Support NeoGAF

[The One Who Knocks]

Is the name Elizabeth said before booker finds her? All the messages says that he has to get the girl. But does anyone say her name before then?

Yep, very beginning of the game reveals her name:

I know it wouldn't work considering how the plot was set up (and hardware constraints likely would have posed a significant problem) but I wish, there had been numerous fights following the operation sabotage but prior to the "Are you afraid of god" line where Elizabeth had also began gradually assisting Booker in a combative role, opening up tears of increasing severity that posed a threat to enemies (such as opening a tear to a road to bring a car into Columbia and hit an enemy, opening a tear to a warfront to unleash an armada of bullets/grenades or to natural events [such as the site of a lightning strike before it hits the ground or an area being affected by a hurricane]) to allow for a visible loss of innocence on Elizabeth's part as her quest for revenge progresses and an increased demonstration of her power (and why, precisely, she is rightfully feared by all). I'm aware that this would potentially harm her character arc but after reaching that "Are you afraid of God" line once more I'm still quite dissatisfied with the timing of it; it would have been much more appropriate immediately following the actual demonstration of her power with the tornado or a subsequent demonstration. While I can already accept the decision at the conclusion, I think it could have bolstered both Elizabeth and Booker's decision at the end, Booker as he sees what he has done to his daughter and made her follow in his footsteps by murdering those who stand in her way to reach the bloody conclusion (the murder of Comstock) and Elizabeth as she herself can see what she has been turned into (in addition to the suffering that she, and the others, have endured). I'm still not sure how it would really work from a story perspective as I've not thought at length of the consequence of changing the sequence of events that occur (and I've also not talking about how it would fit in from a gameplay and pacing perspective, it's merely just as a concept mroe than anything else) but the placing of that line in particular doesn't sit very well with me (in that, as I've mentioned, I think it should have been after a display of power or alternatively at a time when some reference is actually made to spirituality so there is a a more 'fluid' topic of conversation).

 

[Montresor]

One of my favourite moments of the game was when the following showed up on-screen:

"You do not have to protect Elizabeth in battle. She can take care of herself."

 

[The Librarian]

You (the player) don't know about this at the beginning of the game. Booker knowing doesn't matter. The dissonance is between the player and the story, not the character and the story.

If the player eventually finds out that fact, it's okay. Things making sense in hindsight is part of the game. Your point here doesn't ultimately matter.

He doesn't know much about the city or Comstock at that point.

This is a good point, but Booker is a very violent man who has been proven to do violent things in order to get the job done. It makes sense in hindsight. He's not a good guy.

That's a problem. There shouldn't be any separation between the two. That's what creates the dissonance. You shouldn't have to ignore things that don't make sense. There are plenty of ways to include similar elements in games without creating dissonance. They could have simply had NPCs comment on it.

Be careful with the word "should." Who said there "shouldn't" be any separation between the two? Games, becuase of their interactivity, will always have some level of disconnect between its gameplay and its story. NPC's do comment about it over the radio at several points in the game, by the way.

Halo's story revolves around the player being a super soldier fighting against this zealous alien alliance that's hell bent on humanity's destruction. But the main enemies - Elites and Brutes - wear purple, gold, green, red, and blue armor. No menacing alien forces is going to wear armor like that. It's for gameplay purposes so the player can easily identify the strength of the principal antagonist.

That's a problem that others have already brought up and your reasoning for it is terrible. Splicers in Bioshock used Plasmids. C'mon. Why should game developers try?

Splices in BioShock did not use plasmids. It'd be very annoying to fight against crows the way the player uses them, Shock Jockey, Return to Sender, Charge, Undertow, and Posession.

Later in the game. After the fact.

So? The point is he did do it, and so it's not out of character for him to do cruel things. Learning things about like that in hindsight is part of the game.

She's watching him brutally murder people. Set them on fire, shock them, shoot them, impale them with the sky hook, all kinds of crazy killing. The he gets cagey about his past. He's done some bad things. Too bad to mention. Later you find out it's not really all that different from what he does throughout the game. In some cases it's not as bad.

Okay? It would be in his best interests to get cagey about his past, otherwise Elizabeth probably would not have trusted him as he needed her to.

 

[DatDude]

Also, people keep on trotting out the "Comstock convinced the religious zealots of his city to kill Booker" reason. It does serve as some justification, but the portrayal isn't even that great. Yes, we see and hear Comstock being an ideologue with a lot of loopy ideas. But we don't see the average citizens of Columbia seeming that way, besides brief moments when they stand down and allow you to freely carve up their faces. The policemen you massacre look like regular old-timey Keystone Kops, and the soldiers look like Tommy Boys. The jump from period era enemies to "ravenous fanatics" doesn't really ever transition. Do they even yell anything Columbia-specific when they're fighting you? Do they shout crusader battle-cries, do they pray for their Prophet to deliver them when they fall? The only thing thing that makes them seem like zealots is that they're mindlessly trying to kill/capture you, with very little disregard for their own safety. But this is a video game, and in a video game, mindlessly swarming enemies does not portray zealotry. It portrays simple A.I.

With Splicers, you could at least see that they are corrupted, twisted, degenerate, warped by plasmid addiction into something more monster than man. The people of Columbia just look like old-timey people with steampunk touches. They don't really act like religious zealots, other than blindly running into your line of fire. And that's sort of lazy.

For what it's worth, I imagine it's much easier to create crazy mutants that act crazy and weird (like most video game creatures), than religious zealot esque characters.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

If the player eventually finds out that fact, it's okay. Things making sense in hindsight is part of the game. Your point here doesn't ultimately matter.

It does matter when it happens because this isn't a movie. The character on the screen is a representation of the player. Bioshock Infinite clearly plays on this as it's in first person and can be seen by player attachment to Elizabeth. People talk about what she did for them not what she did for Booker. Asking why Booker does something is the same as why you did it. That's the root of ludonarrative dissonance. If you have any input toward the player characters actions you necessarily must have reasonable motivation to act in line with the story to avoid dissonance.

