• 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 | Official Spoiler Thread |

It just feels like they needed more guys for us to shoot, so they cocked up some contrived reasons for us to shoot more guys in the face, interesting narrative choices and thematic consistency be damned.

I just think if we're holding this game up as this pinnacle of video game storytelling, it should be better than this, right?
 
Heheheh! I think it was a cop-out in many respects. Considering they alluded to 9/11 quite blatantly, you'd think Levine would be brave enough to give a sound reason as to why the equality-seeking Vox are actually assholes rather than the hand-waving it receives. A rare mistep in an otherwise brilliant game.

What "hand-waving"? The entire first half of the game depicts minorities and the assorted underclasses literally starving in the streets, sold into effective slavery in Finktown, or being beaten to death by the corrupt police, and Slate's men as traumatized soldiers abandoned or betrayed by Comstock. Their actions during the uprising all have historical parallels to similar situations.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
I just think if we're holding this game up as this pinnacle of video game storytelling, it should be better than this, right?

Well the holes will seem larger, I'll agree with that. But let's be fair here, this is narratively head and shoulders above a vast number of games... hell, even a lot of films and books. What it gets right far outweighs it's very few misteps.

What "hand-waving"? The entire first half of the game depicts minorities and the assorted underclasses literally starving in the streets, sold into effective slavery in Finktown, or being beaten to death by the corrupt police, and Slate's men as traumatized soldiers abandoned or betrayed by Comstock. Their actions during the uprising all have historical parallels to similar situations.

Sorry, I'm probably using the term incorrectly. The whole "Booker's alive? Don't fit the narrative. Kill him" business was what I was specifically referring to. It's a pretty shoddy foundation for the following genocide Booker inflicts on them.

EDIT: Ah, I think I get what you mean now. When I said assholes, I meant towards Booker not their political motivations.
 
It just feels like they needed more guys for us to shoot, so they cocked up some contrived reasons for us to shoot more guys in the face, interesting narrative choices and thematic consistency be damned.

I just think if we're holding this game up as this pinnacle of video game storytelling, it should be better than this, right?

I agree. For the amount of focus they placed on this particular segment of the narrative it really could have used more detail and have been fleshed out more. Even though it's trying to allude to other historical revolutions (as has been pointed out, the French Revolution in particular it would seem, especially considering Elizabeth's Les Miserable reference) I don't see why it ended up so...uninspired and just kind of fizzled out of importance. It fits in with the idea of cyclic events but it just (for me at least) wasn't a satisfying segment. They did a good job of the multiverse segment of the story and managed to avoid some common plot holes but some other elements of the story could have done with more detail.
 

jamsy

Member
Finished the game last night. Still thinking about the ending. Really awesome stuff.

Playing it on my laptop at 1080p with everything maxed out was a visual feast. Loved the story/setting, loved the graphics, loved the music, loved the whole Elizabeth as a companion thing.

I did find some things not exactly to my liking:

-the female NPCs all looked the same with the same faces
-using the powers felt cumbersome (having only two at one time, then pausing the game to switch etc just felt unintuitive)
-the lockpicks. At one point I had had 30 lockpicks (I guess it maxes out at 30), Elizabeth kept telling me to pick up the lockpicks on some desk, but I couldn't. Why are there so many if I can't use them? Why even have a maximum amount? Strange.
-the scavenging - felt there was a bit too much of it
-and yes, the shooting was a bit overdone. Less would've been more in this case. Especially the final firefight.
 

Zabka

Member
Why spend any more time fleshing out the Vox? You wiped them completely out of existence by the end of the game.
 
Well the holes will seem larger, I'll agree with that. But let's be fair here, this is narratively head and shoulders above a vast number of games... hell, even a lot of films and books. What it gets right far outweighs it's very few misteps.



Sorry, I'm probably using the term incorrectly. The whole "Booker's alive? Don't fit the narrative. Kill him" business was what I was specifically referring to. It's a pretty shoddy foundation for the following genocide Booker inflicts on them.

