|
I really liked the ending because I really love those spacey bottom-falls-out moments, not so much the YOU ARE REVAN at the end (though it looks consistent within the rickety structure of the game's timeline). Probably started when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time. I loved that final sequence with the multiple Elizabeths (which really jolted me) because it reminded me of a Philip K. Dick short story I read when I was young, in which the protagonist goes back in time to prevent something and it fucks the universe in an inexplicable way that basically replicates the Malkovich-in-his-own-head sequence from Being John Malkovich but forever. It didn't make much sense but it was eerie. I'm a sucker for visceral mind-bending shocks like that if I can suspend my disbelief, and I could. Also I had this whole list of twist predictions and none of them panned out, so I guess I'm slipping. I did get the "Elizabeth is from another universe" thing because I watched Fringe when it was on (I wonder if Levine saw the second season of that show and thought "well poo poo") but I thought that perhaps Lady Comstock was Dewitt's wife, and Booker had done something terrible with her help, hence her intense self-loathing. I had figured that Elizabeth had died, or Booker had died, and a different one of either / both had been brought through a tear. Really if I had thought more about Fringe I probably would have figured the whole thing out. I was really tense once the stepping-through-tears part of the game started in Finkville, because the costume change hadn't happened yet. I expected that Elizabeth would be murdered, and then you'd track down THAT timeline's Elizabeth (who I guess was... locked in the time fortress at that point? idk), who would be different in look and temperament. I was anticipating that shot in the gut. I don't know if it would have been better had my prediction come true. So yeah, I didn't mind the last 15 minutes at all, it was basically the exposition dump from Juno's first trip through dreamworld in Inception, complete with fantastic visuals to augment the nonsense. I don't mind having one ending, I don't mind not having control. The ending is the only thing that has to happen in the game. Gotta say I was really irritated with the whole omniscient trickster God schtick of the Inspector Spacetwins, especially with that jaunty theme music. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 27, 2013 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Man I'm going back through the thread and video game writers just can't win with you guys, drat. Bioshock was too rushed, B:I is... not rushed enough? I mean I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really get why a talky ending ("exposition dump", in the goon-standard reductive vernacular) is a vice. This isn't Metal Gear Solid 4, and I don't really see any other graceful way of conveying the rules of the setting. I understand people don't like time travel because of all the table-setting it necessitates, but that's not really a knock against the execution of the ending. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Doing a second playthrough. Something I just caught: right after the coin flip scene you walk past a statue of Lutece as a man and it gets pulled through a tear and replaced with Lutece as a woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Is the possession vigor ever explained? It seems like when it's used on humans it's something akin to getting an NPC in touch with an alternate-timeline self and causing mental collapse. I wish the game wasn't so loud all the time because some of the insane barks enemies spout when possessed are golden. "FOR UNLAWFUL CARNAL KNOWLEDGE!" is probably my favorite
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Winky posted:Doing a second playthrough. Something I just caught: right after the coin flip scene you walk past a statue of Lutece as a man and it gets pulled through a tear and replaced with Lutece as a woman. Yup. And the phonograph thing there appears with it. It's dated 1902 or something. Now what I wonder is if this is the first time Rosalind has joined the experiment. Their conversation at the beginning seems to indicate so - "He DOESN'T row" but she would know that if she'd been part of the other ones. When you say the ending is an endlessly branching thing...I didn't get that from it. Say the sale happens first: Dimension 0: Booker sells Anna. Booker gets baptized. This leads to Dimension A: Booker drinks a lot until the game starts Booker goes to Dimension B to get Elizabeth Dimension B: Comstock decides to start up Columbia and experiments with dimensional travel Comstock realizes he can go back and get his daughter, and sends Lutece to do so He doesn't realize there are two of him branched at the baptism yet. He probably thinks he's creating a stable loop. The game would then take place in Dimension B for the most part. I don't see where the game creates others. And for the talk about the fixed narrative and how things don't change....like I said before there's at least one dimension where Booker leaves Columbia and Elizabeth destroys the world. So there are more variables than the ending may immediately lead us to believe. I'd assume each infinite world is each decision Booker/Comstock/whomever can make in their lives. Maybe Comstock decides he likes the ocean more than the sky one day, and that creates 2 more universes, etc. Yeah, that part is fantastic. I think she doesn't realize that until after she destroys the world, right? VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Spite fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
