• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Siggy-P

Avenger
Mar 18, 2018
11,868
I agree with your overall point but not the specifics of Bioshock 2. I though it's narrative was poor for the simple reason it wasn't attempting anything. Stories about communism and collectivism failing are literally a dozen a dime. Whereas Bioshock was tilting at a philosophy we don't often seen in games, or indeed any media, Bioshock 2 attacked something that to be honest we've all heard a thousand times before.

Theres no reason lesson to be learnt about collectivism in the way Bioshock 2 approached it. It's a done story, and didn't take any risks or go any new places at all. The only section that was interesting was the mutated scientist storyline and exploring the rights of the self over the body after change.

I meant more the intersonal story between the characters is stronger in the second than the overall theme. I agree with you the overall theme and message is a complete mess and fails out the gate.

But then the first games story ain't that good either. The first half is great but everything involving Fontain and the Manchurian candidate stuff is pointless nonsense that only takes away.
 

Kerotan

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,951
Burial at sea and minervas den included with the ps plus collection! So happy to hear this as I never played the dlc.
 

Sumio Mondo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,966
United Kingdom
After playing Bioshock Infinite I never wanted to hear about it again.
"Sequel to Bioshock Infinite" isn't exactly a selling point.
Same for me. I got so sick of BioShock at the time it released that the game never lived up to all the hype at all. Might very well be the DLC makes up for a mediocre base game but there's so many other games to play that I never played it despite enjoying the original BioShock so much at the time.

Tastes change I guess.
 

Andalusia

Alt Account
Member
Sep 26, 2019
620
Bollocks. That's a complete cop out and gives lazy, sloppy writing a pass it doesn't deserve. I'll agree it's often handled poorly. But that's on the writers not because its some kind of untouchable subject matter. There are plenty of clever coherent stories that handle the subject well and consistently.
It's not bollocks at all. I happen to think Infinite and it's DLCs were perfectly well written. Others don't and they pick holes in it. My point is with any form of time/reality bending fiction people do that, it's the easiest genre people do it in and probably the most common. I've seen people picks holes in Nolan's films that involve these themes like Inception and Momento just to name two. Others rank them among the best films they've seen. The nature of bending reality has no rules and sometimes people don't like the rules the author has chosen for that piece of fiction and start picking holes and saying X Y and Z is cheating or breaks the narrative etc...
 

LifeLine

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,779
I did not know this and after I played the DLC last year I couldn't believe that all these years there was a bioshock infinite sequel that I completely ignored.

I thought it was a random, short, DLC. Not an essential continuation.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,487
All I want to say is that I was 100% vindicated when I said that it was ridiculous to award "Best Original Game" to Bioshock Infinite at E3 2011.

Hold that L, Game Critics Awards.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
It's not bollocks at all. I happen to think Infinite and it's DLCs were perfectly well written. Others don't and they pick holes in it. My point is with any form of time/reality bending fiction people do that, it's the easiest genre people do it in and probably the most common. I've seen people picks holes in Nolan's films that involve these themes like Inception and Momento just to name two. Others rank them among the best films they've seen. The nature of bending reality has no rules and sometimes people don't like the rules the author has chosen for that piece of fiction and start picking holes and saying X Y and Z is cheating or breaks the narrative etc...
LOL @ perfectly well written. "The only difference between Fitzroy and Comstock is how they spell their names."
 

Hugare

Banned
Aug 31, 2018
1,853
Yeah boldly fucking up it's oppression themes so it can fuck around with baby's first quantum physics.

Have you played any game since then that tried to tell a story using quantum physics and doing a better job at it?

Even when using "baby's first quantum physics" , some people still didnt understand the story, so I dont blame them for keeping it simple. They needed to sell copies, at the end of the day.

I dont think that they fucked up their oppression themes, they just didnt develop them enough.

But again, how often do you see themes like those at least being tackled by AAA titles?

I respect them for at least trying in a barren landscape, no matter how it turned out in the end

Counterpoint- I really hate games that tell the player "I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY I AM IMPORTANT" and turn out to have nothing to say at all.
I dont remember Ken Levine saying that his game would be mankind's best invention since sliced bread

He didnt say that the game would have something important to say about slavery and etc.

