• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Bioshock Infinite |OT| No Gods, Kings, or Irrational Games

conman said:
Yup. Bioshock was the story of Rapture. Bioshock Infinite is not the story of Columbia--though early on, it makes you think that it is. And most of my issues with the game's sloppy writing and hollow socio-historical work might have been resolved if the focus had remained on Columbia. But it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Seems like you EXPECTED the story to be about Columba, similar how Bioshock 1 was about Rapture. That's your fault though, for having false expectations. The story from second 1 is about Booker and Elizabeth.

For example, the film Titanic. It's about Jack and Rose. Sure there are many things that occur on the ship: Racism and inequality of the poor are a theme that you see (the one's who drown first)...but it's just as ASPECT of the narrative. It talks about it, similar to how Infinite talks about Racism, and American Extremeism, but it never becomes it's main FOCAL point.

From second 1, "Booker are you afraid of God", set's the tone of what this narrative will focus upon. It's your fault for expecting otherwise.
 
Actually, I might go back.

I noticed I can select chapters from the game menu. If I realize I missed a few voxophones, can I just load up that area, get it, and it counts?
 
Are the skyways buggy for anyone else? Before Hall of Heroes I managed to get stuck twice between crates because it was letting me go where I guess it wasn't supposed to?
 
Quote said:
Are the skyways buggy for anyone else? Before Hall of Heroes I managed to get stuck twice between crates because it was letting me go where I guess it wasn't supposed to?
Click to expand...

I've gotten stuck at presumably that exact same point, managed to glitch my way out and grab the opposing skyrail though.
 
Quote said:
Are the skyways buggy for anyone else? Before Hall of Heroes I managed to get stuck twice between crates because it was letting me go where I guess it wasn't supposed to?
Click to expand...

I bet you're trying to get to that in-between area - you're not supposed to be able to yet. As far as I can tell, despite many attempts on my second playthrough, you can't get there no matter how much you try to glitch the sky rails. The one ascending to HoH should be clear - you don't need to take the other one down yet, but you will later.
 
Echoenigma said:
Well, beat it. Give it probably a 7 or 8 out of 10. Probably would have felt bad spending the whole $60 if it wasn't a gift from a very generous friend.

Everything gameplay related was serviceable, it was just corridor shooting with no real upgrades beyond "do x% more damage" and the vigors were all incredibly boring save the water tendrils and crows. I mean seriously, every single one has the same alternate with the traps? Lazy as hell man. Have some fun with your powers, irrational. Enemies AI was par for the course, I guess. Level design was nothing special. Bosses sucked because all they had was a shitloads of HP and a tendency to shake the fuck out of your screen in place of actually challenging you, they were just annoying and in some cases boring.

I like the art style. A lot. The faces looked jacked up beyond the main cast, but that's whatever. There were a lot of low res textures too, but I expected as much. Way too much bloom for my taste in a lot of scenes though, made it hard to see guys in some areas in the beginning, though it either stopped happening or I stopped noticing a couple hours in.

Music was good, though some of the loops in combat got annoying. VA was great, of course.

I liked elizabeth a lot. She was a good character who I enjoyed the company of when it came to the story. Gameplay wise though, it broke the fuck out of my immersion when I realized that she was some kind of invisible god child that does nothing but spew ammo and health at you, invulnerable to the enemies advances. I know they didn't want an escort mission, but at least have her hide convincingly than run around like a lost child mid firefight.

The pacing really screwed with me, it takes like half the game to get to the primary gimmick and then it's all poorly utilized until the game is over.
The game is about the possibilites of the multiverse and you are only in one interesting place (the asylum) before the ending, where it actually utilizes it's potential for five minutes before ending.
On top of that, way too much shooting that just feels forced. It's ok for the narrative to take a breather sometimes. The carnival part early on? I loved that. Also, it's damn short for being a primarily single player game. Beat it in 11 hours.