This is a good point, but Booker is a very violent man who has been proven to do violent things in order to get the job done. It makes sense in hindsight. He's not a good guy.

Again, this isn't a movie. Hindsight doesn't change the fact that while you are playing the dissonance exist. You have already experienced it. An explanation after the fact does not change what you experienced only your understanding of it.

Be careful with the word "should." Who said there "shouldn't" be any separation between the two? Games, becuase of their interactivity, will always have some level of disconnect between its gameplay and its story. NPC's do comment about it over the radio at several points in the game, by the way.

You say there will always be a disconnect. That is not a fact. Game narrative is a thing of it's own. Many modern games, like the Bioshock series, employ something closer to a movie narrative over top of gameplay. Much like early film was little more than recording plays game developer are learning to handle narrative in a way unique to games.

Disembodied voices are not NPCs. When I walk up to some children on the beach, steal money from their feet, and they ignore me there's an unnecessary disconnect. Something as simple as having them say, "Hey, what are you doing?" would help tremendously.

Halo's story revolves around the player being a super soldier fighting against this zealous alien alliance that's hell bent on humanity's destruction. But the main enemies - Elites and Brutes - wear purple, gold, green, red, and blue armor. No menacing alien forces is going to wear armor like that. It's for gameplay purposes so the player can easily identify the strength of the principal antagonist.

But it's explained and easily understood. It's no different than the simple earthly ranking system of a military.

Splices in BioShock did not use plasmids. It'd be very annoying to fight against crows the way the player uses them, Shock Jockey, Return to Sender, Charge, Undertow, and Posession.

Houdini's could shoot fire and ice. Other splicers clearly had non-offensive plasmids. The problem with Infinite is that outside of firemen and crows no one seems to acknowledge vigors exist.

So? The point is he did do it, and so it's not out of character for him to do cruel things. Learning things about like that in hindsight is part of the game.

Game, not a movie. They are different just like books and movies are different. Things that work well in one medium do not necessarily translate well to others. It happens to you in real time. Learning things in hindsight is part of the story which in it's current for is ill suited for games for that reason.

Okay? It would be in his best interests to get cagey about his past, otherwise Elizabeth probably would not have trusted him as he needed her to.

She is watching him kill in the most extreme ways, what about the past that he knew is worse than the things she has seen him do?

 

[Neiteio]

She is watching him kill in the most extreme ways, what about the past that he knew is worse than the things she has seen him do?

Booker killed women and children in the past, innocent Indians who weren't coming at him with guns blazing. He also did terrible things to unarmed protesters during labor strikes.

Again, everything that you do during the game is part of your efforts to survive. Everyone is already out to kill you. This wasn't the case in his past, where he killed for pleasure.

Booker's past, and the way it's gradually unveiled, and the circumstances of everyone being out for his blood, made this the rare game where I -didn't- feel cognitive dissonance.

I actually felt guiltier in BioShock 1. In that game, you're effectively torturing mentally handicapped people whose minds aren't functioning right but who still feel pain.

In Infinite, at least, your aggressors are mentally determined, out of ideology and such, to kill you no matter what. So you're surviving, and if it's brutal, well, the game makes it increasingly clear there's a reason.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Will the DLC have gender swapped characters from an alternate reality?

 

[The Librarian]

It does matter when it happens because this isn't a movie. The character on the screen is a representation of the player. Bioshock Infinite clearly plays on this as it's in first person and can be seen by player attachment to Elizabeth. People talk about what she did for them not what she did for Booker. Asking why Booker does something is the same as why you did it. That's the root of ludonarrative dissonance. If you have any input toward the player characters actions you necessarily must have reasonable motivation to act in line with the story to avoid dissonance.

The character on the screen is a representation of the player until the game decides it isn't. There will always be that disconnect in videogames. In Infinite, Booker and player are two different persons. I didn't kill people at Wounded Knee. I didn't sell my daughter away because of gambling debts. I wasn't a Pinkerton.

Again, this isn't a movie. Hindsight doesn't change the fact that while you are playing the dissonance exist. You have already experienced it. An explanation after the fact does not change what you experienced only your understanding of it.

You're taking this to unnecessary levels, stemming from the fact that you have a hard time separating game from story. Booker and the player aren't the same person.

You say there will always be a disconnect. That is not a fact. Game narrative is a thing of it's own. Many modern games, like the Bioshock series, employ something closer to a movie narrative over top of gameplay. Much like early film was little more than recording plays game developer are learning to handle narrative in a way unique to games.

But eventually BioShock's narrative falls apart because you're still being told what to do by the end of the game.

Disembodied voices are not NPCs. When I walk up to some children on the beach, steal money from their feet, and they ignore me there's an unnecessary disconnect. Something as simple as having them say, "Hey, what are you doing?" would help tremendously.

It's just grabbing money, dude. Who cares? Just pretend no one sees that money besides you. It's to enable the player to get better abilities to fight with.

But it's explained and easily understood. It's no different than the simple earthly ranking system of a military.

Oh yeah. I remember the dozens of real-life photos of military officers dressed in the field with pink, green, and red uniforms designating their ranks. That's smart.

Houdini's could shoot fire and ice. Other splicers clearly had non-offensive plasmids. The problem with Infinite is that outside of firemen and crows no one seems to acknowledge vigors exist.

But those plasmids don't have the stun effect that you have, and any other in Infinite would be annoying to fight against.

It happens to you in real time. Learning things in hindsight is part of the story which in it's current for is ill suited for games for that reason.

Player and character aren't the same things. During the scene you keep blabbering about, that's Booker doing it, not the player.

