While I get the point of the Mario example, I'd like to argue that it's not always true. For example, there HAVE been a number of gritty re imaginings of Mario with very different feels to them. These were in the form of movies or shows, but they still managed to retain the feel of the Mario world viewed through some sort of dark lens.
I'd be interested to see if you think this argument is applicable to Assassin's Creed III, because I feel almost the exact reverse:
In AC I and II, you explored beautifully crafted cities - well developed, major world locations, in the prime of their existence. And you did so surrounded by a populous that went about their daily lives, and (how I played, at least) avoiding the policemen except when it was important to show yourself on the rooftops
In AC III, you spent so much time on your own, in the forests. I think the team did an amazing job to make the free running seem as fluid, but it didn't work for me. I feel like someone should have turned around and said that it was great to be able to run through the trees, but the core experience of AC (to me at least) is about the cities.
This may be me falling into the habit of being a bad consumer, and essentially wanting a repeat of a previous game, but that's a valid desire too, isn't it?
and not a single word for e3 was found, seriously, you guys need to talk about Microsoft right now.
I don't think they need to talk about E3 or Mircosoft right now. We have lots and LOTS of people giving us the kneejerk 'they terk ur gamz!' response (whether justified or not.)
I like that EC is topical, but not reactionary. Let E3 finish, let them do their thing, and in time we'll get a good, thought-out, well researched take on where the next gen of consoles is headed. I look forward to it.
@FatedToPretend the problem with Assassin's Creed is that it's departing away from the idea of being "an Assassin". If the series was called Sausageroll Creed then it might be acceptable.
-
I find the hatred with Final Fantasy XV's 'action combat' interesting. I can understand the disappoint that's it's not turn based. But, do you play Final Fantasy explicitly for the turned-based combat?
I mean, I find with Pokemon I'm getting a tad bored with the turned-based combat. It makes low-priority battles in the game a labour to do. A lot of time is wasted with the introduction, wrap-up and any events during the battle. I would welcome a more-action approach to the Pokemon RPG franchise...
i disagree with that the whole argument of the combat and lack of escallation from the cops. the game starts throwing bigger enemies at you. it goes from guys with batons to handguns to missile launchers to fire men to iron patriots and then handymen as well as song bird. the game i feel does a good job of showing that you have become a larger threat in it giving you more of these enemies to fight.
@ayakano No they don't. They talk primarily about game design, talking about Microsoft at E3 isn't game design. That's not to say that the couldn't step outside their normal subject matter and discuss it (they have done that in the past), but they don't NEED to do it.
I disagree, as I feel that your complaints was part of the whole point of the game, that being a meta commentary on the gaming industry, mainly AAA.
But first the nitpicks, the looting didn't feel out of place for me because the game made a point to show early on that Booker was not a good "clean" guy. He's a shady man with a dark past getting involved with unknown people who will kill if he fails (this is what is shown to us early on). To me, that explained why he was willing to do what it takes to make it through his mission. I agree that the police combat seemed a little odd after the first few fights, although that level of detachment goes away once they start "jumping".
But my main point: I believe that the developers, maybe the top ones in charge at the very least, were actually well aware of this "forcing of brand troupes" onto a game that doesn't quite gel. You see that with the "showing of the towers" scene near the end (I'm trying to be as non-spoilerish as possible). The "towers" scene tells us that no matter how many Bioshock worlds we explore, many of the details will still be the same. There's always a man, going to a strange city, where he gets powers, etc etc (basically what this video has already mentioned).
I felt like that this key scene in the game was the developers blatantly admitting that some of the aspects of this game are forced, but summarizing the uncomfortable fact that this is the state of the AAA gaming industry. Give us more of the same! We as gamers want different games, but really we want more of the same, just with a slightly different coat of pant. This is what the higher ups in game companies believe and how they carry out their business (Think of all the Battlefields, CODs, ACs, Halos, all Nintendo franchises, etc).
Yet, I don't think Bioshock supports this as an absolute. But much like how Booker could hunt down every Comstock individually to change this fact (IE try and remove these tired franchises individually), this won't change anything ultimately. He has to get rid of the root of the problem, which those that played the game ending know, is a much harder decision.
I agree with just about everything you said right now. As much as I love love love Bioshock Infinite, I feel that it fell flat in about the same places you just talked about. I wish the could have come up with ideas for mechanics that better fit the world at large. For example maybe instead of finding food in the trash, you could talk to the people there and ask or "ask" them for money to buy food from the vending machines... OK so maybe that's not the best example of what they could have done, but you see what I mean.
I agree with the plasmid part you guys discussed, but I gotta say that the looting and violence is something I found natural in the world of Colombia.
Booker is an outsider in this world, with no proper connections or sources of income, so scavenging is his only means of acquiring resources. He has no job, and no other means of getting money to support his journey through Colombia other than looting and exploiting the world around him, his back story touches on his shady past, where he didn't always play by the rules in order to come out ahead. Cakes in hatboxes are silly, sure, but looting cash registers and bodies for money is perfectly normal, especially since this still functional society has plenty of vending machines to spend that precious money on.
As for the violence, you have to keep in mind that the people of Colombia have been told time and time again that Comstock saved the from the 'Sodom' of below, and that he's essentially their savior. He's held up on a pedestal, basically as a god to these people, and they take everything he says as the unadulterated and holy truth. He's spent his entire time as leader hyping up and warning the entire populace of the false prophet, basically as the Antichrist in this world. So when this figure shows up, and attempts to 'kidnap' their version of Jesus (Elizabeth), it's expected that their police force will spare no expense to stop him, to send wave after wave of man to die for their god. This something we've seen in reality, people killing others mercilessly solely based on their beliefs, so the people of Colombia pulling no stops to stop the Antichrist doesn't surprise me. And I said before, Booker's past clears up him having basically no hang ups killing those who are trying to kill him first, rather than the dark past that is revealed about him.
Hope you guys read this, I'd love to see some feedback.
Ok, normally I'm in agreement with you guys, but in this case...
These mechanics are explained in-world, some better than others, but suffice it to say that Booker DeWitt is a bad, bad person. You're right that his behavior makes no sense; it's not supposed to, the hero is effectively a villain in his own right. Which is important to the overall plot! You should be feeling uncomfortable with the violence and the combat and the scrounging, because these are not normal things!
