You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 02:19:45 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: bioshock infinite  (Read 2440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2013, 10:41:24 AM »
*scratches head* You thought a character you never actually meet, learn anything about or have any reason to develop an emotional attachment to (aka: Angel in Borderlands 1) was a more well-developed and presented character than Elizabeth? In BL2 she gets some personality but in BL1 she's a voice that occasionally tells you what to do next; she's a glorified objective marker. I never played System Shock 2, but I'm reasonably sure there isn't a character in it named System Shock 2 so I'm not sure who you're comparing Liz to in that one.

Yeah, I'm afraid I can't put much stock in your assessment now.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2013, 12:44:19 PM »
I assume he's talking about the crazy computer from System Shock 2, but that's kind of strange seeing as they're basically the same company who did both games, and as such, characters (System Shock 2 and Infinite).

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2013, 01:02:37 PM »
The computer didn't have a name?

I loved Durandal, but I wouldn't call him "Marathon." Nor would I say he elicited the kind of emotional response Elizabeth did, but that's just me.

Offline animationprincessofOooTopic starter

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2013, 02:17:38 PM »
Random thought
In the first Bioshock I nearly fell over in laughter at how dumb hacked security bots are. Like one was following me and it ran right into the wall. :D

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2013, 04:08:14 PM »
The computer didn't have a name?

I loved Durandal, but I wouldn't call him "Marathon." Nor would I say he elicited the kind of emotional response Elizabeth did, but that's just me.
It's um SHODAD or something like that. It's ranked the #2 video game villains list when I looked it up. Didn't care to catch which, but I'm going to say it'd be pretty good villain if it's two out of fifty.



Offline Koren

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2013, 08:43:09 AM »
First, while the Luteces play a key role in the story, it's not a story about them. Why? No emotional connection. No real "presence" in the story. They're a plot device and, like most such devices, the plot couldn't happen without them; that doesn't make it their story.

Second, even if the story were about them, the ending would still be broken. We don't see what they're doing next any more than we do Elizabeth so the same problem exists.

Third, if the choices you make don't matter, why bother playing the game? It'll resolve itself anyway without you. It also makes the ending that does exist meaningless: there's no point trying to prevent Comstock's creation at the baptism since he already exists, which means he's going to exist since clearly that's what's fated to happen and choices can't change fate. If you instead think the baptism changes all that then it is, indeed, about choice rather than fate. The original baptism suggests that as well: things are dramatically different between the two "core" worlds simply because in one a man chose to believe he could be washed clean of who he used to be and in another he rejected that idea. One choice made a tremendous difference. Your premise doesn't appear to hold up any way I look at it.

As an aside, in my playthrough Booker called tails but the coin landed heads.

Also, from the link you repeated, Koren:

No offense, but its a little annoying that you are saying my premise doesn't hold up when I've been stating that its my opinion and interpretation. We are all going to look at this completely separately. That's what happens with games like this, and I appreciate the fact that this is a game that intelligent discussion can come from it about a variety of different things. I get that I may be getting somethings wrong, but a lot of this is very subjective to each of us, so please don't tell me that my opinions don't stand up from your point of view. They may not, but that's okay, they don't need to.

I think part of the reason I connect more with the luteces then I do with the Booker/Elizabeth thing is that I have little to no sympathy for people. I really don't connect with people well, and especially not in a constructed sense like games.
Its part of the reason I can't get into The Last of Us. People said they felt a really strong connection and emotional thing after the opening sequence, I didn't at all, in fact the opening pissed me off because I saw it coming a mile away.
So while I didn't like the Booker/Elizabeth thing I did quite enjoy the intellectual thoughts and discussions that came from the things that the luteces were involved in, particularly around the idea of how many times have they done this, what happened the previous times.

Which brings up something.
Theres a theory that when you die, the door you see is actually a Booker from another thing coming through to try again, that you're no longer the same Booker. What do you guys think of that?

Also with the ending as I said. I like the fact it was left open. I enjoy that side of it. I hate being spoon fed endings. Its boring. I feel like I'm just being told 'this is how it is and you will deal with it'. I love endings that are open ended, in any way.
You are looking at it I feel more academically about how the structure of a story should flow and feel, and how things should be included, while I am taking more of a loose sort of approach to it in that, it is what it is, and it achieved what it set out to do.

