springs up in which he chickens out and refuses the sacrifice.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Except for the fact that the guy in the video whose accent you just love so much has a very valid point, and it's the point that I thought of the moment I watched the ending: drowning Booker is pointless. Whether or not you agree with the timelines that the guy in that video displays, the fact remains that by making a decision to go and drown Booker, a universe that's the opposite of that one - one in which Booker refuses the sacrifice - is also made, thus ensuring that the cycle repeats itself. I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics or even the multi-universe theory well enough to call "BULLSHIT!" on technicalities, all I know is from a NatGeo documentary and what was explained in the game: for every choice, a universe is made based on the opposite of that choice. Booker getting Baptized leads to Comstock, Booker rejecting the Baptism leads to drunk gambling-debt Booker. A decision is made, and both outcomes play out in their own universes. Elizabeth wants to kill off every possible incarnation of Comstock, and so a decision is made: drown Booker before the Baptism. Well then the opposite of that decision is also made: Booker says "To hell with that, I'm not letting you drown me" and Comstock lives.

As expected, this is what it comes down to. "The writers fundamentally misunderstand Quantum Mechanics, and thus the story is bad". Forget the fact it's a Magic Realism story with a time/dimension traveling girl, a giant clockwork bird, and a flying city in the clouds. The Quantum Mechanics are sketchy. Story is bad.

There's a host of celebrated narratives out there that deal with time travel and/or dimensional splitting in completely nonsensical ways. Because they're not hard scientific explorations of these elements. They are used them as a fantastical back drop for a human story.

It's rather like saying Moon was bad because the principles of Lunar Mining were not properly attended to. Or Blade Runner was bad because Android technology was insufficiently detailed. Or The Time Machine was bad because what the fuck does H.G. Wells know about time travel anyway? Plot holes everywhere! Bad narrative! Attend my video, in which I say his story is basically Dick and Jane but with bigger words!

It's fine if you don't like a game, or a book, or a film. Not everything works for everyone. I just don't understand this kind of fussy, pedantic, adolescent critique (the video). It's absurdly obnoxious to listen to, and if I was friends with that guy in real life I'd be distinctly embarrassed to be seen near him when he went off like that. It's Jeff Albertson level criticism. And maybe that's the genius of it, maybe it's a brilliant self-parody. The completely over the top nasal delivery and inane dithering would seem to point to that. I just can't understand why people keep posting it. It's like throwing down Rebecca Black's "Friday" during a debate about musical greats as if you just dropped the mic on the whole discussion. It's so confusing. Have any of you actually listened to it?

Personal tastes my friend, personal tastes.

"It's not as good as you think it is" is a negation of the concept of personal tastes. It's suggesting you have the right of it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Firstly: When is it ever established that "What Happens in Limbo Stays in Limbo?"
Secondly: The decision that's made outside that door is "Yeah, I wanna go in there and kill Comstock!" He doesn't know he has to drown himself yet, this is something he realizes right before he drowns. The decision to let Elizabeth drown him is made right there just before he's actually drown, which means that another universe springs up in which he chickens out and refuses the sacrifice.

- Why/how would a new universe spring up when you are not in an actual universe?

- You're now arguing about when a decision is made and isn't made. Why can't you give the story the benefit of doubt? Elizabeth explaining the drowning and everything before opening the door would've then revealed that to the player thus negating the reveal at the very end, it was done for thematic purposes. You just don't want the story to make sense, you know, instead of the story actually not making sense. Lastly, the story can just use the constants and variable cop-out if it wanted to like you could say Elizabeth knows that Booker's decision at the end is a constant. There's 2 scenarios that allow for the story to make sense, you just want the story to not make sense, it's really all on you for not liking the story. I choose to accept one of the 2 scenarios that cause the story to make and thus I love the story and love the game, you choose to hate instead.

 

[RJ 17]

Except for the fact that the guy in the video whose accent you just love so much has a very valid point, and it's the point that I thought of the moment I watched the ending: drowning Booker is pointless. Whether or not you agree with the timelines that the guy in that video displays, the fact remains that by making a decision to go and drown Booker, a universe that's the opposite of that one - one in which Booker refuses the sacrifice - is also made, thus ensuring that the cycle repeats itself. I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics or even the multi-universe theory well enough to call "BULLSHIT!" on technicalities, all I know is from a NatGeo documentary and what was explained in the game: for every choice, a universe is made based on the opposite of that choice. Booker getting Baptized leads to Comstock, Booker rejecting the Baptism leads to drunk gambling-debt Booker. A decision is made, and both outcomes play out in their own universes. Elizabeth wants to kill off every possible incarnation of Comstock, and so a decision is made: drown Booker before the Baptism. Well then the opposite of that decision is also made: Booker says "To hell with that, I'm not letting you drown me" and Comstock lives.