Ah, my mistake. I thougt you were implying that the game didn't spend enough time drumming up sympathy for the Vox.

It's worth looking back at the very first video of the Vox takeover, where they had more obviously on-the-nose lines like

Your homes are ours! Your lives are ours! Your wives are ours! It all belongs to the Vox!

Also, in previews: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/09/12/columbia-a-city-divided.aspx

The Vox were specifically hunting for Elizabeth to use her as an asset in their war. Remember that in earlier videos Columbia seemed to be in the midst of an election, and possibly there were actual decisions involving assisting one political faction over another? Finally, in the Industrial Revolution minigame there are newspaper clippings that show the Vox in the midst of an internal struggle between middle-class moderates and extremists (presuambly the more victimized underclass). So I assume it was an issue of time and changes to the overall structure of the game that left political factions like the Vox a bit underdeveloped in that sense.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Why spend any more time fleshing out the Vox? You wiped them completely out of existence by the end of the game.

Well, you wiped Comstock out of existence too, should we not even bother playing?

It's just funny that a game that takes great pains over it's narrative details gives Booker such a flimsy reason to fight the Vox. Don't you think it would've been more balanced if we saw behind the overt ideology of the Vox to see the rot inside, like we do with Comstock's Founders...?

Also: Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching, just chatting. I freaking love this game.
 

Neiteio

Member
Yeah its in the OP. Neiteio found it last week. Still doesn't change how fun it is to think about though.
I didn't find it. Someone else posted it in the other spoiler thread first, and then I just rewrote their post for added clarity, with an observation of my own thrown in the mix. :)
 

Neiteio

Member
I thought the Vox were handled well. They served their purpose, showing how dangerous even progressives with a good cause can become if corrupted by power. The scalps pinned to the board, the slaughtered citizens, etc -- all of this had a point. The revolution was an example of another outcome in another reality, one where the oppressed get the upper hand and turn out to be just as bad in their own way.

Again, I think this is a case where the developers originally planned to do more with them, but ultimately made the right choice in the interest of proper pacing and focus. They tastefully exercised some restraint and treated the Vox as an aside, juxtaposing their noble cause underground in one reality with their bloodbath revolution in another.

Same deal with the Boys of Silence. They're barely in the game, but somehow, it's just enough... Enough to be mysterious, to make the area they appear in memorable, to mix things up for a moment without ever approaching repetition.

Again, probably the most impressive thing about this game, to me, is the willingness to actually edit it, and to cut and trim and tuck where appropriate. Few aspects of the game feel needlessly bloated.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Ah, my mistake. I thougt you were implying that the game didn't spend enough time drumming up sympathy for the Vox.

God, no. "The Lottery" reference was reason enough.

It's worth looking back at the very first video of the Vox takeover, where they had more obviously on-the-nose lines like

Also, in previews: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/09/12/columbia-a-city-divided.aspx

The Vox were specifically hunting for Elizabeth to use her as an asset in their war. Remember that in earlier videos Columbia seemed to be in the midst of an election, and possibly there were actual decisions involving assisting one political faction over another? Finally, in the Industrial Revolution minigame there are newspaper clippings that show the Vox in the midst of an internal struggle between middle-class moderates and extremists (presuambly the more victimized underclass). So I assume it was an issue of time and changes to the overall structure of the game that left political factions like the Vox a bit underdeveloped in that sense.

That's fair enough. Nice find(s)!

Bioshock 1 didn't flinch from showing both sides of the Objectivist argument as being deeply flawed, so it came across to me very much like Levine's sympathies lay entirely with the Vox in Infinite, which is fine to a degree. I like Bioshock because it lets these extreme/strawman political beliefs (which on the surface have good intentions) run amok, putting them under the microscope for us to look at the cracks... and shoot the shit out of. There was no reason (at least ideologically speaking) for us to not like the Vox.