The main villain sucks in that he doesn't have nearly the appeal or charisma that a villain should have if put in that central role. He's more the communist lady nobody remembers from bioshock 2 than Andrew Ryan. I like the idea behind him, but he needed to be written better so that he comes across as the charismatic kind of guy who could actually obtain that position of power. On top of this, the society seems rather written rather immaturely as "religious white people are all racist pieces of shit" which might have gone over well if there was any quality of subtlety to it in the least.

Overall, it was a pretty average game that is elevated by the story and setting that the bioshock team was able to give it. However, since that appeal has worn off after the initial playthrough and I've experienced the story, the mundane mechanics are what's going to be preventing me from returning to the interesting and beautiful world of columbia. I would like to see more of these barely related Bioshock games, but only if they figure out how to innovate as much in the gameplay as much as they have tried in their story, as this whole thing felt way too safe for me.
Click to expand...

I agree with A LOT of this

Basically the story and settin save what is otherwise the most shallow entry in the series
 
Guess I'm not finishing the game today. The story is heating up for, what feels like a climax, so I think it's better to stop now and properly finish it in another sitting.

I'm at the point where
the prophet flies around in his airship, after you rescue Elisabeth from the torture
. About how long is there to go?

Is the
defend generators moment with the enormous spike in difficulty just ahead, by any chance?
.

Thanks
 
Just started my play through yesterday. Elizabeth is my top candidate for most useful partner in a video game. Seriously, she's great.

I didn't play 2 because I didn't want to suffer franchise fatigue with such a good series of games. Up to the Shantytown at this point, really enjoying it. I think I like the main character talking more than being silent. If Booker had been a silent protagonist, I don't think Elizabeth would have been as interesting a character. Her personality comes from their banter.

Really anticipating this "twist" since Bioshock 1's really caught me off guard. After 999 and VLR I didn't think a story in a game would find a way to be genuinely surprising.
 
I beat this game about a week ago and I keep thinking about it. I can’t wait to replay it knowing what I know now so that I can catch all of the little things sprinkled throughout the game. I’ve started playing Bioshock 1 since it came free with Infinite as I’ve never played it before. I’m an hour in and not sure if I want to keep playing the original Bioshock; it seems so oppressive when compared to Infinite, and I don’t like that you can’t have your plasmids and weapon out at the same time like you can in Infinite. Should I keep trying with Bishock 1, or just go right back into Infinite?
 
AgentOtaku said:
I agree with A LOT of this

Basically the story and settin save what is otherwise the most shallow entry in the series
Click to expand...

See I don't understand this at all.

The most shallow?

If anything Bioshock 1 was the most shallow if you consider the progression from System Shock 2, to Bioshock 1.

At least Infinite retained more rpg lite elements with the use of gears, and had a much improved combat system.

Care to explain where you saw it to be more shallow? Because that just boggles my mind how someone could even say such a thing? :/
 
WeAreStarStuff said:
I beat this game about a week ago and I keep thinking about it. I can’t wait to replay it knowing what I know now so that I can catch all of the little things sprinkled throughout the game. I’ve started playing Bioshock 1 since it came free with Infinite as I’ve never played it before. I’m an hour in and not sure if I want to keep playing the original Bioshock; it seems so oppressive when compared to Infinite, and I don’t like that you can’t have your plasmids and weapon out at the same time like you can in Infinite. Should I keep trying with Bishock 1, or just go right back into Infinite?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had a similar problem with Bio1.

felt so cramped, dark, and depressing. Truly felt like a linear corridor shooter of the late 90's.
 
DatDude said:
Yeah, I had a similar problem with Bio1.

felt so cramped, dark, and depressing. Truly felt like a linear corridor shooter of the late 90's.
Click to expand...

I read your comment before the one you quoted and the 1 looked like an I to me at first glance. Good thing I reread it instead of flipping my table and mumbling something about trolls.
 
DatDude said:
Seems like you EXPECTED the story to be about Columba, similar how Bioshock 1 was about Rapture. That's your fault though, for having false expectations. The story from second 1 is about Booker and Elizabeth.

