• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bioshock Infinite: A Thematic Analysis

Care to explain, since I reached the same conclusion as the author?
So what you got out of fighting the Vox on the airship before going to destroy the siphon with Songbird is that Booker is Comstock. That's what that last battle told you? How does any of that thematically prove Booker is Comstock? Booker doesn't even want to fight the Vox. The Vox are the ones who are attacking him because they still think he's a phony Booker based off what Fitzroy told them/they want to destroy the ship cause it's Comstock's . He's not there to fight some rebellion, he's there to help Elizabeth do what she needs to do, which has nothing to do with stopping the Vox. Controlling Songbird is just gaming empowerment since he's been a story hurdle the whole way through. Booker is Comstock for a lot of reasons, but there isn't anything deep or meaningful about that final battle. Sounds like a whole lot of reaching.
 

Marcel

Member
But he doesn't say that the game only takes issue with "conservative" side of thought. He talks about how the Vox Populi and Fink tie into its critique.

The author mentions Fink as part of economic oppression, which is fine, but never really meditates on it any further. The Vox Populi portion has that false equivalency thing going on, "Oh, but the progressives aren't innocent either!". If all progressives were as flat of characters as Daisy Fitzroy, the statement might carry more weight. All the Vox Populi are, really, are just the other bad guys you end up shooting instead of the Founders for a couple of maps. Even the author says the Vox Populi are clumsily handled by Levine.
 

harSon

Banned
A lot of this comes off as the type of ham fisted bullshit I came across in my literature and film classes. For example:

Booker is transported to Columbia, a monument to his sins, and forced to relive them. Each area is a mirror into Booker’s past: Monument Island reflects his neglect of his daughter, the Hall of Heroes reflects his past of violence and racism, Finkton reflects the economic oppression that he took part in. One issue that many have with the game is that the amount of violence that Booker perpetrates in pursuit of his goal of rescuing Elizabeth is excessive. I would argue that this is an intentional reflection of his own violent past, and is meant to strike the player as just as disturbing as it strikes Elizabeth. There is perhaps a bit of meta-commentary going on when Booker makes a statement to the effect of “It’s one thing to hurt someone because you need to, it’s another thing to enjoy it”; possibly a direct stab at the player who’s gleefully eviscerating their foes with flaming crows.

No author, the game is violent because every direct predecessor before Bioshock Infinite by Irrational was violent. It's simply the type of game they make. I'm sure Irrational knew it was going to be a violent first person shooter before they ever took a pen to paper regarding the game's narrative.
 

Max O Power

Neo Member
Hey I wrote this earlier. But Reddit seems to not have much to say about it. I will also start with saying that I disagree with the write of the blog that BS∞ has one REAL message, and only one message. Few great works has. This is as much of a indictment of modern conservative, as it is a metaphysical retelling of the birth and death of Messiah.

The less obvious Religious themes of Bioshock ∞

So obviously this game has a lot of religious themes. Religion as power and politic and not as faith. The power of baptism and religious rebirth. Redemption, forgiveness and resurrected. And very specifically Noah and the Ark.
But I also noticed/found/made some other, to some maybe less obvious, religious story beats and symbols.

The Trinity: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I first toke notice to this when I read someones comparison of the Song Bird and Booker. Each have the task to defend and fight for Elizabeth. But this can be said about Comstock as well. In the christian faith the Holy Spirit is always symbolized by the bird, or more specific, the dove . I wouldn't call it far fetched to say that the song bird is very dove like. But also very Spirit like. The Song bird is very pure, and becomes less of a character and more of a force of power and in some ways love.

What is core to the concept of the Trinity, is that these three separate and distinct sides of God is all one and the same. Much like Booker says in the end of the game "No I'm both". The Father is the Father, The son is the son. But they are at the same time one and the same thing. It can't be said that the game ever shies away form portraying Comstock as god. The People pray to him, and read his book as a Bible. He also has a very God like presence in the game. He is always there, and at all times the main focus. Yet we rarely see him. We only really know him through his word.

Last, the Son, or Booker. Comparisons between Booker and the Messiah is many. Most obviously is he called the "False Shepard". Like Jesus was, in the eyes of the Jews, a false Shepard, a false prophets. Booker is also resurrected. Or at least brought back by Elizabeth to save her and the world. And by that proving that he is "Her first and last hope". Booker is the embodiment of Comstock, hes presence on the ground. Much like Jesus the embodiment of god.