And as mentioned by @Dellbon earlier, all of these things tie back into a meta-commentary about the genre and the brand itself; I won't spoil the ending, but my first interpretation was that they weren't talking about the game world at all, but about first person shooters and the Bioshock brand, and how they can spin as many sequels as they want from these concepts and mechanics. It even felt to me like Levine saying, flat out, that he could do this forever and we'd keep buying and playing it!
So, yeah. You're right that these things feel out of place. I posit that they feel out of place on purpose.
I'm with "dssturn" on this one. One of the previous episodes of Extra Credits brought up "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Campbell. You can't admit that humans have a need for what is basically the same set of stories with a new coat of paint one day and then decry games for sticking with familiar elements the next.
As "dssturn" said, in one sense the ending for Infinite EXPLICITLY makes Campbell's theory part of the game world. Bioshock Infinite doesn't have a Hacking mechanic like System Shock 2 even though the original Bioshock did. Likewise Act 2 of Infinite feels more like the set pieces of an over-the-top 80's Action movie (i.e. lean on plot, long on gunfire) than it does a SS2/Bioshock-style "atmospheric thriller".
Ken Levine has openly admitted that they were running character design past focus groups filled with "the frat boy demographic". In the end, are you really surprised the game included so many "shoe-horned" elements in service to the brand?
In the end the HERO may have a Thousand faces, but his tools rarely change shape.
I think only the first point actually works, because Vigors really don't make sense for the reasons you describe.
Stealing however does make sense, you expected Booker to be civil in a society that's going to have him hung, drawn and quartered? If you're on the run and you're hungry, you steal whatever food you can find. Wanted men have done this in the past. It's also worth noting that stealing infront of people does actually provoke attacks.
And while it's true that the violence never shocks the player like it does in the start, you're giving totalitarian societies too much credit. Citizens were told to stay safe, and from radio broadcasts we find out that the information they recieve is a lot less than the real truth. They were told that the Police would handle it, and that nobody should worry too much.
Actually I was reminded of the Boston bombing, citizens were told to stay indoors to let the police do the work. And they complied. That's just how groups of people act.
I guess one of the best reasons I could come up with for the rarity of tonic users was the huge side effects:
Each of the tonics causes huge hallucinations; the fireball tonics cause your skin to bubble and boil right before your eyes... I mean who would actually sign up for that kind of gig?
I agree, I felt it wallowed in Bioshock too much, and it also didn't rise to its heights. The original bioshock is so cohesive, everything links together and the science links with the weapons and plasmids to create a world that works. Additionally I think Rapture is a far more interesting city than Columbia, as it makes sense when it does or does not react. Columbia is just flat, at first interesting but without further exploration it might as well be any city, just in the sky, which is stupid. Rapture became the way it was because it attracted genius, and cut away ethics, advancing rapidly but also causing monstrous moral decline into madness. Bioshock is infinitely better than Bioshock infinite, and it makes me sad that we didn't get to explore columbia more, but simply see it as a racist flying city, blah blah blah, gunfights. I think its because of that whole gun bro thing, yet the orignial was a success without being that. You carry multiple weapons, need to pick up medkits and it felt desperate. In Infinite though. no. I only upgraded one vigor and there were some gun upgrades, but there was no visual difference that showed me the gun was tougher, no sense of ownership. I might as well have not upgraded them the way it felt, and that disapointed me. I also didnt like the ending, but hey, differnce of opinion there.
I felt like Bioshock Infinite was trying to convince me that all the violence was something I should feel conflicted about with every "sting" played with an enemy's death. And then it set me against dozens of interchangable enemies with literally zero options but to kill everyone in the area before I could proceed. Arguably Bioshock games are *about* the lack of real player choice, but... that point has already been made, big time. They need to move on.
I agree, I thought the worst part of BioShock Infinite was the combat. The way waves and waves of enemies just came out to die then you walked to the next area and it happened again. It made the combat a grind fest, something we had to do to advance the story but didn't really find engaging. I didn't pick up a BioShock game to play a mindless shooter, those segments were the weakest part of the game.
First you use FF9 as an example of "vibrant characters," then you use one of the best songs in all gaming in the credits. I'm so conflicted ;_;
Nothing really to say about the content of the video, except that I personally don't like it very much when a series changes drastically from one "main arc" entry to the next, whether they're numbered or not. Starfox, Sonic the Hedgehog, and ALL Square games since the move to disc-based platforms were all greatly damaged in my eyes by putting the brand before the spirit of the games.
I think this entire argument is entirely backwards. Bioshock Infinite's flaws aren't in how slavishly they kept to the Bioshock brand, it's in how it *didn't*. Vigors, looting and shooting weren't shoehorned into an otherwise brilliant Bioshock story - a vision of brighter visuals and a trippy multi-dimensional story was clumsily shoehorned into the Bioshock universe, and the core mechanics suffered for it. That vigors and looting don't make much sense in the setting are a problem of the setting, not the mechanics. In turn, *something* made the devs decide that Bioshock's defining mechanics should take this much of a backseat in a game bearing the Bioshock title.
There isn't too much Bioshock in Infinite, there is too much Infinite in Bioshock. I'd even go as far as to claim that the inclusion of Vigors and a glimpse of Rapture are just fanservice, and the insulting kind. Or at least manipulative. They were (mis)using the Bioshock brand to sell their otherwise unrelated original story.
The implication of this video is maddening. As if the Bioshock mechanics were holding back this otherwise great game. A great game was held back by design choices that didn't befit a Bioshock title. EC sees the vigors not working and asks "why are they in the game?" (somewhat implying that they shouldn't be) - when everyone should look at the game world and ask "why does this world not work?".
Ever since it came out, I felt like the only person on the entire internet who seriously dislikes Bioshock Infinite, especially for thinking that it's actually a pretty bad *game*. The story, plot, Elizabeth, the twist(s), etc. are perfectly fine, but why did it have to be a Bioshock game (remove all overt references and the story still works great)? It isn't. That was just marketing - remember, it's the game with the gun-wielding manly man on the cover for this one reason alone. And that kind of shoddy compromise and insecurity echoes throughout the game.
