-
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 |
- Thread starter BruceLeeRoy
- Start date
Yup. Although I'm slowly warming up to her blue dress.
Technically there seems no reason why not and the game doesn't explicitly rule it out - although Elizabeth's dialogue implies a single city/man (which is nonsense in terms of general multi-verse theory but fits in the game in terms of the idea Rapture/Columbia are actually different versions of a similar scenario in different Universe/timelines).
Neither game specifically references the other that I noticed (although I didn't find every recording/area in Infinite so I might have missed one).
So in terms of the games internal logic it is implied but not explicitly stated they don't co-exist - however if I was being pedantic I'd point out that if there is an infinite number of variations then there would have to be a Universe/timeline with both of them in it because, well, that's the problem with infinity : every option has to be covered and not just a number of times but an infinite number of times.
Fuck me... I can't beat Comstock (the 2nd encounter) in the bank vault on 1999 mode. =(
I died 8+ times, gave up and turned off the console. Then I looked at a video that showed someone beating her easily using the sniper rifle. But when I reload my save file there is no sniper rifle anywhere. I know I killed a sniper shortly before the vault but I'm guessing since I didn't touch the dropped sniper rifle, it disappeared when I turned off the console.
I have the following in my arsenal:
Possession For Less
Charge Aid (recharges shield, worked great in the first Comstock fight but I'm getting destroyed here)
Almost fully upgraded Machine Gun (extra clip size, two damage upgrades)
Fully upgraded Shotgun
Heater (no upgrades)
I have every "good" gear: Wintershield, Blood To Salts, Electric Punch, Brittle-Skinned, Urgent Care, Vampire's Embrace.
Any suggestions?
I died 8+ times, gave up and turned off the console. Then I looked at a video that showed someone beating her easily using the sniper rifle. But when I reload my save file there is no sniper rifle anywhere. I know I killed a sniper shortly before the vault but I'm guessing since I didn't touch the dropped sniper rifle, it disappeared when I turned off the console.
I have the following in my arsenal:
Possession For Less
Charge Aid (recharges shield, worked great in the first Comstock fight but I'm getting destroyed here)
Almost fully upgraded Machine Gun (extra clip size, two damage upgrades)
Fully upgraded Shotgun
Heater (no upgrades)
I have every "good" gear: Wintershield, Blood To Salts, Electric Punch, Brittle-Skinned, Urgent Care, Vampire's Embrace.
Any suggestions?
Did anyone else notice that this ostensibly "anti-racist" game ended up being racist as all get out? I can understand what they wanted to go for, it's a good idea, however they bungled this royally.
You start by drawing lines; on one side you have the awful wealthy people, then you have the poor who are being tormented by them. They take this a step further and racialize this element. Once they get their freedom, they're said to be, "just as bad" as the villains. I have to say, while playing it I just couldn't agree. It's like the intentionally went the route to make the leader of the Vox appear "savage" which is beyond racist and fucked up only to top the racist message with "fighting oppression is just as bad as oppression itself."
I don't know about y'all, but I strongly feel this game was garbage.
You start by drawing lines; on one side you have the awful wealthy people, then you have the poor who are being tormented by them. They take this a step further and racialize this element. Once they get their freedom, they're said to be, "just as bad" as the villains. I have to say, while playing it I just couldn't agree. It's like the intentionally went the route to make the leader of the Vox appear "savage" which is beyond racist and fucked up only to top the racist message with "fighting oppression is just as bad as oppression itself."
I don't know about y'all, but I strongly feel this game was garbage.
Speaking as an African-American, I wouldn't call it racist, just cliche. You can point to many real life cases where a group of freedom fighters goes from being heroic to savage over time. Vox timeline Daisy is just as a cruel as Fink/Comstock are. I don't think she was portrayed anymore savagely. If I had any issue with her portrayal it would be how quick her heel turn came in the story.
Also: When was the story ever touted as being anti-racist?
Sorry to break it to you, but history has seen this scenario play out numerous times before. One racial/cultural group is persecuted, they get the upper hand, and they turn out to be as bad, or worse than, their oppressors.
Way I see it, it's the tragedy of man -- violence begets violence. It's one way to look at "Will the circle go unbroken." In other words, cyclical violence.
Also, the game is not trying to be "racist" or "non-racist." It's just depicting a world not unlike the one history has given us.
I personally think it'd be nauseating if they depicted one side as noble and heroic. This is more realistic in terms of human nature, unfortunately.