On a side note. Elizabeth or Elisabeth is the Greek transliteration (Ἐλισάβετ, Elisábet) of the Hebrew name Elisheva, meaning "God's promise", "oath of God", or "I am God’s daughter"[2] Elizabeth is the daughter of Comstock, the daughter of Booker. The daughter of both.

Ok so this was a comparison between the Song Bird, Booker and Comstock. But one thing annoys me. Song Bird is not Booker or Comstock. But maybe it is. We know Flink created the Song Bird, and he did so out of inspiration of the scientist of Raptur. Who "Attached metal to man, and made him machine" (Or something along the lines of that). What if the Song Bird is a version of Booker form another world. What if that is what creates the connection between The Song Bird and Elizabeth, and make it so strong. As strong as the connection between her and Booker.
I wouldn't be surprised if the DLC was about the Song Bird, and the creation of it.

Messiah, the daughter of god

As pointed out, there are some obvious Messiah like trades of Booker. But this could be said about Elizabeth as well. She is the miracle child of God/The Prophet. Born under unconventional circumstances. She kills Comstock, and in that also sacrifices her self for the people of Colombia and Man in general. But is in the end (Past credits) resurrected, born again. Elizabeth is pure and without sin. But in the eyes of the nonbeliever (The jews), a simple bastard child.

End note

Now these are just thoughts I had as I was playing the game. I highly doubt though that I'm totally making these up, and that they weren't intended to be seen as such by Irrational. But I would love to hear some thoughts or different opinions. I also excuse the (I was about to write tribal ) terrible writing.
 
The author has interesting ideas, but they're coated in a lot of arrogant bullshit and hyperbole. I stopped reading here:

I would argue that quote is him being realistic rather than arrogant. The game seems to be quite popular and you would be surprised what the average gamer, reader or viewer does not get.

No author, the game is violent because every direct predecessor before Bioshock Infinite by Irrational was violent. It's simply the type of game they make. I'm sure Irrational knew it was going to be a violent first person shooter before they ever took a pen to paper regarding the game's narrative.

The implication that this means it can't be a deliberate part of the experience and of significance for the overarching theme is rather silly.

Illusion of choice is a (necessary?) part of pretty much any video game out there. And yet, it was a deliberate part of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite.
 

Marcel

Member
Oh wow, bitter way to be dismissive (even tought I agree with your point)

The 'modern conservative' thing is reductive and an oversimplification of the more complex themes Infinite spurs discussion of, but clumsily handles in the midst of telling a messy story and making you blow stuff up. If I came off as bitter or offensive, I apologize.
 
I would argue that quote is him being realistic rather than arrogant. The game seems to be quite popular and you would be surprised what the average gamer, reader or viewer does not get.



The implication that this means it can't be a deliberate part of the experience and of significance for the overarching theme is rather silly.

Illusion of choice is a (necessary?) part of pretty much any video game out there. And yet, it was a deliberate part of Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite.

Denigrating the intelligence of the reader is rarely a constructive way to beging a literary criticism. I think the author begins from a strong position and then falls down an Intentional Fallacy hole.
 

sonicmj1

Member
A lot of this comes off as the type of ham fisted bullshit I came across in my literature and film classes. For example:



No author, the game is violent because every direct predecessor before Bioshock Infinite by Irrational was violent. It's simply the type of game they make. I'm sure Irrational knew it was going to be a violent first person shooter before they ever took a pen to paper regarding the game's narrative.

You're probably right. But I don't see how that undermines any potential analysis of Bioshock Infinite's use of violence. If Irrational started penning their story knowing the kind of game they were making, how could they not acknowledge that violence?

Every violent first-person shooter has to handle that violence in one way or another, even if it's just enough to tell us not to care. And I think Bioshock Infinite's narrative is, in the end, a lot more aware of the scale of its violence than it might seem at first.
 

Max O Power

Neo Member
So is this game just a bunch of pretentious bullshit?

Cuz that's what it sounds like.

"So this game wants to say something that I may, or may not agree with. Instead of just making me shoot down waves of enemies. Sounds like shit to me"

What is wrong with you, why even comment.
 
I love how anything that tries to have a serious message (other than war is bad) or do something different with story these days is labeled as pretentious and dismissed entirely. It's annoying and frankly, it's dangerous towards the evolution of games.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Because it's not as revelatory as it makes itself out to be?

Seems to be suffering from the Far Cry 3 effect.

