Bioshock Infinite Spoiler Thread

Demyx wrote:
Spoiler:

I don't think it's a goof.
...
That's how I'm handwaving it anyway...

Honestly, this game is FULL of inconsistencies about how its internal rules work:

Spoiler:

Going to a new reality makes SOME of the enemies you fought somehow remember they were dead in a different reality, but the game also implies that memories merge, or that they get messed up somehow.. but only sometimes. But why would those soldiers remember being dead in another reality? They weren't the ones travelling.

The Lutece voxophones indicate that Robert passing into the other reality with Rosalind ended up causing him MUCH trauma, so much so that he had to be looked after. While this SEEMS consistent with Booker's trip to the Comstock Universe, Comstock himself seems to be just fine in the Booker one (see: scene where we see Comstock taking the child to the other universe). We COULD justify this as Comstock having made the trip to Booker's universe earlier and been looked after by Robert, but then if that's the case, the Lutece's would ALREADY KNOW what will happen to Robert if he passes through.

heavyfeul wrote:

I think people feel strongly about the game, but that does not necessarily mean they hate it.

Yeah, well, all the negative vibes are harshing my buzz, man.

Valmorian wrote:
Spoiler:

Going to a new reality makes SOME of the enemies you fought somehow remember they were dead in a different reality, but the game also implies that memories merge, or that they get messed up somehow.. but only sometimes. But why would those soldiers remember being dead in another reality? They weren't the ones travelling.

Spoiler:

It seems like the criterion for being really screwed up like those soldiers is being near the gate, alive in one universe and dead in the other, and NOT being the one who did the traveling. The Luteces make a comment about Lady Comstock, that "perception without comprehension" is what is killing her. I think the idea is that the people who actually do the traveling can have an idea of what happened to them, which makes it possible for them to not be zombie-people.

Valmorian wrote:
Spoiler:

The Lutece voxophones indicate that Robert passing into the other reality with Rosalind ended up causing him MUCH trauma, so much so that he had to be looked after. While this SEEMS consistent with Booker's trip to the Comstock Universe, Comstock himself seems to be just fine in the Booker one (see: scene where we see Comstock taking the child to the other universe). We COULD justify this as Comstock having made the trip to Booker's universe earlier and been looked after by Robert, but then if that's the case, the Lutece's would ALREADY KNOW what will happen to Robert if he passes through.

Spoiler:

Comstock being okay in that scene doesn't mean much. He could've just literally popped in and out, not long enough to really cause a problem, or maybe he did have trauma and needed to be helped by Robert before that scene.

The Luteces say that Robert had trouble, but do they ever say that they didn't know that Robert would have that trouble? Even if so, isn't it quite possible that they brought Robert over to their world before the Anna business, sending him back to get the baby?

I think the rules and the timeline is open ended enough that it's hard to say for sure if there's an inconsistency or not. Failing that, there's always the MST3K Mantra ;)

BadKen wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

I think people feel strongly about the game, but that does not necessarily mean they hate it.

Yeah, well, all the negative vibes are harshing my buzz, man.

Most people, like myself, who are satisfied with the game, don't really feel the need to talk about it much after a couple posts. Just like with most any media, you can nitpick it to death if you feel like it. That's why this thread is dominated by nitpicking. I don't really pay much attention to the thread anymore. I wouldn't mind having a one on one conversation with someone about everything, but the nitpicking gets a bit overwhelming in this thread, so I just move along.

If anything, it's a sign that the resonated with people on some level. For people to start deconstructing it so critically, they have to care about it at least a little bit.

So, here's a question in regards to that. Has anyone regretted spending their time with this game? I've been skimming the thread, so I'm not sure about the level of anger towards this game.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

If anything, it's a sign that the resonated with people on some level. For people to start deconstructing it so critically, they have to care about it at least a little bit.

This is how I operate, when I really love something I tend to analyze it to death. Sorry if it's annoying, feel free to skip past my walls of text in this thread

Valmorian wrote:

Honestly, this game is FULL of inconsistencies about how its internal rules work

This is in general why I dislike multiverse / time travel stories, especially ones with gods. You just have to be content to not look behind the curtain and go along for the ride.

Part of why I feel BI misses the mark in its narrative is that it sets up potentially interesting characters and themes, but they're ultimately all subservient to the wacky multiverse romp that dominates the second half of the game.