As expected, this is what it comes down to. "The writers fundamentally misunderstand Quantum Mechanics, and thus the story is bad". Forget the fact it's a Magic Realism story with a time/dimension traveling girl, a giant clockwork bird, and a flying city in the clouds. The Quantum Mechanics are sketchy. Story is bad.

Gonna stop you right there because apparently you misread what I said. I said that I don't have a fundamental understanding of quantum mechanics, and as such I can't fault the writer's for theirs.

What I do understand is the logic that they presented in their story: for every decision, a universe spawns based on the opposite of that decision. Then they turn around and break their own logic by assuming that a new universe wouldn't be spawn in which Booker rejects the sacrifice of drowning himself. I don't know whether or not they're breaking true, non-fictional quantum mechanic rules or not...but I do know that they're breaking the rules of quantum mechanics that they claim to be going by.

"It's not as good as you think it is" is a negation of the concept of personal tastes. It's suggesting you have the right of it.

It's also me just being a pompous, facetious douchebag for the hell of it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What I do understand is the logic that they presented in their story: for every decision, a universe spawns based on the opposite of that decision. Then they turn around and break their own logic by assuming that a new universe wouldn't be spawn in which Booker rejects the sacrifice of drowning himself. I don't know whether or not they're breaking true, non-fictional quantum mechanic rules or not...but I do know that they're breaking the rules of quantum mechanics that they claim to be going by.

No, they didn't break their own rules. I just explained it. If the writers weren't aware of the whole decision at the end causing the whole thing to happen again, then why'd they have Elizabeth ask Booker, "Are you sure?" before letting Booker through the door? It's obvious they thought things though.

 

[Soundwave]

Spoiler

For clarity, I think it should be said that ending isn't the example of the game not being "well thought out". The game stopped being well thought out when Fitzroy arbitrarily decided to murder a child, when the same thing had been done to her.

The part of the game where you have to fight your way through the Vox Populi, (people you have seen being severely abused over the course of the game), which is handwaved away as being "Just as bad as the other guys" was mean-spirited and icky.

The infinite realities element of the plot wasn't lazy, it just rendered your decisions meaningless, which one could argue is counter-intuitive to video games.

Editefusement!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Spoiler

...but I do know that they're breaking the rules of quantum mechanics that they claim to be going by.

Their "constants and variables" theme is established and hinted at right from the beginning of the game. They're not breaking their own internal logic. I expect works of fantasy to be internally consistent...not consistent with scientific reality. If Doctor Who says "There are fixed points in time", then I guess there are, because I'm watching a work of fiction and I'll accept the universe's rules on its own terms. If Elizabeth says "There are constants and variables" then I guess there are. Some people get annoyed because it's never established what the rules are for a constant and for a variable and that's when they lose me, because as I've said previously in this topic, Bioshock Infinite is not a story about Quantum Mechanics.

The part of the game where you have to fight your way through the Vox Populi, (people you have seen being severely abused over the course of the game), which is handwaved away as being "Just as bad as the other guys" was morally disgusting and vile.

While I don't see Fitzroy as a particularly strong or well established character, I'm totally failing to see why demonstrating how the oppressed can become the oppressors is "disgusting and vile". Human history is full of revolutionaries who become monsters in the name of the revolution.

Brutality feeding into brutality and creating a cycle of violence is one of the major themes of the game.

 

[WhyWasThat]

It's a fine game overall, and well worth your time and money if you're looking for something engaging to play, but it's more than a little inconsistent quality-wise.

 

[Soundwave]

Spoiler

The part of the game where you have to fight your way through the Vox Populi, (people you have seen being severely abused over the course of the game), which is handwaved away as being "Just as bad as the other guys" was morally disgusting and vile.

While I don't see Fitzroy as a particularly strong or well established character, I'm totally failing to see why demonstrating how the oppressed can become the oppressors is "disgusting and vile". Human history is full of revolutionaries who become monsters in the name of the revolution.