I would've loved to have seen some Kangaroo Courts or the Postman execution or something so that we could see deeper into how the Vox's revolution is flawed.

Again, probably the most impressive thing about this game, to me, is the willingness to actually edit it, and to cut and trim and tuck where appropriate. Few aspects of the game feel needlessly bloated.

Well put.
 
Thank goodness were getting some substantial DLC. I don't know if I could handle just waiting another 5+ years for whatever Levine thinks of next. I want to revel in this world some more.
 

cackhyena

Member
Bioshock 1 didn't flinch from showing both sides of the Objectivist argument as being deeply flawed, so it came across to me very much like Levine's sympathies lay entirely with the Vox in Infinite, which is fine to a degree. I like Bioshock because it lets these extreme/strawman political beliefs (which on the surface have good intentions) run amok, putting them under the microscope for us to look at the cracks... and shoot the shit out of. There was no reason (at least ideologically speaking) for us to not like the Vox.

I would've loved to have seen some Kangaroo Courts or the Postman execution or something so that we could see deeper into how the Vox's revolution is flawed.
I'm confused, are a lot of people of the same mind on this? I took away, as soon as control was wrested by the Vox that power of any sort corrupts entirely. Good intentions ruined by it. The movement gets carried away and mass murder ensues. Isn't that enough to condemn the Vox as is?
 
I think it's just one of those unfortunate realities of the AAA blockbuster. No matter how interesting the political parties, the player still has to shoot hundreds of them in the face. It's better to live under tyranny than try to fight back, because that makes you just as bad, appearently.

It reminds me of how Cerberus in Mass Effect 1/2 went from being "shady organization with good intentions for humanity but morally grey ways about doing it" to "evil organization that laughs maniacally, I'm wearing a black hat, you're wearing a white hat"
 

Guevara

Member
The Vox Populi stuff is really the weakest element of the narrative. The revolutionaries being just as bad as Comstock is such a boring-ass storytelling choice. WTF Levine
It just feels like they needed more guys for us to shoot, so they cocked up some contrived reasons for us to shoot more guys in the face, interesting narrative choices and thematic consistency be damned.

I just think if we're holding this game up as this pinnacle of video game storytelling, it should be better than this, right?

Completely agree.
 

sonicmj1

Member
I think it's just one of those unfortunate realities of the AAA blockbuster. No matter how interesting the political parties, the player still has to shoot hundreds of them in the face. It's better to live under tyranny than try to fight back, because that makes you just as bad, appearently.

It reminds me of how Cerberus in Mass Effect 1/2 went from being "shady organization with good intentions for humanity but morally grey ways about doing it" to "evil organization that laughs maniacally, I'm wearing a black hat, you're wearing a white hat"

Cerberus actually flips twice over the course of the Mass Effect franchise. In 1 they were evil extremists who lured people to distress signals and killed them with Thresher Maws. In 2 they were a misunderstood group with good intentions for humanity, and in 3, they go back to being comically evil.

If you add too much subtlety to an antagonist group, it starts raising weird questions that most games would rather avoid.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
I'm confused, are a lot of people of the same mind on this? I took away, as soon as control was wrested by the Vox that power of any sort corrupts entirely. Good intentions ruined by it. The movement gets carried away and mass murder ensues. Isn't that enough to condemn the Vox as is?

Nah, it's just me. :D

I get it, it just wasn't nearly as satisfying as peeling away the layers of the Founders... and a little bit trite, too (power corrupts etc). Don't get me wrong, it's a great game and I understand that this is all about Booker's journey through the sins of his past, which the Vox don't figure into it quite as much as Comstock, for obvious reasons. It just seemed like - apart from Fitzroy - this whole Vox = Bad thing was more of an informed attribute rather than really shown in any great detail... well, except the scalps and the corpses, of course.

As I've said before, it was a minor mistep (for me) in an otherwise brilliant game.

There is DLC to come, so hopefully that'll satisfy my itch.