She is watching him kill in the most extreme ways, what about the past that he knew is worse than the things she has seen him do?

If it makes you feel any better, just pretend Booker gets through most of the game with hardly killing anyone. Those sections are for the player to have fun. Once again, it's a game.

 

[Trigger]

Will the DLC have gender swapped characters from an alternate reality?

If we're lucky. I'd play a Lady Booker scenario, lol.

 

[Sorian]

Will the DLC have gender swapped characters from an alternate reality?

I like when my DLC gives me an experience that is different than the main game. We already have our gender swapped love.

 

[Neiteio]

I want the DLC where we play the Booker and Elizabeth that make some... taboo choices and... entwine the branches on the family tree, if you know what I mean.

If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

If you catch my drift.

 

[PBalfredo]

I want the DLC where we play the Booker and Elizabeth that make some... taboo choices and... entwine the branches on the family tree, if you know what I mean.

If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

If you catch my drift.

Why do you keep winking like that? Do you have something in your eye?

 

[TrackerTrem]

Anyone else find it funny that Lady Comstock is her mother, just not in that reality. She was the one who died giving birth to her in Booker's timeline. So when she says," YOUR NOT MY MOTHER" in the graveyard she's actually wrong

 

[TrackerTrem]

If we're lucky. I'd play a Lady Booker scenario, lol.

Omg a female booker and male Elizabeth would be so cool

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I want the DLC where we play the Booker and Elizabeth that make some... taboo choices and... entwine the branches on the family tree, if you know what I mean.

If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

If you catch my drift.

 

[Neiteio]

I'm not totally clear on the idea behind the Ghost of Lady Comstock. So Liz was essentially pulling a living Lady Comstock out of a parallel universe, creating a strange state like we see with Chen-Lin, due to her now existing in a universe in which she was originally dead... and at the same time, Liz's angst is fueling her wish-fulfillment powers to essentially "amplify" Lady Comstock into something far more terrifying?

I actually liked the whole Ghost of Lady Comstock sequence, but it's still the one bit I don't quite understand.

But the DLC would sell like hot cakes! You could afford that trip to Paris!

 

[PBalfredo]

Anyone else find it funny that Lady Comstock is her mother, just not in that reality. She was the one who died giving birth to her in Booker's timeline. So when she says," YOUR NOT MY MOTHER" in the graveyard she's actually wrong

Yeah, they go back and forth on Elizabeth's parenthood a lot over the course of the game.

At the Hall of Heroes: "Elizabeth, Cromstock is your father"

"That's not true! That's impossible!"

Later: "Oh, it turns out Cromstock was sterile and you're just some unrelated kid he stole through a tear"

Later still: "Turns out that kid he stole was his own, from me, who is an alternate him. All clear?"

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Booker killed women and children in the past, innocent Indians who weren't coming at him with guns blazing. He also did terrible things to unarmed protesters during labor strikes.

I question whether Booker remembered the specifics of what he'd done at Wounded Knee. When you hear Comstock's voxophone about it he gives no indication that he realizes the exact similarity between Comstock's history and his own.

Again, everything that you do during the game is part of your efforts to survive. Everyone is already out to kill you. This wasn't the case in his past, where he killed for pleasure.

Booker's past, and the way it's gradually unveiled, and the circumstances of everyone being out for his blood, made this the rare game where I -didn't- feel cognitive dissonance.

I actually felt guiltier in BioShock 1. In that game, you're effectively torturing mentally handicapped people whose minds aren't functioning right but who still feel pain.

In Infinite, at least, your aggressors are mentally determined, out of ideology and such, to kill you no matter what. So you're surviving, and if it's brutal, well, the game makes it increasingly clear there's a reason.

The first attack at the raffle is ridiculously brutal with no due provocation. Later, at the ticket booth with Elizabeth choosing to shoot first is done without due provocation. That you can later know they'd stab you if you didn't doesn't make it any less preemptive.

The character on the screen is a representation of the player until the game decides it isn't. There will always be that disconnect in videogames. In Infinite, Booker and player are two different persons. I didn't kill people at Wounded Knee. I didn't sell my daughter away because of gambling debts. I wasn't a Pinkerton.

You believe that disconnect will always exist. I'm saying it exists now, that I believe it can be overcome, and that it is an inherent flaw in trying to marry movie style narrative with gameplay. The problem isn't that you didn't do those things, it's that you don't know about them until after the fact so they can't color your interactions with the game. The storytelling methods of Bioshock Infinite are solid. They're just not very well suited for a game.

You're taking this to unnecessary levels, stemming from the fact that you have a hard time separating game from story. Booker and the player aren't the same person.

I don't have trouble separating story from gameplay. I enjoyed the game. I'm saying that the fact they need to be separate is a flaw in the way modern games are developed.

But eventually BioShock's narrative falls apart because you're still being told what to do by the end of the game.

That's my point. The narrative and storytelling method weren't well suited for a game or at least that particular game.

It's just grabbing money, dude. Who cares? Just pretend no one sees that money besides you. It's to enable the player to get better abilities to fight with.

Why should I ignore what could so easily be fixed? Ignoring problems solves nothing. If videogames as a medium are ever to advance people need to stop glossing over the problems.

Oh yeah. I remember the dozens of real-life photos of military officers dressed in the field with pink, green, and red uniforms designating their ranks. That's smart.

Does you're real life have aliens too? Suspension of disbelief has a time and a place. So long as things are adequately explained and logically consistent within the game world as they happen it's not an issue.

But those plasmids don't have the stun effect that you have, and any other in Infinite would be annoying to fight against.

The don't have to be the same. In Infinite outside of rare instances vigors may as well not exist for anyone except Booker.

Player and character aren't the same things. During the scene you keep blabbering about, that's Booker doing it, not the player.