I'm reminded of that point where you meet old Elizabeth (sort of shame, btw, that the Boys of Silence only exist there) and when Booker says he came for her she says "Songbird always stops you". I liked the fatalistic tinge to seeing probabilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
While the Boys of Silence were somewhat underused, the way that they were used was fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Spite posted:That's what I'm wondering. It makes much more sense to me if the baby is sold BEFORE. But there's really nothing in that game that indicates it is. It could be either (see my above posts). I'd actually lean more towards the game indicating that the baptism happens first after playing through it. I'd agree that Dark Souls is more coherent in that respect, although in Dark Souls that is actually supposed to be the case, whereas here it's just allusive to that. I guess I think Infinite is more mature than Bioshock because it's not so much pointing out 'you're playing a game and don't have a choice', but more using that stuff to make the entire thing more beautiful - it's less of a matter of fact, and those kinds of explorations feel natural and not forced, and more reflections on the narrative as opposed to the narrative itself. It's more like 'hey, quantum physics and videogames have thematic similarities' as opposed to 'This Is A Game About How Games Make You Press Buttons'. If that makes any sense. Although this presents another problem that's been bugging me for a long time about games being 'art' - whenever anything comes along that people say is representative of 'games as art', the 'meaning' is always just about the nature of games themselves. It's probably just a natural product of the medium coming together at a time where post-modernism is already established in all other art but I feel like 'games as art' are called as such because there's something in the art/script/animation which is well-crafted or thoughtful, or something in the game design which is making a comment about the nature of playing a game. Arguably, the former 'assets' aren't what make a game unique, but it seems like the only statement game mechanics can make are about the nature of games themselves. Spite posted:
Comstock either doesn't realise or doesn't care, but it's pretty explicit that he's made a chain of universes - that's why you see all those versions of Booker and Elizabeth walking out of the lighthouses, and why you see Rapture, the implication being that it's the version of events after however many permutations. The permutation you are playing through is the only one where Elizabeth goes on to become old enough that she can get over her time whatevers The Grumbles fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Spite posted:Yeah, that part is fantastic. I think she doesn't realize that until after she destroys the world, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
The Grumbles posted:I'd agree that Dark Souls is more coherent in that respect, although in Dark Souls that is actually supposed to be the case, whereas here it's just allusive to that. I guess I think Infinite is more mature than Bioshock because it's not so much pointing out 'you're playing a game and don't have a choice', but more using that stuff to make the entire thing more beautiful - it's less of a matter of fact, and those kinds of explorations feel natural and not forced, and more reflections on the narrative as opposed to the narrative itself. It's more like 'hey, quantum physics and videogames have thematic similarities' as opposed to 'This Is A Game About How Games Make You Press Buttons'. If that makes any sense. Essentially, Bioshock feels like someone had An Idea and wrote a game around it. Infinite feels more like someone had An Idea and then decided, well, ok, so what, then? It feels slightly more cared for. But I still hate time travel stories that don't have a reasonable beginning point. It's lazy, even though everyone does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Maybe I missed this, but why does Booker sell Anna to Lutece (and therefore Comstock) in the first place? Does Booker actually believe that Letece could absolve him of his past in some way by giving up his own daughter? Why would Booker have any reason to believe that's true or possible?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