Brutality feeding into brutality and creating a cycle of violence is one of the major themes of the game.

Firstly, they weren't portraying the "oppressed have become the oppressors" because that chapter of the game was taking place during the violent revolution. They were handwaving the racial palette swap mid-game, by saying "oh hey, the oppressed are just as bad as the oppressors". As in, it's okay to keep shooting the people you were supposed to be sympathetic before, because "reasons". The team wrote itself into a corner and rather than ending, they just said "well okay, go shoot the families of the starving victims, cause you need something to shoot at for the rest of the game".

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Spoiler

Firstly, they weren't portraying the "oppressed have become the oppressors" because that chapter of the game was taking place during the violent revolution.

Which is when the power dynamic changed. When the revolution tipped the scales, the infrastructure of law collapsed, and people who had spent years being cruelly and occasionally violently oppressed had a physical outlet for their anger. That is absolutely what they were portraying.

They were handwaving the racial palette swap mid-game, by saying "oh hey, the oppressed are just as bad as the oppressors". As in, it's okay to keep shooting the people you were supposed to be sympathetic before, because "reasons". The team wrote itself into a corner and rather than ending, they just said "well okay, go shoot the families of the starving victims, cause you need something to shoot at for the rest of the game".

Oh for heavens sake, really?

You're not kicking in doors and "shooting the families of starving victims", you are shooting armed rebels who are in the midst of a violent revolution. This is no different than the tonal shift in Far Cry 3, it just takes place a lot earlier in the game. The "reasons" you are given for shooting at the Vox Populi is they are A) Engaged in acts of flagrant terrorism and B) Are presently engaged in attempting to kill you.

Do I think that Fitzroy's insistence that the resurrected Booker be re-martyred for the cause was a pretty clumsy way to introduce that element? Yeah, a bit. But unlike Fontaine or Citra or UNATCO or any of the 100's of other incidences of a former friend becoming an enemy, Fitzroy is never portrayed as particularly sympathetic or friendly to begin with, so her eventual transformation into an antagonist isn't enormously out of character. The Vox is ALWAYS violent, they're just the enemy of your enemy, and Fitzroy is already well down the path of "The ends justify the means". They are portrayed from the start as a grassroots terrorist organization, not a plucky band of merry liberal protesters.

It's fine if you thought the writing on the subject of race relations was ham handed or heavy, or that the motivations of the Vox Populi leadership was dodgy. What I don't understand is this simmering moral outrage. "Disgusting and vile". I can't tell you how to react to things, but I can tell you your reaction in this particular circumstance is exceedingly odd.

 

[ForumSafari]

I loved the story and I loved the twists, it's got one of those endings that makes you look at the whole game differently next time you play it.

In terms of the gameplay it didn't feel like it fitted the world, classic case of lugoscababib discobiscuits in that it felt like the player and the people he was fighting weren't really a part of the universe and had been laid over the top of it. In some ways it kind of reminded me of the Sixth Sense in that I was never 100% sure that people around my character could actually see him except for Elizabeth.

 

[Soundwave]

Spoiler

Oh for heavens sake, really?

You're not kicking in doors and "shooting the families of starving victims", you are shooting armed rebels who are in the midst of a violent revolution. This is no different than the tonal shift in Far Cry 3, it just takes place a lot earlier in the game. The "reasons" you are given for shooting at the Vox Populi is they are A) Engaged in acts of flagrant terrorism and B) Are presently engaged in attempting to kill you.

Do I think that Fitzroy's insistence that the resurrected Booker be re-martyred for the cause was a pretty clumsy way to introduce that element? Yeah, a bit. But unlike Fontaine or Citra or UNATCO or any of the 100's of other incidences of a former friend becoming an enemy, Fitzroy is never portrayed as particularly sympathetic or friendly to begin with, so her eventual transformation into an antagonist isn't enormously out of character. The Vox is ALWAYS violent, they're just the enemy of your enemy, and Fitzroy is already well down the path of "The ends justify the means". They are portrayed from the start as a grassroots terrorist organization, not a plucky band of merry liberal protesters.

It's fine if you thought the writing on the subject of race relations was ham handed or heavy, or that the motivations of the Vox Populi leadership was dodgy. What I don't understand is this simmering moral outrage. "Disgusting and vile". I can't tell you how to react to things, but I can tell you your reaction in this particular circumstance is exceedingly odd.