The Librarian
Banned
I don't think it's fair to say she had a "quick heel turn" given that she was from a different universe.
The game shouldn't have brought the race angle to things unless it had a point. If the point wasn't to make an anti-racist statement, it was intended for racialization to be a point to say, "these people who were slaves are just as bad as the person enslaving them" and push some liberal-ass "the answer is somewhere in the middle" garbage.
You may not know this, but history as most of us has learned it is often skewed from the revolutionary view as it is not convenient for those in power. If this approached anything near realistic I would have been fine with it.
True, I was speaking from our perspective as the audience. When we arrive to her timeline they're already razing shit and she's backstabbing us. I wish there had been maybe a little more build up.
I don't think the bolded is a fair statement to make. The game wanted to depict people from the early 1900s. Ignoring their perspectives on race and class would just create an inaccurate picture of that time frame. They don't have to have a point if the goal was just to accurately reflect the time period.
I'm not sure why the latter half of the quote bothers you. Both sides were extreme. A middle ground between them is probably the better answer.
Different conversation.
As for the Vox, I think I would have been put off even more had they been played straight.
Ultimately, I think the writers just wanted another faction, and the vox was the best they could do.
I disagree with this. Up until the Daisy's death, the game most certainly positioned itself to say something of importance on the matter.
Painting what is, regardless of the outcome, a legitimate struggle for freedom as just as bad as enslaving people on racial grounds is extremely repugnant.
It's racist to think that just because someone is black, red, yellow, etc, and oppressed, that they would never go too far in their brutality if given the chance to turn the tables on their oppressors. To think such would be racist, because it would be assuming that every oppressed person of color in human history has been some gentle levelheaded Morgan Freeman-style font-of-wisdom type. That's simply not true.
This game looks at people as HUMANS. And humans -- those who persecute, and those who are persecuted -- are ALL capable of brutal, brutal violence. The Vox are essentially a repeat of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge -- heck, they even quote that revolution with the "Kill anyone with glasses" line you hear in the gondola station leading into Emporia.
And no, the people in power didn't make up a quarter of Cambodia's population being killed by the poor ol' farmers. That really happened. Sometimes, revolution goes too far and kills innocent people -- lots of innocent people -- and that's what happens here.
Because at the end of the day, this is a story about humans and their inherent violence. The game isn't saying the Vox weren't right to be angry or fight for freedom. It's HOW they go about it that is repugnant.
This game looks at people as HUMANS. And humans -- those who persecute, and those who are persecuted -- are ALL capable of brutal, brutal violence. The Vox are essentially a repeat of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge -- heck, they even quote that revolution with the "Kill anyone with glasses" line you hear in the gondola station leading into Emporia.
And no, the people in power didn't make up a quarter of Cambodia's population being killed by the poor ol' farmers. That really happened. Sometimes, revolution goes too far and kills innocent people -- lots of innocent people -- and that's what happens here.
Because at the end of the day, this is a story about humans and their inherent violence. The game isn't saying the Vox weren't right to be angry or fight for freedom. It's HOW they go about it that is repugnant.
Ok, so let me begin by saying that I never suggested that these people of color are all gentle. Being one, I know that we aren't all nice and kind. That said, I'd say murdering Fink and all those who aided in his oppression of these people would be justified. In fact, murdering racist white people was the only joy I took in the game.
Painting the Vox as "just as bad" is some dull-as-dishwater, counter-revolutionary rhetoric that upholds the status quo that the only right way to do this is to just bide your time and to never be violent. This is a parasitic thought process that always sites in the liberal minded folks and is indeed sad.
Also, please do not speak to me like I am a child with no grasp of history.
But what the Vox did, and the way they did it, -has- happened in real-life history. You're not going to convince anyone that mini-Holocausts like Pol Pot were made up by people in power or the "liberal media." That shit happened. A disenfranchised group of people turned the tables and went too far. WAY too far.
In this case, so did the Vox, and it's not unfathomable they'd get swept up in their change of fortune and their pent-up bloodlust from all those years of oppression. Like I said, it's understandable why they're angry -- their anger is justified -- but their actions, insofar as killing every innocent woman and child, is absolutely not. Look to the musical chairs of the Middle East or Africa, where one ethnic group displaces another and does things just as bad to others as what they themselves suffered before. It happens, because in the heat of revolution people are sometimes short-sighted. This is one such case.