It doesn't make itself out to be anything other than what it is. If there's anyone making it out to be something it's not (and I'm not claiming that's the case), it's the players and reviewers. Not the game's fault.

The story is complex. It may or may not hold up to scrutiny. Those facts alone don't make the game pretentious.

Pretense is what you see coming from the presenters at E3, when they say "I got teargassed and it made me think about freedom and tyranny, here's a sequel to Infamous." If Infamous Second Son doesn't engage with those themes in a meaningful way, while the developer is directly implying it does, there's the pretense you're looking for. All Ken Levine has said about Bioshock Infinite is that it contains certain themes. And it does. The rest is out of their hands.
 
I love how anything that tries to have a serious message (other than war is bad) or do something different with story these days is labeled as pretentious and dismissed entirely.

I'm pretty sure I'm the first guy in here not stroking Levine's manbits.

It doesn't make itself out to be anything other than what it is. If there's anyone making it out to be something it's not (and I'm not claiming that's the case), it's the players and reviewers. Not the game's fault.

I think Gerstmann was one of the few reviewers to make the appropriate point that any overarching philosophy is simply the background to the main plot.

But otherwise, it's being presented as some grand work of art or stroke of genius.

I'm not even denying that this could be true - I'm just saying at this point I'm not seeing the justification for it.
 
I'm pretty sure I'm the first guy in here not stroking Levine's manbits.

I'm not only talking about you specifically, it's just something I've noticed in general.

And admiring the game's message and execution has nothing to do with brown-nosing Levine. I don't think anyone is or should be looking at him like a god of writing or something.
 

Derrick01

Banned
So is this game just a bunch of pretentious bullshit?

Cuz that's what it sounds like.

I would say slightly less pretentious than Bioshock 1 and the ramblings from people like Ryan, but the fans and some of their "analysis" more than makes up for the reduced pretentiousness.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
I'm pretty sure I'm the first guy in here not stroking Levine's manbits.



I think Gerstmann was one of the few reviewers to make the appropriate point that any overarching philosophy is background to the main plot. But otherwise, it's being presented as some grand work of art or stroke of genius.

I'm not even denying that this could be true - I'm just saying at this point I'm not seeing the justification for it.

Presented by whom? If the answer is anyone other than the creators themselves, then you can't call the game pretentious. You should address those complaints to the commentators.

See my above edit for more on "pretentiousness" as a criticism.

Where are you looking for this justification? The game itself? The quality of GAF posters' analysis? What would convince you it's not pretense?
 
I'm pretty sure I'm the first guy in here not stroking Levine's manbits.

Well aren't you just a unique snowflake...


I think Gerstmann was one of the few reviewers to make the appropriate point that any overarching philosophy is simply the background to the main plot.

But otherwise, it's being presented as some grand work of art or stroke of genius.

I'm not even denying that this could be true - I'm just saying at this point I'm not seeing the justification for it.

It turns out it is pretty easy to not see the justification for things that you have no experience with.

Because it's not as revelatory as it makes itself out to be?

Seems to be suffering from the Far Cry 3 effect.

I can't think of two recent shooters with less in common than Bioshock Infinite and Farcry 3.
 
Presented by whom?

A lot of it just comes from people who are simply in awe by the proposition of this game or the way it is presented, but don't quite articulate that fully. This can come from reviewers, posters and the developers (naturally).

Like I said, I'm not ruling out that this game could be some epic social commentary or a philosophical master stroke.

At face value, it appears to be presenting itself that way by bombarding the player with snippet quotes about the religious, ethical values of this city and also conveying the perils of some dystopian world that would make Orwell or Huxley blush.

But even all of that is kind of old hat now isn't it?

So that's what I mean by it appearing pretentious because most of us have already gone through the 1984s, Clockwork Oranges, Animal Farms and Brave new worlds. But it looks like it's trying to present itself in a manner that this is somehow new to us or enlightening.
 
Because it's not as revelatory as it makes itself out to be?

Seems to be suffering from the Far Cry 3 effect.

Can you provide examples? Where exactly does it do that in your opinion?

On another note, it's always nice to see Derrick being constructive about yet another game that is not System Shock.

I love how anything that tries to have a serious message (other than war is bad) or do something different with story these days is labeled as pretentious and dismissed entirely. It's annoying and frankly, it's dangerous towards the evolution of games.

I feel like this has been one of the most annoying parts of discussions on GAF for the last few month or even years. The way everything that is trying to get beyond the generic story or theme designed for your average teenage male console player is instantly labeled as pretentious, is somehow funny and sad at the same time. The shear concept of some aspects deliberately being left open for individual interpretation must be downright offensive to some posters.