If you add too much subtlety to an antagonist group, it starts raising weird questions that most games would rather avoid.

Yet that is exactly what I would expect from a Levine penned Bioshock game.
 
I think it's just one of those unfortunate realities of the AAA blockbuster. No matter how interesting the political parties, the player still has to shoot hundreds of them in the face. It's better to live under tyranny than try to fight back, because that makes you just as bad, appearently.

Nowhere in the game does it imply the Vox are "just as bad" for merely "fighting back" - I've seen this come up in some other reviews, like the RPS one, and I have no idea what it's based on. The Vox are depicted as shooting surrendering cops and engaging in the mass murder of civilians, whilst Fitzroy is killed trying to shoot a kid in the head right in front of you.
 

Anson225

Member
got 2 small questions about the story
why is Fink trying to recruit me and have me endure the audition?
and who the hell is that guy handing me gears at the entrance of the arcade?
 

Fjordson

Member
Daisy and the Vox in general felt undercooked. While they shouldn't have received the attention Comstock did, for obvious reasons, I feel like some messages the game was trying to convey were muddied up a bit due to the story spending most of its time concerned with the Founders.
Agreed. I could have used more on the Vox and on the Founders actually.

We only get to know Comstock and some of Fink. I'd love to find out more about all of them. Who they were and why they were chosen as founders.

As I said in an earlier post, my want for more background lore is probably a testament to Levine and Irrational as world builders, but I'm itching to find out more about Columbia and the people living in it before Booker arrives. Really hope some of the DLC delves into that somehow.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Nowhere in the game does it imply the Vox are "just as bad" for merely "fighting back" - I've seen this come up in some other reviews, like the RPS one, and I have no idea what it's based on. The Vox are depicted as shooting surrendering cops and engaging in the mass murder of civilians, whilst Fitzroy is killed trying to shoot a kid in the head right in front of you.

Certainly not for "fighting back", granted, but Booker does pretty much point out that the Vox are "just as bad" before we see any mass shootings or the like.

EDIT: Considering you murder a lot more than the Vox and The Founders combined, tutting at the Vox for popping a cap in their oppressors seems a little... rich? :p

got 2 small questions about the story
why is Fink trying to recruit me and have me endure the audition?
and who the hell is that guy handing me gears at the entrance of the arcade?

1) You're an Ex Pinkerton. They were known for "settling" (read violently ending) labor disputes.

2) You mean the guy working for Fink?
 
Nowhere in the game does it imply the Vox are "just as bad" for merely "fighting back" - I've seen this come up in some other reviews, like the RPS one, and I have no idea what it's based on. The Vox are depicted as shooting surrendering cops and engaging in the mass murder of civilians, whilst Fitzroy is killed trying to shoot a kid in the head right in front of you.

Which seems to come completely out of left field. "Oh, it turns out the revolutionaries are ALSO bloodthirsty child-murdering civilian-bullying bastards, so you can rest easy when you smash a skyhook into their collective faces!"

It's like...something you expect a video game to do, ya know? I just think it could be better. Levine could have came up with something better.

Video games can do better than this.
 
Certainly not for "fighting back", granted, but Booker does pretty much point out that the Vox are "just as bad" before we see any mass shootings or the like.

If you're talking about the lines referring to "two sides of the same coin" or whatever, I expect that's meant to be taken in the context of A: his distrust of Daisy Fitroy and on a wider level people in positions of power (considering his history in the military, working for the pinkertons and presumably infiltrating trade unions, as was the pinkertons' forte) and B: the line about "power corrupting", which should be taken in the context of Booker/Comstock. And of course, he's a generally cynical bastard, and is proved right.

Which seems to come completely out of left field. "Oh, it turns out the revolutionaries are ALSO bloodthirsty child-murdering civilian-bullying bastards, so you can rest easy when you smash a skyhook into their collective faces!"

