Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Opinion: Bioshock Infinite; I don't like it (There Will Be Spoilers! Don't click if you don't want spoilers, please!)
Topic Started: Aug 21 2013, 06:26 PM (336 Views)
booker15366
Member Avatar

So... yeah, I've mentioned this in a few places (mostly streams) but never really gone into it because it's kind of spoilerific. Also, that's the final warning: don't read this if you don't want Bioshock Infinite Spoilers. I should probably also point out, this is for debating the game, this is in no way at all related to Squee's LP of Bioshock Infinite. I just figured, you know, since no one else on the forums has talked about it, I kind of want to put my opinion out there. Especially since it seems to be a very uncommon one.

All right... :'( time to get into it. *looks around nervously*
When I first heard about Bioshock Infinite, it sounded like an amazing game. It was like Bioshock, but livelier and more open. "A less claustrophobic version of Bioshock, though? Wasn't the gimmick the city?" Well the grand schemes of the developers seemed to indicate that, no, the important part was the deep, thought-provoking themes of Bioshock. And I cannot disagree there, Bioshock metaphorically (and in some cases literally) beat you over the head with its themes. I mean, Andrew Ryan even sounds like some horrible genderbent Ayn Rand. Atlas is a direct reference to her most famous book. So, yeah, maybe Bioshock was a little too straightforward about it for me, and maybe I do think Ken Levine only read Ayn Rand's Wikipedia page, but so what? It worked. It made a compelling game; a game that made more than a few good points about economic imperialism and rampant, unchecked capitalism. And, frankly, that was all I wanted out of the story. Because the atmosphere of the game was stellar enough to back it up. It was enjoyable, and so I could overlook the simplicity of the plot.
And I guess that Irrational must've figured that out, because they put all their effort in Bioshock Infinite into making it fun to play. Now, I won't lie, it's a very fun game to play, the first time through, at least. It's an absolutely beautiful game. Like, don't get me wrong, it's gorgeous. In fact, it's flashy. It's a good-looking game, and it knows this, so the game goes out of it's way to show off how gorgeous it is. Which, again, I guess is okay, because games ought to be nice to look at, they ought to catch your eye. And more importantly, this can be written off as establishing the city for the player, so I suppose being flashy is something Infinite could get away with. If, like Bioshock, it had enough to it to back this up.
Which it does not. Let me derail and go off on one of my biggest issues with Infinite, from a comparative standpoint. In both games, you murder a helluva lot of people. Almost entirely in cold blood. In the first game, you're killing people who are 1) trying to kill you, 2) willing supporters of vile people, and 3) horribly deformed to a state of inhumanity. Bioshock Infinite's slaughter is of people who are 1) trying to kill you, 2) blind supporters of dangerous people, and 3) ...still entirely human. Now, 3 is the big point, but look at 2 first. In the first game, the mutated enemies were all willing immigrants of Rapture. They came their because they wholeheartedly supported Andrew Ryan's clearly insane dream. In Infinite, the people who attack you are either the police force (meaning they're just doing their job!!), or followers of the slew of opposition leaders (Slate, Fitzroy, etc) in which case, they are actively seeking to kill you, and therefore the player is justified. However, the Columbian police force is just following orders, which is their duty, and otherwise we both know Comstock would have them killed. So I contest that these people don't deserve to die. The game justifies this as "they're racist" which I will get to later. Anyway, the major difference, #3, is probably the most important change between Bioshock and Infinite. Because these are fully conscious people. The splicers were barely alive in Bioshock, that was a mercy killing! This is cold-blooded massacre.
Which brings me to my next problem with the game: who are you fighting? In the original pitch for the game, there were 2 opposing forces, the troops of Comstock (or, as he used to be known, Salstonstall) and the Vox Populi. The game was intended to show why both sides were wrong, and as such, justify the player to fighting both of them. Yet the game begins and ends it's justification of hating Comstock at "RACISM!" Now, I think we can all agree here, racism is bad. Really, really bad. However, I feel it differs from the justification in Bioshock because, unlike rampant white supremacy, there's a realistic, almost reasonable argument to be made for Ryan's unchecked free market. See, you can understand why Ryan did what he did. There is no way for the player to