Because gameplay-wise it has very little to offer, and there is no reason for that. I *mistakenly* believed it would service the brand, and disappointed by how much it didn't. Sure, vigors were there, and they make no sense, but they were dialed back so much in comparison to plasmids, that they hardly mattered - and I upgraded Salt-capacity first, to play around with them. The idea of violence may have been dissonant to the otherwise low-key environment, but in gameplay terms all you got were 2 guns at a time that shot boring old bullets, with the occasional strategically placed rocket launcher. Because that doesn't sound familiar at all. Just like the box-art, all creativity (that the first to Bioshocks demonstrated) went out the window to appeal to that "wider audience" that is used exclusively to that one type of shooter. Because we need more of those.
And then they have dimensional tears in the plot and don't do anything with it in the actual game part of the game. Yeah, you can open a couple, but context-sensitive button presses are the worst, most minimal type of "gameplay" there is (even worse, with one or two exceptions, it wouldn't have made a difference if all the tear-elements had just been part of the regular level design). It's not a new neat idea, it's another squandered opportunity for interesting gameplay. And Bioshock Infinite is made up entirely of those. They didn't just not know what to do with the Bioshock tropes, they didn't know what to do with their gameplay at all.
And not in service to the brand, but in service to a story. And that should never be the case. Not in 2013's biggest most expensive shooter, brainchild of one of the biggest names in the industry. Not when hundreds of games, including the very brand it apparently wanted to be a part of, told video game stories so much better. As video games. Not as okay movies occasionally interrupted by some by-the-numbers modern shooter.
I always watch Extra Credits. This video made me finally sign up here.
@Metaboy You're splitting hairs. The point is that Bioshock Infinite's world/message and its mechanics didn't mesh up. They say it's the mechanics, you say it's the world, both are pretty subjective. The point is they clashed.
Also: thank god, you're about the only other person I know who didn't think Infinite was the bee's knees. I thought the game was a trainwreck.
I agree with this video except for the part at the beginning where you said there were a lot of great things about Bioshock infinite. There are very few good things about Bioshock Infinite; the art design is pretty much where the quality ends.
On a lesser level I can only wonder how long Batman games are going to keep having Arkham in the title. It's clear they want to have a franchise with a recognizeable name, but it's limiting them in the terms of settings and stories they can tell.
@teknoarcanist I think it's a pretty important distinction, or at least it shows the problem I have when people talk about games in general. We're talking about games, shouldn't the way they play be slightly more important than the story they tell in our general direction? And especially in this case, they were "blaming" the Bioshock mechanics. They end the episode telling people not to be afraid to make "better games". The third Bioshock game would have been better if it had been less of a Bioshock game? Just because Elizabeth is pretty?
Hell, it's not like the setting even really mandated any of the limits. Even the plot hardly made any use of the fact that it's set in a city in the sky. Not once does anybody (noteworthy) fall off. Songbird still lands in an "ocean". Never do you manipulate the engines of someone's building. The buildings have docking schedules and not once do you enter a building, come out and are faced with a different location in front of you. Why is Columbia in the air at all?
Same for the tears, the ideology, the population, the important characters. The only reason the mechanics make no sense is because they wrote it that way. And that's shoddy writing and should be recognized as such. Not a problem with game mechanics. Going even further away from those mechanics, purely because of thoughtless writing, would have made Infinite an even worse *game*. Skyhooking alone wouldn't have saved the game from mediocrity. Infinite needed to be Bioshock.
The problem with Bioshock Infinite isn't the mechanics. It's the story. The story was good, but it wasn't a Bioshock story. Bioshock is all the things that you talked about in this episode, but you took the wrong things away. The game franchise is about the mechanics, not the story. This is a FPS game, and shooting, scrounging, looting, and plasmids/vigors are what Bioshock is all about. Did they fit into the story? No. So the story is the problem, not the mechanics.
I appreciate that you like story over mechanics, but people don't -PLAY- games for the story. They play for the action. We like the story more when it fits in with the mechanics we're playing, not when the mechanics fit the story, but a well made game will make those two things the same, so it's hard to see why we're enjoying the game. All we know is we like it.
Bioshock Infinite was a Bioshock game. However, it was -NOT- a Bioshock story. For all the reasons you pointed out, the story failed to be what it should be, and so the society/setting aren't what they should be, and the game just falls apart.
I don't fault the developers for this. This is a problem with the design lead, and probably with upper management. The story was not where it should have been, and despite the fact that the game tells a very good story, it shouldn't have been part of Bioshock brand. It should have been something new.
But publishers like franchises, despite the overwhelming evidence these days that an established franchise can't bear the brunt of a bad entry any more than a new IP can. Every game/movie/TV show/etc is weighed on its own merits, and a failure in any one part of that entry will tarnish established good will. This is what has happened to the latest Star Wars entries, which turned off a lot of old Star Wars fans, failed to convert new Star Wars fans, and lead to the debated failure of SWTOR. It just wasn't Star Wars. Sure, it had lightsabers and hyperspace, and Scoundrels and the Hutt, but it was such a departure from established canon that it felt like Episode 1 all over again. All we would have needed for a totally surreal experience would be Gungan Jedi.
Ugh... I feel dirty now.
Look, the simple thing is that you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Bioshock Infinite plays like a Bioshock game. The dissonance comes from the story and setting failing to be part of the Bioshock universe. Bioshock takes place in fallen societies, and we are putting together the pieces of that mystery to find out why they fell.
Columbia isn't a fallen society, as you pointed out, though it is hollow and dead on the inside, with the people desperately trying to prove to themselves and anyone else who arrives that they're still alive and well, enthusiastic and vibrant. But they're dead on the inside, and it shows. They're trying too hard. The fight scene in the bar where you're called out as a stranger and therefore a problem, is indicative of the society lashing out to keep you removed from it, desperately trying to hide just how bad off it is. This is a society in freefall; they realize that the world is rushing up to crash into them, and they don't like it. So the violently lash out at anything that comes too close, hoping to stave off the end.
In reality, I would call Bioshock Infinite a new kind of entry into the Zombie Apocalypse genre because its the story of a society that is dying, the people openly hostile, but for no good reason, just like zombies.