It's like...something you expect a video game to do, ya know? I just think it could be better. Levine could have came up with something better.

Video games can do better than this.

I mentioned this either in an earlier post or that Elizabeth thread, but i cba to copypasta - I think the depiction of the Vox as being brutally repressed is in itself a reasonably obvious warning that the Vox are going to go apeshit when they finally have a chance. There are several references throughout the game to blood paying for blood, blood redeeming blood and so forth. Daisy speaks in ideologically absolutist terms in some of her voxophones, stating that the "the establishment" (paraphrasing) in general are legitimate targets of punishment, not just the army and police.
 
Nowhere in the game does it imply the Vox are "just as bad" for merely "fighting back" - I've seen this come up in some other reviews, like the RPS one, and I have no idea what it's based on. The Vox are depicted as shooting surrendering cops and engaging in the mass murder of civilians, whilst Fitzroy is killed trying to shoot a kid in the head right in front of you.

Yeah the Vox did plenty over the course of the game to make them detestable. I also don't think that the message was so much that power corrupts, no matter who you are. Thats a part of it but I think it has more to do with with revolutions based on "righteous vengeance" can be just as bad as the ruling powers that be.
 

FStop7

Banned
Which seems to come completely out of left field. "Oh, it turns out the revolutionaries are ALSO bloodthirsty child-murdering civilian-bullying bastards, so you can rest easy when you smash a skyhook into their collective faces!"

It's like...something you expect a video game to do, ya know? I just think it could be better. Levine could have came up with something better.

Video games can do better than this.

Popular revolutions degrading into indiscriminate killings, ethnic cleansing and all out genocide is a pretty familiar theme throughout history. I'm glad Irrational didn't spoon feed us every little tiny bit of exposition. It's easy enough to see where the Vox were heading through their actions.
 

Guevara

Member
After Elizabeth kills Daisy, Booker basically says the Vox are "just as bad as the founders". I'll try and find the exact quote.
 
The Vox were bad in the universe that you went through Elizabeth's tear to get to.

She specifically says her power to go through tears is a form of wish fulfillment so I imagine she is simply making the Vox what she thinks happens when you exchange one tyrant for another.
 

Riposte

Member
After Elizabeth kills Daisy, Booker basically says the Vox are "just as bad as the founders". I'll try and find the exact quote.

I only recall him saying Daisy was as bad as Comstock.

Also the Vox were portrayed as thuggish from the start and certainly not friendly towards you.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
If you're talking about the lines referring to "two sides of the same coin" or whatever, I expect that's meant to be taken in the context of A: his distrust of Daisy Fitroy and on a wider level people in positions of power (considering his history in the military, working for the pinkertons and presumably infiltrating trade unions, as was the pinkertons' forte) and B: the line about "power corrupting", which should be taken in the context of Booker/Comstock. And of course, he's a generally cynical bastard, and is proved right.

Popular revolutions degrading into indiscriminate killings, ethnic cleansing and all out genocide is a pretty familiar theme throughout history. I'm glad Irrational didn't spoon feed us every little tiny bit of exposition. It's easy enough to see where the Vox were heading through their actions.

All I'm saying is I didn't find it a very satisfying critique, especially compared with how the Founders were dealt with. It really is only a minor issue for me.
 
I only recall him saying Daisy was as bad as Comstock. The Vox were portrayed as thuggish from the start and certainly not friendly to you.

They were forceful, though yes, certainly not friendly. Daisy sent you on a pretty simple errand that got complicated when she just as easily could have killed Booker right there.
 

FStop7

Banned
After Elizabeth kills Daisy, Booker basically says the Vox are "just as bad as the founders". I'll try and find the exact quote.

He also says something like "Looks like the Vox have found their color" in reference to the red flags and banners and how bloody and violent they had become.
 
Popular revolutions degrading into indiscriminate killings, ethnic cleansing and all out genocide is a pretty familiar theme throughout history. I'm glad Irrational didn't spoon feed us every little tiny bit of exposition. It's easy enough to see where the Vox were heading through their actions.