He used some important themes to give some depth to the world, but in the end, his goal was to tell a very personal story.
Just like in that other game ... Bioshock.

I think it worked. Because at the end of the day, people got more involved by the setting and its habitants than the protagonist itself (again, just like Bioshock)

His big mistake was making the game before and during Columbia's downfall.
It should be brimming with life, but it was esterile instead. A lot of window dressing.
In Rapture, you could explore pretty much everywhere, and the city was already dead so no habitants made sense.

They were too ambitious for their own good
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,644
I disliked Infinite profusely but kept Burial at Sea at the back of my mind as something I wanted to see someday, especially on hearing that a big chunk of the experience is substantially pacifist (or at least non-shooting). I admit I was put off by the DLC pass pricing scheme and how the two episodes never seemed to receive the same scale of discounts as the complete package, which I didn't want or need. By the time Irrational went under, I just forgot about it and had long uninstalled Infinite on the whole. Pity, as it sounded appealing enough on paper, even for someone who thought the main game of Infinite was conspicuously salvaged from incoherent scraps that didn't fit together as a complete narrative.
 

Descendant

Fallen Guardian
Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,111
I loved Bioshock Infinite, and the two part DLC was the perfect way to wrap up the whole series for me.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,374
I liked the ideas and setting of BaS, and the second part had a nice change up in gameplay, but otherwise the quality of storytelling here was like shitty fanfic level.

The shit they pull to retcon a dirtbag character in Infinite was kind of comical. As portrayed in Infinite that character would've had no problem killing a kid and was suitably ruthless, but they try to soften it to make them seem like their actions don't make them a monster like Comstock with QUANTUM PHYSICS again. The problem is that retcon scene makes a lot of their other actions seem out of character in the main game as a result because of inconsistency.

I felt like at some point they were using quantum physics just to patch over all the holes in the story.
 
Last edited:

MazeHaze

Member
Nov 1, 2017
8,625
I totally get all the infinite criticism but I still love it. It really has a unique vibe. I like it way better than Bioshock 1 tbh.
 

Armite

Member
Mar 30, 2018
959
I definitely feel that Part 2 had the best gameplay in the series. It was the most successful at making Rapture feel threatening with the emphasis on stealth and without the big janky guns.

Story-wise, the series always seemed pretty goofy, so the retcons didn't really bother me.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
Oh the horror!!!.....................
Yes, equivocating a Black woman fighting back against oppression and White Supremacy to the leader of White Supremacy and the oppressors especially in relation to America's real history of being built on White Supremacy and oppression and it's legacy that Black people have been fighting against for centuries.

The horror indeed.
 

Andalusia

Alt Account
Member
Sep 26, 2019
620
Yes, equivocating a Black woman fighting back against oppression and White Supremacy to the leader of White Supremacy and the oppressors especially in relation to America's real history of being built on White Supremacy and oppression and it's legacy that Black people have been fighting against for centuries.

The horror indeed.
Ah yes because fighting against oppression merits whipping up your supporters into a frenzy to terrorise innocent citizens, finding pleasure in killing a man in cold blood and taking a child hostage at gun point.

It's pretty easy to understand that the equivalency between Daisy and Comstock was not in their ideologues but rather the means in which they try and achieve them. Regardless of how noble your cause is if your try and enact it using terrible measures then it's worthless. It's a decently interesting commentary. Problem is people have an issue with nuance when it comes to topics they deem "sensitive" and so Levin needed to force-ably retcon it in the DLC.

I mean the fact you framed the story point the way to do shows how disingenuous can be at times when it comes to stuff that isn't beat you over the head black and white obvious.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
Ah yes because fighting against oppression merits whipping up your supporters into a frenzy to terrorise innocent citizens, finding pleasure in killing a man in cold blood and taking a child hostage at gun point.

It's pretty easy to understand that the equivalency between Daisy and Comstock was not in their ideologues but rather the means in which they try and achieve them. Regardless of how noble your cause is if your try and enact it using terrible measures then it's worthless. It's a decently interesting commentary. Problem is people have an issue with nuance when it comes to topics they deem "sensitive" and so Levin needed to force-ably retcon it in the DLC.