The Grumbles posted:I'd agree that Dark Souls is more coherent in that respect, although in Dark Souls that is actually supposed to be the case, whereas here it's just allusive to that. I guess I think Infinite is more mature than Bioshock because it's not so much pointing out 'you're playing a game and don't have a choice', but more using that stuff to make the entire thing more beautiful - it's less of a matter of fact, and those kinds of explorations feel natural and not forced, and more reflections on the narrative as opposed to the narrative itself. It's more like 'hey, quantum physics and videogames have thematic similarities' as opposed to 'This Is A Game About How Games Make You Press Buttons'. If that makes any sense. I think that the reason that "games as art" are so focused on themselves is because the question is often "What kind of story can games tell that no other medium can?" I like Bioshock Infinite because you can interpret it as not necessarily trying to tell a veiled story about games, but rather trying to tell a story about infinite universes through the unique properties of games. In this sense the fact that everyone else is playing the same, but different, story is part of the story itself. Ideally an effective use of games as art draws on the unique properties of games to tell a story about something else that other mediums couldn't do. Arguably the Bioshock games aren't stories about how choice in games is futile, but rather stories about the futility of choice itself communicated through the medium of games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
TheQuad posted:Maybe I missed this, but why does Booker sell Anna to Lutece (and therefore Comstock) in the first place? Does Booker actually believe that Letece could absolve him of his past in some way by giving up his own daughter? Why would Booker have any reason to believe that's true or possible? The debts in this case are also literal: Booker had a ton of gambling debts, which you can see by looking at the stubs and receipts littering his desk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Man I'm going back through the thread and video game writers just can't win with you guys, drat. Bioshock was too rushed, B:I is... not rushed enough? I don't, by any means, attempt to capture the common mood when I write this, but I felt that the "exposition dump" or, more importantly, the "twist dump" at the end wasn't necessarily a good thing primarily because it hurt the clarity of the story, as evidenced by the general confusion of people about the ending. The fact that it mostly makes sense through foreshadowing, combined with the players filling in the blanks by sitting on it for a bit or arguing it out on the forums/around the water cooler is the virtue of Levine's good writing, but I'm left to wonder why all the twists weren't integrated a bit better or gentler. For example, Lutece voxaphones could've been used a bit more to flesh out the "ocean" and variables and constants a bit more, before the omniscient Elizabeth dumps it all on you. That way, the player could understand the mechanics of it a bit better and it wouldn't be as jarring. Another thing that could've been done is having Elizabeth's powers come a bit more gradually after the Siphon is gone rather than "Welp, I know everything now". It would make for better pacing, make the story that much more clearer and cohesive and would allow the twists to come at a gentler pace. One thing I also can't quite understand is how Booker-turned-Comstock - at that point, a fairly broke, I would imagine, military man (as most of the soldiery of the time) - comes into position that he is in when he buys the baby. Even before Lutece build their machine, he, already, has to be a wealthy religious prophet with a following, who is at the head of a flying city. It's probably explained in that side novel I didn't bother to read, but stuff like that could have been easily expanded on in the game if the twist wasn't introduced quite literally ten seconds before the game ends. As it is, it feels like a bunch of shocking twists for the sake of shock and clever twist. If I were more cynical and conspiracy-minded, I could even say that it was there to generate buzz and make people who won't bother figuring it out proclaim "Genius!" and walk away feeling smart and enlightened - something like Casey "Lots of Speculation" Hudson would've done if he were much better at writing. That said, having slept on it, I enjoyed it profusely anyway. What I wrote above isn't really a condemnation, and I, in fact, love me some unsaid fictional world mythology that people have to figure out on their own, but I simply felt that it was all a bit too much for that 15-minute stretch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
The Grumbles posted:I'd agree that Dark Souls is more coherent in that respect, although in Dark Souls that is actually supposed to be the case, whereas here it's just allusive to that. I guess I think Infinite is more mature than Bioshock because it's not so much pointing out 'you're playing a game and don't have a choice', but more using that stuff to make the entire thing more beautiful - it's less of a matter of fact, and those kinds of explorations feel natural and not forced, and more reflections on the narrative as opposed to the narrative itself. It's more like 'hey, quantum physics and videogames have thematic similarities' as opposed to 'This Is A Game About How Games Make You Press Buttons'. If that makes any sense. I think game mechanics can definitely make other points. For example, Bioshock 1 could have gone much further with the Little Sisters. You can harvest them, make your life easier, and be a horrible monster. That's a very "dark side is easy" statement for your game to make, but it's just a simple example. Spec Ops clumsily tries to make a point about war and killing lots of people, etc. I'd agree that Infinite is much more mature than Bioshock. And I think the "games as