For example, the film Titanic. It's about Jack and Rose. Sure there are many things that occur on the ship: Racism and inequality of the poor are a theme that you see (the one's who drown first)...but it's just as ASPECT of the narrative. It talks about it, similar to how Infinite talks about Racism, and American Extremeism, but it never becomes it's main FOCAL point.

From second 1, "Booker are you afraid of God", set's the tone of what this narrative will focus upon. It's your fault for expecting otherwise.
Click to expand...
Exactly that. It's one thing to play this game and be disappointed that some of these themes are not the central focus of the game. If you don't like the game because that's what YOU wanted it to be, that's completely fine.

But it's another thing, to say Levine tried to make those themes the central point and failed. It was never meant to be the central point. It was always meant to paint the background, give you a context, so you could understand better why and how the characters are like that.
 
Sqorgar said:
Infinite honestly feels like a Bioshock clone, where the creators try to emulate everything that people liked about Bioshock without understanding why it worked in the context that it did. It's like they just had a list of checkboxes. Novelty city? Check. Controversial topics? Check. Plot twist? Check. Plasmids? Check. Retro-futurism? Check. Big Daddy Things? Check. Ego tripping leader who is treated like a god? Check. And so on.
Click to expand...

I won't say I agree with everything you've said, but this is dead on, to me. Most of my problems with infinite stem from it being hamstrung by adhering to a structure that just isn't working as well this time. Gameplay ends up secondary to extending a narrative between two worlds.

Instead of thinking "what would fit Columbia best?" we have Bioshock's structure transplanted and the operation isn't entirely successful. By the end of the game, you'll see why it was done from a story POV, but that won't stop you thinking that, as a game, it's worse off for it.
 
DatDude said:
See I don't understand this at all.

The most shallow?

If anything Bioshock 1 was the most shallow if you consider the progression from System Shock 2, to Bioshock 1.

At least Infinite retained more rpg lite elements with the use of gears, and had a much improved combat system.

Care to explain where you saw it to be more shallow? Because that just boggles my mind how someone could even say such a thing? :/
Click to expand...

Basically Bioshock 1 felt like an extension ( and of course simplification) of System Shock 2. It brought something different to a new crowd who hadn't grown up on those types of experiences.
Infinite just doesn't come off as being interested in pursuing that. More concerned with being a core shooter than an adventure.
 
AgentOtaku said:
Basically Bioshock 1 felt like an extension ( and of course simplification) of System Shock 2. It brought something different to a new crowd who hadn't grown up on those types of experiences.
Infinite just doesn't come off as being interested in pursuing that. More concerned with being a core shooter than an adventure.
Click to expand...

WTF?

You have got to be kidding right? Replace the splicers with normal rapture citizens and you would have the same ass problem. The double standards are incredible here.
 
The randomized gear bugs me though. Dishonored did the same thing. The first pants/ bone charm you find might be incredibly useful and just what you were looking for, or you'll never find the one you want on that playthrough. I don't think luck should be so heavily involved in customization.
 
After playing through Infinite, I decided to give BS1 and 2 a run through.

In hindsight, I definitely think I under appreciated BS2 (I realise the excellence in Minerva's den), but the main game itself. The gunplay is pretty good.

And certainly the Mark Meitzer storyline is wonderfully somber. Whilst not bieng part of the main plot.
 
waters10 said:
Exactly that. It's one thing to play this game and be disappointed that some of these themes are not the central focus of the game. If you don't like the game because that's what YOU wanted it to be, that's completely fine.

But it's another thing, to say Levine tried to make those themes the central point and failed. It was never meant to be the central point. It was always meant to paint the background, give you a context, so you could understand better why and how the characters are like that.
Click to expand...

The game tells two stories. It abruptly throws one away in the middle and fleshes out another, using the same characters. It literally feels to me like Ken had something to say, and then got Shiny New Idea Syndrome and ditched it halfway and went with where he wanted to go for his twist.

The game is certainly clearly about these two characters, but that doesn't negate that the story preoccupies itself with banging the realities of that world over your head for the first half, and then abruptly throws it out the window because it's no longer convenient for where the story wants to go.