If it makes you feel any better, just pretend Booker gets through most of the game with hardly killing anyone. Those sections are for the player to have fun. Once again, it's a game.

The game is in first person. It fully intends for you to play it that way. Picking and choosing when to give and take player agency is a flaw in current methods of implementing narrative in games. I don't believe it's insurmountable.

My biggest point is highlighted. It's a game. Developers need to stop treating them like movies. If that's what they want to make fine. I enjoy them for what they are but when people, especially developers, start proclaiming them as true art that pushes the medium forward criticism is going to happen and they should welcome it.

 

[Neiteio]

I question whether Booker remembered the specifics of what he'd done at Wounded Knee. When you hear Comstock's voxophone about it he gives no indication that he realizes the exact similarity between Comstock's history and his own.

Who's to say he didn't think it strange? He doesn't say a lot of what he thinks during the game. He's a closed book at that point. He probably -did- think it strange.

The first attack at the raffle is ridiculously brutal with no due provocation. Later, at the ticket booth with Elizabeth choosing to shoot first is done without due provocation. That you can later know they'd stab you if you didn't doesn't make it any less preemptive.

No provocation? The one guard was holding a spinning skyhook up to Booker's face and about to rip his head off. I think the spur-of-the-moment defense of a human shield was more than merited. Otherwise Booker would've suffered that fate.

And I didn't know you could "shoot first" in the ticket booth scene since I always got stabbed -- which was them acting first. Most people won't go around shooting in that scene because they won't know what's up.

Just because you -can- do something doesn't mean the story is suddenly out of whack. A player can run repeatedly into a corner for no reason. Doesn't mean the story has to somehow account for that.

You're reeeeeeally reaching trying to make your point. It's really OK if you're in the minority feeling some sort of cognitive dissonance. For reasons we've explained, though, most people feel it natural Booker behaves the way he does. During the game, it's survival. And as we learn, he's an old hand at brutality because he used to be brutal in non-survival situations, as well.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

This is a video game where they sell magical crow powers on every other street corner, even though nobody except specific enemies seem to utilize them at all, and don't even pretend to have any real-world usability like the Plasmids in Bishock. You're either think A) "Yep, video games!" or B) "This disconnect from the narrative bugs me!" There's plenty of intelligent gamers, critics, and game designers that feel either way.

 

[Neiteio]

The game's characterization of the protagonist and his actions, as discussed here, is all sound, in terms of Booker himself, his level of brutality, how others take to it, and why he does what he does, which in all story-driven cases is a matter of survival during the game, and of cruelty prior to the game, not to mention the enemies attacking first in all story-driven cases and making a cognizant choice to do so, driven by ideology. Absolutely no problems here. A player can get the drop on enemies in some cases, but a player can also jump into the abyss repeatedly for no reason, as well. Story-wise, the narrative is solid in regards to how Booker is handled.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

You're reeeeeeally reaching trying to make your point. It's really OK if you're in the minority feeling some sort of cognitive dissonance. For reasons we've explained, though, most people feel it natural Booker behaves the way he does. During the game, it's survival. And as we learn, he's an old hand at brutality because he used to be brutal in non-survival situations, as well.

It's not just survival when you're actively hunting down the last remaining enemy in an area in order to get the game to let you have Elizabeth pick a lock to advance. It'd be one thing to have a situation be possible, but extremely difficult to ghost though. Here though, you are forced to kill every enemy before advancing so often that if there are any parts aside from the Boys of Silence areas with retreating enemies/optional fights, I probably just tried to kill them all anyway since that's what the game frequently required.

This is a video game where they sell magical crow powers on every other street corner, even though nobody except specific enemies seem to utilize them at all, and don't even pretend to have any real-world usability like the Plasmids in Bishock. You're either think A) "Yep, video games!" or B) "This disconnect from the narrative bugs me!" There's plenty of intelligent gamers, critics, and game designers that feel either way.

I can't speak for everyone who has a problem with the structure of this game, but I start having less fun when a game has the pretense of choice or is hyped up as having a wide array of options available to the player, but then I'm forced into a fight against waves of enemies that palys out almost exactly as I expect every time. It gets monotonous, boring, Etc. On top of that, it's jarring.

It's not about whether something is realistic; no one is complaining about the accuracy of quantum physics in the game. It's when believability is thrown out the window — when "run straight into waves of suicidal fodder followed by a heavy," is used in lieu of more varied/reasonable responses to a given situation being available — it can rub people the wrong way and be less enjoyable for them.

 

[The Librarian]

Whatever, dude. I still think you're having a hard time trying to disconnect the story world from the game world. You're really going out of your way to make it into a flaw.

 

[Neiteio]

It's not just survival when you're actively hunting down the last remaining enemy in an area in order to get the game to let you have Elizabeth pick a lock to advance. It'd be one thing to have a situation be possible, but extremely difficult to ghost though. Here though, you are forced to kill every enemy before advancing so often that if there are any parts aside from the Boys of Silence areas with retreating enemies/optional fights, I probably just tried to kill them all anyway since that's what the game frequently required.

Not an issue, because even one enemy, left by himself, will continue to attack you, thus giving you reason to fight back to survive. None of the enemies run away because they're all ideological zealots for their respective causes. (The praying Comstock soldiers, the suicidal revolutionaries, etc)

It -is- just survival, because no matter what, the enemies will attack you, no matter their numbers.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Whatever, dude. I still think you're having a hard time trying to disconnect the story world from the game world. You're really going out of your way to make it into a flaw.

I have no trouble at all. Gameplay and story are separate in Bioshock Infinite. We're in agreement. That's literally the point I'm making. You're say it's just the way things have to be, I'm saying I don't believe that. That's where we disagree.

This is a video game where they sell magical crow powers on every other street corner, even though nobody except specific enemies seem to utilize them at all, and don't even pretend to have any real-world usability like the Plasmids in Bishock. You're either think A) "Yep, video games!" or B) "This disconnect from the narrative bugs me!" There's plenty of intelligent gamers, critics, and game designers that feel either way.