Demyx wrote:

I think the rules and the timeline is open ended enough that it's hard to say for sure if there's an inconsistency or not. Failing that, there's always the MST3K Mantra ;)

I agree that the MST3K Mantra applies here (though in a game that is trying to fool us with its setting, it's better if it is consistent), but I think there's so many blatant inconsistencies that require an awful lot of post-hoc rationalization that it's better to just go "it's all in service to the plot".

Nevertheless

Spoiler:

The Booker and Comstock not sharing memories is, to me, just INCREDIBLY sloppy. In fact, when it occurred to me, I was outright annoyed at the game, as it felt like they were cheating in order to not ruin the reveal.

gore wrote:
Valmorian wrote:

Honestly, this game is FULL of inconsistencies about how its internal rules work

This is in general why I dislike multiverse / time travel stories, especially ones with gods. You just have to be content to not look behind the curtain and go along for the ride.

Part of why I feel BI misses the mark in its narrative is that it sets up potentially interesting characters and themes, but they're ultimately all subservient to the wacky multiverse romp that dominates the second half of the game.

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lexh2qrjfv1qachxg.gif)

I'm glad people don't start deconstructing Doctor Who this critically because it's pretty easy to do so. Just enjoy it for what it is, I say.

gore wrote:

This is in general why I dislike multiverse / time travel stories, especially ones with gods. You just have to be content to not look behind the curtain and go along for the ride.

That goes for almost every single sci-fi or fantasy story out there, so I don't understand why that's such an issue.

Valmorian wrote:

Nevertheless

Spoiler:

The Booker and Comstock not sharing memories is, to me, just INCREDIBLY sloppy. In fact, when it occurred to me, I was outright annoyed at the game, as it felt like they were cheating in order to not ruin the reveal.

You're mistaken. (It's week 3 so not using spoiler tags). It is never stated that you share memories with the other version of yourself. It's stated that your brain hemmorages because you have memories of a different universe and no memories of yourself in this new universe, so your brain only has bits and pieces and reconstructs a new one to deal with it. Hence the nosebleeds whenever Booker tries to recall something specific from his past.

It's the people close to another nearby tear still open who experience mixed memory issues, not the people who go through it.

kuddles wrote:

It's the people close to another nearby tear still open who experience mixed memory issues, not the people who go through it.

Then why does Chen have issues when he's nowhere near the tear when they encounter him?

Also, while you can rationalize it as being "made up memories", Booker does explicitly state he has two memories here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...

Ok, here's an even BIGGER one:

The end of that game, with the big fight on the barge, takes place in the "Vox Revolution universe", as they never leave it. In that universe there are voxophones that make it clear that Monument Island was abandoned when Booker got there to get Elizabeth. If that's so, why is it destroyed at the end of the game in the same way it was when Songbird was trying to stop you from rescuing Elizabeth? She wasn't THERE, she was at Comstock House, and he never gets her as indicated by Voxophone number 52 addressed to Fitzroy.

If, in this universe, Elizabeth is in Comstock house, then why is Songbird after you?

Messy, messy...

kuddles wrote:
gore wrote:

This is in general why I dislike multiverse / time travel stories, especially ones with gods. You just have to be content to not look behind the curtain and go along for the ride.

That goes for almost every single sci-fi or fantasy story out there, so I don't understand why that's such an issue.

There are degrees of hand-wavery; it's not binary. The specific problem with most time travel / multiverse / god fiction is that the rules of reality are often so ill defined or inconsistently applied that paradoxes and deus ex machinae crop up left and right, and the more your fiction relies on these elements the more glaring the problems can become.

Again, this is a general problem with this trope. B:I is certainly not alone in this respect.

I am capable of enjoying such elements (I mean, I like Looper and Doctor Who), but this requires either 1) a deft hand to make something interesting enough that I overlook the issues, or 2) a degree of self-awareness about how ridiculous the inherent conceit is that allows me to laugh at it. B:I doesn't work in either of those respects for me.

The part that especially bothers me with B:I is that the central sci-fi story only becomes fully apparent later in the game; it felt like a bait and switch, where it started with a world and story I was genuinely interested in and gave me something which I was less interested in later. With Looper and Doctor Who, I knew what I was getting up front.

Valmorian wrote:

Ok, here's an even BIGGER one:

Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

Valmorian: I forgot where I read this, but the reason Elizabeth was moved to Comstock House in the Vox-revolution-verse was because she managed to bust out on her own (and Songbird destroyed the tower like he did when Booker busted her out).