In any situation where human rights are being violated, it is the moral obligation to halt the violations of human rights by any means necessary. As the individuals in power were violently oppressing the others, it is moral correct to violently oppose them. To suggest otherwise is disgusting and vile.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In any situation where human rights are being violated, it is the moral obligation to halt the violations of human rights by any means necessary. As the individuals in power were violently oppressing the others, it is moral correct to violently oppose them. To suggest otherwise is disgusting and vile.

Spoiler

Thanks for that. It's good to know that an oft debated ethical dilemma can be solved by a bolded and italicized lecture about "moral correctness" on an internet forum.

It would appear that, like Ms. Fitzroy, you are also an "Ends justify the Means" individual. I've actually not met many...or any...people who share that perspective...at least not publicly. Hence my confusion over your interpretation of the game's events.

 

[Soundwave]

Spoiler

In any situation where human rights are being violated, it is the moral obligation to halt the violations of human rights by any means necessary. As the individuals in power were violently oppressing the others, it is moral correct to violently oppose them. To suggest otherwise is disgusting and vile.

Thanks for that. It's good to know that an oft debated ethical dilemma can be solved by a bolded and italicized lecture about "moral correctness" on an internet forum.

It would appear that, like Ms. Fitzroy, you are also an "Ends justify the Means" individual. I've actually not met many...or any...people who share that perspective...at least not publicly. Hence my confusion over your interpretation of the game's events.

How would you equate my moral outrage at human rights violations with an "ends justify the means" mentality? While technically I have "echoed the sentiment" that doesn't at all mean I absolve the Vox Populi of their actions. I sympathize with them.

Realistically, how well would a non-violent revolution work against veterans wounded knee or the other incident?

Since you don't seem to be "getting my point", I'll reiterate: All that I said was the game made some pretty poorly thought out (based on the moral ramifications) design choices. The italics and bolding is just so that you don't miss my point.

Additionally regarding the "betrayed by a friend" trope, in all of those cases the "friend" that betrays you was the actually evil individual. Unatco was the front for Majestic 12, and perpetuating the Grey Death, which the NSF were quite correct in resisting. Fontaine was a con artist, and Citra was going to kill innocents. The Vox Populi by comparison are trying to not starve to death, have access to medicine, and not have to live at the mercy of the white elite of Columbia.

 

[mohit9206]

Guys why are you spoiling the ending ?? I just read the spoiler ending in one of the posts and i haven't yet played the game so stop spoiling the game for others.THIS IS NOT A SPOILER DISCUSSION THREAD.

 

[Soundwave]

Guys why are you spoiling the ending ?? I just read the spoiler ending in one of the posts and i haven't yet played the game so stop spoiling the game for others.THIS IS NOT A SPOILER DISCUSSION THREAD.

I do apologize for that, however if you're anything like me, the inclusion of certain ideas might discourage your purchase of the game. Had I known what I was in for, I would most likely not bought the game.

Edit: Have added spoiler tags to my relevant posts.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The Vox Populi by comparison are trying to not starve to death, have access to medicine, and live on the mercy of the white elite of Columbia.

Spoiler

Yes, that was the GENESIS of the revolution, which is why the Vox Populi are initially shown as extremely sympathetic. As the revolution advances and matures, as the fighting becomes more bitter, and as the balance of power shifts, the revolutionaries become monsters in and of themselves.

This is not a new narrative device, nor is it divorced from historical precedent. The Vox Populi reach a point where they are no longer interested in simply making things better for the underprivileged, but rather in visiting savage retribution on their oppressors. This is not the proletariat rising up and seizing the means of production, they are rising up and washing the streets with the blood of the bourgeois.

Now, perhaps your are in a "Lol they totes had it coming!" camp. That would be "Ends justify the means". As in, the ONLY important thing is that the balance of power is inverted, and if a bunch of people need to be brutalized, murdered or raped for that to happen then so be it. It's "morally correct" because the people doing it were once subjected to the same treatment, albeit probably not from their victims but simply from people who looked like them and shared a class with them. The Vox Populi is experiencing Mission Drift, which is perfectly understandable given the simmering class/racial tension that has (apparently) been building for years. That doesn't make their eventual actions any less heinous, or the more active terrorists any less violent and dangerous, but their actions are understandably *human*.

Added spoiler tags to a whole bunch of shit just in case. Thank you for the reminder that this is meant to be a spoiler free discussion. HUGE apologies if I inadvertently spoiled anyone.