Ken went to great pains with the game to keep things neutral. Of course an author has every right to write whatever story he wants to, but that doesn't make it good storytelling.

The game gives you a world that you have to use your knowledge of history and social justice to inform you is bad. The one biggest opportunity to show how wicked the upperclass is in the context of the game is at the beginning, and even then, the game cops out by giving the player the actual choice to decide whether it is morally right or wrong to throw a baseball at two people tied up. The game doesn't even actually explain why they are in this position, it is up to you to get the picture. Still worse, the player's choice is then negated by a canned response where the game then thrusts the player into the violence of the gameplay, avoiding even further having to say anything about what was just presented.

Nothing else presented in the game has anything meaningful to say about the world whatsoever, only that it is built on the philosophy of one man, and that that man is a liar. It bombards you with propaganda posters, but they are used as nothing but window dressing. The result of such a neutral, aesthetic approach to that sort of propaganda is that it comes across unjudged, amusing, even admirable. This is clearly not the intent of the narrative, but because the game chooses not to take sides, there's nothing presented in the game that deprecates the philosophy. The philosophy of the powers that be then could have been about anything, but the choice was made to use American history as a vehicle to cruise control past large swaths of troublesome expositional effort. Ultimately, the powers that be and the oppressed underclass end up presented as morally equivalent by the narrative by eventually becoming nothing but identical cannon fodder.

There were reasonable expectations of what could have been accomplished with this setting, and instead it ends up unused. That's Ken's choice, and that's just fine, but it remains a missed opportunity and a less satisfying tale because of it. Levine told a story that I thought was interesting, but when you are talking about a Bioshock game where everyone understands that the setting is as much a character as the people in it, Columbia remains the least developed character in the game.
 
I agree with Fine Ham Abounds as well. The political story is essentially dropped like a rock at a certain point and the Vox are painted as just the other side of a megalomaniacal coin. It's a shame because initially it feels like that's going somewhere.
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
The game tells two stories. It abruptly throws one away in the middle and fleshes out another, using the same characters. It literally feels to me like Ken had something to say, and then got Shiny New Idea Syndrome and ditched it halfway and went with where he wanted to go for his twist.

The game is certainly clearly about these two characters, but that doesn't negate that the story preoccupies itself with banging the realities of that world over your head for the first half, and then abruptly throws it out the window because it's no longer convenient for where the story wants to go.

Of course an author has every right to write whatever story he wants to, but that doesn't make it good storytelling.

The game gives you a world that you have to use your knowledge of history and social justice to inform you is bad. The one biggest opportunity to show how wicked the upperclass is in the context of the game is at the beginning, and even then, the game cops out by giving the player the actual choice to decide whether it is morally right or wrong to throw a baseball at two people tied up. The game doesn't even actually explain why they are in this position, it is up to you to get the picture. Still worse, the player's choice is then negated by a canned response where the game then thrusts the player into the violence of the gameplay, avoiding even further having to say anything about what was just presented.

Nothing else presented in the game has anything meaningful to say about the world whatsoever, only that it is built on the philosophy of one man, and that that man is a liar. It bombards you with propaganda posters, but they are used as nothing but window dressing. The result of such a neutral, aesthetic approach to that sort of propaganda is that it comes across unjudged, amusing, even admirable. This is clearly not the intent of the narrative, but because the game chooses not to take sides, there's nothing presented in the game that deprecates the philosophy. The philosophy of the powers that be then could have been about anything, but the choice was made to use American history as a vehicle to cruise control past large swaths of troublesome expositional effort. Ultimately, the powers that be and the oppressed underclass end up presented as morally equivalent by the narrative by eventually becoming nothing but identical cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

What.
Those "two stories" are one and the same as the faults of Columbia are the exact same faults of Comstock/Dewitt. The game doesn't use the elements of slavery and racism as central themes, but instead views them as symptoms of a larger problem, that of an entity denying, revising or even glorifying it's dark past dooms itself and those around it. It's a conflict you find in Columbia which ultimately leads to either it's downfall or the downfall of the rest of the world, and similarly the arc of Comstock/Dewitt. While it may seem like it abandon's telling the story of Columbia, it's in fact an overarching theme to the game that transfers from setting, to character.