Very well put. I don't think anyone is wrong to accept and enjoy games that have that disconnect. I enjoy them myself. I just don't accept the dissonance as something that has to exist.

Who's to say he didn't think it strange? He doesn't say a lot of what he thinks during the game. He's a closed book at that point. He probably -did- think it strange.

What you're describing is dissonance. The fact that a character whose actions you control has different and unknown thoughts than you is a conflict born from mixing gameplay and movie style narrative.

No provocation? The one guard was holding a spinning skyhook up to Booker's face and about to rip his head off. I think the spur-of-the-moment defense of a human shield was more than merited. Otherwise Booker would've suffered that fate.

No due provocation. Obviously he's warranted in defending himself but his methods and the fact that he seems so unaffected by it stand out. It's standard videogame fair but Irrational sold Infinite as more than a standard videogame.

And I didn't know you could "shoot first" in the ticket booth scene since I always got stabbed -- which was then acting first. Most people won't go around shooting in that scene because they won't know what's up.

You're given the choice to draw you're weapon.

You're reeeeeeally reaching trying to make your point. It's really OK if you're in the minority feeling some sort of cognitive dissonance. For reasons we've explained, most people feel it natural Booker behaves the way he does. During the game, it's survival. And as we learn, he's an old hand at brutality because he used to be brutal in non-survival situations, as well.

I'm not reaching for anything. Ludonarrative dissonance exists. It exists within Bioshock Infinite. Whether people are willing to put up with it is up to them. I'm not denying the validity of Infinite as an enjoyable experience. I enjoyed it. I just don't see the use in ignoring it's flaws as a game. I enjoy discussing games seriously. More often than not the response is a resounding NOPE! and I think that's sad.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Whatever, dude. I still think you're having a hard time trying to disconnect the story world from the game world. You're really going out of your way to make it into a flaw.

There's nothing wrong with being satisfied or dissatisfied with the final the game. But why should we be complacent with having to disconnect story from the game world in a story-driven/story-heavy game like this one?

Not an issue, because even one enemy, left by himself, will continue to attack you, thus giving you reason to fight back to survive. None of the enemies run away because they're all ideological zealots for their respective causes. (The praying Comstock soldiers, the suicidal revolutionaries, etc)

It -is- just survival, because no matter what, the enemies will attack you, no matter their numbers.

Running from the hordes of enemies, locking doors behind you, blowing up a skyline to block pursuers, Etc. would count as survival too. I don't mind killing in games, but when that type of situation plays out the same way each time, just with bigger numbers and with only one option, it just lessens the fun for me. The final fight is the same as any other arena with skylines, just turned up to 11. Siccing the songbird on enemies was cool, yet it's limited scope (only in certain spots) made it feel like an environmental hazard I was exploiting. Even when I played it for the first time, the combat experience felt limited.

There are games with nothing but combat in them that avoid that feeling or the aforementioned disconnect by letting the player do everything, or almost everything, they'd want to in a given situation. I imagine developers want to strive for that and I don't see it as some affront to the Bioshock name to feel that way, either as a player or dev.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

There's plenty of "gameisms" in Bioshock Infinite you just have to flow with, that don't make a whole lot of sense narrative wise, but it happens anyway. The only reason the Vigors are even in this game is because the Plasmids were in Bioshock, and you just can't remove those. Almost nobody ever addresses them or uses them besides the occasional billboard, but they are there.

There's no real reason why pre and post battles the entire game turns into a power-up container of glowy bits for you to pick up on. There's no narrative reason for carriages to be filled with money or whatever. You just realize, "Well, it's a game, so money is everywhere, even in the most inappropriate places!"

There's no narrative reason why Elizabeth is a seemingly invisible, invincible pack mule that pulls weapons, money, salt, etc literally out of thin air. The designers don't want you protecting her as you fly around their rails, and they want you to experiment, so Elizabeth gives you stuff. The story stops when the bullets fly, and then randomly starts again in elevator rides where Elizabeth. And if you turn around real fast, you can see her teleporting all over the place.

You can nitpick the disconnect between story and gameplay all the way down to NPCs waiting for you to approach them(gun in hand!), say their one-or-two line canned response, and then stand there forever frozen in time, or how knee high walls that any grown man could just step over bar your progress because you're not going the right way

For me, it doesn't matter. I accept those things as a part of the medium, and part of the interactivity of video games. And I think the only reason they get brought up so much for Bioshock Infinite is because of it's ambitious nature and storytelling, so the "gamey" stuff stands out a bit more when it's less than ideal.

 

[The Librarian]

I have no trouble at all. Gameplay and story are separate in Bioshock Infinite. We're in agreement. That's literally the point I'm making. You're say it's just the way things have to be, I'm saying I don't believe that. That's where we disagree.

If we're in agreement on that point then you shouldn't have a problem with the scene you keep complaining about. But you do.

As I said, whatever.

 

[PBalfredo]

One of the things I'm very interested in is seeing how much Bioshock Infinite has changed over the course of development. Looking at old trailers and previews, there is evidence that a lot has changed.

One thing that sticks out the most for me is that in the early trailers, Columbia and the Motorized Patriots were all adorned in the American flag, instead of the Columbian flag (lone star in the blue badge, red and white stripes) as seen in the final game. In early previews, it seemed like Columbia was the flying epitome of AMERICA, FUCK YEAH, and the Founding Fathers were idolized because GOD BLESS AMERICA. It seems at some point in development, Columbia changed from a flying extension of America, to a nation that seceded from America. In what we got, Columbia was more of a cross between a flying Confederate States of America and Cromstock's Super-Mormon cult (Utah Columbia is the Promised Land).