understand Comstock's justification, and so it fails. On the flip side, we have Daisy Fitzroy. The player's justification to hate her is... *sounds of crickets*. It boils down to "her people attack you, so you shoot them." That's all. Daisy Fitzroy, perhaps the only character in the game I could really get behind -- save one I'll get to later. But the only development occurs when she is transformed into a caricature of an angry, black woman. How does this happen? Plot crap. Not even reasonable, or well explained plot crap. Now, I understand the reasoning behind this scene, it's supposed to be about the whole "infinite universes" thing, and it's showing how powerful Elizabeth is, however that does not make it acceptable to have a character go through all of her development off-screen. This is the equivalent of having the best friend who turns evil in a JRPG, who then comes back having learned a valuable lesson, in a way which is never detailed in the game. Which is, let me stress this, only ever acceptable in a JRPG!!! Fitzroy's character becomes a villain, not through any plot, but through off-screen development, entirely in order to give the game a change of pace. In fact, in the long run, her change has NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE PLOT. She exists just so Elizabeth has someone important to murder, so her character has an excuse to "grow."
Which, oh God, brings me to Elizabeth. Okay, so, anyone who followed this game from it's inception (or anyone who heard about it, really) remembers that the developers praised "Elizabeth's intuitive AI" which was supposed to make the game amazing and be unlike anything we had seen before. BULL. SHIT. I am calling out anyone to tell me one thing Elizabeth did that was unique or intuitive. Tell me how she in any way reacts to her surroundings. Her use of tears are always scripted, her ability to find coins or lockpicks is as new as fish moving out of the way. She knows when to stay out of the way, and when to get in the way (scripted) and she follows Booker the way she ought to. If I may, her AI compared to Ellie from The Last of Us is like Doom compared to Half-Life 2. Both are the same concept, but one is clearly better than the other. Not only that, Elizabeth feels like, ironically, the least important character in the game. Elizabeth, (or as I call her, Princess MacGuffin,) is little more that the Ark of the Covenant or the One Ring to Rule Them All. She's really powerful, she helps the protagonist, everyone wants her, and she's the main reason that plot happens. Sure, she is also a character... in the same way that Solid Snake is a character. Both have dialog, both make the plot happen, but neither have much depth to them, they're mostly just there for the sake of the story. Snake and Elizabeth are both incredibly flat characters. Both want very simple things (his smokes, and to go to Paris, respectively) and both have very simple character flaws (old as balls, doesn't know her own power). Both characters neither grow nor change over the course of the game (well, okay, Snake does a little in MGS4) and both exist solely to move the story along. Elizabeth serves one other purpose, though. Ideally, she causes the player to form an emotional attachment to the game. However, the second you realize how badly characterized she is, this all falls apart.
The one character in the game that I thought was well written throughout the entirety of the game was only encountered through the game's flavor-text, provided helpfully by the Voxophones. Preston Downs, a proud follower of Comstock and an avid hunter, is known only way of the Voxophones, and is never encountered by Booker. Hidden under his silly accent is a touching story about how he grows to hate Comstock and his violent racism after encountering a young, injured Sioux boy. He then changes his ways, and actually freaking grows as a character, something he and he alone is able to accomplish in this game. This is something realistic and reasonable, and even touching. It is one of the only moments of the game I can still appreciate.
Now, I think I've complained enough about this game, so let me state something I like about this game. If this was done for the sake of meta-narrative, it is the most brilliant thing ever. Hear me out on this. See, the game I've described here is a really flashy game, which is stunning and fun the first time through. It is a game that does not live up to what it promised, but still manages to capture a huge audience. It is a game that uses fanaticism to attract a mass audience and utilizes a charismatic leader to get our attention. Bioshock Infinite is, in fact, Columbia. It's a game that is very pretty, which attracts people. It's a game that uses flashiness to overshadow its gaping flaws. Infinite is Columbia, a spectacle with all show, and nothing underneath to support it.
And I'm the man to shatter that illusion. I'm Booker.