Yeah, I feel exactly the same. The historical record of popular uprisings is enough narrative justification for me to see fictional uprisings degenerate into mass killings and so forth. Now obviously not everyone would feel that way, but I think Infinite flashes more than enough warning signs to explain the inevitable Reign of Terror.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I just think if we're holding this game up as this pinnacle of video game storytelling

I don't think many people are doing that; we just recognize this game as a standout moment in world building, player-character relationships, and heavy themes.

It's not an Oscar so much as it's a summer blockbuster with some brain.
 
The Vox were bad in the universe that you went through Elizabeth's tear to get to.

She specifically says her power to go through tears is a form of wish fulfillment so I imagine she is simply making the Vox what she thinks happens when you exchange one tyrant for another.

I disagree with that interpretation, as Liz is comically naive about what's going to happen once the Vox get their guns right up until the last moment. It's meant to exacerbate her horror at seeing the deaths she "causes" in the new universe, and implant her with a sense of guilt that makes her more akin to Booker.
 
I disagree with that interpretation, as Liz is comically naive about what's going to happen once the Vox get their guns right up until the last moment. It's meant to exacerbate her horror at seeing the deaths she "causes" in the new universe, and implant her with a sense of guilt that makes her more akin to Booker.

She is well-read and, timeline-wise, the events in this game would have taken place after the French Revolution. The idea of her mind simply placing that event in to the question "What would happen if the Vox were well-armed?" is not particularly outlandish.
 
Word. Do we have any info on the DLC? Was on blackout of anything related prior to release.

All we know so far, from Ken Levine himself is that one DLC is supposed to elaborate on Songbird... but honestly, based on the one schematic, i'm expecting its big reveal to be that Songbird is another Booker/Comstock. :p
 
She is well-read and, timeline-wise, the events in this game would have taken place after the French Revolution. The idea of her mind simply placing that event in to the question "What would happen if the Vox were well-armed?" is not particularly outlandish.

Sure, but she also managed to somehow be bizarrely ignorant of racial issues during her time locked up, and her dialogue throughout Shantytown/Finktown doesn't reflect a particularly nuanced view. More to the point, the Vox were already a violent movement, Daisy an extremist (based off her voxophones and Mind in Revolt), and Slate predictive of a war between his veterans and Daisy's followers - all before the tear.

I honestly thought a much bigger deal would be made of the implication that Liz's subconscious biases influenced the tears she made, but it never really pans out.
 

Neiteio

Member
She is well-read and, timeline-wise, the events in this game would have taken place after the French Revolution. The idea of her mind simply placing that event in to the question "What would happen if the Vox were well-armed?" is not particularly outlandish.
Good point, but it's not outlandish to think the Vox would do that regardless of Liz's "wish fulfillment." Regime change ushering in a new tyrant just as bloody as the last isn't anything new in the grand scheme of history. While Daisy didn't live to secure her position of power, the dynamic is the same.

So is the point being made: Regardless of how noble the original intent, ideology is dangerous when taken to extremes. These people were suppressed for so long that they overdo it once they have their chance, killing dissenters as though they learned nothing from their time persecuted as dissenters themselves.

In a way, it reminds me of Pol Pot's regime; the Vox seem to be indiscriminately targeting any well-to-do white resident of Columbia. It's a bit startling seeing all of the NPC corpses slain by them.
 
When you first meet Daisy, she is forceful and under pressure but not murderous.

When you meet her in the Booker-Martyr timeline, she's straight up killing children.

There's clearly a leap there that is not just "Oh she was always like that probably."
 

Ferrio

Banned
When you first meet Daisy, she is forceful and under pressure but not murderous.

When you meet her in the Booker-Martyr timeline, she's straight up killing children.

There's clearly a leap there that is not just "Oh she was always like that probably."

Booker's death maybe?
 
Top Bottom