DeadRockstar said:
I agree with Fine Ham Abounds as well. The political story is essentially dropped like a rock at a certain point and the Vox are painted as just the other side of a megalomaniacal coin. It's a shame because initially it feels like that's going somewhere.
Click to expand...

Similarily, the Vox are the representation of the Booker you play. They justify killing all the people in Columbia because of the racism and oppression that they practice. The player does the same thing when they are playing the game, justifying killing the Columbians because the game has shown you how horrible and "deserving" they are. Did the Vox go overboard killing people during their rampage? Did you go overboard killing hundreds of people on your quest to save a girl? In the end are you any different than Fitzroy?
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
The game tells two stories. It abruptly throws one away in the middle and fleshes out another, using the same characters. It literally feels to me like Ken had something to say, and then got Shiny New Idea Syndrome and ditched it halfway and went with where he wanted to go for his twist.

The game is certainly clearly about these two characters, but that doesn't negate that the story preoccupies itself with banging the realities of that world over your head for the first half, and then abruptly throws it out the window because it's no longer convenient for where the story wants to go.

Ken went to great pains with the game to keep things neutral. Of course an author has every right to write whatever story he wants to, but that doesn't make it good storytelling.

The game gives you a world that you have to use your knowledge of history and social justice to inform you is bad. The one biggest opportunity to show how wicked the upperclass is in the context of the game is at the beginning, and even then, the game cops out by giving the player the actual choice to decide whether it is morally right or wrong to throw a baseball at two people tied up. The game doesn't even actually explain why they are in this position, it is up to you to get the picture. Still worse, the player's choice is then negated by a canned response where the game then thrusts the player into the violence of the gameplay, avoiding even further having to say anything about what was just presented.

Nothing else presented in the game has anything meaningful to say about the world whatsoever, only that it is built on the philosophy of one man, and that that man is a liar. It bombards you with propaganda posters, but they are used as nothing but window dressing. The result of such a neutral, aesthetic approach to that sort of propaganda is that it comes across unjudged, amusing, even admirable. This is clearly not the intent of the narrative, but because the game chooses not to take sides, there's nothing presented in the game that deprecates the philosophy. The philosophy of the powers that be then could have been about anything, but the choice was made to use American history as a vehicle to cruise control past large swaths of troublesome expositional effort. Ultimately, the powers that be and the oppressed underclass end up presented as morally equivalent by the narrative by eventually becoming nothing but identical cannon fodder.

There were reasonable expectations of what could have been accomplished with this setting, and instead it ends up unused. That's Ken's choice, and that's just fine, but it remains a missed opportunity and a less satisfying tale because of it. Levine told a story that I thought was interesting, but when you are talking about a Bioshock game where everyone understands that the setting is as much a character as the people in it, Columbia remains the least developed character in the game.
Click to expand...
I don't see these 2 stories that you mention here. The first half of the game is just like half of a movie. It's setting up the characters, the context, letting you know why and how things are why they are. Maybe you say that it's banging that over your head, because a game is much longer than a movie, so half a game is still over 5 hours. But it was still very clear that the main focus was going to shift to Booker/Elizabeth as the game went on.

I know keep rambling about movies, but instead of Titanic, I'll use a good movie instead: Children of Men. The first half of the movie, it's painting the world, giving you a context, showing how harsh that reality is and how it affects the main character. Then it goes on to be a personal story, centered on the characters. First time I watched it, I liked it, but I kept thinking why didn't they explore more of that extremely interesting reality? It's an incredible premise and the movie never tries to explain why or how. But then after a few days, I realized that the movie was not about that and it was fucking good at what it was trying to do!

Regarding the baseball choice,
it tied perfectly well with the main plot. Most choices don't make a different. Infinite worlds slightly different, but mostly the same. With a few big choices that make a huge difference, in this case, the baptism.