Apologies if this came across badly before. What I mean is your choices as a PLAYER, don't affect the outcome. The choices of the characters in the game do, like the baptism, like Elizabeth drowning you, like the fact that Lutece's are trying to help you in the first place. So from that perspective choice is very important. But as a player, you're choices are not.
The heads or tails doesn't matter. The necklace doesn't matter. The man with the shock jockey, his life doesn't matter. No choice you actively make in the game alters the ending.
The variables are all done without you. The drowning, the original baptism, the Lutece's helping you etc. The only choices that you as a player are given power to make end up resulting in constants anyway.

Ah see I find that situation with the coin instantly as I have only ever had Booker pick heads in my three playthroughs so I thought that was the only option.

And I was more curious about what people thought of the subject of that link, rather then just that one line you picked out. About how the violence in Bioshock actually works towards the message.


This is how I look at it. If I were to write a book, and that books release was followed by an influx of half hour long 'ending explained' videos on Youtube, then I fucking failed in my task.

Pro-tip game writers. It's cool to have a story that naturally invites viewers to discuss further amongst themselves and discover deeper insight. If you leave those questions there, those who are so inclined will pursue them. Ya know what's not cool? Making it FUCKING MANDATORY to pursue them just to have a bloody ending at all.

Interpretation should add to a story, not provide one in the first place.

I disagree with this for the only reason that I didn't have to look up any of that at all. I understand that many people did, so I understand that could be a frustration for them, but it was certainly not mandatory. And playing it through again actually revealed so many more things to me anyway, more so then those videos as well. All the small details they occasionally miss out.


On the matter of characters I can't think of a single other character that matches up to Elizabeth's.... life. Theres probably a better way to put it but I can't think of it right now.


Also sorry for the late reply. I've been sick.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2013, 10:57:32 AM »
Apologies if this came across badly before. What I mean is your choices as a PLAYER, don't affect the outcome.

I got that, which is why I asked, "If the choices you make don't matter, why bother playing the game?" If the constants will resolve without your input as a player, what's the point? They don't need you. Why not just make it a movie since you're essentially an audience anyway, given you have no meaningful input as a player?

I am indeed looking at the story rather academically, or analytically as I'd think of it. Writing is what I do. It's what I studied. I think about it this way by default.

Aside, I don't have the interest in playing through the game again just to look for it, so I'll just ask: is there anything reliable presented in the game to confirm Booker is Comstock? There are implications, there are possibilities, but as I've been thinking back on it I can't come up with anything in the game that I remember really cementing the notion. I can't think of why she would want to do so, but is it possible Elizabeth's flat out making shit up when she says you're Comstock? Is there anything she can use to prove it? You look different. You sound different. You act different. How do we know she isn't just drowning you before you can have Anna so that she'll never exist?

For that matter, how does drowning an older version of Booker kill him when he's younger anyway? We know it's the older Booker because he doesn't freak out about several young women he doesn't know trying to drown him, but how would that change past events? Just because it's happening in the same pond as the earlier baptism? That's not how time works.

The more I think about this ending, the worse it seems to me.

Offline Koren

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #57 on: July 26, 2013, 07:16:54 AM »
Well I think that goes a bit into game theory as well. Where is the line between participation and agency and simple observation.
Out of curiosity have you heard of the Xbox One game called Ryse?

I think the conveyed concept is that at the start of Columbia when he first arrives after the lighthouse Booker makes a comment that he was almost drowned during the baptism due to the priest
So at the end the idea is that Booker and Comstock are defined by the idea that one tries to purge his sins the other doesn't want to forget them. So Elizabeth draws on the idea of drowning and alters the realities, by using her power to draw realities together, which is why all the Elizabeth's appear from the realities that had Comstock in them, and not Booker, so that any Booker after wounded knee that accepts the baptism, simply drowns in the water instead of emerging to become Comstock.
As far as evidence, one of the Lutece's audio logs mention that Elizabeth/Anna has Comstock's DNA, which would be the same as Booker's. Pretty, but not 100% sure, that its the audio log you find after you view one of the three tears in the Lutece laboratory. Another one of the audio logs and I think a comment made by the Lutece's in the story line mention that Comstock wanted an heir of his blood, but was rendered impotent because of the tears in reality and the machine he used to look through them, so he took his daughter from another reality.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #58 on: July 26, 2013, 10:22:51 AM »
Which means they're related, but doesn't guarantee paternity, at least not on as vague a descriptor as "they share DNA." Still, I can't think of a good reason for Elizabeth to lie to you so it's probably true.