I mean the fact you framed the story point the way to do shows how disingenuous can be at times when it comes to stuff that isn't beat you over the head black and white obvious.
There was no nuance and the execution was terrible especially in the context of using real American history and racism. I get the point he was trying to make but in the context it was terrible and oddly justifies the history and legacy of White supremacy.
 

BraXzy

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,434
Oh crap, as someone who played Bioshock Infinite first, and took way too long to get round to the original, I put off the DLC since it referenced the first game a lot (from what I read at the time).

I totally forgot this was a thing! Nice one for the reminder.
 

ElectricBlanketFire

What year is this?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
31,917
Ah yes because fighting against oppression merits whipping up your supporters into a frenzy to terrorise innocent citizens, finding pleasure in killing a man in cold blood and taking a child hostage at gun point.

It's pretty easy to understand that the equivalency between Daisy and Comstock was not in their ideologues but rather the means in which they try and achieve them. Regardless of how noble your cause is if your try and enact it using terrible measures then it's worthless. It's a decently interesting commentary. Problem is people have an issue with nuance when it comes to topics they deem "sensitive" and so Levin needed to force-ably retcon it in the DLC.

I mean the fact you framed the story point the way to do shows how disingenuous can be at times when it comes to stuff that isn't beat you over the head black and white obvious.

I was not expecting to see bothsides-ing Comstock and Daisy Fitzroy today.
 

Andalusia

Alt Account
Member
Sep 26, 2019
620
There was no nuance and the execution was terrible especially in the context of using real American history and racism. I get the point he was trying to make but in the context it was terrible and oddly justifies the history and legacy of White supremacy.
Disagree, the nuance was clearly their and the execution was obvious to anyone wanting to see it. I mean you're literally saying you understood the point he was trying to make so it can not have been as back as you're now making out. If you're saying you understand the point he was trying to make then why are you framing it in a way that you know it was not intended to be framed? This is why I called you disingenuous.

How on earth does it justify white supremacy? I honestly curious as to how you arrived at that.
I was not expecting to see bothsides-ing Comstock and Daisy Fitzroy today.
Prior to the DLC it was certainly a discussion you could have and that's the point Levine was making, obliviously that changed with the revelations (retcon) in the DLC. I'm honestly surprised that people can't move beyond the ideologues used in the illustration of a point and actually reflect on the point.

It's like with Bioshock 1, the point was not to venerate Objectivism or degenerate it or conversely to do the same for any of the alternatives to it. It was simply used to illustrate the point "ideas get screwed up because we're people". The point with the Fitzroy story line in Infinite was not to discuss race and inequality, it was to discuss how people that escape oppression often become oppressors and how that is one of the crimes of oppression. And it was also the running theme in Bioshock 1 as well with Andrew Ryan (and other Jewish characters in the game) who was an oppressed Jew by the Nazi's that became the oppressor and Suchong who was an oppressed Korean by the Japanese that also became an oppressor.

As a person of colour I actually liked it since was a little deeper than a tired trope whereby people of colour are the 1 dimensional oppressed moral heroes with very little shades to them. Again if people can't start understanding nuance (and this isn't even deep nuance) then we aren't going to get many interesting stories in video games.
 

HustleBun

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,076
People know that.

They don't know that it's also a sequel to the first BioShock. Surprised that wasn't your thread title here.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,263
i was pretty bummed by BAS to be honest. thought there was sooooo much more to do with Columbia, particularly Columbia in 1984 (or whatever year it attacked NYC)

mechanically it was great and improved on Infinite, so for that alone it's worth playing. but that story, specifically that finale... man what a fucking raspberry. i cannot believe Levine wrote that
 

deepFlaw

Knights of Favonius World Tour '21
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,506
It's not bollocks at all. I happen to think Infinite and it's DLCs were perfectly well written. Others don't and they pick holes in it. My point is with any form of time/reality bending fiction people do that, it's the easiest genre people do it in and probably the most common. I've seen people picks holes in Nolan's films that involve these themes like Inception and Momento just to name two. Others rank them among the best films they've seen. The nature of bending reality has no rules and sometimes people don't like the rules the author has chosen for that piece of fiction and start picking holes and saying X Y and Z is cheating or breaks the narrative etc...