Actually, a full-on zombie entry into the Bioshock universe wouldn't be a half bad idea. Elements of a Bioshock game: Dead Society? Check. Lone Survivor, unaware of the cause of the fall? Check. Scavanging/Looting? Check. Plasmids/Vigors fit? You bet your butt. I think that might just work.
SPOILERS!
Vigors exist as part of the game world. The Handyman and Vigors come from Fink looking through the rifts into Rapture. It's pretty well pointed out in the game. There's also conversations in the game that tell you that the "Vigors handed out at the county fair" are testors only, and only exist for a short time, with the exception of the possession vigor, and that one's limited at best at that point. There's also multiple conversations happening at the fair that point out that the people of Columbia both don't know what to make of vigors and that they're incredibly new to the scene and most people haven't had the chance or inclination to try them. There's a reason why they make an appearance at the fair, it's because they're brand new. And yeah, they are expensive. This is why the, ultimately, slave labor driven economy of Columbia doesn't use Vigors. No one can afford them, least of all the people that would use them the most. The fair scene is enough to point that out by putting the real combat vigors outside of your price range early on.
Also, on the violence aspect, you can walk through huge portions of the game where no one will shoot you as long as they don't see you. That whole "moments of intense violence mixed with moments of trying to move through the city" is actually there. People just need to lay off the trigger and try to not walk up to every policeman. The violence also makes a ton of sense in the world as well. For one, it's not the player shooting first and asking questions later. Booker is asking a hell of a lot of questions and it's the people of columbia who are out to kill him without asking questions. This is entirely justified in the narrative.
The combat is quite realistically the only reason they can keep making amazing Bioshock games. No one will pay to produce a gritty Noir-esq game about fate and the Many Worlds theory, or a game detailing the heights and faults in the logic of Atlas Shrugged. Ken Levine has pointed this out already.
Firstly "A" vigor is given at the start of the game, and that vigor is (at first) only able to control machines. Technically this wouldn't cause too much of a problem, the vigor only affected machinery, at worst they could control a turret, but after it gets blown up your sol. After that the only people that have vigors are the higher ups. Firemen, Order of the Corw, etc. These people are important members, founders even, not the common draft, the vigors are only obtained by killing the mook. Durring times of violence vigor's are found on the ground and in different places, but durring downtimes of non violence, vigors are usually locked up. The other vigor they were giving away was Shock Jokey, and that was only supposed to be a sample (most likely a sip, nothing that would give you the power for a long time). And as stated, this stuff was just recently out on the market, probably less than a month before you came into the city
As for why is there looting? Well, the main character is basically homeless in Columbia, they have no way to gain money besides looting.
I do feel that the police being the main enemies is kind of dumb, I don't think that all the combat is dumb however. The whole city is religious zelots (except for a decidedly few) and the main character is their hated enemy. If anything the townsfolk shouldn't have vanished when violence breaks out, they should have ran to the nearest arms vednor bot and start firing at booker themsleves.
I can see where the Extra Credits crew were heading with this and can appreciate what they were getting at even if I don't entirely agree. I do see where vigors seem gimmicky in the world of colombia and fully agree that it seems sort of tacked on. However, i think that the aspects of scavenging in trash cans and having a story spread out much more thin didn't hurt the overall experience. Rather, I think it was intentionally left in to make the player feel out of place. Where rapture welcomed anyone who would work hard for what they earned, colombia actively shunned the inferior, sweeping them under the rug so to speak. Booker being new to this world has no way to prosper and so you see him returning to his primal instincts for survival. I will admit some sort of response from on lookers would at least help solidify the players place in the world, but silence from voyers has its own meaning as well (disgust, shock, awe).
Colombia is a city built on more themes then Rapture. While none of these themes seem particularly indepth, unlike Rapture, they do seem to have more in common with modern americano problems. Touching on issues of immigration, the power of religious fanatacism and its place in politics, corporations, and the disillusioned men and women who came back from war only to be shunned by society. These topics hit home harder than raptures Laissez-faire economics themes because these are real issues today.
Finally i would like to comment on the violence, which although i do not beleive is perfect, gets the point across. Booker is not welcome in colombia, this much is certain, which is why he is actively pursued by the local law and military. My major concern with the extra credits crew is their claim that there was no reprieve from combat and i feel that while there was not enough reprieve, it was present. I can recall an earlier part in the game where i enter a woman's house as she gives details to a police sketch artist on the details on some criminal (possibly booker) and as I am spotted, a fire fight occurs. not only do i survive, but in the crossfire i killed the woman who's home i am invading and proceed to loot... my actions said more than any book, picture, or movie ever could and hit home that i am not welcome, i am not here to keep the peace, and i sure as hell dont deserve what i take. Through out the game, and small scenarios like the one i mentioned, these themes are talked about, and while not alway apparent, the violence gets these points across.
@drakkon I appreciate that you have an opinion but for some reason when I read your post you made it sound like you were speaking for the community. I personally play games for story, its specifically why I tend to not play FPS style games. It seems to me that the Extra Credits crew have been very deliberate when they make the argument of creating games to be worlds and not actions so they tend to have their subjects centered around this idea. If you are only playing games for the specific actions taken and do not care about the story then that is a bit of a shame isn't it?
what games does/has james worked on? i don't know if i missed the episode where you mention it but in almost every episode you keep name dropping him and his work without context really (or i don't have the context) and i have no clue what that is. Have you ever said, does he care if we know?
My whole take on why Vigors were there and fit into the world and the reason why not too many people have them is because they are a new thing. That's why there's the fair at the beginning of the game. To show off the Vigors and what they can do for the society. None of the "civilized" people have them because they are new and no one wants to try them out because they're afraid of being ostracized if Vigors don't catch on.
For all those who believe that violence is needed to sell the game I'd like to point out when i first played Bioshock the game it most reminded me of was "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth". A first person shooter where 9 times out of 10 your gun was completely useless, and for a good reason.
That was a great analysis and clearly articulates what had been bothering me about the game. I hope they try an make another Bioshock game but keeping what you said about it in mind.