Offline Koren

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2013, 01:08:19 AM »
I cant really see her lying about it, especially as she was so disgusted by the idea that Comstock was her father, and she seemed to have figured out at least part of it herself by the time they confronted Comstock so while its obviously not tangible and something to be relied upon I see that as a sort of indicator as well.
Also I conciser the idea that the priest from Wounded Knee and the one at Columbia being the same a kind of indicator to that as well, again not tangible and just my thoughts, but to me its kinda like Comstock forces those wanted to arrive in Columbia to receive a new life the same way he did going from Comstock to Booker.

And no it doesn't garentee paternity as well, I did wonder about that too. It's indicated and taken as fact but never truly confirmed. The only indicator is that Comstock took her as his child and made the story of Lady Comstock being her mother

I did often wonder if Lady Comstock was the same as Booker's wife who I'm assuming is dead.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2013, 03:44:38 AM »
I don't think the priest in the city could be the same priest from the first baptism.

I mean, sure, physically it's possible, but if you baptised a guy, found out later that he was mayor (or whatever his title is) of a flying city to which he was inviting you as a chaplain of a new religion set up to worship him instead of God, don't you think you'd recognize that same guy showing up to be baptised again?

I dunno, I think he'd have reacted more dramatically to Booker's arrival if it was the same guy. Not to mention I have no idea how Comstock would have convinced a priest to leave the church and worship him instead.

Offline Koren

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2013, 09:15:56 AM »
It is the same guy.
The priest in his old age went blind.
You can see it in the game play, his eyes are all white, and the two priests have the same character model, one is just aged.

Remember as well, Comstock didn't set up a new religion as such, he merely named himself as a prophet and Elizabeth as the coming savior and got people to follow him that way. The rest of the values are based off christian values of the time.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2013, 10:49:50 AM »
It is the same guy.
The priest in his old age went blind.
You can see it in the game play, his eyes are all white, and the two priests have the same character model, one is just aged.

Remember as well, Comstock didn't set up a new religion as such, he merely named himself as a prophet and Elizabeth as the coming savior and got people to follow him that way. The rest of the values are based off christian values of the time.
Err... I'd call it a new religion that's Christian-like. He's more interested in worshiping the Founding Fathers of America and promoting American Exceptionalist ideology than anything remotely Christian. 

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2013, 03:11:33 PM »
Yeah, there's zero Christian iconography involved, nothing connecting their practice to Christianity, etc.

It has the trappings in using words like "prophet" and "the lamb," but using similar words doesn't make the belief system similar. At the very least it's idol worship, which is expressly antithetical to Christian worship.

Point about the blindness, though. I'd forgotten about his milky eyes. And I suppose in that sense that's a kind of foreshadowing, the priest's statement that "this one isn't coming clean" or whatever it is he says to that effect.

Offline Koren

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2013, 10:36:05 PM »
Thats right. My bad, sorry guys.
The whole founding fathers thing kinda dies off after about half way through the game so i was mostly focused on the prophet and the lamb etc.
I really should replay this again just to see how much I've missed and forgotten

Well first he says "Is it someone new?" And then when he is doing the baptism after he brings him to the surface after the first dunk he says something along the lines of "This one doesn't look clean to me yet." and that's when he almost drowns Booker.
Which thinking back on that does kinda tie into the ending from my perspective as Elizabeth could be seen to be cleaning up the world by drowning the instances of Booker becoming Comstock, the same way Comstock was 'cleaned' after what happened at wounded knee.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2013, 10:44:16 PM »
That's one tie-in, yeah. There's also the fact that, even though Comstock thought he could be a new person and wash away his past, it just doesn't work that way. He doesn't come up "clean" no matter what he might think.

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2013, 12:55:50 PM »
Double posting, awww yeah.