For the record: I absolutely love time travel stories. I like some consistency but I am also down for some nonsense at times. Time loops in particular I eat up.

The time travel stuff isn't why I think Infinite's story is poorly written racist garbage.
 

Cass_Se

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,129
I loved Infinite and I despise Burial at Sea, for me it was a betrayal of everything that made Infinite great for me story-wise and actively made the preceding game worse. I can't even summarize it, but
making Infinite and Elizabeth just a stepping stone to og Bioshock was honestly egregious

Let me repost a wall of text I once made on BaS's failings:

Episode 2: Burial at Sea Episode 2 happened. Sadly. OK, the opening is beautiful and amazing. Right off the bat we see this is not like Episode 1, this game will be surprising and add something substantial to Bioshock canon. Loved it. But then the things go off-rails. Sure, the gameplay is considerably different and the dlc overall is much more fleshed out, adding to the feel that BaS 1 was a stop-gap and this one was one of the originally planned dlcs. It feels like an actual meaty dlc. Stealth was an interesting idea, even if at times the implementation was sorta hamfisted (why can you run up to the enemy and knock them out before they see you!?). Peeping Tom was op, and the game didn't reward you in any way for using stealth, or punish you for simply annihilating everything in your path. I enjoyed the decoding scenes. Visually they were interesting and made BaS Ep. 2 stand that much out compared to BI. They were cool and improved the game, is what I'm saying. But the story. Oooh, the story. Ugh.

Elizabeth's existence: First, after the wondrous opening we get an explanation why we're not playing as an omniscient, omnipotent being. So for whatever reason Liz is killed by Big Daddy and due to plot she can't teleport. Or she foresaw she has to die in order to succeed or something. So in order to return to the land of the living she can choose to collapse all other Elizabeths into one that is still alive, though lacking powers. Why, how? Plot reasons. I understand it was done as not to break gameplay, it wouldn't make sense to play Elizabeth that knows everything that happens and can open any tear she wishes at a whim. But the way it was done was the very opposite of elegant. Why are there still Elizabeths around? Why are there more than BaS Ep 1 Elizabeths? This is not only stupid, but it's also the first time Ep 2 takes a jab at diminishing the importance of Infinite's story and it's ending.

Columbia's existence: Then of course we return to Columbia. But wasn't Booker's drowning means to end Columbia's existence across every possible reality? It's not some random Columbia either, it's exactly the same Columbia which we visited earlier and played through in Infinite! That means the ending of Infinite had no discernible effect on the timeline. The diminishing of the ending continues since now it's meaningless. Sure, maybe you can apply casuality in here, but wasn't Comstock's drowning at baptism supposed to end him and Columbia everywhere, across every timeline? Infinite's plot had no sense then, we didn't achieve anything, everything's as it was before and we can't do anything and it's not something that had to be included. It's not the way it was supposed to be. It makes the game the more non-important. Thanks Ken.

Fitzroy retcon: While we're in Columbia another shocker is dropped on us. Daisy Fitzroy's death was actually instrumented by the Luteces! She had to die in order for Liz to be become a woman. Because killing someone is what makes a girl a woman. Right. So now Fitzroy's turn in Fink Manufacturing timeline is made the less shocking because she didn't actually turn, she was forced to act like a villain and go as far as she can for Elizabeth to kill her. This is completely forced and included only as an apology to those who felt her change in attitude abrupt. I thought it made sense in the context of Infinite narrative's. I kinda thought it as some spin on "revolution devouring it's own children" (the quote probably came to my mind due to Elizabeth's happy-go-lucky "It's gonna be like Les Miserables ~♪" not short before). Nope, Luteces made her evulz. This at the same time cheapens Elizabeth's character development and one of the shocking moments in the original game. Daisy's death wasn't truly our heroine's decision, she was forced to do it, instrumented to do it. A man chooses, a slave obeys, Liz didn't have a choice, she had to obey. Once again, thanks Ken, great job developing Infinite's ongoing story.