...Okay, that's just a joke about my name, there. I'm sorry, but when I realized the similarities between the game and its subject, I just had to make that joke.
Anyway, please, please, I would love to get some feedback on this. If there's anyone here who really likes Infinite, please argue this with me. If I'm wrong somewhere, tell me. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. I want to like Bioshock Infinite, honestly, I do. I just can't get past these glaring problems with its plot.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan502
Member Avatar
More than Just a Conjurer of Cheap Tricks
I will debate this fantastic game with you booker, but as with the start of school I have no time, and the joke was a bit serious :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Himmelgeher
Member Avatar

booker15366
Aug 21 2013, 06:26 PM
Snip
There's a lot more to Bioshock then you're giving it credit for, especially if you listen to the Audio diaries. And Levine did a lot of research into Rand's personal life, her work, and the philosophy of Objectivism before and during the writing process. But this is about Infinite. Moving on.
Quote:
 
Let me derail and go off on one of my biggest issues with Infinite, from a comparative standpoint. In both games, you murder a helluva lot of people. Almost entirely in cold blood.
Killing in self defense is, by definition, not murder. Period. End of story. Booker and Jack do murder a few people, but most of the killing they do is not murder.
Quote:
 
In the first game, you're killing people who are 1) trying to kill you, 2) willing supporters of vile people, and 3) horribly deformed to a state of inhumanity. Bioshock Infinite's slaughter is of people who are 1) trying to kill you, 2) blind supporters of dangerous people, and 3) ...still entirely human. Now, 3 is the big point, but look at 2 first. In the first game, the mutated enemies were all willing immigrants of Rapture. They came their because they wholeheartedly supported Andrew Ryan's clearly insane dream. In Infinite, the people who attack you are either the police force (meaning they're just doing their job!!), or followers of the slew of opposition leaders (Slate, Fitzroy, etc) in which case, they are actively seeking to kill you, and therefore the player is justified. However, the Columbian police force is just following orders, which is their duty, and otherwise we both know Comstock would have them killed. So I contest that these people don't deserve to die. The game justifies this as "they're racist" which I will get to later. Anyway, the major difference, #3, is probably the most important change between Bioshock and Infinite. Because these are fully conscious people. The splicers were barely alive in Bioshock, that was a mercy killing! This is cold-blooded massacre.
The citizens of Columbia are not "blind." At least, not any more blind than the citizens of Rapture. You don't accidentally wake up one day as a fanatical supporter of a racist theocracy floating in the sky. In both games, the citizens come to the city because it embodies their ideals. Slate is balls-crazy, and orders his own men to their deaths so they can die "honorably," and Daisy Fitzroy decides to murder every member of Columbia's upper class, even the children, after she's already won the revolution. If they don't qualify as "obviously crazy," then who does?

The people being "fully conscious" has nothing to do with the morality of killing them. Unless you're advocating euthanasia for everyone with a mental illness or deformity, it is equally wrong to kill the Splicers as it is to kill the Founders or the Vox.
Quote:
 
Which brings me to my next problem with the game: who are you fighting? In the original pitch for the game, there were 2 opposing forces, the troops of Comstock (or, as he used to be known, Salstonstall) and the Vox Populi. The game was intended to show why both sides were wrong, and as such, justify the player to fighting both of them. Yet the game begins and ends it's justification of hating Comstock at "RACISM!" Now, I think we can all agree here, racism is bad. Really, really bad. However, I feel it differs from the justification in Bioshock because, unlike rampant white supremacy, there's a realistic, almost reasonable argument to be made for Ryan's unchecked free market. See, you can understand why Ryan did what he did. There is no way for the player to understand Comstock's justification, and so it fails.
Have you done any research into race relations in the early 1900s? Spolers: it was awful. The game presents an exaggerated version of what it was like in America back then, but that's entirely the point. Columbia is racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism taken to their logical extremes. Just as Rapture was Objectivism taken to its logical extreme. Whitewashing history isn't going to do anyone any favors, and the United States did a lot of things that were genuinely horrendous at that point in our history. It stands to reason, then, that an isolated society that was founded to embody America, with citizens and a leader who embrace all of those ideals to their most extreme, would be even worse.
Quote:
 
On the flip side, we have Daisy Fitzroy. The player's justification to hate her is... *sounds of crickets*. It boils down to "her people attack you, so you shoot them."
What. Did you miss the part where the Vox execute police officers by firing squad? Or where they torture a man to death? They are just as awful as the Founders, and there's plenty of in-game evidence to support that conclusion. Oh, and there's the part where Daisy Fiztroy tries to murder a child. Yeah, she's not getting any sympathy from me.
Quote:
 