art" question is a tough one. I mean, generally, people still think of them as toys. And then there's the double problem of game writing being poo poo 99% of the time. But when I think of "games as art" I think they have to do something that isn't possible in another medium and strive for that. And not many do - Infinite doesn't. It's story is entirely non-interactive when you get down to it. It's one thing to allude and recognize that in your game, but that's not enough. Books, film, other linear mediums have made that point, and they did it both better and a long time ago. In the end, even the people writing the games are still generally thinking about them like writing a movie, and that has to change for them to really live up to being art. Gameplay, story, graphics all have to come together. Like you said, even in Infinite the combat doesn't really fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
HellishWhiskers posted:I don't, by any means, attempt to capture the common mood when I write this, but I felt that the "exposition dump" or, more importantly, the "twist dump" at the end wasn't necessarily a good thing primarily because it hurt the clarity of the story, as evidenced by the general confusion of people about the ending. The fact that it mostly makes sense through foreshadowing, combined with the players filling in the blanks by sitting on it for a bit or arguing it out on the forums/around the water cooler is the virtue of Levine's good writing, but I'm left to wonder why all the twists weren't integrated a bit better or gentler. Those are all good points. Like I said upthread, I feel like the focus on Elizabeth kind of sapped the world-building in general a little too much. I definitely didn't feel like the audio diaries fleshed out concepts and story out the way they tended to in the first game (you also had fewer characters with distinctive points-of-view, relative to Bioshock and SS2). I guess I was invested enough that the ending didn't feel cumbersome to me, but you're right that there were ways that the load could've been evened out, and that there are some really weird plot holes w/r/t Comstock and his rise to power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Winky posted:I think that the reason that "games as art" are so focused on themselves is because the question is often "What kind of story can games tell that no other medium can?" I like Bioshock Infinite because you can interpret it as not necessarily trying to tell a veiled story about games, but rather trying to tell a story about infinite universes through the unique properties of games. In this sense the fact that everyone else is playing the same, but different, story is part of the story itself. Ideally an effective use of games as art draws on the unique properties of games to tell a story about something else that other mediums couldn't do. Arguably the Bioshock games aren't stories about how choice in games is futile, but rather stories about the futility of choice itself communicated through the medium of games. But it's not - the game's plot is the only time Booker has succeeded. So everyone else playing is not playing in one of those multiverses. And there's nothing in either Bioshock or Infinite that ties it specifically to a game. You could make either into a movie and not lose anything at all but the combat, because it's really making a point about a linear medium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:I mean I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really get why a talky ending ("exposition dump", in the goon-standard reductive vernacular) is a vice. This isn't Metal Gear Solid 4, and I don't really see any other graceful way of conveying the rules of the setting. I understand people don't like time travel because of all the table-setting it necessitates, but that's not really a knock against the execution of the ending. I think that playing through this "exposition dump" makes all the difference in the world too. While it is just a simple progression of scenes the small level of interactivity that it does allow you changes the feeling of the ending an incredible amount compared to a cutscene. For instance: the fact that you control Booker running towards Comstock with Anna and you have to slam the F key to try to take her back is a lot different than just passively watching that scene. The same with having to be in the room with Elizabeth and Lutece silently watching you while you, yourself, have to pick up baby Anna and give her to Lutece. The effect that Elizabeth generates with the whole "you have to do it, you can wait as long as you like but it already happened, you can't change it" really does a lot to drive home the feeling of reliving your past regrets and wanting to have made a different decision, but being unable to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Those are all good points. Like I said upthread, I feel like the focus on Elizabeth kind of sapped the world-building in general a little too much. I definitely didn't feel like the audio diaries fleshed out concepts and story out the way they tended to in the first game (you also had fewer characters with distinctive points-of-view, relative to Bioshock and SS2). I guess I was invested enough that the ending didn't feel cumbersome to me, but you're right that there were ways that the