EDIT: Also, I happen to like deconstructing Doctor Who in the same way. Even if it makes David Tennant sad in the rain

Demyx wrote:

Valmorian: I forgot where I read this, but the reason Elizabeth was moved to Comstock House in the Vox-revolution-verse was because she managed to bust out on her own (and Songbird destroyed the tower like he did when Booker busted her out).

There is nothing indicating this in the game, to my knowledge. And how would she bust out on her own? She needed the key Booker had to do that.

MojoBox wrote:

Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

I like the game a lot. I've played through it 3 times and have every Voxophone save for 1. I've got almost every achievement and delved deep to find every little tidbit I could find. I also acknowledge that the continuity is a MESS in that game.

She busted out on her own because Elizabeth is awesome :p

That particular continuity snarl doesn't worry me that much because it doesn't ultimately have much effect on the overall plot.

bombsfall wrote:
MojoBox wrote:

Who cares? You are only going to nitpick this stuff if you already don't like the game.

I quit.

Dunno what you set you off, but to elaborate, the fact that statue isn't in the "right" state is relevant neither plot-wise nor thematically. It's the equivalent of a continuity error, it's like pointing out that a pillow was blue in one scene and red in the next (if this were a David Lynch film that actually probably would be relevant). And the fact that there's apparently a voxophone needlessly justifying this pretty well counters the argument that irrational was "messy".

I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

MojoBox wrote:

I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

I admit, part of how I reconcile the apparent "plot holes" is the fact that a number of things I think are intended to be more metaphorical or in service of characters than something that makes logical sense. The whole game felt more like a dream, running on dream logic, than something that could have "happened" in any concrete way.

MojoBox wrote:

And the fact that there's apparently a voxophone needlessly justifying this pretty well counters the argument that irrational was "messy".

There isn't. If anything, it's the Voxophones that make this particular error more apparent.

I found the multidimensional stuff to be very well handled indeed. It was vague enough that I didn't fuss over the details, but explained enough that I had a pretty good idea of what's going on. But then I hate the kind of Sci-Fi that spends all its time developing exactly how the spaceships work and none of it's time developing how it's characters work.

I agree that Sci-Fi concentrating on characters is better Sci-Fi, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy picking apart continuity errors in the media I enjoy. I mean, in Star Wars droids are tortured with hot brands applied to their feet. That's hilariously bad, but I still enjoyed the movies.

Demyx wrote:

I admit, part of how I reconcile the apparent "plot holes" is the fact that a number of things I think are intended to be more metaphorical or in service of characters than something that makes logical sense. The whole game felt more like a dream, running on dream logic, than something that could have "happened" in any concrete way.

I TOTALLY get this, and agree. BUT, Just as I'm annoyed by the continuity problems I've outlined above, I LOVE the foreshadowing they lovingly place throughout the game that only becomes apparent on a second or third playthrough. In fact, that's the main reason the continuity problems bother me. They obviously went through a lot of effort to make sure a lot of details "fit", so when I find a glaring one that doesn't it's all the more irritating.

Valmorian wrote:

Then why does Chen have issues when he's nowhere near the tear when they encounter him?

Also, while you can rationalize it as being "made up memories", Booker does explicitly state he has two memories here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...

For the former, I meant close in relation to where the alternate universe is. For the latter, because it isn't two memories. He's the exact same Booker as the one who led the Vox Populi, hence the nosebleed when he recalls it.

kuddles wrote:

For the former, I meant close in relation to where the alternate universe is.

Then where are all the hundreds of other soldiers killed that aren't in that universe? Am I to believe that somehow those are the only two opponents that I've fought that are alive in this world but dead in the other?

Also, I can't see how you could possibly say that this:

It's the people close to another nearby tear still open who experience mixed memory issues, not the people who go through it.

..could refer to how close the alternate universe is when you specifically mention close to a "nearby tear".

For the latter, because it isn't two memories. He's the exact same Booker as the one who led the Vox Populi, hence the nosebleed when he recalls it.

How could he be the exact same Booker? He didn't lead the Vox Populi. By what metric are you using to determine "exact same"? It also doesn't explain why Elizabeth isn't having any nosebleeds or issues with the fact that there's a duplicate of HER in this dimension as well.

Valmorian wrote:

It also doesn't explain why Elizabeth isn't having any nosebleeds or issues with the fact that there's a duplicate of HER in this dimension as well.