Denigrating the intelligence of the reader is rarely a constructive way to beging a literary criticism. I think the author begins from a strong position and then falls down an Intentional Fallacy hole.

If you decided to read an analysis or even spend some time to reflect on what exactly you just experienced, chances are you are not the average media consumer.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
A lot of it just comes from people who are simply in awe by the proposition of this game or the way it is presented, but don't quite articulate that fully. This can come from reviewers, posters and the developers (naturally).

Like I said, I'm not ruling out that this game could be some epic social commentary or a philosophical master stroke.

At face value, it appears to be presenting itself that way by bombarding the player with snippet quotes about the religious, ethical values of this city and the perils of some dystopian world that would make Orwell or Huxley blush.

But even all of that is kind of old hat now isn't it?

So that's what I mean by it appearing pretentious because most of us have already gone through the 1984s, Clockwork Oranges, Animal Farms and Brave new worlds. But it looks like it's trying to present itself in a manner that this is somehow new to us or enlightening.

Why are you spending so much time talking about it if you haven't played it and can only make claims based on what it appears to be at a distance or based on second hand knowledge?

No one said or implied it was presenting new ideas. Some people are impressed that these ideas are appearing in a shooter video game. If the game "looks like it's trying to present itself" a certain way to you (and you haven't even played it), then that's on you. Don't project that onto the game, the devs, or whoever else.

You say that the developers are making claims about this game's importance or whatever. What is your evidence?


I just don't see why you're engaging in this argument when you don't have the firsthand experience necessary to do so. I mean, is your reaction entirely based on the general idea that this game has themes just like other works of fiction?
 
A lot of it just comes from people who are simply in awe by the proposition of this game or the way it is presented, but don't quite articulate that fully. This can come from reviewers, posters and the developers (naturally).

Like I said, I'm not ruling out that this game could be some epic social commentary or a philosophical master stroke.

At face value, it appears to be presenting itself that way by bombarding the player with snippet quotes about the religious, ethical values of this city and also conveying the perils of some dystopian world that would make Orwell or Huxley blush.

But even all of that is kind of old hat now isn't it?

So that's what I mean by it appearing pretentious because most of us have already gone through the 1984s, Clockwork Oranges, Animal Farms and Brave new worlds. But it looks like it's trying to present itself in a manner that this is somehow new to us or enlightening.

You really have no idea what actually happens in Bioshock Infinite do you?
 

sappyday

Member
A lot of it just comes from people who are simply in awe by the proposition of this game or the way it is presented, but don't quite articulate that fully. This can come from reviewers, posters and the developers (naturally).

Like I said, I'm not ruling out that this game could be some epic social commentary or a philosophical master stroke.

At face value, it appears to be presenting itself that way by bombarding the player with snippet quotes about the religious, ethical values of this city and also conveying the perils of some dystopian world that would make Orwell or Huxley blush.

But even all of that is kind of old hat now isn't it?

So that's what I mean by it appearing pretentious because most of us have already gone through the 1984s, Clockwork Oranges, Animal Farms and Brave new worlds. But it looks like it's trying to present itself in a manner that this is somehow new to us or enlightening.

It would be better to play the game first.
 
I just don't see why you're engaging in this argument when you don't have the firsthand experience necessary to do so. I mean, is your reaction entirely based on the general idea that this game has themes just like other works of fiction?

Of course not.

My posts clearly outline what kind of themes appear to be conveyed to the casual observer.

I would be interested in checking the game out if there was something that actually sets this game above and beyond most others because that's the impression I see from reviewers and people that have played the game. The problem is that they're not really articulating exactly where that inspiration is coming from.

So my question if you want me to put it simply is - what is it?

What is it, thematically speaking, that puts this game in such high regard?
 
Hey I wrote this earlier. But Reddit seems to not have much to say about it. I will also start with saying that I disagree with the write of the blog that BS∞ has one REAL message, and only one message. Few great works has. This is as much of a indictment of modern conservative, as it is a metaphysical retelling of the birth and death of Messiah.

The less obvious Religious themes of Bioshock ∞

So obviously this game has a lot of religious themes. Religion as power and politic and not as faith. The power of baptism and religious rebirth. Redemption, forgiveness and resurrected. And very specifically Noah and the Ark.
But I also noticed/found/made some other, to some maybe less obvious, religious story beats and symbols.