load could've been evened out, and that there are some really weird plot holes w/r/t Comstock and his rise to power. I'm guessing the twist wasn't something they had in mind when they first built the world and the two main characters. That was probably added after, hence the abruptness of the information dump. The game's been in development for a LONG time, after all. I actually liked the focus on Elizabeth. The world is interesting but the core of the story is the relationship between Elizabeth and Booker. Which is mainly why I think the ending is disappointing: that part of the story just gets dropped on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Winky posted:The debts in this case are also literal: Booker had a ton of gambling debts, which you can see by looking at the stubs and receipts littering his desk. I thought the part about gambling debts was just a justification Booker made up with his scrambled memories after he crossed over to the Columbia universe. Don't the Lutece's mention something about that as they're dragging him onto the boat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Winky posted:I think that playing through this "exposition dump" makes all the difference in the world too. While it is just a simple progression of scenes the small level of interactivity that it does allow you changes the feeling of the ending an incredible amount compared to a cutscene. For instance: the fact that you control Booker running towards Comstock with Anna and you have to slam the F key to try to take her back is a lot different than just passively watching that scene. The same with having to be in the room with Elizabeth and Lutece silently watching you while you, yourself, have to pick up baby Anna and give her to Lutece. Something that I felt was off about that: Booker should really be watching himself doing these things, not doing them again. I do wish they made you drown yourself; that would have been more interesting and much less passive. Something funny about the subtitles: the preacher at the very beginning who nearly drowns you when you arrive has the same name as the one at the end. I didn't check the model to see if they look the same though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Spite posted:But it's not - the game's plot is the only time Booker has succeeded. So everyone else playing is not playing in one of those multiverses. I am going to disagree 100% and say that nothing about the feeling of being in Columbia, which Bioshock Infinite manages extraordinarily well, can be replicated by a film. The first-person experience it gives you is pretty unique. Nor does the twist in Bioshock have anywhere near the same impact if it wasn't you blindly following orders to that point and instead you watching a character do it (granted that the rest of the game fails to deliver on the premise by opening up after the twist).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
TheQuad posted:I thought the part about gambling debts was just a justification Booker made up with his scrambled memories after he crossed over to the Columbia universe. Don't the Lutece's mention something about that as they're dragging him onto the boat? That's the _second_ time though. The first time we don't know. If you go through the ending, does he have the stubs on his desk there as well? And is there a calendar? There isn't a calendar that I could see at the beginning of the game, and the postcredits scene has one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Spite posted:But it's not - the game's plot is the only time Booker has succeeded. So everyone else playing is not playing in one of those multiverses. Everyone else playing is not supposed to be in one of those multiverses, but it is arguably allusive. It's a pretty blatant image. In both games, it's the game mechanics about which the points are being made. In Bioshock, the whole 'would you kindly' thing is a reflection on how you have no choice but to follow a game's rules if you're playing a videogame. In Infinite, it's a little more nuanced, but the game draws attention to the fact that the binary choices you've made - which brooch to wear, etc, have created one of two different versions of the world - or game. These aren't observations about life - you don't have to do as your told in life, and there are infinite possibilities or outcomes . These observations, then only make sense in the context of a game. The Grumbles fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Spite posted:Something that I felt was off about that: Booker should really be watching himself doing these things, not doing them again. I do wish they made you drown yourself; that would have been more interesting and much less passive. I actually liked it better the way it is: Booker is reliving the past so he doesn't have a choice but to do things the way he did them before. He wouldn't have been able to drown himself, that's why Elizabeth had to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Spite posted:I'm guessing the twist wasn't something they had in mind when they first built the world and the two main characters. That was probably added after, hence the abruptness of the information dump. The game's been in development for a LONG time, after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
