Zero Punctuation: Top 5 Games of 2013

[Metalrocks]

yeah bioshock is also my #1 and #2 tomb raider. #3 is RE revelation since it has been released for pc. #4 sanctum 2. #5 mortal kombat since that has been released for pc as well.

 

[Azahul]

hueg

Cool story bro. I would completely seriously honestly no-joke like to see some counterpoints to the video.

With a couple of years of literary theory behind me, I honestly cannot tell what is broken in Bioshock's story.

Shit characters, illogical nonsense handwaves, bad logic, inconsistent logic, terrible PC-adjusted setting, thinking it's deeper than it is. Those are the main bits.

Your liking of characters is going to be down to you. If you didn't like Elizabeth and Booker, I can't help you. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to all damned 40 minutes of that video, so let's grab the easiest one (in spoilers, just in case).

Spoiler

The video regurgitates that nonsense about infinite possibilities undoing the effect of the baptism/murder Elizabeth and Booker do to ensure Comstock is never born, and mentions Elizabeth handwaves this by saying some things stay the same. The thing is, it isn't the copout he thinks it is. They establish this the very first time you meet the Lutece's.
"He doesn't row?"
"No, he doesn't row."
"Ah, I see."
Not to mention a load of similar scenes, like the 122 flipped coins all coming up heads. This is how the physics of alternate dimensions works in Bioshock Infinite, and it is established again and again. It's not scientifically accurate, but the whole point of the game (and this ties into the complaints about the choices in the game having no bearing on the ending) is to make a point about that aspect of game design, or at least standard FPS design. He acknowledges this, but then dismisses it as an argument by saying that it's shallow, which honestly just left me baffled. It's hardly a revolutionary concept, sure, but I'm not sure why he thinks saying it is shallow means that the story should work a different way. Besides, saying that gameplay is shallow and pointless and the decisions you make have no bearing on the outcome of a game's story is a concept that is pretty much as deep as games get these days.

From there, all his ranting about branching timelines and the Lutece's being in different places from where they were shown in the game is irrelevant, he's just projecting how he thinks the physics should work into a game where it has been repeatedly shown to work in a different fashion. It's like going into Mass Effect and complaining that they should have been better prepared for the Reaper invasion because Element Zero enables time travel. He's just ignoring the way the world works.

I could go on, but that's the biggest attack made on the game's ending and what stands out to me the most. I'm not going to write an enormous thesis on each and every point he makes, but the ending is critical to understanding the game and it just seems to be a case of people telling the game's universe how it should work, rather than paying attention to how it actually does.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think anyone that didn't like the ending is wrong. It's certainly unconventional, bizarre, and can easily throw you for a loop if you haven't explored the game, thought about the things that have been said, and found a bunch of the more relevant audio logs. I can completely get people not liking it. I just disagree with the assertion that it's in any way objectively bad and broken.

 

[dakkster]

Nope. Not subjective. It's pretty obvious you've never read any literary theory. The writing is pure shit and it IS fundamentally broken if you care the least bit about story, characterization and writing.

I think Bioshock Infinite is a good game. It's okay. Game of the year? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Even if we strip out all of the bad writing and the illogical game design choices, it's a game where you have almost the same enemy over and over and over again and they are all bullet sponges. Then you have to ignore the fact that it's not explained anywhere how a normal human can take 20 bullets and still stand.

With a couple of years of literary theory behind me, I honestly cannot tell what is broken in Bioshock's story. Not to mention the fact that there's a fairly large body of literary theory that states that objectivity is a myth and that all experiences are subjective, making it pretty hard to state "Nope. Not subjective," in one breath, and then "It's pretty obvious you've never read any literary theory" in the next. Care to expand on that?

As for the gameplay, I'm honestly baffled by the bullet sponge argument. Bioshock Infinite is not a game aiming for realistic depictions of combat. You ride around on sky rails, fire lightning bolts out of your hand, and have a weird electromagnetic shield across your body. Why are you also expecting shooting aspect of the game to work like the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series? I can accept the argument that the game doesn't have very good difficulty scaling, but that's a fairly minor concern for a game not explicitly built to serve as a challenge to all skill levels.

Paragraph 1: Like I said in another post, opinion is subjective, mapping out story structure and character motivation is objective.