I remember reading in the previews that Columbia was built by America during the World's Fair and sent around the world in a good-will tour. Is that still the case in the final game? It seems more like Cromstock had his vision of the flying city and had Lutece build it for him. I'm also missing the link to what made Cromstock incorporate deifying the Founding Fathers into his cult, since the point was to worship him, not the "Sodom below". One of the problems with Bioshock games is I'm always wondering if there was some recording that I missed that fills in a gap I have.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

If we're in agreement on that point then you shouldn't have a problem with the scene you keep complaining about. But you do.

As I said, whatever.

We're in agreement that the separation between story and gameplay exists. It doesn't bother you. That's fine. That it doesn't bother you or even the majority of people doesn't negate the fact that it is a unique problem that occurs when specific types of story and ways of storytelling are used in videogames. If they make another Bioshock with the exact same issues I'll more than likely play and enjoy it. I'll also point them out again.

Sorry if the discussion isn't worth your time.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

There's plenty of "gameisms" in Bioshock Infinite you just have to flow with, that don't make a whole lot of sense narrative wise, but it happens anyway. The only reason the Vigors are even in this game is because the Plasmids were in Bioshock, and you just can't remove those. Almost nobody ever addresses them or uses them besides the occasional billboard, but they are there.

There's no real reason why pre and post battles the entire game turns into a power-up container of glowy bits for you to pick up on. There's no narrative reason for carriages to be filled with money or whatever. You just realize, "Well, it's a game, so money is everywhere, even in the most inappropriate places!"

There's no narrative reason why Elizabeth is a seemingly invisible, invincible pack mule that pulls weapons, money, salt, etc literally out of thin air. The designers don't want you protecting her as you fly around their rails, and they want you to experiment, so Elizabeth gives you stuff. The story stops when the bullets fly, and then randomly starts again in elevator rides where Elizabeth. And if you turn around real fast, you can see her teleporting all over the place.

You can nitpick the disconnect between story and gameplay all the way down to NPCs waiting for you to approach them(gun in hand!), say their one-or-two line canned response, and then stand there forever frozen in time, or how knee high walls that any grown man could just step over bar your progress because you're not going the right way

For me, it doesn't matter. I accept those things as a part of the medium, and part of the interactivity of video games. And I think the only reason they get brought up so much for Bioshock Infinite is because of it's ambitious nature and storytelling, so the "gamey" stuff stands out a bit more when it's less than ideal.

Discussing any aspect of this game can be deemed nitpicking — it's a game; not real life. Even if you're one of the folks working on it, and your job is on the line, the stuff being discussed right now isn't a chief concern. However, none of what you mentioned has to be that way; it's that way because it's always been that way, or there's not enough memory to work with, or the developers were rushed to get the game out by a certain date.

If someone points out/criticizes something about a game and that criticism is a reflection of reality, thus meaning it's valid, then that's that. You don't have to care about it. It doesn't have to be the most important issue we could be discussing right now. "Important," is subjective. Pointing out something about a game is either true or false, and I know what I felt while playing it; I know what matters to me.

I don't see much point it talking about whether we should be talking about this at all; if people didn't care, they wouldn't bat an eye. There's been a good deal of eye-batting though, and I'd be willing to bet it's not merely a result of EvilLore making that "BI didn't have to be a shooter," thread, though that may have got people thinking about it when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Neiteio]

For me, it doesn't matter. I accept those things as a part of the medium, and part of the interactivity of video games. And I think the only reason they get brought up so much for Bioshock Infinite is because of it's ambitious nature and storytelling, so the "gamey" stuff stands out a bit more when it's less than ideal.

Sure, but Booker's brutality is no such inconsistency, and it's folly for people to fixate on this, especially given how much better Infinite handles it compared to, oh, just about every other videogame ever.

Booker fights to survive. Booker is in many cases attacked first, and in all cases, the enemies persist in trying to kill him, never worrying for their own welfare. They would chase Booker to the ends of the earth, not stopping until they're dead. And so Booker, trying to survive, kills them. And unlike 99 percent of videogames out there, the game goes on to explain why Booker is capable of such brutality, showing how while he is killing to survive now, he killed for pleasure in the past, and so it's no wonder this comes so naturally.

I know Infinite's a big target and people are sick of the praise, but some try too hard when nitpicking. Booker's brutality is not the thing to nitpick. Booker is a dude trying to survive. And by the end of the first act (Hall of Heroes), he starts revealing he's done some terrible shit. The brutality never seemed out of place in this game. This isn't like Uncharted where Drake is cracking one-liners as he snaps someone's neck and rides off into the sunset with the blonde chick.

(Speaking of Uncharted, there's a game where you could have a field day with this sort of nitpicking. For starters, how does Drake so effortlessly scale 10,000-foot-high cliffs of solid ice, using only his bare fingers to latch onto inch-long ledges, and after jumping to them with the full weight of his body, for that matter.)

 

[The Librarian]

(Speaking of Uncharted, there's a game where you could have a field day with this sort of nitpicking. For starters, how does Drake so effortlessly scale 10,000-foot-high cliffs of solid ice, using only his bare fingers to latch onto inch-long ledges, and after jumping to them with the full weight of his body, for that matter.)

I dunno, man. Drake also killed hundreds of people which means I can't enjoy the story cause he's a mass murderer.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I don't see much point it talking about whether we should be talking about this at all; if people didn't care, they wouldn't bat an eye. There's been a good deal of eye-batting though, and I'd be willing to bet it's not merely a result of EvilLore making that "BI didn't have to be a shooter," thread, though that may have got people thinking about it when they otherwise wouldn't.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not calling his view wrong, either. I can't remember the last time I've seen so many people put off by these standard video game tropes and cliches we've come to know and love. I've read detailed breakdowns from game designers, and some critical thinking about genre boundaries by some pretty smart people. I've read it here plenty of times on NeoGAF, on Kotaku, on Gameasutra, or Destructoid. I go to some of my favorite movie blogs and they talk about the disconnect as well. We rationalize these things all the time in other games, but there's something about Bioshock Infinite that has people thinking, "Should this game element be there? Can't we do more?"