The people saying "mechanics DO make a franchise" just kind of baffle me. If that were the case, Mario Kart wouldn't be a Mario game. Actually, neither would any of the 3D Mario games. But nobody would say they aren't Mario games, and it isn't just about the characters and title. Super Smash Bros. is clearly a Mario game, not a Zelda game. We know this despite their being very little mechanical crossover with Smash and either of those titles. It's about the aesthetic. Mario games are about whimsical fun, Zelda games are about exploration.
This is why we can accept Kirby's Epic Yarn as a Kirby game, despite it not originally being designed as one: because it matches Kirby's aesthetic.
That's also why Final Fantasy Tactics, Crystal Chronicles, etc. are Final Fantasy games, despite their often being 0 crossover outside of "GO FIND ME CRYSTALS with moogles and chocobos."
That's also why Call of Duty and Battlefield are distinct, despite having HUGE mechanical similarities.
Just made an account just because I'm so bothered by the arguments against violence in Bioshock Infinite. The violence in this game serves a HUGE narrative purpose, one that I'm honestly really shocked you guys missed.
*SUPER DE DUPER GAME RUINING SPOILERSSSSS*
Booker is a character who is deeply flawed. That's not what's interesting about him, though - what's interesting about him is his deep guilt over his faults. This defines him as a character. His entire quest is started by his need to "wipe away the debt". He only goes to Columbia to try to wipe away his sins.
His immediate and continuous use of ultra violence shows how destined to fail this is.
Every single action Booker takes reinforces this. He constantly tries to leave behind his past as a Pinkerton. He brands himself over his immense guilt over giving away his daughter. We know that, in one timeline, he attempts to repent and is baptized. It is no accident that this is the timeline which turns him into Comstock, the most bloodthirsty monster in the game, aside from Booker himself. His entire character is wrapped up in the fact that he cannot escape the basic fact that he is the man who shoots first, and might ask questions later, despite how much he hates it.
This all, imo, links to what I always saw as the entire underlying meta-analysis-y theme built throughout the game of false choice, of game narratives being unchangeable fixed stories. Remember the necklace, the coin flip, the whole time travel narrative? This is a game about being unable to escape fixed reality, both in plot and in terms of offering "choice" in games.
I'm also confused as to the idea that Columbia is a city that cannot encourage looting and running/gunning. I understand that it starts out as a functional place, but your actions as a player along these lines are what cause it to effectively collapse in on itself pretty damn quickly. One of the most powerful moments in the game for me was looking out on the horizon on the end, seeing Columbia burn, and realize that *I* did this through this constant violence.
First of all, I love this game, I think it was one of the best storylines I have ever personally played in a game, just getting that out of the way....
But I do agree with everything Extra Credits said to a degree. Yes, I can sit here and try to justify the mechanics like vigors being a recent result of seeing into the Rapture world and their premiere at the world fair was still during a time when people weren't sure about them yet (but then a counter argument to that would be why would the special mini bosses throughout the game already have vigors if they premiered at the world fair?), or that Booker has nothing while he's in Columbia which forces him to loot every damn trash can he comes across, or that Booker's past as a heartless brute is justification for his violence; however, I'm not going to try and stand on that wobbly platform.
Instead, I'm going to see those things for what they are: mechanics and devices of gameplay. There have been many games in the past where the mechanics of gameplay have wrenched players out of the immersion of the story because of how juxtaposed mechanics and story were to one another. But in my experience in playing this game, I would say that the story was too good, the mechanics were too backgroud, or both to take me out of the excitement of playing. I think that what Ken Levine said about the box art being geared towards fratboys is true for some of these mechanics, most notably the violence. I think it's important to see this game as what it is; it's a bridging device. This is a push towards AAA games having more depth and complexity, but without overdoing it too soon as to loose any fanbase or connectivity. It's an opportunity for someone who loves the stories in games to take a great game to their "Bro" friend who just sits around and plays CoD multiplayer all day and get them to play something in their gaming style that will make them think. It's one of the small percentage of FPSs that provides clear proof that a shooter game can have real social commentary. Bioshock one did this, but I think Infinite was able to bridge the gap a little better, considering it does not really fall into the horror genre.
Overall, I think Infinite will have a lasting impact, along with games like Spec Ops:The Line and Far Cry 3, and I do consider these games to be a call to arms for other developers to continue to push first person shooters out of the generic military-crazy box that other devs keep churning out.
[PATV] Wednesday, June 12, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 14: In Service to the Brand
Posts
In AC I and II, you explored beautifully crafted cities - well developed, major world locations, in the prime of their existence. And you did so surrounded by a populous that went about their daily lives, and (how I played, at least) avoiding the policemen except when it was important to show yourself on the rooftops
In AC III, you spent so much time on your own, in the forests. I think the team did an amazing job to make the free running seem as fluid, but it didn't work for me. I feel like someone should have turned around and said that it was great to be able to run through the trees, but the core experience of AC (to me at least) is about the cities.
This may be me falling into the habit of being a bad consumer, and essentially wanting a repeat of a previous game, but that's a valid desire too, isn't it?
I don't think they need to talk about E3 or Mircosoft right now. We have lots and LOTS of people giving us the kneejerk 'they terk ur gamz!' response (whether justified or not.)
I like that EC is topical, but not reactionary. Let E3 finish, let them do their thing, and in time we'll get a good, thought-out, well researched take on where the next gen of consoles is headed. I look forward to it.
-
I find the hatred with Final Fantasy XV's 'action combat' interesting. I can understand the disappoint that's it's not turn based. But, do you play Final Fantasy explicitly for the turned-based combat?
I mean, I find with Pokemon I'm getting a tad bored with the turned-based combat. It makes low-priority battles in the game a labour to do. A lot of time is wasted with the introduction, wrap-up and any events during the battle. I would welcome a more-action approach to the Pokemon RPG franchise...
I'm tangenting now.
But first the nitpicks, the looting didn't feel out of place for me because the game made a point to show early on that Booker was not a good "clean" guy. He's a shady man with a dark past getting involved with unknown people who will kill if he fails (this is what is shown to us early on). To me, that explained why he was willing to do what it takes to make it through his mission. I agree that the police combat seemed a little odd after the first few fights, although that level of detachment goes away once they start "jumping".