Now your last point about this being a missed opportunity, I guess it depends on how happy you are with the game itself. I'm perfectly happy with how Levine set up the story, how he used the themes to build a context for the main plot. How he perfectly tied everything, to the point that playing a second time is actually more fun than the first time. But most of all, the fact that he was able to create a personal story that people can relate to.

I do agree that the Vox could be a bit more fleshed out though. That part fell a bit short.
 
Divvy said:
What.
Those "two stories" are one and the same as the faults of Columbia are the exact same faults of Comstock/Dewitt. The game doesn't use the elements of slavery and racism as central themes, but instead views them as symptoms of a larger problem, that of an entity denying, revising or even glorifying it's dark past dooms itself and those around it. It's a conflict you find in Columbia which ultimately leads to either it's downfall or the downfall of the rest of the world, and similarly the arc of Comstock/Dewitt. While it may seem like it abandon's telling the story of Columbia, it's in fact a overarching theme to the game that transfers from location, to character.
Click to expand...

And this, as aforementioned, is the central disconnect between people who feel the way I do and the way you do about the narrative.

For me, I was bludgeoned with the world at the beginning, and the main characters at the back end. It's far too neutral yet far too hamfisted and over the top with how it presents the world at the start. The narrative setup bombards you with so much stuff but has so little to really say about it that it leaves you wondering through the entire second half where the hell that part of the story went, because it sure as hell wasn't satisfactorily wrapped up. Of course you can extrapolate after the fact that it was metaphorical, but it's not set up that way - it really relies on reminding you of what you already know about history and the world to inform you at all about the main characters. Now, I agree with your take in restrospect, but that actually had to be pointed out to me because I had essentially discounted the entire first half of the game because it felt so disposable to me by the end. It was sorta like someone setting up a fairy tale by writing cliff notes for a textbook.

I will reiterate that I was satisfied enough with what the story wanted to say, and I was impressed with how well he wrapped things together at the end. But it really isn't until the second half of the game that I had any clue where things were really headed, and it really felt like he had abruptly decided to tell a completely different kind of story.
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
I will reiterate that I was satisfied enough with what the story wanted to say, and I was impressed with how well he wrapped things together at the end. But it really isn't until the second half of the game that I had any clue where things were really headed, and it really felt like he had abruptly decided to tell a completely different kind of story.
Click to expand...

Um actually you could figure out the whole plot/twist by the Hall of Hero's stage.

This game has tons of foreshadowing, and alot of this foreshadowing is told in the beginning (The luteces row scene is a big hint as well).

Play it a second time, and you will see all the plot details just come together like magic (that you probably ignored before because they made no sense)
 
DatDude said:
Um actually you could figure out the whole plot/twist by the Hall of Hero's stage.

This game has tons of foreshadowing, and alot of this foreshadowing is told in the beginning (The luteces row scene is a big hint as well).

Play it a second time, and you will see all the plot details just come together like magic (that you probably ignored before because they made no sense)
Click to expand...

I did figure it out at that point, or at least start forming what eventually turned out to be the right idea. That was also the point where the game finally got engaging for me.
The transition for me came basically when you reach the first tear, and the story begins to go somewhere completely different thematically. It suddenly got a lot more interesting, but it also felt like I had just spent (admittedly enjoyable) hours wandering around not really getting anywhere.
I actually followed everything they were getting at, largely thanks to the voxophones, and understood the ending. That's why I knew it did a great job tying everything together. I still just think the beginning is a missed opportunity and not a very interesting setup from a storytelling standpoint.

I dunno, maybe I'm just saying a lot of things and not making much sense. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm gonna shut up for now.
 
DatDude said:
Seems like you EXPECTED the story to be about Columba, similar how Bioshock 1 was about Rapture. That's your fault though, for having false expectations. The story from second 1 is about Booker and Elizabeth.
Click to expand...
This argument is right up there with telling someone: "you're playing it wrong." I call BS.

If you have to blame the player rather than the game, then you probably don't have a very good defense of the game.

Fine Ham Abounds said:
And this, as aforementioned, is the central disconnect between people who feel the way I do and the way you do about the narrative.