I know where I stand, but it's interesting to read the other viewpoints. It's becoming increasingly common for this game.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I've been playing Bioshock 1 (ps3 version that came with infinite) and I got to the part where you can allegedly hear songbird and I played the segment twice and didn't hear it. I'm thinking that youtube vid is a fake unless they just patched it into the PC version recently but why would they do that.

Also I haven't seen any advertisements on the walls mentioning songbird either but I'll check again since there's alot going on in Fort Frolic.

 

[Neiteio]

BioShock Infinite is a violent story. The battles can play out differently, based on how you want to approach them (skylines, tears, vigors, etc), but everything ends in violence. That's because that's the story the game wants to tell. It is an inherently violent tale, about a violent man, in a violent world.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

I dunno, man. Drake also killed hundreds of people which means I can't enjoy the story cause he's a mass murderer.

No one said that. Not here. I for one have repeatedly said I enjoyed the game despite the problems I have with it.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not calling his view wrong, either. I can't remember the last time I've seen so many people put off by these standard video game tropes and cliches we've come to know and love. I've read detailed breakdowns from game designers, and some critical thinking about genre boundaries by some pretty smart people. I've read it here plenty of times on NeoGAF, on Kotaku, on Gameasutra, or Destructoid. I go to some of my favorite movie blogs and they talk about the disconnect as well. We rationalize these things all the time in other games, but there's something about Bioshock Infinite that has people thinking, "Should this game element be there? Can't we do more?"

I think it's because Levine and Irrational clearly tried to do more with the original Bioshock and the franchise has such a big connection with System Shock which tried to do more as well. They also sold Infinite as something more than a standard videogame. You could spend a life time dissecting The Modern Warfare series but they never claimed it to be anything more than what it is where Levine and Irrational have made some bold claims about Bioshock Infinite. I also think it's just the right time and the right place. More and more people will explore these issues until they're solved or it's determined they can't be. The same discussion came up when the new Tomb Raider was released. I think Bioshock is just a bigger game at the end of the day.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Sure, but Booker's brutality is no such inconsistency, and it's folly for people to fixate on this, especially given how much better Infinite handles it compared to, oh, just about every other videogame ever.

Booker fights to survive. Booker is in many cases attacked first, and in all cases, the enemies persist in trying to kill him, never worrying for their own welfare. They would chase Booker to the ends of the earth, not stopping until they're dead. And so Booker, trying to survive, kills them. And unlike 99 percent of videogames out there, the game goes on to explain why Booker is capable of such brutality, showing how while he is killing to survive now, he killed for pleasure in the past, and so it's no wonder this comes so naturally.

I actually never had problem with his character being a killer in this game. What I don't like is that killing becomes meaningless by the end of the game.

I appreciate when a player's actions are in sync with the character's... character. However, I don't have to work for an individual kill here; each fight only feels substantial when there's thirty enemies. It's mentioned in passing how much killing Booker does, much like it was in Uncharted 2. It's kind of silly to even try to address it when killing both actually is a click of a button and feels like it's that quick/easy/inconsequential.

(Speaking of Uncharted, there's a game where you could have a field day with this sort of nitpicking. For starters, how does Drake so effortlessly scale 10,000-foot-high cliffs of solid ice, using only his bare fingers to latch onto inch-long ledges, and after jumping to them with the full weight of his body, for that matter.)

There's been plenty of threads about it, and I've actually seen a few cool ideas to help address that issue.

Even with that hundreds of enemies you face in Uncharted (specifically 2, since that's the only one I feel had good encounter design), each fight, while ultimately linear, has been designed to feel different from every other shootout. you're sneaking through a train, pulling enemies off the train cars in one encounter until you're spotted, then you're running through the train while a helicopter shoots the train apart. The game's pacing and structure goes a long way in making it fun and does a decent job of distracting the player from the ridiculousness of the situation; the action elicits appropriate responses from the characters all throughout, at least in accordance to the theme Naughty Dog were going for.

BI's fights don't all feel fresh or unique from one another. They're fun, sure. I just was left wanting more variation, especially for a really character/theme-focused game. It's hard to see the racial tensions and corruption of religious ideals as anything more than window-dressing when the killing goes full tilt, and doesn't even hold your interest enough to distract you ("you," meaning me in this instance) from that disconnect between story and gameplay.

 

[Neiteio]

I think it's because Levine and Irrational clearly tried to do more with the original Bioshock and the franchise has such a big connection with System Shock which tried to do more as well. They also sold Infinite as something more than a standard videogame. You could spend a life time dissecting The Modern Warfare series but they never claimed it to be anything more than what it is where Levine and Irrational have made some bold claims about Bioshock Infinite.

Just curious, can I see an exact quote by Levine or IG where they indicated Infinite would be something far more groundbreaking than what we got? All I recall is the opposite, with them even downplaying the themes, saying they're not making any specific statements on matters like race, etc, and people can simply make of things as they will (which is true).

I actually never had problem with his character being a killer in this game. What I don't like is that killing becomes meaningless by the end of the game.

I appreciate when a player's actions are in sync with the character's... character. However, I don't have to work for an individual kill here; each fight only feels substantial when there's thirty enemies. It's mentioned in passing how much killing Booker does, much like it was in Uncharted 2. It's kind of silly to even try to address it when killing both actually is a click of a button and feels like it's that quick/easy/inconsequential.