But my main point: I believe that the developers, maybe the top ones in charge at the very least, were actually well aware of this "forcing of brand troupes" onto a game that doesn't quite gel. You see that with the "showing of the towers" scene near the end (I'm trying to be as non-spoilerish as possible). The "towers" scene tells us that no matter how many Bioshock worlds we explore, many of the details will still be the same. There's always a man, going to a strange city, where he gets powers, etc etc (basically what this video has already mentioned).
I felt like that this key scene in the game was the developers blatantly admitting that some of the aspects of this game are forced, but summarizing the uncomfortable fact that this is the state of the AAA gaming industry. Give us more of the same! We as gamers want different games, but really we want more of the same, just with a slightly different coat of pant. This is what the higher ups in game companies believe and how they carry out their business (Think of all the Battlefields, CODs, ACs, Halos, all Nintendo franchises, etc).
Yet, I don't think Bioshock supports this as an absolute. But much like how Booker could hunt down every Comstock individually to change this fact (IE try and remove these tired franchises individually), this won't change anything ultimately. He has to get rid of the root of the problem, which those that played the game ending know, is a much harder decision.
Booker is an outsider in this world, with no proper connections or sources of income, so scavenging is his only means of acquiring resources. He has no job, and no other means of getting money to support his journey through Colombia other than looting and exploiting the world around him, his back story touches on his shady past, where he didn't always play by the rules in order to come out ahead. Cakes in hatboxes are silly, sure, but looting cash registers and bodies for money is perfectly normal, especially since this still functional society has plenty of vending machines to spend that precious money on.
As for the violence, you have to keep in mind that the people of Colombia have been told time and time again that Comstock saved the from the 'Sodom' of below, and that he's essentially their savior. He's held up on a pedestal, basically as a god to these people, and they take everything he says as the unadulterated and holy truth. He's spent his entire time as leader hyping up and warning the entire populace of the false prophet, basically as the Antichrist in this world. So when this figure shows up, and attempts to 'kidnap' their version of Jesus (Elizabeth), it's expected that their police force will spare no expense to stop him, to send wave after wave of man to die for their god. This something we've seen in reality, people killing others mercilessly solely based on their beliefs, so the people of Colombia pulling no stops to stop the Antichrist doesn't surprise me. And I said before, Booker's past clears up him having basically no hang ups killing those who are trying to kill him first, rather than the dark past that is revealed about him.
Hope you guys read this, I'd love to see some feedback.
These mechanics are explained in-world, some better than others, but suffice it to say that Booker DeWitt is a bad, bad person. You're right that his behavior makes no sense; it's not supposed to, the hero is effectively a villain in his own right. Which is important to the overall plot! You should be feeling uncomfortable with the violence and the combat and the scrounging, because these are not normal things!
And as mentioned by @Dellbon earlier, all of these things tie back into a meta-commentary about the genre and the brand itself; I won't spoil the ending, but my first interpretation was that they weren't talking about the game world at all, but about first person shooters and the Bioshock brand, and how they can spin as many sequels as they want from these concepts and mechanics. It even felt to me like Levine saying, flat out, that he could do this forever and we'd keep buying and playing it!
So, yeah. You're right that these things feel out of place. I posit that they feel out of place on purpose.
As "dssturn" said, in one sense the ending for Infinite EXPLICITLY makes Campbell's theory part of the game world. Bioshock Infinite doesn't have a Hacking mechanic like System Shock 2 even though the original Bioshock did. Likewise Act 2 of Infinite feels more like the set pieces of an over-the-top 80's Action movie (i.e. lean on plot, long on gunfire) than it does a SS2/Bioshock-style "atmospheric thriller".
Ken Levine has openly admitted that they were running character design past focus groups filled with "the frat boy demographic". In the end, are you really surprised the game included so many "shoe-horned" elements in service to the brand?
In the end the HERO may have a Thousand faces, but his tools rarely change shape.
Stealing however does make sense, you expected Booker to be civil in a society that's going to have him hung, drawn and quartered? If you're on the run and you're hungry, you steal whatever food you can find. Wanted men have done this in the past. It's also worth noting that stealing infront of people does actually provoke attacks.
And while it's true that the violence never shocks the player like it does in the start, you're giving totalitarian societies too much credit. Citizens were told to stay safe, and from radio broadcasts we find out that the information they recieve is a lot less than the real truth. They were told that the Police would handle it, and that nobody should worry too much.
Actually I was reminded of the Boston bombing, citizens were told to stay indoors to let the police do the work. And they complied. That's just how groups of people act.
Each of the tonics causes huge hallucinations; the fireball tonics cause your skin to bubble and boil right before your eyes... I mean who would actually sign up for that kind of gig?
Nothing really to say about the content of the video, except that I personally don't like it very much when a series changes drastically from one "main arc" entry to the next, whether they're numbered or not. Starfox, Sonic the Hedgehog, and ALL Square games since the move to disc-based platforms were all greatly damaged in my eyes by putting the brand before the spirit of the games.
There isn't too much Bioshock in Infinite, there is too much Infinite in Bioshock. I'd even go as far as to claim that the inclusion of Vigors and a glimpse of Rapture are just fanservice, and the insulting kind. Or at least manipulative. They were (mis)using the Bioshock brand to sell their otherwise unrelated original story.
The implication of this video is maddening. As if the Bioshock mechanics were holding back this otherwise great game. A great game was held back by design choices that didn't befit a Bioshock title. EC sees the vigors not working and asks "why are they in the game?" (somewhat implying that they shouldn't be) - when everyone should look at the game world and ask "why does this world not work?".
Ever since it came out, I felt like the only person on the entire internet who seriously dislikes Bioshock Infinite, especially for thinking that it's actually a pretty bad *game*. The story, plot, Elizabeth, the twist(s), etc. are perfectly fine, but why did it have to be a Bioshock game (remove all overt references and the story still works great)? It isn't. That was just marketing - remember, it's the game with the gun-wielding manly man on the cover for this one reason alone. And that kind of shoddy compromise and insecurity echoes throughout the game.