Paragraph 2: Look at it this way: In Bioshock 1 you played against splicers. You were, as a player, given explanations as to why they were bullet sponge maniacs who ran right at you even if you were unloading a clip of a machine gun on them. You don't get a single explanation for the same behavior in Infinite. We are presented with these people as normal humans during the moments the shit doesn't hit the fan, so why should we suddenly accept that they are somehow superhuman? It's shoddy writing/design. Irrational Games COULD have told us why, but they didn't. Design choice = bad design.

Bioshock 1 is a better game than Infinite in almost every single way, except graphics and sound design, but that's only logical technical progression. Pretty much every other design aspect goes to Bioshock 1. The reason I make that comparison is because it's the same developer. It's not reasonable that a game released in 2013 that is WORSE than its predecessor released in 2007 gets GOTY awards. I don't give two shits about the rest of the game crop that year, but it doesn't justify giving GOTY titles to Bioshock Infinite. It's mediocre. It's okay. It's a 3 out of 5. It's like the Transformers movie. Shiny and cool at a first glance, but not very good if you give it more than five minutes of reflection.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You know it's been a bad year when both a MGS game and Assassin's Creed game make it onto Yahtzee's list.
I have strained to think of a single AAA game this year that elevated itself above simply "mediocre" and I can't find one; at least among those I've seen or played.

Not even Saints Row 4.

But hey, opinions. *insert your preferred cliche phrase about opinions here*

(I've specifically avoided Bioshock: Infinite so I can go into it without any preconceptions, just as I did with the original Bioshock. Over the course of this year, it seems that decision was wise; infinitely moreso than before; given how everyone is either gushing about the game or is convinced the former have their collective heads jammed up their ass. So, I have no real opinion about it.)

Bottom
5. Star Trek into Darkness
4. Sim City 4
3. Aliens Colonial Marines
2. Beyond Two Souls
1. Call Of Duty: Ghosts

SPECIAL: Zero Punctuation Life Time Achievement Award For Total Abhorrence:
Ride to Hell: Retribution

Sim City 4 isn't on his list. That game launched in 2003.
"SimCity" 2013 is.

 

[dakkster]

Your liking of characters is going to be down to you. If you didn't like Elizabeth and Booker, I can't help you. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to all damned 40 minutes of that video, so let's grab the easiest one (in spoilers, just in case).

´

It's not about liking characters. It's about thinking about and analyzing their behavior, choices and motivation. That's not down to opinion. That's down to proper analysis that can be done without bias.

 

[TheMemoman]

My bad. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Erttheking]

I would expect a published writer, a game creator and paid game critic to see bad writing and bad game design coming miles away, which is the case with the lazy mess that is Bioshock Infinite.

The game is playable, and certainly more engaging and fun (for me) than a lot of First Person Shooters out there, so the quality of its game design sort of ends up in the area where opinions one way or the other are just going to be entirely subjective. Some people, evidently, liked what it did. Equally evident is that some people did not. Subjectivity man.

Pretty much the same goes for the writing. It had some great characters, an engaging setting and story, and an ending that at least tried to do a lot more than the average video game narrative. Frankly, I think the accusation of "bad" writing there is pretty ludicrous. You can say it didn't appeal to you, but it wasn't fundamentally broken and so you can't expect everyone to conform to the same viewpoint on it.

Nope. Not subjective. It's pretty obvious you've never read any literary theory. The writing is pure shit and it IS fundamentally broken if you care the least bit about story, characterization and writing.

I think Bioshock Infinite is a good game. It's okay. Game of the year? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Even if we strip out all of the bad writing and the illogical game design choices, it's a game where you have almost the same enemy over and over and over again and they are all bullet sponges. Then you have to ignore the fact that it's not explained anywhere how a normal human can take 20 bullets and still stand.

Uh, yeah. Be default, opinions are subjective. You cannot say that games are objectively bad. With the possible exception of games like Superman 64 where they just flat out don't work. You don't like it, that's fine, you have that right. You do not have the right to tell other people that they are wrong for disagreeing with you.

Opinion is subjective, yes. Mapping out story structure and character motivation is not. That's objective fact. You can't say that a game has great writing if the game's writing goes against every single established facet of good writing through thousands of years of storytelling.