Links to Bioshock 1: Finally, the big one. Elizabeth is instrumental in bringing Jack to Rapture and setting in motion the events of original Bioshock! This is so bad on so many levels. This lessens the impact of Bioshock Infinite's plot, it's setting, it's ending, it's characters, those character's development, pretty much everything about Infinite. This game wasn't it's own standalone story, it was a stepping stone so that Bioshock might happen and Jack can rescue Little Sisters. Adding insult to injury. I've got three monumental problems with this one. First of all, these games needing to be that closely tied together. It's ok that they exist in the same universe, but they don't have to ultimately lead into one another. I kinda feel like Ken was so enamored with his original creation in Bioshock and it's Rapture he couldn't let Infinite, bearing Bioshock's name, be too disconnected from it and to be lost among the infinite timelines presented in Infinite's final chapter. It doesn't add much to Bioshock at this point and it only detracts from Infinite's impact. Second, the story. Bioshock was the story of Rapture, the fallen utopia that has gone to hell. That was ultimately what made Bioshock stand out. The actual story, the plot, the events that transpired in the game were rather weak and not really of note. It does not stand out, it's there and it's mostly used to show us different faces and aspects of Rapture. Otherwise we're just travelling through the city guided by Atlas/Fontaine and there's not much to it apart from Would You Kindly. Especially since after that point the story goes to being really bad, the villain gets dumb and the ending as we all know was disastrous. The plot of Infinite was infinitely better which means retconning it to be instrumental to bring about Jack's trip through Rapture all that more insulting. Third, the characters. Eugh. Infinite had a great cast. Booker and Elizabeth, the Luteces, maybe even Comstock once we realize he is Booker and we can think about what made him so much different from Booker. The story in Infinite was much more personal and about the characters, which were interesting, intriguing, mysterious (Luteces!). Bioshock had... Andrew Ryan? Sander Cohen was one creepy goosebump-inducing madman and I guess Tenenbaum and Suchong were there, but they weren't terribly noteworthy and not much more than hands pulling the great chain, instrumental in development of Rapture. Our protagonist was Jack. A brainwashed mute in a white sweater with the most common name imaginable. He was ok for a player character in the game and perfect for Would You Kindly twist, but he wasn't any sort of interesting. Vessel to show us through Rapture. Let me take one brief moment here to rant about Frank Fontaine. I hate Fontaine. But I hate him not because he is a terrible human being, but because I consider him a bad character. We're told in the first game Fontaine is this cruel genius that rose to power as head of Fontaine Futuristics. He is also a man with vision (as Ryan himself notes) that managed to gather a following among splicers. I just can't reconcile how this man is supposed to be that idiot bloke that we meet repeatedly throughout the series (sure there were many political leaders that weren't the brightest bunch, but often they stumbled into power or were charismatic, which I don't see Atlas as to be honest). At would you kindly he gets hit with an idiotball hard and throughout the third act of Bioshock he is acting like a ridiculously over-the-top cliche-to-the-max villain. Final fight of the game doesn't help much. Ugh. Again through Episode 2 I went on hating him because I hate how he is presented as Atlas. I just can't. In my head he doesn't fit at all with what he is supposed to be like in the universe. It's jarring. He is not much more than a cruel (lobotomy scene or not, ugh that was disgusting, I had to look away from the screen jesus) run-of-the-mill mob boss. And Elizabeth, the best developed character of the series that we watched grow in Infinite as a character crash and burn in front of us. She is sacrificed for the non-character Jack. Killed by that despicable idiot Fontaine. To make way for the average story of Bioshock and it's horrid, horrid ending. In one sweep a ton of what made Infinite unique is undone.

Random musings: One more word about answering questions and retcons. I disliked that they tried to answer questions that didn't need answering, didn't go far enough with some of the explanations and didn't have to retcon that much. I already wrote about Fitzroy, the retcon most likely made to mend some of the Internet backlash about her turn to the villain. Unnecessary. Same with Liz existing in Episode 2, some flimsy explanation about collapsing other versions of the character into one that is alive and mortal. The same is done to Luteces. Episode 1 ending teased us with Luteces, implying they will be involved in the plot of Episode 2. After that we see them once more only I think to deliver the Fitzroy retcon. Otherwise, somehow they managed to for some plot-no-jutsu reason become normal mortals again. Done. Unsatisfying, unnecessary. Songbird. Irrational went far enough to tell us about Songbird's origins with that weird lion with a thorn in it's paw logic, but stopped just at the end before everything would be revealed. Answering questions done wrong. Just do it, if you went as far as explaining how Songbird came to be just reveal it, you're seemingly not touching the series ever again anyway. Cheap, stupid. Connected to that, I don't know about that deal with imprinting and Big Daddies. It felt like Ken/Irrational went out of their way to retcon Bioshock 2 and Minverva's Den the hell out of existence. Which is made worse by the fact that Bioshock 2, and especially Minerva's Den were far more tasteful and respectful to source material and managed to enrich Rapture (I guess Bioshock 2 might be arguable to some, but Minerva's Den was great). None of which Burial at Sea is to Infinite.