Because gameplay-wise it has very little to offer, and there is no reason for that. I *mistakenly* believed it would service the brand, and disappointed by how much it didn't. Sure, vigors were there, and they make no sense, but they were dialed back so much in comparison to plasmids, that they hardly mattered - and I upgraded Salt-capacity first, to play around with them. The idea of violence may have been dissonant to the otherwise low-key environment, but in gameplay terms all you got were 2 guns at a time that shot boring old bullets, with the occasional strategically placed rocket launcher. Because that doesn't sound familiar at all. Just like the box-art, all creativity (that the first to Bioshocks demonstrated) went out the window to appeal to that "wider audience" that is used exclusively to that one type of shooter. Because we need more of those.
And then they have dimensional tears in the plot and don't do anything with it in the actual game part of the game. Yeah, you can open a couple, but context-sensitive button presses are the worst, most minimal type of "gameplay" there is (even worse, with one or two exceptions, it wouldn't have made a difference if all the tear-elements had just been part of the regular level design). It's not a new neat idea, it's another squandered opportunity for interesting gameplay. And Bioshock Infinite is made up entirely of those. They didn't just not know what to do with the Bioshock tropes, they didn't know what to do with their gameplay at all.
And not in service to the brand, but in service to a story. And that should never be the case. Not in 2013's biggest most expensive shooter, brainchild of one of the biggest names in the industry. Not when hundreds of games, including the very brand it apparently wanted to be a part of, told video game stories so much better. As video games. Not as okay movies occasionally interrupted by some by-the-numbers modern shooter.
I always watch Extra Credits. This video made me finally sign up here.
Also: thank god, you're about the only other person I know who didn't think Infinite was the bee's knees. I thought the game was a trainwreck.
Hell, it's not like the setting even really mandated any of the limits. Even the plot hardly made any use of the fact that it's set in a city in the sky. Not once does anybody (noteworthy) fall off. Songbird still lands in an "ocean". Never do you manipulate the engines of someone's building. The buildings have docking schedules and not once do you enter a building, come out and are faced with a different location in front of you. Why is Columbia in the air at all?
Same for the tears, the ideology, the population, the important characters. The only reason the mechanics make no sense is because they wrote it that way. And that's shoddy writing and should be recognized as such. Not a problem with game mechanics. Going even further away from those mechanics, purely because of thoughtless writing, would have made Infinite an even worse *game*. Skyhooking alone wouldn't have saved the game from mediocrity. Infinite needed to be Bioshock.
I appreciate that you like story over mechanics, but people don't -PLAY- games for the story. They play for the action. We like the story more when it fits in with the mechanics we're playing, not when the mechanics fit the story, but a well made game will make those two things the same, so it's hard to see why we're enjoying the game. All we know is we like it.
Bioshock Infinite was a Bioshock game. However, it was -NOT- a Bioshock story. For all the reasons you pointed out, the story failed to be what it should be, and so the society/setting aren't what they should be, and the game just falls apart.
I don't fault the developers for this. This is a problem with the design lead, and probably with upper management. The story was not where it should have been, and despite the fact that the game tells a very good story, it shouldn't have been part of Bioshock brand. It should have been something new.
But publishers like franchises, despite the overwhelming evidence these days that an established franchise can't bear the brunt of a bad entry any more than a new IP can. Every game/movie/TV show/etc is weighed on its own merits, and a failure in any one part of that entry will tarnish established good will. This is what has happened to the latest Star Wars entries, which turned off a lot of old Star Wars fans, failed to convert new Star Wars fans, and lead to the debated failure of SWTOR. It just wasn't Star Wars. Sure, it had lightsabers and hyperspace, and Scoundrels and the Hutt, but it was such a departure from established canon that it felt like Episode 1 all over again. All we would have needed for a totally surreal experience would be Gungan Jedi.
Ugh... I feel dirty now.
Look, the simple thing is that you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Bioshock Infinite plays like a Bioshock game. The dissonance comes from the story and setting failing to be part of the Bioshock universe. Bioshock takes place in fallen societies, and we are putting together the pieces of that mystery to find out why they fell.
Columbia isn't a fallen society, as you pointed out, though it is hollow and dead on the inside, with the people desperately trying to prove to themselves and anyone else who arrives that they're still alive and well, enthusiastic and vibrant. But they're dead on the inside, and it shows. They're trying too hard. The fight scene in the bar where you're called out as a stranger and therefore a problem, is indicative of the society lashing out to keep you removed from it, desperately trying to hide just how bad off it is. This is a society in freefall; they realize that the world is rushing up to crash into them, and they don't like it. So the violently lash out at anything that comes too close, hoping to stave off the end.
In reality, I would call Bioshock Infinite a new kind of entry into the Zombie Apocalypse genre because its the story of a society that is dying, the people openly hostile, but for no good reason, just like zombies.
Actually, a full-on zombie entry into the Bioshock universe wouldn't be a half bad idea. Elements of a Bioshock game: Dead Society? Check. Lone Survivor, unaware of the cause of the fall? Check. Scavanging/Looting? Check. Plasmids/Vigors fit? You bet your butt. I think that might just work.
Vigors exist as part of the game world. The Handyman and Vigors come from Fink looking through the rifts into Rapture. It's pretty well pointed out in the game. There's also conversations in the game that tell you that the "Vigors handed out at the county fair" are testors only, and only exist for a short time, with the exception of the possession vigor, and that one's limited at best at that point. There's also multiple conversations happening at the fair that point out that the people of Columbia both don't know what to make of vigors and that they're incredibly new to the scene and most people haven't had the chance or inclination to try them. There's a reason why they make an appearance at the fair, it's because they're brand new. And yeah, they are expensive. This is why the, ultimately, slave labor driven economy of Columbia doesn't use Vigors. No one can afford them, least of all the people that would use them the most. The fair scene is enough to point that out by putting the real combat vigors outside of your price range early on.
Also, on the violence aspect, you can walk through huge portions of the game where no one will shoot you as long as they don't see you. That whole "moments of intense violence mixed with moments of trying to move through the city" is actually there. People just need to lay off the trigger and try to not walk up to every policeman. The violence also makes a ton of sense in the world as well. For one, it's not the player shooting first and asking questions later. Booker is asking a hell of a lot of questions and it's the people of columbia who are out to kill him without asking questions. This is entirely justified in the narrative.