No it freaking isn't. The quality of story telling is subjective. There is no scale to determine the quality of a format in any book. Your complaints basically seem to be boiling down to "It doesn't do things the way other things do things" and while that might be a reason enough to dislike it, it doesn't give you a leg to stand on when you are claiming that it is objectively bad. You can't scientifically prove that Bioshock Infinite is a bad game.

Look, Shakespeare, I'll give you an example. If you present a narrative you need to set up the rules of the world in which the narrative takes place. If anything later on breaks those rules you have to explain how and why that happens, otherwise that's bad storytelling. Same with characters. You have to make the reader (or in this case player) understand why character X does action Y for reason Z. If character X then does A in spite of reason Z, that's bad storytelling.

It's obvious you don't care about story OR you know exactly dick about literary analysis. You probably think Dan Brown is an amazing writer.

But again, even if we disregard every single bit of story or character in Bioshock Infinite and we ONLY look at the gameplay mechanics, it's mediocre.

Or maybe it's called throwing the audience for a loop. That happens a lot in fiction. You've never read a story where the main villain does some thing that everyone said was impossible? Oh, and please don't resort to insulting me, it's disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, I rather enjoyed Angels and Demons. Was that supposed to be an insult?

And how exactly is the quality of gameplay objective?

 

[Azahul]

Paragraph 1: Like I said in another post, opinion is subjective, mapping out story structure and character motivation is objective.

Some of the most basic, fundamental pieces of literary theory argue that every single damned word in every language is a metaphor, their meanings subjective (I'm looking at you, Nietzsche), and you expect me to believe that there's an objective, defined set of rules governing what is a "good" example of story structure and character motivation? I don't know what kind of literary theory you've been studying, but it's clearly a lot less complicated than the one I was subjected to. The closest I can think of to what you describe is the idea one can write something that a large number of people will like, probably due to familiarity. That doesn't make it objectively good or bad, just easy to enjoy due to operating within a familiar frame of reference.

Paragraph 2: Look at it this way: In Bioshock 1 you played against splicers. You were, as a player, given explanations as to why they were bullet sponge maniacs who ran right at you even if you were unloading a clip of a machine gun on them. You don't get a single explanation for the same behavior in Infinite. We are presented with these people as normal humans during the moments the shit doesn't hit the fan, so why should we suddenly accept that they are somehow superhuman? It's shoddy writing/design. Irrational Games COULD have told us why, but they didn't. Design choice = bad design.

Have you noticed just how different Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite are? The first one contained a good few horror elements and was designed to make the player feel isolated and alone. Tough, insane enemies charging at you and soaking up bullets makes the player feel overwhelmed and afraid. In Bioshock Infinite, the enemies are just meant to be regular humans like Booker, but the tone of the adventure is one practically swashbuckling in nature. You're zipping around on skylines, running from a robotic dragon-thing, rescuing a princess from a tower. Tough enemies in this case serves a different purpose, it makes the game feel more like a fantasy quest than a realistic shooter. The choice in both cases serves a purpose. Again though, you may like, or you may not, as you so choose.

Bioshock 1 is a better game than Infinite in almost every single way, except graphics and sound design, but that's only logical technical progression. Pretty much every other design aspect goes to Bioshock 1. The reason I make that comparison is because it's the same developer. It's not reasonable that a game released in 2013 that is WORSE than its predecessor released in 2007 gets GOTY awards. I don't give two shits about the rest of the game crop that year, but it doesn't justify giving GOTY titles to Bioshock Infinite. It's mediocre. It's okay. It's a 3 out of 5. It's like the Transformers movie. Shiny and cool at a first glance, but not very good if you give it more than five minutes of reflection.

For someone claiming to hold an objective stance on the subject, you're using a lot of loaded imagery there. Look, it's ok if you don't like the game, but you are going to need to accept that there are people out there that liked it, people that found its story and messages genuinely interesting, its characters compelling, and even people (shock horror) who felt it was a step up from the original game.

 

[Azahul]

Your liking of characters is going to be down to you. If you didn't like Elizabeth and Booker, I can't help you. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to all damned 40 minutes of that video, so let's grab the easiest one (in spoilers, just in case).