I dunno about the rest of it, but you could easily make the case that Elizabeth is a special exception because of her tear opening powers. I mean if you're not willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt on that, I don't see how it doesn't bother you more that the Luteces are able to appear/disappear/teleport whenever dramatically convenient.

Valmorian wrote:

Then where are all the hundreds of other soldiers killed that aren't in that universe? Am I to believe that somehow those are the only two opponents that I've fought that are alive in this world but dead in the other?

I'm not following you.

Also, I can't see how you could possibly say that this:

..could refer to how close the alternate universe is when you specifically mention close to a "nearby tear".

Because Elizabeth just made that tear and brought it into this world, which makes it close to them. Otherwise, the two universes would never touch each other at all and there wouldn't be a problem.

How could he be the exact same Booker? He didn't lead the Vox Populi. By what metric are you using to determine "exact same"?

He's the exact same Booker. He was the same one that the Lutuce's brought in to try and correct things, he is just part of a different timeline where he failed.

Anything I've posted here that asks questions is because I want to examine the game. If I actually didn't like it, I wouldn't be interested in bothering to analyze it in any way. I imagine much the same is true of others here.

I feel there is a Patrick Stewart STNG meme here just waiting to happen...

"It's just a bloody video game stop over analyzing it!!"

I feel like the game doesn't give you enough information to understand how everything works to further its almost dream-like feel at times. Personally I saw this as a strength, not a detriment.

TheGameguru wrote:

I feel there is a Patrick Stewart STNG meme here just waiting to happen...

"It's just a bloody video game stop over analyzing it!!"

IMAGE(http://www.letswatchstartrek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Picture-262.png)

Yes, it's just a bloody game, Picard...

I can't help but feel this game is being overly scrutinized due to the very high expectations. Are there issues? Yes, of course. It's still a very, very good game. Did Bioshock have issues? You bet it does, but since it came out of nowhere people seem to forgive them more.

Yes, the violence is a bit incongruous to the setting. Violence in Bioshock made more sense, but they are about the same as far as level of violence. I do agree it's off-putting. But it's not a surprise. I don't think it's out of line with the series going back to system shock.

The vigors don't fit into the world quite as cleanly as Bioshock's plasmids, but at this point that is a core mechanic to these games. If they were missing people would freak the hell out.

Story and theme inconstancies? Well, yes. If all of that were bullet proof, that would be quite a feat indeed. Especially given how AAA game development works. Some things fall off the wagon during the process. It's unfortunate. I don't think these issues are surprising, nor are they bad enough to ruin the game.

Does it play exactly like the pre-alpha gameplay concept video? Of course not.

But, combat is fluid and unique with some fresh mechanics we've never seen. Some things (like Elizabeth) are implemented better than any game that has tried that sort of thing before. The sky ways and Elizabeth were real risks that I think could have ruined the game if they didn't work as brilliantly as they do.

The setting is cool and unique, the fiction is engaging, and it has a real ending that presents some nice payoffs. Triple word score for the win.

About the only real complaint I have is the autosave checkpoint system... even on PC. That frustrated me when I had to backtrack, or rush through content to get to a save point. Blarg!

kuddles wrote:

Because Elizabeth just made that tear and brought it into this world, which makes it close to them. Otherwise, the two universes would never touch each other at all and there wouldn't be a problem.

But this is about the guards, not about Booker and Elizabeth. The original problem I outlined was the guards "remembering their deaths" when they weren't brought from the old reality so should have no problems. The reason for this inconsistency offered was that they were close to the "rift" when it was opened. But if that's the reason for their nosebleed memory problem, then why is Chen ALSO afflicted with it, when he was nowhere near the tear.

He's the exact same Booker. He was the same one that the Lutuce's brought in to try and correct things, he is just part of a different timeline where he failed.

Uh, he CAN'T be the exact same Booker, unless you are using some very unusual definition of "exact same". The Voxophones in the "Vox revolution" universe detail events that our Booker has never encountered. He could be a Booker from a different universe that is the same as the one our Booker is from, but for something to be the "exact same", it must be identical to itself, which this one is not.

It's the old "Star Trek Rationalization Game". No matter how many inconsistencies are pointed out, one can always Post-Hoc Rationalize an explanation even though there's no indication that those rationalizations were ever intended by the source material (see: Monument Island being shattered in the Vox Reality, which makes no sense).