That's all. Daisy Fitzroy, perhaps the only character in the game I could really get behind -- save one I'll get to later. But the only development occurs when she is transformed into a caricature of an angry, black woman. How does this happen? Plot crap. Not even reasonable, or well explained plot crap. Now, I understand the reasoning behind this scene, it's supposed to be about the whole "infinite universes" thing, and it's showing how powerful Elizabeth is, however that does not make it acceptable to have a character go through all of her development off-screen.
You have no proof whatsoever that Daisy was not the type of person who wouldn't murder a child for innocuous reasons after winning her revolution before the universe switch. And there's pretty strong evidence that she is that type of person in the game. Namely, the part where she tries do murder a child directly in front of you. Need I remind you, the first time the player meets Daisy is when she's holding you at gunpoint, tells you to get a weapon smith for her (so she can mount a revolution against the people you yourself said it's wrong to kill), and then drops you out of an airship? Her character isn't exactly doing a 180.
Quote:
 
This is the equivalent of having the best friend who turns evil in a JRPG, who then comes back having learned a valuable lesson, in a way which is never detailed in the game. Which is, let me stress this, only ever acceptable in a JRPG!!! Fitzroy's character becomes a villain, not through any plot, but through off-screen development, entirely in order to give the game a change of pace. In fact, in the long run, her change has NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE PLOT. She exists just so Elizabeth has someone important to murder, so her character has an excuse to "grow."
It's not offscreen development, it's just who she is. It ties into the game's overall motif on the nature of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Booker being alive is a threat to her power, so what else would she do?
Quote:
 
Okay, so, anyone who followed this game from it's inception (or anyone who heard about it, really) remembers that the developers praised "Elizabeth's intuitive AI" which was supposed to make the game amazing and be unlike anything we had seen before. BULL. SHIT. I am calling out anyone to tell me one thing Elizabeth did that was unique or intuitive. Tell me how she in any way reacts to her surroundings. Her use of tears are always scripted, her ability to find coins or lockpicks is as new as fish moving out of the way. She knows when to stay out of the way, and when to get in the way (scripted) and she follows Booker the way she ought to. If I may, her AI compared to Ellie from The Last of Us is like Doom compared to Half-Life 2. Both are the same concept, but one is clearly better than the other.
I'm going to start off by saying that I never heard anything about Elizabeth's AI being "revolutionary." All I ever heard about it was that she wouldn't make the game feel like one long escort mission, and that getting her AI right was necessary for the atmosphere of the game. Most of the coverage focusing on Elizabeth that I saw dealt more with her interaction with the environment. She never just stands around. She examines the environment of her own volition, and occasionally points things out to the player. That's really all she was ever supposed to do.
Quote:
 
Not only that, Elizabeth feels like, ironically, the least important character in the game. Elizabeth, (or as I call her, Princess MacGuffin,) is little more that the Ark of the Covenant or the One Ring to Rule Them All.
Posted Image
Nothing you listed here qualifies as a MacGuffin, least of all Elizabeth. The One Ring actively corrupts members of the main cast and it's integral to the back-story of several characters, as well as Middle-Earth as a whole. While the Ark is a MacGuffin for most of the movie, it stops qualifying as one when it kills all the Nazis. Elizabeth takes Booker to new universes no less then four times (Chen Lin Alive, Vox Revolution, New York, Rapture) throughout the story. Calling her a MacGuffin is like calling Superman a MacGuffin in the Justice League cartoon. It just doesn't make any sense, even if you take out everything else she does in the story.
Quote:
 
She's really powerful, she helps the protagonist, everyone wants her, and she's the main reason that plot happens. Sure, she is also a character... in the same way that Solid Snake is a character. Both have dialog, both make the plot happen, but neither have much depth to them, they're mostly just there for the sake of the story. Snake and Elizabeth are both incredibly flat characters. Both want very simple things (his smokes, and to go to Paris, respectively) and both have very simple character flaws (old as balls, doesn't know her own power). Both characters neither grow nor change over the course of the game (well, okay, Snake does a little in MGS4) and both exist solely to move the story along. Elizabeth serves one other purpose, though. Ideally, she causes the player to form an emotional attachment to the game. However, the second you realize how badly characterized she is, this all falls apart.
It's really starting to feel like you weren't paying attention. I'm not saying you didn't, but you need more evidence to support what you're saying. Elizabeth has plenty more to her character than "go to Paris." She's extremely well read, but naive enough to believe that a revolution could fix all of society's problems. She doesn't like to hurt people, but she's willing to do it if there are innocent lives in danger. If you honestly think that Elizabeth doesn't change over the course of the story, you need to play the game again. By the way, Elizabeth doesn't "not know her own power." She doesn't have access to it because of the siphon. That's explained clearly in-game.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
booker15366
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Killing in self defense is, by definition, not murder. Period. End of story. Booker and Jack do murder a few people, but most of the killing they do is not murder.