´

It's not about liking characters. It's about thinking about and analyzing their behavior, choices and motivation. That's not down to opinion. That's down to proper analysis that can be done without bias.

And this is just nonsensical. A lot of things we've been talking about are subjective, but you're talking about some kind of objective standard by which you can study an individual's behaviour, choices, and motivation. I suspect that would come as a pretty nice surprise to the field of psychology.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It's backlash for the "unanimous" praise it was getting from every publication and reviewer for a while after it's release. Basically not liking it in the few weeks after it was released was paramount to high treason and you being an idiot for not getting "the smartest game ever made!!!!"

Funny how that never actually happened, though. Perhaps you could provide a link to even one instance of it?

It's our turn to spam you with our "correct" opinions about the game.

Well, that's a really mature way to handle things. Divide people into "sides" and then "spam" them with your opinion to be deliberately annoying, because you liked it so much when people (allegedly) did it to you.

 

[George Superguin]

But again, even if we disregard every single bit of story or character in Bioshock Infinite and we ONLY look at the gameplay mechanics, it's mediocre.

Gameplay quality is even MORE subjective than like/dislike of story and characters.
Anyway, it looks like this argument is going nowhere; ironically the person arguing about the story and gameplay being objectively bad is, well, objectively wrong.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I just knew there'd be that guy or 4 or 5 who insists on starting up the Bioshock Infinite is mediocre war again.

You know what? The mechanics kind of are. The shooting is bog standard. The enemy design is as well, each falling into old archetypes, mooks, big mooks, mini-boss mooks, rocket mooks. The vigors, skyhooks, and skylines add just the right amount of variety so everything doesn't feel quite so stale. I could sit here and pop at this guy from behind my bit of wall, or I could leap onto this rail and whack him into a 20000 foot free fall.

The story is, in my opinion, excellent. It's not too often that concepts like multiverse hypothesis get dragged into a game that takes itself seriously. Then it's executed fairly well, with a running little meta commentary on the occasionally washed out experience that comes with allowing a player to determine the run of things too much. Infinite has a story to tell and nothing you can do will prevent it from telling that story. This is a nice little bit of focus which allows a better crafted experience than something like a Bioware RPG. If there's anything that Mass Effect 3 taught us, it's that your choices don't actually matter all that much, the same story gets told. It's an illusion of choice that only really determines who will be there at the end. Infinite eschews this by giving you choices that well and truly don't matter. Any significance you give them is purely from your own mind, which is an enjoyable bit of mindfuckery.

 

[IrisNetwork]

No1 worst really can't justify Ride to Hell. It has to go for a ride to hell.

Even though its a bit late, I'm really hoping Yahtzee'll take a look at Shadow Warrior 2013. Its made by the guys who made Hard Reset & Painkiller. Seems like they really took note of Yahtzee's review especially "I like to know that the cleanup will have to be done with a mop rather than a broom". Now they've put in "Viscera cleanup detail", so not only do you KNOW the cleanup was done with a mop but you get to EXPERIENCE IT!

 

[dakkster]

I'm sorry, but I just can't take anyone who calls Infinite's story/writing "excellent" seriously. Watch smudboy's videos. When you later realize that you can't refute his points, ask yourself why you still hold the game's story/writing in such high regard. That's all I'm going to say.

 

[Enlong]

You know it's been a bad year when both a MGS game and Assassin's Creed game make it onto Yahtzee's list.

Technically, it's MGR, not MGS.

Still Metal Gear, though, just with pretty much the opposite gameplay focus.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take anyone who calls Infinite's story/writing "excellent" seriously. Watch smudboy's videos. When you later realize that you can't refute his points, ask yourself why you still hold the game's story/writing in such high regard. That's all I'm going to say.

Promise?

 

[Alarien]

I would expect a published writer, a game creator and paid game critic to see bad writing and bad game design coming miles away, which is the case with the lazy mess that is Bioshock Infinite.

The game is playable, and certainly more engaging and fun (for me) than a lot of First Person Shooters out there, so the quality of its game design sort of ends up in the area where opinions one way or the other are just going to be entirely subjective. Some people, evidently, liked what it did. Equally evident is that some people did not. Subjectivity man.