Also, liberal thought is what led to civil rights, women's suffrage, etc, so I find your usage of that phrase curious. I don't think conservatives right now are hemorrhaging minority support because they're so open-minded and accepting of people who are different!
Also, liberal thought is what led to civil rights, women's suffrage, etc, so I find your usage of that phrase curious. I don't think conservatives right now are hemorrhaging minority support because they're so open-minded and accepting of people who are different!
You're confusing liberal and leftist thought. Leftist thought was the spur for all of those things. I'm not a conservative and I don't use the language of a conservative. I don't think a conservative would criticize something for being counter-revolutionary.
Look at the definition of "liberal" in the dictionary:
1) favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3) of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5) favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Not quite sure what is actually being debated here, I just know that a non-violent revolution would be very boring for a FPS.
If there's one problem I have with the revolution as it was presented, it was that the Founders never disconnected the "islands" the Vox occupied from the rest of Columbia. That town was built to allow isolating an area if it needed it.
If there's one problem I have with the revolution as it was presented, it was that the Founders never disconnected the "islands" the Vox occupied from the rest of Columbia. That town was built to allow isolating an area if it needed it.
Best theory I've heard so far: During the ending, Liz and Booker are doing the Quantum Leap. Booker enters his body at a previous point in his life, and acts out things as that Booker did. At the drowning, Booker was inhabiting a Booker from right before he took the name of Comstock.
King Beyond the wall
Member
History has taught us that revolutions, though often having good intentions, often go very wrong. Look at the Bolshevik revolution of 1917: that started out as an attempt by the working classes to achieve political rights and better pay/ working conditions. It ended in a brutal civil war and dictatorship worse than the one prior.
Look at the French Revolution of 1792: started out as an attempt for the middle classes looking for political rights, it too ended in hundreds of brutal executions, 25 years of war and a brutal dictarship.
What happens to the vox and daisy is not about race, it is what happens with revolutions.
Infact I feared that they were not going to approach this issue like this in the game, that they would only portray the vox as good guys and the founders as the evil racist bad guys. I am very glad that they showed the brutality of civil war and revolution as they did, with the vox and founders just as bad as each other in executing and murdering.
Hugo Genovese (a historian) once commented that a revolution can allow no compromise - it requires the complete upheaval and destruction of society.
Ok, I can tell that since you trotted out a prescriptivist viewpoint that our conversation is over. Have a nice day.
One last thing; note that non-whites have historically been cast as the villains and this game, regardless of the actions in the game being based on real atrocity, simply feeds into this racist narrative. It doesn't do anything to humanize these people, it simply sets the events and casts these people of color in a role that has long been the cultural fallback for the wicked other. It's gross and if you don't see how this is damaging, I'm sorry but we can't continue.
I do not wish to continue the conversation so please do not pursue it further as I will not respond.
But see that's the thing. The past has already been written, and there's nothing that could be done about it. The leap is between parallel worlds, not time. If Booker dewitt accepted (or refused) the baptism it means all bookers have made the choice in at the same time. Otherwise the entire idea of Comstock snatching anna in the same year in both worlds wouldn't make any sense.
I know i'm not seeing something here, but I just don't know what. I can't wrap my head around it.
Exactly, but Gouf is dismissing history as "skewed," as though the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, etc, never happened.
What the hell? You challenged the definition of the word "liberal" and I showed you the literal definition.
The game spent the first two-thirds showing us how rough the disenfranchised of Columbia have it, so we'd know why they're rightfully angry. The game wasn't casting colored people as villains. It showed us a great deal to make us sympathetic to colored people in Columbia, and not just colored people, but the working poor, as well. It did a great deal to humanize them -- even to the point that like REAL humans, some of them went too far when the time came for revolution.
But we've already shown you how real-life history has had many cases exactly like the Vox. You just won't accept it. You want some highly romanticized version of revolution that excuses all brutality on the part of those revolting, even their brutality against innocent women and children, which mind you, is precisely what's repugnant, not the fact they were angry in the first place.
They strongly hint though that Anna/Booker can and are travelling through time at the end. They are creating a paradox which gets resolved in an untold motion. True, a tear to 20 years in the past and a tear to a universe 20 years slower would be identical. You're just kind of stuck believing in Liz's omnipotence, that they are going to the moment Comstock was created, and that their actions will cause him to cease to be.
It's best not to dwell on the multiverse aspect. I find it to be quite messy.