The Trinity: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I first toke notice to this when I read someones comparison of the Song Bird and Booker. Each have the task to defend and fight for Elizabeth. But this can be said about Comstock as well. In the christian faith the Holy Spirit is always symbolized by the bird, or more specific, the dove . I wouldn't call it far fetched to say that the song bird is very dove like. But also very Spirit like. The Song bird is very pure, and becomes less of a character and more of a force of power and in some ways love.

What is core to the concept of the Trinity, is that these three separate and distinct sides of God is all one and the same. Much like Booker says in the end of the game "No I'm both". The Father is the Father, The son is the son. But they are at the same time one and the same thing. It can't be said that the game ever shies away form portraying Comstock as god. The People pray to him, and read his book as a Bible. He also has a very God like presence in the game. He is always there, and at all times the main focus. Yet we rarely see him. We only really know him through his word.

Last, the Son, or Booker. Comparisons between Booker and the Messiah is many. Most obviously is he called the "False Shepard". Like Jesus was, in the eyes of the Jews, a false Shepard, a false prophets. Booker is also resurrected. Or at least brought back by Elizabeth to save her and the world. And by that proving that he is "Her first and last hope". Booker is the embodiment of Comstock, hes presence on the ground. Much like Jesus the embodiment of god.

On a side note. Elizabeth or Elisabeth is the Greek transliteration (Ἐλισάβετ, Elisábet) of the Hebrew name Elisheva, meaning "God's promise", "oath of God", or "I am God’s daughter"[2] Elizabeth is the daughter of Comstock, the daughter of Booker. The daughter of both.

Ok so this was a comparison between the Song Bird, Booker and Comstock. But one thing annoys me. Song Bird is not Booker or Comstock. But maybe it is. We know Flink created the Song Bird, and he did so out of inspiration of the scientist of Raptur. Who "Attached metal to man, and made him machine" (Or something along the lines of that). What if the Song Bird is a version of Booker form another world. What if that is what creates the connection between The Song Bird and Elizabeth, and make it so strong. As strong as the connection between her and Booker.
I wouldn't be surprised if the DLC was about the Song Bird, and the creation of it.

Messiah, the daughter of god

As pointed out, there are some obvious Messiah like trades of Booker. But this could be said about Elizabeth as well. She is the miracle child of God/The Prophet. Born under unconventional circumstances. She kills Comstock, and in that also sacrifices her self for the people of Colombia and Man in general. But is in the end (Past credits) resurrected, born again. Elizabeth is pure and without sin. But in the eyes of the nonbeliever (The jews), a simple bastard child.

End note

Now these are just thoughts I had as I was playing the game. I highly doubt though that I'm totally making these up, and that they weren't intended to be seen as such by Irrational. But I would love to hear some thoughts or different opinions. I also excuse the (I was about to write tribal ) terrible writing.

I personally think you’re overreaching with the Trinity allegory, but I an entirely agree with Elizabeth’s name: that is not a coincidence. Thank you for pointing that out!

I think Ken’s multiple references to baptism and “embracing” religion is what Ken sees as the crossroad that every man must face in his life. Man can either embrace a god (religion) or reject it, and this a monumental decision because it will lead a man down two very separate paths, and in this case neither are good. The baptism fixed nothing, it merely created a monster of an entirely different viewpoint, and a self-destructive person will continue to be one no matter which god they submit to, if any.

However, with that said, I think Levine feels that most human being lose sight of their religion and they pervert it with their own nationalism (which is why Columbia is soaked heavily in American iconography and religion); they use it to promote their own agenda (as does Comstock does to get back at America for turning him into this monster); they use it as justification to bully or subject others (obvious occurrences of this in the game).

Unlike Rapture, Columbia is an extension of that American nationalism/Christianity, and like in actuality, there are some people who can make no distinction between the two - “in God we trust”, “bless nation” etc... This game has a lot going on, and it doesn’t help that the Vox and Fink only create another philosophical discussion to be analyzed.
 
Of course not.

My posts clearly outline what kind of themes appear to be conveyed to the casual observer.

I would be interested in checking the game out if there was something that actually sets this game above and beyond most others because that's the impression I see from reviewers and people that have played the game. The problem is that they're not really articulating exactly where that inspiration is coming from.

So my question if you want me to put it simply is - what is it?

What is it, thematically speaking, that puts this game in such high regard?