So, to sum up. Mechnically, it's a good, meaty, meaningful dlc that presents us with a neat twist on the gameplay of the original. However, I wish I could just forget it. I wish I could just treat it as fan fiction but I can't. Infinite was a self-contained story that worked wonderfully. This right here. It's like that Spiderman 3 gif. Burial at Sea makes Infinite worse than it actually was. Which is a terrible thing because I loved the game. I'll always have Infinite but... I just wish I could erase Burial at Sea from my memory. It would be better that way.
 

goodretina

Member
Dec 30, 2018
1,707
Have you played any game since then that tried to tell a story using quantum physics and doing a better job at it?

Even when using "baby's first quantum physics" , some people still didnt understand the story, so I dont blame them for keeping it simple. They needed to sell copies, at the end of the day.

I dont think that they fucked up their oppression themes, they just didnt develop them enough.

But again, how often do you see themes like those at least being tackled by AAA titles?

I respect them for at least trying in a barren landscape, no matter how it turned out in the end


I dont remember Ken Levine saying that his game would be mankind's best invention since sliced bread

He didnt say that the game would have something important to say about slavery and etc.

He used some important themes to give some depth to the world, but in the end, his goal was to tell a very personal story.
Just like in that other game ... Bioshock.

I think it worked. Because at the end of the day, people got more involved by the setting and its habitants than the protagonist itself (again, just like Bioshock)

His big mistake was making the game before and during Columbia's downfall.
It should be brimming with life, but it was esterile instead. A lot of window dressing.
In Rapture, you could explore pretty much everywhere, and the city was already dead so no habitants made sense.

They were too ambitious for their own good
 

deepFlaw

Knights of Favonius World Tour '21
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,506
Ah yes because fighting against oppression merits whipping up your supporters into a frenzy to terrorise innocent citizens, finding pleasure in killing a man in cold blood and taking a child hostage at gun point.

It's pretty easy to understand that the equivalency between Daisy and Comstock was not in their ideologues but rather the means in which they try and achieve them. Regardless of how noble your cause is if your try and enact it using terrible measures then it's worthless. It's a decently interesting commentary. Problem is people have an issue with nuance when it comes to topics they deem "sensitive" and so Levin needed to force-ably retcon it in the DLC.

I mean the fact you framed the story point the way to do shows how disingenuous can be at times when it comes to stuff that isn't beat you over the head black and white obvious.

Also, didn't she not do this stuff, is the thing? There's that bit where you see the scalps; wasn't it explicitly the Booker of that universe who inspired the revolution's violence?

That's part of why that line was so laughably bad.
 

Andalusia

Alt Account
Member
Sep 26, 2019
620
Also, didn't she not do this stuff, is the thing?
When?

There's that bit where you see the scalps; wasn't it explicitly the Booker of that universe who inspired the revolution's violence?

That's part of why that line was so laughably bad.
Think you're either mis-remembering or misunderstanding that part of the story. Daisy uses Booker's martyrdom to inspire the Vox to violence, nothing in the story suggests that Booker was the one the told them/instructed them to go on a violent spree prior to dying. That'd be like saying it was Rodney King explicitly told people to riot in LA in 1992. Daisy was the one that explicitly told the Vox to go on the rampage.

So yeah it's still not "laughably bad" and the line still makes perfect sense.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
Disagree, the nuance was clearly their and the execution was obvious to anyone wanting to see it. I mean you're literally saying you understood the point he was trying to make so it can not have been as back as you're now making out. If you're saying you understand the point he was trying to make then why are you framing it in a way that you know it was not intended to be framed? This is why I called you disingenuous.