Haha, that second screenshot is something I mentioned in another thread. Totally took me out of the game for a while
Timelines aren't always concurrent and tears aren't always parallel. The Finks can transcribe future songs, and Booker was able to change the past by rescuing Liz at Comstock House. It's possible to visit the future and past. Liz went to the baptism and killed Booker before he could ever become Comstock in the first place.
Personally I like how they handled Daisy Fitzroy and the Vox Populi stuff. The whole revolution angle was a tired one before it even took shape, so I was actually glad to see it play it out as it did. I think criticizing the game for equating a "legitimate struggle for freedom" to slavery is false and unfair, because I don't think it ever really was that. The game gives you this romantic idea of a revolution leading to a better Columbia (Elizabeth expresses this hope) but then shows that this was never really on the cards.
Ignoring parallels to real life historical revolutions, all this happens after jumping through a tear, so essentially it's a dystopia within a dystopia. Not to mention the fact that from the outset, in the reality you start off in, Daisy's painted as an unreliable and morally questionable character; you can hear the hatred in her voice, and as Booker says a welsher is a welsher. I think people are jumping on her 'heel' turn purely because they expected something else from a black revolutionary. But that's their problem. I for one was glad to see the game take the route that it did with the revolution aspect, plus Elizabeth has to remain as the one pure character that you encounter in this world. As a sidenote I also think that the underdeveloped nature of Daisy's character that often appears as a criticism is actually a strength; adds to the whole 'tip-of-the-iceberg' experience that you get.
Ignoring parallels to real life historical revolutions, all this happens after jumping through a tear, so essentially it's a dystopia within a dystopia. Not to mention the fact that from the outset, in the reality you start off in, Daisy's painted as an unreliable and morally questionable character; you can hear the hatred in her voice, and as Booker says a welsher is a welsher. I think people are jumping on her 'heel' turn purely because they expected something else from a black revolutionary. But that's their problem. I for one was glad to see the game take the route that it did with the revolution aspect, plus Elizabeth has to remain as the one pure character that you encounter in this world. As a sidenote I also think that the underdeveloped nature of Daisy's character that often appears as a criticism is actually a strength; adds to the whole 'tip-of-the-iceberg' experience that you get.
The Vox had taking over a large number of police barges and zeppelins, allowing them to invade any of the islands. Remember, Booker and Songbird fought a number of them in the final battle.
What in the world is wrong with that? Non-violent protests were very successful in the American Civil Rights Movement and freeing India from British rule. Compared to the high number of times that violent revolutions have ended in bloody civil wars and genocidal purges, a non-violent revolution is better for everyone involved.
Excellent analysis. I wholly agree. The way they handled the topic of revolution is one of the great strengths of Infinite's narrative. Very refreshing, as you and King Beyond the Wall indicated.
It's bullshit, tired, and idealistic to think that non-violence can solve all your problems and plays into the hands of those who wish to keep you from full autonomy.
I suppose I'll take this theory as it fits the actions of the game. But I still don't completely understand it. It's like asking me to understand a formula that divides by zero.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Interesting analysis even though I disagree with several aspects of it, particularly with the underdeveloped supporting characterizations being a positive. I'd like to have gotten more from both her and Fink in the game's narrative proper, and not just thrown in the background as exposition to find on Voxophones. The game is very focused on Booker and Elizabeth, which gives them some strong characterization and an interesting character arc to watch, but it does seem to come at the expense of other characters in the world.
They didn't have that great air support initially. When you first entered their timeline, they needed your help to take down a zeppelin that was bombarding the Fink gates. Some proper disconnecting and Fink could've been saved.
Then again I just wish they used the connecting/disconnecting thing a lot more than they did. The town had the potential to reorganize itself at will.
King Beyond the wall
Member
This is nonsense. History has repeatedly demonstrated that non-violent protest is a successful and valuable tactic. The Civil Rights campaign, for example, brought about the end of segregation in the US south. Gandhi's non violent protests was crucial in the end of the British Raj. Apartheid in South Africa was over come with mostly non violent measures.
The moral of the Vox revolution? "If you want to change the world, don't lose your humanity in the process."
Like the various real-life revolutions mentioned in this thread, that's what happened here: The Vox went from being oppressed to exterminating every man, woman and child of European descent. They went from suffering great evil, to committing great evil. The game set up our hopes things would turn out for the better; it made us sympathetic to the Vox and why they felt the way they did. But it also showed us the real-world peril of revolution, the risk of fighting monsters and becoming one in the process. In this case, the Vox became their own sort of racist, and one where the utter destruction of anyone not like themselves was the only way.