Pretty much the same goes for the writing. It had some great characters, an engaging setting and story, and an ending that at least tried to do a lot more than the average video game narrative. Frankly, I think the accusation of "bad" writing there is pretty ludicrous. You can say it didn't appeal to you, but it wasn't fundamentally broken and so you can't expect everyone to conform to the same viewpoint on it.

Nope. Not subjective. It's pretty obvious you've never read any literary theory. The writing is pure shit and it IS fundamentally broken if you care the least bit about story, characterization and writing.

I think Bioshock Infinite is a good game. It's okay. Game of the year? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Even if we strip out all of the bad writing and the illogical game design choices, it's a game where you have almost the same enemy over and over and over again and they are all bullet sponges. Then you have to ignore the fact that it's not explained anywhere how a normal human can take 20 bullets and still stand.

Edit: If you're annoyed by people saying that it's bad writing, I invite you to look at the smudboy videos I linked to in my previous post. Everything you need to realize how awful the writing is in the game is in those videos.

I just listened to his entire first video. As I said, it's clear he did not pay attention to the narrative. You cannot complain about writing if you don't bother to listen to it or read it. One of his big complaints is "why doesn't Elizabeth just do x" with her tears. It's explicitly stated in the game. Elizabeth does not choose or control her tears. She accesses existing ones. If the tear she wants isn't there, she can't take it. You also get a first person perspective of her opening tears that seem to appear promising and then immediately turn threatening/violent. Perhaps old Elizabeth from the later stage of the game can control the tears she wants, but the Elizabeth you play the game of specifically cannot, and says so.

Oh, and there was the entire plot of the siphon, severely limiting her abilities. Destroying that was the climax of the game, after all, at which point all the "why didn't she just x" questions get pretty clearly answered.

That's not a plot hole. That's a person who is trying really hard to make a video, get views, and to sell advertising by creating a non-existent argument.

There *are* plot holes in the story, but they are relatively minor and unobtrusive to the main story. It is not "shit" writing. I'm sure we there is any number of suggestions one can make for such writing if you really want it as a comparison.

I also enjoyed your attack on his knowledge of literary theory. I read, I write. I have done graduate work in subjects requiring high end writing skills. I recognize the difference between vague, obfuscated, obtuse and purely non-sensical plot elements. Bioshock Infinite defaults to vague and obfuscated when it wants to hide some of the questionable plot elements. That's par, higher-end, writing for most fantasy and sci-fi since serious examination will always show that elements of rely on physics impossibilities and other fantastical elements.

I just watched Elysium last night. That movie was a giant walking plot hole. Bioshock Infinite's storytelling is high art compared to that mess.

20 bullet bullet sponge human enemies? Again, I would refer you back to the the older ages of gaming. While this doesn't fall in line with a lot of the modern rail shooters like COD or the tactical shooters like Rainbow Six, it is a very, very standard mechanic in games. If all enemies died realistically, then action oriented corridor shooters would be horrifically easy and ultimately not really very fun. I can't think of a serious FPS prior to the original Rainbow Six that didn't rely on enemies being able to absorb bullets. Bioshock has done it, but so did Half-Life, Quake/Doom, and countless other older style FPS games. It's never really been questioned that the style of game that Ken Levine was going for was along the older line, away from the modern "brown cover based shooter," that has been popularized. It's ok to dislike the style, it's something else to call it bad.

 

[Xangi]

The ridiculous copout handwaves fix the story

No. No they do not. Also his analysis of Lutece and the timelines concerned is using THE GAME'S OWN LOGIC and therefore is most certainly NOT a moot point. However, even if it was, the grandfather paradox ruins the ending anyway, and EVEN IF THAT WAS SOLVED the concept of infinite realities completely nullifies the ability to permakill anyone ever. That's called shit writing. The entire thing is structured to LOOK like it works on the outside but ultimately was sabotaged in order to send a shitty message.

Also, the characters are both objectively poor and to most who have actually read good literature, highly uninteresting.

 

[Azahul]

I'm sorry, but I just can't take anyone who calls Infinite's story/writing "excellent" seriously. Watch smudboy's videos. When you later realize that you can't refute his points, ask yourself why you still hold the game's story/writing in such high regard. That's all I'm going to say.