How on earth does it justify white supremacy? I honestly curious as to how you arrived at that.
It does not work within the context of American History and it's legacy of White Supremacy, Anti-Blackness, and Racial Oppression.

Like I wrote in another thread when somebody was trying to argue that Colombia and it's oppression was primarily about class:

"Race and Class are intertwined in this society. Not to mention this isn't being made in a vacuum and there's a reason they're pulling from American History with the founding fathers, oppression, and all the racist imagery it entailed. The game stumbles big time not just here and there. One of it's biggest failures is it doesn't go that deep and show just how terribly and violently racist and unjust Comstock's White supremacist society is to those disenfranchised. They just show them as second class citizens. They don't even use the word "nigger" in reference to any of the Black characters. The White protagonist you're playing really doesn't explore any of the themes the setting is just begging to explore, but rather the storytellers merely use it as "neat" backdrop for them to tell this cool sci-fi time travel story you have accompanied by this magical White woman. So that when you get to the part of Daisy Fitzroy, A Black woman revolution leader fighting against oppression, now committing murder on a child; she comes across 100 times worse than anything that has been done by the oppressors in the game because the game has failed to show any NUANCE or anything remotely deep or complicated it all is, and how messy revolutions can be, nor how being subjugated to violent, hate filled oppression can naturally make you violently hate your oppressors. So when Booker says, ""when it comes down to it, the only difference between Comstock and Fitzroy is how you spell the name", after rolling my eyes, I knew right then I was dealing with a writer who was completely clueless and tone deaf.

Also given it's American context the world it's set, it's reinforcing this notion throughout the writings of prominent White Americans why freeing the slaves before the Civil War, or granting them full rights during and after Reconstruction would be worse off for them, or why they were resistant to all the Black movements that occurred over the century because they were projecting that Blacks with full freedom would do the very things to them or worse, that Whites had done to them for centuries. I kid you not, this fear by Whites was incredibly pervasive and used to justify White supremacy. The game just shows how true this is if they "win".
 
Last edited:

Andalusia

Alt Account
Member
Sep 26, 2019
620
It does not work within the context of American History and it's legacy of White Supremacy, Anti-Blackness, and Racial Oppression.
I think that's exactly why it works. America's history of racism and racial/black oppression is one the clearest examples of oppression around, it's arguably the clearest for an English speaking audience (Jews and Nazi Germany being the only rival). And so it's because of the context that the illustration of "oppressed becoming the oppressor" can be shown to the player pretty clearly. Again people seem to miss the point and focus on the themes used to illustrate the point. And further you've said you understood the point Levine was trying to make so the context was clearly successful.

Like I wrote in another thread when somebody was trying to argue that Colombia and it's oppression was primarily about class:

"Race and Class are intertwined in this society. Not to mention this isn't being made in a vacuum and there's a reason they're pulling from American History with the founding fathers, oppression, and all the racist imagery it entailed. The game stumbles big time not just here and there. One of it's biggest failures is it doesn't go that deep and show just how terribly and violently racist and unjust Comstock's White supremacist society is to those disenfranchised. They just show them as second class citizens. They don't even use the word "nigger" in reference to any of the Black characters.
Like what were you wanting the game to show? Lynchings? Lashings? Setting black people of fire? That's not the dynamic of race the game is showing, In the game the whites have utter and total control over the blacks of the society. The type of racial aggression you're advocating for is when whites want to assert control when they perceive they don't have it or have enough of it. You hit the nail on the head when you said they were second class citizens. That's the form of equilibrium present in Colombia's society. It's irrational even from a racist point off view to go out and lynch a black person when they are totally subjugated to you. Seems mindless and lazy. The racism in Infinite is far more calculated and sinister. It sounds like you're saying racism isn't actually happening unless people are getting beaten up and/or killed.

The White protagonist you're playing really doesn't explore any of the themes the setting is just begging to explore, but rather the storytellers merely use it as "neat" backdrop for them to tell this cool sci-fi time travel story you have accompanied by this magical White woman.
The game isn't primarily about racism so I wouldn't expect a ~12 hour introspection of it. What themes did you want explored that weren't? Because the 1st half of the game basically beats you over the head about how racist the world is.