I didn't have this issue. I felt like I was fighting to survive. Was it easy? Yes, at times it was. But I was fighting back because if I didn't, I would die. And unlike Uncharted 2, Booker is at least affected by his actions. Not his kills to survive -- he had to do those, lest he die -- but the people he killed in the past who didn't need to die. The guilt over that is the whole reason for the baptism, and everything that follows. And unlike Drake, even when Booker does kill to survive, he doesn't make merry about it.

As for Uncharted, I find it harder to believe Drake can do what he does, and do it so gleefully, short of being a sociopath, which creates far more cognitive dissonance than anything here. The spongy hit detection and such in those games is another issue altogether, but I won't digress. Suffice it to say, those games could be nitpicked to pieces in terms of game-iness.

 

[Varna]

BioShock Infinite is a violent story. The battles can play out differently, based on how you want to approach them (skylines, tears, vigors, etc), but everything ends in violence. That's because that's the story the game wants to tell. It is an inherently violent tale, about a violent man, in a violent world.

This is a very weak justification for the really crappy wave enemy encounters. This could have been an adventure game with no combat at all and the story would have been 100% the same. The things that get the point across in regards to Booker and the world are all in cutscenes or the environment.

I don't mind the shooing mechanics but there is just so much fluff. Firefights should have been focused on smaller number of enemies, less ammunition and more creative use of tears and vigors.

The fight again Slate should have totally been something like The End from MGS. Just one and one (err, two) across the entire Hall of Heroes setting. The encounter with Lady Comstock should have been more focused on avoiding her while you search for the macguffins that advance the plot.

The only interesting encounters in the game are the ones that involve skylines. Unfortunately those are too few in this 12+ hour campaign.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I think it's because Levine and Irrational clearly tried to do more with the original Bioshock and the franchise has such a big connection with System Shock which tried to do more as well. They also sold Infinite as something more than a standard videogame. You could spend a life time dissecting The Modern Warfare series but they never claimed it to be anything more than what it is where Levine and Irrational have made some bold claims about Bioshock Infinite. I also think it's just the right time and the right place. More and more people will explore these issues until they're solved or it's determined they can't be. The same discussion came up when the new Tomb Raider was released. I think Bioshock is just a bigger game at the end of the day.

Like I said, it's an ambitious game story and presentation wise, tackling some big themes and ideas most other games don't, with a level of sophistication and maturity rarely seen...while also being a shooter in a relatively unambitious well-worn style of play where a man fires deadly magic out of his hand at hundreds of people and eats out of every other glowing container in town. Those things were bound to collide for some people.

 

[Neiteio]

This is a very weak justification for the really crappy wave enemy encounters. This could have been an adventure game with no combat at all and the story would have been 100% the same. The things that get the point across in regards to Booker and the world are all in cutscenes or the environment.

I don't mind the shooing mechanics but there is just so much fluff. Firefights should have been focused on smaller number of enemies, less ammunition and more creative use of tears and vigors.

The fight again Slate should have totally been something like The End from MGS. Just one and one (err, two) across the entire Hall of Heroes setting. The encounter with Lady Comstock should have been more focused on avoiding her while you search for the macguffins that advance the plot.

The only interesting encounters in the game are the ones that involve skylines. Unfortunately those are too few in this 12+ hour campaign.

I was speaking to the notion that Booker's brutality or lack thereof should somehow be wed to the player's choice, and that the narrative should be tailored accordingly. Regardless of whether you prefer the way they handled individual battles or not, my point is the story they wanted to tell is ultimately a violent one, and so it is that Booker has done and will do violent things, in a world full of people also attempting to do violent things to him.

I like your Slate idea, btw.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Just curious, can I see an exact quote by Levine or IG where they indicated Infinite would be something far more groundbreaking than what we got? All I recall is the opposite, with them even downplaying the themes, saying they're not making any specific statements on matters like race, etc, and people can simply make of things as they will (which is true).

Here's an interview with Ken Levine. He talks about the world feeling more alive and about engaging the player in an emotional way using not just narrative but game mechanics as well. He may as well be talking about a different game as far as I'm concerned.

From 11:30 on he talks about tackling bigger issues and clearly separates Infinite from what he calls "big, stupid, goofy games". I agree with the point he's making but I don't think Bioshock strays to far outside the realm of "big, stupid, goofy games."

 

[The Librarian]

Uncharted 2's combat is far worse than Infinite's. Linear combat, and boring enemies and weapons.

But the worse thing about the game is how Drake kills hundred if people (equivalent to Booker killing someone with the skyhook for no reason). The dissonance is so great it's jarring.

 

[ultron87]

One of my friends borrowed my copy. She is shipping Booker and Elizabeth so hard. Tee hee.

 

[Anticitizen One]

How comes they got rid of the ghost memories from Bioshock? Also what was the explaination in game for those in the first game (aside from being a homage to System Shock I think)

 

[Sorian]

Uncharted 2's combat is far worse than Infinite's. Linear combat, and boring enemies and weapons.

But the worse thing about the game is how Drake kills hundred if people (equivalent to Booker killing someone with the skyhook for no reason). The dissonance is so great it's jarring.

I never saw the skyhook scene as dissonant IMO. Shit was getting real and Booker wanted to even the odds a bit in his favor. He didn't have a clean way to take care of so he did what he had to do. Later, in gameplay sections, the finishers, from a story perspective, aid in saving a bullet.

 

[Red]

How comes they got rid of the ghost memories from Bioshock? Also what was the explaination in game for those in the first game (aside from being a homage to System Shock I think)

I thought there was an audio diary that explained they were due to splicing.

 

[RDreamer]

Uncharted 2's combat is far worse than Infinite's. Linear combat, and boring enemies and weapons.

Hey now, Dax, let's not say things we can't take back.

 

[Salamando]

I thought there was an audio diary that explained they were due to splicing.

ADAM, more precisely. If i'm remembering correctly, those ghosts were memories that was carried along with the ADAM when a little sister harvested them.