The Grumbles posted:Everyone else playing is not supposed to be in one of those multiverses, but it is arguably allusive. It's a pretty blatant image. Oh certainly. I was (poorly) trying to draw a parallel to Dark Souls, where the plot says there are multiple universes and they actually do have people playing in them. And I definitely understand why they did first person (plus that way they don't have to make/animate multiple Bookers) but drowning yourself seems like it would be an apt way to end it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
The Grumbles posted:Everyone else playing is not supposed to be in one of those multiverses, but it is arguably allusive. It's a pretty blatant image. I think it does ultimately try to actually tell a story about life, though, in both cases. Whether you think it's effective or not is up to you, but there's certainly a message about real life to be had in blindly following the words of a charismatic stranger, or in reflecting on the decisions you've made in life and trying to figure out which ones actually mattered and what they changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Now that the framework of the baby transaction is somewhat fleshed out, although I'm sure there's much more to come on that end, I'm a bit more interested in the death mechanic that occurs prior to you meeting Elizabeth and the post-credits scene and the implication the two have for the ending. Did drowning DeWitt-Comstock fail to stop the cycle? Is he still alive? Or was the teleportation to the office upon Booker's death supposed to show that that was where that timeline ends and going through the doorway was the player shifting to a different Booker in a different timeline? When does the post-credits scene happen, anyway? Is the whole thing there just to look cool and cause speculation? The scene , to me, is the most confusing thing about the entire plot because it's quite a monkey wrench for the whole thing and I can't quite figure out what Levine is trying to do with it there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
I think the death thing is either just a stylistic way to keep the mechanics consistent before you get to Elizabeth, or it's Elizabeth or the twins 'saving' you at the last second.. or even a Dewitt from a universe a few seconds ago being brought in as a replacement? Elizabeth goes on about how the stuff she brings in is often wish fulfilment, she is finding the universes but also creating them in the process. So I took that end scene to mean that she's created a world where Booker's got his baby back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
HellishWhiskers posted:Now that the framework of the baby transaction is somewhat fleshed out, although I'm sure there's much more to come on that end, I'm a bit more interested in the death mechanic that occurs prior to you meeting Elizabeth and the post-credits scene and the implication the two have for the ending. Did drowning DeWitt-Comstock fail to stop the cycle? Is he still alive? Or was the teleportation to the office upon Booker's death supposed to show that that was where that timeline ends and going through the doorway was the player shifting to a different Booker in a different timeline? When does the post-credits scene happen, anyway? Is the whole thing there just to look cool and cause speculation? The scene , to me, is the most confusing thing about the entire plot because it's quite a monkey wrench for the whole thing and I can't quite figure out what Levine is trying to do with it there. I'm not sure the framework is fleshed out. We don't know the order it occurs in. Winky had a good post about the post credits scene in the case where the sale happens after the baptism. The idea is that you are seeing a whole other timeline, where none of this happened. A timeline where Booker never even went to be baptized. Now, if the sale is before the baptism you can say it makes sense as is. If Booker dies before Comstock is created, Comstock can never go back and buy Anna. Assuming that's part of the guilt that caused him to want redemption, he'd never go get baptized and would continue his life. The post credits scene is in 1893 from what I recall. I think there was a calendar. I don't think she's _creating_ the universes. She doesn't know if she is or not because she doesn't understand what's going on yet. But I took the ending to mean they are all there already. EDIT: I should say, I took it to mean they are all there already. The ones she can open tears to have to do with her mental state. Or you could argue that the game is a universe created by Old Elizabeth so Booker could succeed! Spite fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
What commentary is it giving on the whole american exceptionalism/communism thing though? Bioshock at least tried to tie the objectivism window dressing into the story with the 'man chooses, slave obeys' thing and the 'what if?' plasmid technology ultimately led to the downfall of Rapture when the free market couldn't cope (or Andrew Ryan lost his nerve, i forget). How does the 'what if?' technology in this game, the dimensional portals, tie into the american exceptionalism/communism that Ken kept banging on about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