So that when you get to the part of Daisy Fitzroy, A Black woman revolution leader fighting against oppression, now committing murder on a child; she comes across 100 times worse than anything that has been done by the oppressors in the game because the game has failed to show any NUANCE or anything remotely deep or complicated it all is, and how messy revolutions can be, nor how being subjugated to violent, hate filled oppression can naturally make you violently hate your oppressors. So when Booker says, ""when it comes down to it, the only difference between Comstock and Fitzroy is how you spell the name", after rolling my eyes, I knew right then I was dealing with a writer who was completely clueless and tone deaf.
I don't think Daisy became "100 times worse" that had come before, but her oppressive nature needed to be overt and in a way that yeah I'll agree does somewhat "go beyond" because otherwise it could simply have been seen as a rational reaction to racism in the game. If Daisy had sort of roughed Fink up instead of killing him then it'd have been a case of "well he deserved it he was a racist dick". Having Daisy kill Fink takes it to that grey "oh wait hold on a minute here do I support what she's doing? Has she gone too far? Is she just as bad as them?" area. And that's the whole point, Daisy needs to stop being seen as a victim with justification and instead truly seen as an oppressor.

You want the things Daisy does to be justified. That's not the point at all. We've already established that the point being made was about how the oppressed become oppressors. If you create clarity in Daisy's moral superiority over Comstock then you can't make that point. What you then do is justify Daisy's actions, making them morally valid and deal away with this notion that she became the oppressor. If an oppressor has justification then they aren't oppressors since the whole point of oppression is it being unjust. So the entire point is Daisy's actions need to be somewhat unjustifiable. I say somewhat since I'm sure you could make the case that the are depending on the morality you adhere to, but at the very least the point is it can't be made easily. I think the fact you admitted that Daisy came across so bad sort of points to the success of Levine turning here into an oppressor.

Also given it's American context the world it's set, it's reinforcing this notion throughout the writings of prominent White Americans why freeing the slaves before the Civil War, or granting them full rights during and after Reconstruction would be worse off for them, or why they were resistant to all the Black movements that occurred over the century because they were projecting that Blacks with full freedom would do the very things to them, that Whites had done to them for centuries. I kid you not, this fear by Whites was incredibly pervasive and used to justify White supremacy. The game just shows how true this is if they "win".
Hmm that's an interesting explanation. This is the real meat of the discussion right here I feel. Really well articulated as well, so thanks for that.

I feel like this a consequence of the whole notion of "the oppressed becoming the oppressor". Yeah I agree that contextually this could embolden racist thinking in terms of American race relations. It's more sinister I'll certainly concede than the example I'm about to give, but it's sort of how people thought the point of Bio 1 was to praise Objectivism. That wasn't Levine's intention as he was making another point entirely and it's kinda of the same here. The GENERAL point the Levine was trying to make ( "the oppressed becoming the oppressor") is entangled in one that can view in a more specific way ("blacks will enslave us if we give them an inch of freedom"). As I've said before you need to separate the elements made to illustrate a point from the point itself but in this case the illustration has the unintended result of being a racist trope in itself so it is certainly much harder to do that yes.

That's an interesting take I hadn't thought. I actually had tried to view the game from a racists perspective and see what elements might appeal to them and I suppose I missed that one since it seemed........ irrational to concede that. I've typed out a few sentences now and deleted them since I'm finding hard to articulate my thought process on this because the notion seems slightly paradoxical, do you know what I mean? Certainly food for thought.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Sorry for the quasi-necro bump but I just finished Burial at Sea for the first time and holy shit the 2nd episode is a dumpster fire which is pretty impressive considering how much Infinite's narrative shit the bed. I really liked 1 for what it was too so it made it even more disappointing.

Imo

2> Minerva's Den> Bio 1> Burial At Sea 1> Infinite> Burial At Sea 2

And this is all from replaying them in the collection.

Before my ranking would have been 2> Minerva's Den> Infinite> 1. I know 1 has gameplay issues with the constant hacking and lack of dodge when facing big daddies + general poor gunplay but the overall gameplay suite and level design is still so much better than Infinite.