Urgh. I've seen a couple, but there's only so much I can take of someone alternating between missing the point and messages the game is trying to send, or just flat out ignoring what the game establishes about how its world works. Because, you know, paying attention to the rules of the game's universe would mean you can't make videos about plot holes. After a point (fairly early on), watching any more just becomes masochistic.

I can see people not liking Bioshock Infinite. I can even take such people seriously, because it's a complicated game with a lot of things to say, things that a good chunk of players seem to have missed. What's most strange about this scenario is why you and a few others in this thread can't seem to reciprocate that sort of understanding. The vast majority of "plot holes" people like smudboy bring up are simple enough to explain within the context of the game's setting, so it's not like the game is fundamentally broken on any level. That just makes it all down to personal opinion. You didn't like it, that's ok, but there is no reason why it isn't alright for other people to like, even love, the game.

 

[Alarien]

The ridiculous copout handwaves fix the story

No. No they do not. Also his analysis of Lutece and the timelines concerned is using THE GAME'S OWN LOGIC and therefore is most certainly NOT a moot point. However, even if it was, the grandfather paradox ruins the ending anyway, and EVEN IF THAT WAS SOLVED the concept of infinite realities completely nullifies the ability to permakill anyone ever. That's called shit writing. The entire thing is structured to LOOK like it works on the outside but ultimately was sabotaged in order to send a shitty message.

Also, the characters are both objectively poor and to most who have actually read good literature, highly uninteresting.

Nice. "Objectively" poor. Objective based on what, exactly? I mean, you must have facts and hard data that objectifies how good a character must be to the reader?

You must also have objective data on how many people have read "good literature," what "good literature" is, and how many of those people who have read that objectively "good literature" find the characters highly uninteresting?

I'm pretty sure if it's considered "good literature" there's a very high chance I've read it. There's also a good chance I consider it fairly poor literature as well, finding many "good writers" to be astoundingly bad and loved only within the context of what they were at the time their drek was published. That said, I found Booker and Comstock to be passable, the Luteces to be amusing, and Elizabeth to be endearing and interesting, and a good female role model character as well.

So, let's have that objective hard data, please.

 

[Azahul]

The ridiculous copout handwaves fix the story

No. No they do not. Also his analysis of Lutece and the timelines concerned is using THE GAME'S OWN LOGIC and therefore is most certainly NOT a moot point. However, even if it was, the grandfather paradox ruins the ending anyway, and EVEN IF THAT WAS SOLVED the concept of infinite realities completely nullifies the ability to permakill anyone ever. That's called shit writing. The entire thing is structured to LOOK like it works on the outside but ultimately was sabotaged in order to send a shitty message.

Also, the characters are both objectively poor and to most who have actually read good literature, highly uninteresting.

The constants and variables idea is woven right through the game, from start to finish. It explicitly makes it clear that certain combinations of events do not occur. His entire scenario about swapping the Luteces around and having universes where Comstock and Booker live is fundamentally not possible according to the game's laws, and the game's own logic. His scenario does not work according to the game's logic, whatever you may think, but rather to the logic he himself is trying to impose on the game. There's a seriously large amount of misunderstanding around the way Bioshock Infinite's multiverse works, and a lot of people imposing their own ideas on it in total contradiction to what the game actually says.

All I can do at this point heartily recommend you replay the game (there is a lot more to pick up on the second time through, and you notice that there was actually a lot of groundwork laid for the ending) and pay close attention to the audio logs explaining how the game's multiverse works. One of the constants of the game's universe is that there is only one way for Comstock to be created, and that is at the baptism. It's best not to think of the universes of Bioshock Infinite as, well, Infinite, as that just seems to cause problems for people. There are a lot, sure, but no matter how many there are some things always, always, always stay the same.

Spoiler

As to the Grandfather paradox, that was kinda the point of the ending. You remember all the Elizabeths fading out of existence? Any universe that spawns a Comstock leads to the creation of an Elizabeth that destroys that universe before it even begins. The Booker timelines are the only ones left as a result, because any universe that creates a Comstock leads to the creation of Elizabeth who destroys that universe. All made possible because, with the siphon gone, Elizabeth has become something similar to the Luteces and is now outside of time and space in some fashion. This is all stuff that has its mechanics explained over the course of the game, and an established part of how Bioshock Infinite's universe functions.