The combat is quite realistically the only reason they can keep making amazing Bioshock games. No one will pay to produce a gritty Noir-esq game about fate and the Many Worlds theory, or a game detailing the heights and faults in the logic of Atlas Shrugged. Ken Levine has pointed this out already.
Firstly "A" vigor is given at the start of the game, and that vigor is (at first) only able to control machines. Technically this wouldn't cause too much of a problem, the vigor only affected machinery, at worst they could control a turret, but after it gets blown up your sol. After that the only people that have vigors are the higher ups. Firemen, Order of the Corw, etc. These people are important members, founders even, not the common draft, the vigors are only obtained by killing the mook. Durring times of violence vigor's are found on the ground and in different places, but durring downtimes of non violence, vigors are usually locked up. The other vigor they were giving away was Shock Jokey, and that was only supposed to be a sample (most likely a sip, nothing that would give you the power for a long time). And as stated, this stuff was just recently out on the market, probably less than a month before you came into the city
As for why is there looting? Well, the main character is basically homeless in Columbia, they have no way to gain money besides looting.
I do feel that the police being the main enemies is kind of dumb, I don't think that all the combat is dumb however. The whole city is religious zelots (except for a decidedly few) and the main character is their hated enemy. If anything the townsfolk shouldn't have vanished when violence breaks out, they should have ran to the nearest arms vednor bot and start firing at booker themsleves.
http://www.destructoid.com/why-does-bioshock-infinite-need-to-be-non-violent--251424.phtml
Colombia is a city built on more themes then Rapture. While none of these themes seem particularly indepth, unlike Rapture, they do seem to have more in common with modern americano problems. Touching on issues of immigration, the power of religious fanatacism and its place in politics, corporations, and the disillusioned men and women who came back from war only to be shunned by society. These topics hit home harder than raptures Laissez-faire economics themes because these are real issues today.
Finally i would like to comment on the violence, which although i do not beleive is perfect, gets the point across. Booker is not welcome in colombia, this much is certain, which is why he is actively pursued by the local law and military. My major concern with the extra credits crew is their claim that there was no reprieve from combat and i feel that while there was not enough reprieve, it was present. I can recall an earlier part in the game where i enter a woman's house as she gives details to a police sketch artist on the details on some criminal (possibly booker) and as I am spotted, a fire fight occurs. not only do i survive, but in the crossfire i killed the woman who's home i am invading and proceed to loot... my actions said more than any book, picture, or movie ever could and hit home that i am not welcome, i am not here to keep the peace, and i sure as hell dont deserve what i take. Through out the game, and small scenarios like the one i mentioned, these themes are talked about, and while not alway apparent, the violence gets these points across.
This is why we can accept Kirby's Epic Yarn as a Kirby game, despite it not originally being designed as one: because it matches Kirby's aesthetic.
That's also why Final Fantasy Tactics, Crystal Chronicles, etc. are Final Fantasy games, despite their often being 0 crossover outside of "GO FIND ME CRYSTALS with moogles and chocobos."
That's also why Call of Duty and Battlefield are distinct, despite having HUGE mechanical similarities.
*SUPER DE DUPER GAME RUINING SPOILERSSSSS*
Booker is a character who is deeply flawed. That's not what's interesting about him, though - what's interesting about him is his deep guilt over his faults. This defines him as a character. His entire quest is started by his need to "wipe away the debt". He only goes to Columbia to try to wipe away his sins.
His immediate and continuous use of ultra violence shows how destined to fail this is.
Every single action Booker takes reinforces this. He constantly tries to leave behind his past as a Pinkerton. He brands himself over his immense guilt over giving away his daughter. We know that, in one timeline, he attempts to repent and is baptized. It is no accident that this is the timeline which turns him into Comstock, the most bloodthirsty monster in the game, aside from Booker himself. His entire character is wrapped up in the fact that he cannot escape the basic fact that he is the man who shoots first, and might ask questions later, despite how much he hates it.
This all, imo, links to what I always saw as the entire underlying meta-analysis-y theme built throughout the game of false choice, of game narratives being unchangeable fixed stories. Remember the necklace, the coin flip, the whole time travel narrative? This is a game about being unable to escape fixed reality, both in plot and in terms of offering "choice" in games.
I'm also confused as to the idea that Columbia is a city that cannot encourage looting and running/gunning. I understand that it starts out as a functional place, but your actions as a player along these lines are what cause it to effectively collapse in on itself pretty damn quickly. One of the most powerful moments in the game for me was looking out on the horizon on the end, seeing Columbia burn, and realize that *I* did this through this constant violence.
But I do agree with everything Extra Credits said to a degree. Yes, I can sit here and try to justify the mechanics like vigors being a recent result of seeing into the Rapture world and their premiere at the world fair was still during a time when people weren't sure about them yet (but then a counter argument to that would be why would the special mini bosses throughout the game already have vigors if they premiered at the world fair?), or that Booker has nothing while he's in Columbia which forces him to loot every damn trash can he comes across, or that Booker's past as a heartless brute is justification for his violence; however, I'm not going to try and stand on that wobbly platform.
Instead, I'm going to see those things for what they are: mechanics and devices of gameplay. There have been many games in the past where the mechanics of gameplay have wrenched players out of the immersion of the story because of how juxtaposed mechanics and story were to one another. But in my experience in playing this game, I would say that the story was too good, the mechanics were too backgroud, or both to take me out of the excitement of playing. I think that what Ken Levine said about the box art being geared towards fratboys is true for some of these mechanics, most notably the violence. I think it's important to see this game as what it is; it's a bridging device. This is a push towards AAA games having more depth and complexity, but without overdoing it too soon as to loose any fanbase or connectivity. It's an opportunity for someone who loves the stories in games to take a great game to their "Bro" friend who just sits around and plays CoD multiplayer all day and get them to play something in their gaming style that will make them think. It's one of the small percentage of FPSs that provides clear proof that a shooter game can have real social commentary. Bioshock one did this, but I think Infinite was able to bridge the gap a little better, considering it does not really fall into the horror genre.
Overall, I think Infinite will have a lasting impact, along with games like Spec Ops:The Line and Far Cry 3, and I do consider these games to be a call to arms for other developers to continue to push first person shooters out of the generic military-crazy box that other devs keep churning out.