CJ posted:What commentary is it giving on the whole american exceptionalism/communism thing though? Bioshock at least tried to tie the objectivism window dressing into the story with the 'man chooses, slave obeys' thing and the 'what if?' plasmid technology ultimately led to the downfall of Rapture when the free market couldn't cope (or Andrew Ryan lost his nerve, i forget). How does the 'what if?' technology in this game, the dimensional portals, tie into the american exceptionalism/communism that Ken kept banging on about? About halfway through the game it seems that it drops all of the political commentary and focus solely on Elizabeth's story. Which is fine, but it seems like the mechanics/lore of Columbia itself was kind of ignored, which is a shame because one of the best things about the original BioShock was that Rapture had a personality of it's own and seemed to function logically. Due to all of the floating buildings and structures in Columbia, everything seems kind of randomly put together and not a whole lot of it is explained. Like, is there a log or conversation I missed that explains how they even get water/have a beach?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
This fuckin game. Was all right until Ghost Mom showed up and completely broke any semblance of balance on 1999. The Vox's motivation post Liz killing Daisy Fitzroy is kind of weak (yeah, things are "set in motion" but still) + where the hell do they get handymen? The boys of silence are shoved in for a filler level. Slate is a filler level. Songbird is basically a throwaway mechanic at the end Still, as long as you don't think too hard it's a great ride
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
AlternatePFG posted:Like, is there a log or conversation I missed that explains how they even get water/have a beach? Actually, in one of the maintenance rooms in the beach area Elizabeth talks about how it's just an elaborate system of pumps and rain catchers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
CJ posted:What commentary is it giving on the whole american exceptionalism/communism thing though? Bioshock at least tried to tie the objectivism window dressing into the story with the 'man chooses, slave obeys' thing and the 'what if?' plasmid technology ultimately led to the downfall of Rapture when the free market couldn't cope (or Andrew Ryan lost his nerve, i forget). How does the 'what if?' technology in this game, the dimensional portals, tie into the american exceptionalism/communism that Ken kept banging on about? It doesn't. And it has the same problem as Bioshock since Daisy is terrible as well. Though Comstock is way worse than Ryan, I'd say. Ryan did some bad poo poo, but Comstock is really drat terrible. But really, both of them don't use the potential of objectivism/exceptionalism well at all. Both games are much more interested in the twist, which is a shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
AlternatePFG posted:About halfway through the game it seems that it drops all of the political commentary and focus solely on Elizabeth's story. Which is fine, but it seems like the mechanics/lore of Columbia itself was kind of ignored, which is a shame because one of the best things about the original BioShock was that Rapture had a personality of it's own and seemed to function logically. Due to all of the floating buildings and structures in Columbia, everything seems kind of randomly put together and not a whole lot of it is explained. Like, is there a log or conversation I missed that explains how they even get water/have a beach? Battleship Bay is explained in either some overheard conversation or some dialog from Elizabeth, but basically it's just an elaborate system of pumps and rain catchers. EDIT: Beaten Also, I will agree that for all the loving attention that was put into it visually and details-wise, the story and the voxophones just don't care as much about Columbia as the original Bioshock cared about Rapture. Winky fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Maybe it's because I'm a programmer but the ending and how killing the one booker solved everything made perfect sense to me. e: and goons are more likely to poo poo all over this thing than the ouya and that's just depressing Liquid Penguins fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Everyone is talking about the endings, but I want to know about the other tears. Like when you go through the rift where the VOX have guns. Does that mean the world without guns still exist? it seems like in game there are like 3 timelines you cross through as a player, on top of the ones you don't control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
CJ posted:What commentary is it giving on the whole american exceptionalism/communism thing though? Bioshock at least tried to tie the objectivism window dressing into the story with the 'man chooses, slave obeys' thing and the 'what if?' plasmid technology ultimately led to the downfall of Rapture when the free market couldn't cope (or Andrew Ryan lost his nerve, i forget). How does the 'what if?' technology in this game, the dimensional portals, tie into the american exceptionalism/communism that Ken kept banging on about? I was thinking more about the little section with Old Elizabeth and Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose came to mind. Don't really know why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 03:41
|
|