Violence begets violence. But will the circle go unbroken?
Also, as EliCash said, it's good they didn't whitewash Daisy. The "PC" route would've been to make the black revolutionary a saint, but that would've been boring and disingenuous. In the end, she showed her own corruptibility to power. One of her recordings even indicated the "white man has no place at their table" or some such. Reminds me of another videogame depiction that tried something similar, namely the Mexican usurper in the second act of Red Dead Redemption. You help him displace the dictator, and then as you're heading out of Mexico, you can't help but wonder if they're really better off than they were before, even though the new dictator was the "voice of the people" (the English translation of Vox Populi, btw).
Like the various real-life revolutions mentioned in this thread, that's what happened here: The Vox went from being oppressed to exterminating every man, woman and child of European descent. They went from suffering great evil, to committing great evil. The game set up our hopes things would turn out for the better; it made us sympathetic to the Vox and why they felt the way they did. But it also showed us the real-world peril of revolution, the risk of fighting monsters and becoming one in the process. In this case, the Vox became their own sort of racist, and one where the utter destruction of anyone not like themselves was the only way.
Violence begets violence. But will the circle go unbroken?
Also, as EliCash said, it's good they didn't whitewash Daisy. The "PC" route would've been to make the black revolutionary a saint, but that would've been boring and disingenuous. In the end, she showed her own corruptibility to power. One of her recordings even indicated the "white man has no place at their table" or some such. Reminds me of another videogame depiction that tried something similar, namely the Mexican usurper in the second act of Red Dead Redemption. You help him displace the dictator, and then as you're heading out of Mexico, you can't help but wonder if they're really better off than they were before, even though the new dictator was the "voice of the people" (the English translation of Vox Populi, btw).
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Ultimately the Vox were nothing more than story padding to make the game longer. Glad it was there to do so, but you could have removed them entirely. Change a few encounters at the end so you continue to fight Comstock's men, and not just red reskins for the Vox. It would not have impacted the main story in the slightest.
The Vox revolution in Columbia also paralleled the revolution in Rapture. The uprising in Rapture lacked the racial aspect, but definitely was a fight between social classes. When Bioshock first came out a lot of people were speculating that a sequel should take place during the civil war in Rapture. I never felt that idea to be all that interesting, since we already knew how that played out, and there was no gaps that just had to be filled. Being in the midst of the Vox revolution scratches that itch, while letting Infinite play out its own story.
King Beyond the wall
Member
the vox were one of the more important elements of the game for me, although I think more could have been done with them. They came over as just a reaction to their social position, rather than having their own ideology.
Tummi Gummi
Member
The racial aspect is touched upon in Bioshock 2, where a good portion of the slum workers attracted to Lamb's agents are minorities.
I'm not sure about that. Thematically, the Vox are the violence that results from the violence of Comstock and his regime. And Comstock, in turn, was created when Booker accepted baptism and "justified" his cruel treatment of others through the false absolution of ideology.
Like I said, it's this cyclical violence, which comes from the way we as individuals (and a nation) either accept or eschew responsibility for how we treat others. This is what makes the use of the song "Will the circle go unbroken" so resonant. Real-life history has been a circle of oppression and revolution, oppression and revolution, where ideology fuels hate and violence, leading to the bloodshed and suffering of all.
Booker's ultimate antidote to this is to say NO to ideology, whether it's ideology telling you who to hate (Comstock), or ideology telling you violence is the only way (Vox). Getting cold feet at baptism was the start. Allowing himself to be drowned -- full acceptance of his wrongdoing and a refusal to do it any longer -- was the rejection enacted in full.
Tricky I Shadow
Banned
Ooooo tough one. Why must you make me chooooose?
They're about equal for different reasons.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I like the bottom one. Also, can I be naughty and self promote mine a bit.
Beautiful! Would you happen to have a higher definition version for a wallpaper? Would love to set this as my wallpaper! Thanks!
I agree, the game would have been very different without the Vox. With that said, I feel that they were not used to full/best effect.
The vox should really have been an violent anarchic/atheist response to the statist/theocratic bent of the Columbian government and less racially charged.
If you are going to handle race so nakedly, it should not be relegated to a side story. Especially not one effectively dropped halfway through the game.