For me, I was bludgeoned with the world at the beginning, and the main characters at the back end. It's far too neutral yet far too hamfisted and over the top with how it presents the world at the start. The narrative setup bombards you with so much stuff but has so little to really say about it that it leaves you wondering through the entire second half where the hell that part of the story went, because it sure as hell wasn't satisfactorily wrapped up. Of course you can extrapolate after the fact that it was metaphorical, but it's not set up that way - it really relies on reminding you of what you already know about history and the world to inform you at all about the main characters. Now, I agree with your take in restrospect, but that actually had to be pointed out to me because I had essentially discounted the entire first half of the game because it felt so disposable to me by the end. It was sorta like someone setting up a fairy tale by writing cliff notes for a textbook.

I will reiterate that I was satisfied enough with what the story wanted to say, and I was impressed with how well he wrapped things together at the end. But it really isn't until the second half of the game that I had any clue where things were really headed, and it really felt like he had abruptly decided to tell a completely different kind of story.
Click to expand...
Yup. It all would have been great if I had a short-term memory, but unfortunately I couldn't forget the first half of the game no matter how much the game encouraged me too. My immediate reaction was "wow." But the longer I had to think about the game (and especially its story) overall, the less it holds up.

It's a game that doesn't reward critical thought. But it can be tempting to think that it does because of all the flashy distractions with the plot. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, piecing together the plot ultimately just amounts to decoding, not the sort of deep engagement that gives a narrative legs.
 
Playing this game just made me appreciate Andrew Ryan all the more. Comstock isn't nearly as engaging or intimidating as Ryan was. In fact, he's absent for the vast majority of the game, and aside from knowing that he's a racist who's built a cult of personality around him, he's pretty uninteresting.

None of Comstock's voxophones come close to the brilliance of Ryan's. Those really were something else.
 
conman said:
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, piecing together the plot ultimately just amounts to decoding, not the sort of deep engagement that gives a narrative legs.
Click to expand...

You know, this is a good way of putting it, and might be why I was able to guess the twist so early, but had to have someone point out to me that the entirety of the story was a metaphor for Booker's internal struggle.

Jack Scofield said:
Playing this game just made me appreciate Andrew Ryan all the more. Comstock isn't nearly as engaging or intimidating as Ryan was. In fact, he's absent for the vast majority of the game, and aside from knowing that he's a racist who's built a cult of personality around him, he's pretty uninteresting.

None of Comstock's voxophones come close to the brilliance of Ryan's. Those really were something else.
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to play 1 again to compare when I get a break. Going to be playing 2 for the first time soon.
 
Sqorgar said:
There is if you are hamfisted and shallow about it.
Click to expand...
Capitalism, communism, etc, are a means to an end. It's not saying anything about either ideology in particular.
Are you playing the same game I am? It absolutely sets out to make comments about capitalism and racism and then falls on its ass.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with the above poster. You must have been playing a completely different game. Not only does the game hit you over the head with its "Big" political messages, but the entire PR campaign (marketing, interviews, etc.) has been hitting this over the head, as well. It is, in fact, a bait and switch.
Click to expand...
Not it doesn't. The entire game is about Booker and Elizabeth. The first things you hear are
Elizabeth: "Booker, are you afraid of God?"
Booker: "No, but I'm afraid of you."

Then the next thing you're told is the following: "Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt!"