I'd really like to see your definition of "murder" here, because I'm pretty sure it's as cut-and-dry as "purposely killing someone." If self-defense somehow makes you exempt from murder, then what's to stop someone from, say, enticing someone to attack first and then killing them in so-called self-defense? Are they not a murderer?
My point is that the amount of bloodshed in the game feels almost absurdly unnecessary. You're slaughtering quite a few people just in order to get a girl out of the city. It feels completely unnecessary, and more than a little unreasonable. I mean, if Booker is capable of killing all these people almost entirely on his own, why did he ever need to fight alongside an army, when he basically is an army himself.

Quote:
 
The citizens of Columbia are not "blind." At least, not any more blind than the citizens of Rapture. You don't accidentally wake up one day as a fanatical supporter of a racist theocracy floating in the sky. In both games, the citizens come to the city because it embodies their ideals. Slate is balls-crazy, and orders his own men to their deaths so they can die "honorably," and Daisy Fitzroy decides to murder every member of Columbia's upper class, even the children, after she's already won the revolution. If they don't qualify as "obviously crazy," then who does?

Okay, perhaps I should clarify something. I consider the people of Columbia blind followers because they are basically accepting anything Comstock says at face value without thinking, because it fits with the ideals of people at the time. America was incredibly nationalistic at the time, and feeling different from that would be considered completely unreasonable at the time. It was more than acceptable to be a racist in the early 1900s. Sure, it was horrible and wrong and sick, but if Infinite is supposed to be a period piece, you can't condemn people for believing what society taught them was right at the time. And, also, I want to remind you that Comstock flew Columbia away from America, without checking with any of the citizens. How, do you propose, they could leave this paradise in the sky, even if they wanted to, when their "glorious leader" cuts all ties to the motherland, and in fact, to Earth itself? It was their choice to move to Columbia when it was part of America. But when he seceded, there was no option to leave. And, yes, Slate and Fitzroy are both crazy, but does being crazy mean they deserve to die? The splicers were so utterly deformed and miserable that they ought to be euthanized, but you cannot draw any comparison between that and real life, there's no mental or physical illness that can possibly compare to what has happened to the Splicers. And that goes for comparing them to anyone in Infinite, not even the Handymen are that horribly deformed.

Quote:
 
Have you done any research into race relations in the early 1900s? Spolers: it was awful. The game presents an exaggerated version of what it was like in America back then, but that's entirely the point. Columbia is racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism taken to their logical extremes. Just as Rapture was Objectivism taken to its logical extreme. Whitewashing history isn't going to do anyone any favors, and the United States did a lot of things that were genuinely horrendous at that point in our history. It stands to reason, then, that an isolated society that was founded to embody America, with citizens and a leader who embrace all of those ideals to their most extreme, would be even worse.

Yes, I happen to know a thing or two about American history, and I don't appreciate being insulted. And the point is, you don't need to exaggerate racism to make a point. The average person is going to tell you that being a racist, nationalist, religious fanatic is bad. Everyone already knows America did some stupid-ass things in its history, no one is going to argue that racism is a good thing. It's not like Bioshock, where exaggerated capitalism actually makes a relevant point. There are still a large amount of people who would agree with Andrew Ryan's speech at the beginning of Bioshock. But you ask any random person on the street, and I can assure you they will tell you "hating people based on race is bad." My point is not that ignoring what America has screwed up is right. My point is that you don't point out what we used to do wrong so we can feel better about how we are today. You point out what we're still doing wrong so that we can learn and grow.

Quote:
 
What. Did you miss the part where the Vox execute police officers by firing squad? Or where they torture a man to death? They are just as awful as the Founders, and there's plenty of in-game evidence to support that conclusion. Oh, and there's the part where Daisy Fiztroy tries to murder a child. Yeah, she's not getting any sympathy from me.