None of the themes you have talked about are core to the story at all. There are no allusions to 1984, or Clockwork Orange, or A Brave New World. It is not a game about a failed Utopia. The themes are very personal. The game is not about overarching sociological themes.

It is about the concepts of Fatalism vs Nihilism and the implications of free will in the face of Infinite possibility. It is more Rosencrantz and Guildenstern than 1984, more Waiting For Godot than Clockwork Orange and more Sartre than Huxley.

All works have things that set them out from others, good things and bad things. To approach games or any other medium from the reductionist stance of "Only if it sets itself apart is it worthy" is incredibly limiting. To then base your assumptions on second hand information is doubling down on folly.
 

Carcetti

Member
I haven't read it yet (will soon) but the thing that stuck me most was that Anna represents USA's future and by becoming apathetic Booker (the people) gives the future away to destructive regressive conservatism even though they might not themselves be responsible for it. The old evil grows when good men do nothing etc.

It's about as subtle as the first episode of Newsroom.
 

DatDude

Banned
A lot of it just comes from people who are simply in awe by the proposition of this game or the way it is presented, but don't quite articulate that fully. This can come from reviewers, posters and the developers (naturally).

Like I said, I'm not ruling out that this game could be some epic social commentary or a philosophical master stroke.

At face value, it appears to be presenting itself that way by bombarding the player with snippet quotes about the religious, ethical values of this city and also conveying the perils of some dystopian world that would make Orwell or Huxley blush.

But even all of that is kind of old hat now isn't it?

So that's what I mean by it appearing pretentious because most of us have already gone through the 1984s, Clockwork Oranges, Animal Farms and Brave new worlds. But it looks like it's trying to present itself in a manner that this is somehow new to us or enlightening.

You haven't even played the game yet your talking like you no your shit.

Shaking my head.
 
I haven't read it yet (will soon) but the thing that stuck me most was that Anna represents USA's future and by becoming apathetic Booker (the people) gives the future away to destructive regressive conservatism even though they might not themselves be responsible for it. The old evil grows when good men do nothing etc.

It's about as subtle as the first episode of Newsroom.

But Booker didn't become apathetic. Booker can't escape his shame. He can't stop caring and it consumes him. Comstock is the one who becomes apathetic. He uses the baptism to release himself from care.

I just don't see any support for these overt, present day allegories.
 
The 'modern conservative' thing is reductive and an oversimplification of the more complex themes Infinite spurs discussion of, but clumsily handles in the midst of telling a messy story and making you blow stuff up. If I came off as bitter or offensive, I apologize.

That's better.
 

DatDude

Banned
Exactly, quite the opposite. At the beginning of the game it's all about "Getting the girl", it's a job, nothing more. At the end it's about saving the world, or at least Manhattan.

I'd say less about saving the world...and more about redemption towards what he done to Elizabeth.
 

DatDude

Banned
Is also Elizabeth redemption. She mentions that she feels guilty because the actions of Vox Populi and killing Daisy.

Lets no forget about Luteces either. The whole experiment was for them to redeem what they had done as well.

The whole theme really is about Redemption in general.
 

Max O Power

Neo Member
I'd say less about saving the world...and more about redemption towards what he done to Elizabeth.

Yeah definitely. It was just a way to set things in proportions. The task is simple at first. But grows gigantic over the course of the game. Even if Elizabeth is at its core.

Thinking about it, the destruction of Manhattan is actually quite trial compered to the possible destructive powers of Elizabeth.
 
Saw this thread on Giantbomb and i think the OP has a well written post about the relationship between Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite. I really like the thematic links he observes.

 

Andrew.

Banned
Lets no forget about Luteces either. The whole experiment was for them to redeem what they had done as well.

The whole theme really is about Redemption in general.

Red Dead Biodemption

Red like the menarche rags on display by the syphon.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
My posts clearly outline what kind of themes appear to be conveyed to the casual observer.

Well there's your problem right there.

So my question if you want me to put it simply is - what is it?

What is it, thematically speaking, that puts this game in such high regard?

As a casual observer, your posts appear to convey that you are interested enough to warrant renting or even purchasing a copy. :p

EDIT:

Analysis-wise, I think the most profound thing I've read (it was in the link on the OP) is that Columbia is a literal monument to Booker's sins.
 
So in keeping with
"Columbia as a monument to Booker/Comstock's sins." What does the Boxers' Rebellion signify?
I don't recall it being mentioned that Booker took part in that.

edit: nm- just found the answer partly- Basically the independence day of Columbia.
 
Top Bottom