Booker and Elizabeth. That is it.
Then why have them at all? Couldn't the same story be told without such distracting elements?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "Why have them at all"? You can't have people
revolting
out of nowhere and for no particular reason. It's all a backdrop for those two characters.
Infinite honestly feels like a Bioshock clone, where the creators try to emulate everything that people liked about Bioshock without understanding why it worked in the context that it did. It's like they just had a list of checkboxes. Novelty city? Check. Controversial topics? Check. Plot twist? Check. Plasmids? Check. Retro-futurism? Check. Big Daddy Things? Check. Ego tripping leader who is treated like a god? Check. And so on.
Click to expand...
It's almost like
this is a point in the story
!
conman said:
But the problem is that those aren't "metaphors." They're socio-historical realities. To transform them into aspects of an individual psyche is the worst kind of postmodern relativism...Exactly. It instrumentalizes the suffering of oppressed groups. It's the political equivalent of passive aggression.
Click to expand...
But Infinite doesn't say anything about those movements.
"Why do these dark skinned people continue to torment me? Why does the violence of my racist past haunt me?" It isn't all about you, Booker.
Click to expand...
That isn't at all how the game portrays itself, and you know that..
There's a way to do both (personal narrative and history/politics). Most great narrative--whether film, literature, or epic poetry--engages in both. You don't have to choose one or the other. And you certainly don't have to subsume one within the other (as BI does).
Click to expand...
But a story doesn't have to do both to be great, especially when one clearly puts characters in the forefront.
 
Andrew. said:
Tree playthroughs and a Platinum and I still have never received the fucking Winter Shield.
Click to expand...

I know some people hate doing this but... there are plenty of checkpoints, early on, that lead to gear 10seconds later. Reload last checkpoint until you get the gear you want.
 
I like the game and all but the combat pisses me off. I'm constantly dying, never feel confident in a battle. Always taking damage, rarely know where I'm getting shot from. A lot of the Vigors seem useless
 
JB1981 said:
I like the game and all but the combat pisses me off. I'm constantly dying, never feel confident in a battle. Always taking damage, rarely know where I'm getting shot from. A lot of the Vigors seem useless
Click to expand...

Really? I have the opposite problem, on Hard mode and 1999 all I need are a few vigors and I'm set. I would like to tinker around with more of my vigors.

The only real challenge for me are the Handymen. Scary mofos to fight, considering how agile and powerful they are.
 
Toa TAK said:
Really? I have the opposite problem, on Hard mode and 1999 all I need are a few vigors and I'm set. I would like to tinker around with more of my vigors.

The only real challenge for me are the Handymen. Scary mofos to fight, considering how agile and powerful they are.
Click to expand...

I don't know the combat still hasn't clicked with me. Still haven't figured out how this game wants me to play. Rarely have this problem with other FPS games
 
ElzarTheBam said:
After playing through Infinite, I decided to give BS1 and 2 a run through.

In hindsight, I definitely think I under appreciated BS2 (I realise the excellence in Minerva's den), but the main game itself. The gunplay is pretty good.

And certainly the Mark Meitzer storyline is wonderfully somber. Whilst not bieng part of the main plot.
Click to expand...

BS2 is my favorite story wise and probably the best combat of the series. Plus the ending was really satisfying.


As for BSI, loved the game as well but the story felt more at home with a X-men comic.
 
Dax01 said:
There's a way to do both (personal narrative and history/politics). Most great narrative--whether film, literature, or epic poetry--engages in both. You don't have to choose one or the other. And you certainly don't have to subsume one within the other (as BI does).
Click to expand...
But a story doesn't have to be great to do both, especially when one clearly puts characters in the forefront.
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say, a story doesn't have to do both, to be great. Which is spot on. Yes, it's possible to do both. Does it have to do both to be a great story? Hell no! It's like you guys have a checklist of what a great narrative needs, to be considered great, deep or mature.
 
repost but whatever.

i don't get the elizabeth love. she's basically a mule, tossing booker ammo, coins, pots and salts. otherwise she cowers or investigates nodes near booker.

*whoops, meant salts*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FireWall Zero Hour |OT| VR Group Sex With Optional Toys Required
22
6K
Bullet Club replied
Like The Witcher games? Join me in my quest to create a "readthrough" of the books GAF
4
2K
mindfreak191 replied
  • Locked
The |OT| |OT|: Index & Volunteer & Coordinate & Collaborate [Read OP!]
2 3 4
188
80K
EviLore replied
  • Poll
SFV DLC conflict with MVC Infinite
0
1
gafneo replied
Colin's Last Stand: Side Quest |OT| BEYOND!
0
3K
ロキー replied
Top Bottom