Remind me, did this happen before or after the garbage plot point in which we switch universes so we can have a little change of scenery. Because, if I remember correctly -- and I fully admit, I haven't played the game in a while, so I may be wrong here -- all of that occurs after the Vox take over for no reason. At which point, yes, there is a justification. That justification being "now they are in power, so they must be bad."

Quote:
 
You have no proof whatsoever that Daisy was not the type of person who wouldn't murder a child for innocuous reasons after winning her revolution before the universe switch. And there's pretty strong evidence that she is that type of person in the game. Namely, the part where she tries do murder a child directly in front of you. Need I remind you, the first time the player meets Daisy is when she's holding you at gunpoint, tells you to get a weapon smith for her (so she can mount a revolution against the people you yourself said it's wrong to kill), and then drops you out of an airship? Her character isn't exactly doing a 180.

Fitzroy's character -- prior to the universe switch -- is that she will do whatever it takes to help her people. I'm not saying she was completely in the right the whole time. I am saying there's no reason to believe she is this horrible before the universe switches, and we need a new bad guy. Perhaps she was deliberately left poorly characterized up to that point so it would be "believable" that she could become an absurdly unreasonable villain. My point here is just that she was very poorly characterized.

Quote:
 
It's not offscreen development, it's just who she is. It ties into the game's overall motif on the nature of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Booker being alive is a threat to her power, so what else would she do?

All right, here we go! I am more that willing to accept that! Thank you, that actually makes sense to me, I will concede this point. I was just unaware that the games theme was about power. For whatever reason, that just never clicked for me.

Quote:
 
Nothing you listed here qualifies as a MacGuffin, least of all Elizabeth. The One Ring actively corrupts members of the main cast and it's integral to the back-story of several characters, as well as Middle-Earth as a whole. While the Ark is a MacGuffin for most of the movie, it stops qualifying as one when it kills all the Nazis. Elizabeth takes Booker to new universes no less then four times (Chen Lin Alive, Vox Revolution, New York, Rapture) throughout the story. Calling her a MacGuffin is like calling Superman a MacGuffin in the Justice League cartoon. It just doesn't make any sense, even if you take out everything else she does in the story.

Okay, MacGuffin may be the wrong word. My point is that she does not impact the story in a significant way. She just moves the plot along, without having much say, if any, in where it goes. Superman has an affect on the actual plot, he takes action and saves people. Elizabeth allows the story to continue. At best, she has an impact when she kills Fitzroy. Other than that, she offers the ludicrous change-of-venue plot points, which feel almost entirely like plot points designed after-the-fact in order to give Elizabeth something to do. But she never

Quote:
 
It's really starting to feel like you weren't paying attention. I'm not saying you didn't, but you need more evidence to support what you're saying. Elizabeth has plenty more to her character than "go to Paris." She's extremely well read, but naive enough to believe that a revolution could fix all of society's problems. She doesn't like to hurt people, but she's willing to do it if there are innocent lives in danger. If you honestly think that Elizabeth doesn't change over the course of the story, you need to play the game again. By the way, Elizabeth doesn't "not know her own power." She doesn't have access to it because of the siphon. That's explained clearly in-game.

Where, in what way, does Elizabeth ever grow? When she gets pushed to the point that she has to kill someone, and in reaction changes her clothes? When Booker explains to her how he has to kill people and she immediately accepts it almost without question? When she arrives in Rapture and suddenly knows everything, leading into the altogether incomprehensible last segment? Anything that could possibly be interpreted as "growth" can just as easily be characterization. Elizabeth's scripted reactions which sound like growth are immediately undermined by the fact that every gameplay situation makes Elizabeth nothing more than an item-finder. She doesn't react to Booker killing anyone unless it's a specifically scripted segment. She doesn't interact with any character other than Booker in a meaningful way, and when she talks to Booker, all her characterization feels piss poor and wooden. Even when I was playing the game -- even when I thought I liked it -- Elizabeth never once felt like a believable character, much less an interesting one. And more so, she was so forgettable that, based on your analysis, I would've needed to pay very close attention to the game in order to see any development in the character. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you cannot see a character's growth as you read/watch/play a story, then either I'm paying no attention, or it was hard to get.
And I kinda think I payed close attention to this game. I mean I understood what was happening throughout the absurd multi-universal travel segment at the end in which Booker is killed by half a dozen Elizabeths. I get what that meant in the context of the narrative, so I think I might have an idea of what was happening in the story. I may think it was a terrible way to convey the story, but I still got it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.