So I said I'm not interested in DLC to "complete" Bioshock Infinite's ending because that should've been in the core game, and that's still true. This upcoming Burial at Sea thing, though, I can get behind that if it's what it seems like it could be: something that happens post-ending, whether as a "what if" of something that could have happened after breaking the Comstock cycle or simply an alternative telling of the same story (with, one would hope, a more complete conclusion than the previous), skipping past the whole "and then what?" question to provide a possibility that at least puts the total lack of resolution to rest with something to replace the nothing.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2013, 01:02:18 PM »
Double posting, awww yeah.

So I said I'm not interested in DLC to "complete" Bioshock Infinite's ending because that should've been in the core game, and that's still true. This upcoming Burial at Sea thing, though, I can get behind that if it's what it seems like it could be: something that happens post-ending, whether as a "what if" of something that could have happened after breaking the Comstock cycle or simply an alternative telling of the same story (with, one would hope, a more complete conclusion than the previous), skipping past the whole "and then what?" question to provide a possibility that at least puts the total lack of resolution to rest with something to replace the nothing.
I found Infinite to have a resounding and complete conclusion. I don't know what you're talking about. :\

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2013, 02:25:00 PM »
It's all on page 1 of this very thread.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2013, 08:42:46 PM »
Yeah, there's zero Christian iconography involved, nothing connecting their practice to Christianity, etc.

It has the trappings in using words like "prophet" and "the lamb," but using similar words doesn't make the belief system similar. At the very least it's idol worship, which is expressly antithetical to Christian worship.
It is, but people do it anyway by wearing crosses or having depictions of Christ's crucifixion.  The reality of it is, there's more to HOW people worship the religion, rather than WHAT the religion says you should.  The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2013, 09:18:30 PM »
It is, but people do it anyway by wearing crosses or having depictions of Christ's crucifixion.  The reality of it is, there's more to HOW people worship the religion, rather than WHAT the religion says you should.  The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.
Except for the fact that worshiping Founding Fathers would be more akin to polytheism which is perhaps the most antithetical thing to Christianity without actually being tied up in anything subjectively religious. :\

I'm not inclined to believe that, but honestly, I have to wonder where you're going with the whole holy book thing. Literal interpretation? Edition dispute? Believe me there are plenty enough arguments about holy book. So you really can't say "Modern Christianity" versus "What the Holy Book say". Especially given the fundamentalism that was making its way through America at the time.

It's more of a case of the trapping that religion can provide charismatic figures. It's more a warning message against dangerous cults rather than Christian interpretation. It's more the logical extreme of American Exceptionalism and nationalism movements going through America and the world. Literally it's America: The Cult

Offline Shjade

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2013, 09:32:46 PM »
The Founding Fathers thing is very Christian in depicting how it's like modern Christianity as opposed as to what the Holy Books say.

You must hang out with very different Christians.

Literally it's America: Fuck Yeah

Fixed. :3
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 09:34:05 PM by Shjade »

Offline Chris Brady

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2013, 09:50:04 PM »
You must hang out with very different Christians.

You may be right.

Every church I see has crosses on them, or inside a statuette of Christ on the cross usually behind the Priest's podium, which are all iconography, as well as cross earrings and necklaces and other jewelry.  These are very common around here.  Do churches or people in your area not do the same?  (Honest question)

The point is that the way BI portrayed it's religion is very similar to how it is where I live.  Which isn't a very big area, I admit, but it's pretty accurate in HOW it's done.  Not the WHY it's done.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2013, 10:22:48 PM »
You may be right.

Every church I see has crosses on them, or inside a statuette of Christ on the cross usually behind the Priest's podium, which are all iconography, as well as cross earrings and necklaces and other jewelry.  These are very common around here.  Do churches or people in your area not do the same?  (Honest question)

The point is that the way BI portrayed it's religion is very similar to how it is where I live.  Which isn't a very big area, I admit, but it's pretty accurate in HOW it's done.  Not the WHY it's done.
Iconography's always tricky, because the simple symbol of the cross is an icon, but around here no. Beyond crosses you don't see much. I live in the Bible Belt and those are mostly evangelically based Protestants.

However, remember that Comstock is also elevating flesh-and-blood people to the status of divine, which those self-same flesh-and-blood people would oppose.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: bioshock infinite
« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2013, 10:28:11 PM »
Again, it's purely on the surface depiction of the religion.

The deeper aspects are as different as night and day (to use a very common example), but the outward aspects are very familiar to me.  And maybe more, but I can't say.