Bioshock Infinite

This is my point exactly. To ignore the parts of the game that give context to the action and then proclaim judgement on the entirety is bafflingly stupid.

And what context is provided precisely? Because Bioshock Infinite has a rather large gap between its story and gameplay. Ludonarrative dissonance taken to a rather extreme level.

What is this gap you speak of besides the Salts?

Presumably the game is played by people who have the cognitive capacity to observe what is being spoken and done outside of the bare mechanics of shooting things. And yes, I am being heavily sarcastic here. You could train a monkey to play an FPS, but that monkey wouldn't grasp the nuances of the story.

We are slightly more evolved mentally than monkeys, one hopes.

Edit: That's it. I shall now consider anyone who ignores the story of a game and then complains about the story to be at the intellectual level of a trained monkey bashing on a mouse and keyboard.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:12:05 PM by Fighteer

I provide this link and say no more

The fact remains. Plenty of games are able to integrate their mechanics into their storytelling. Where the actions and shooting and simplicity aren't just filler. Where there is not so much of a dissonance between the two. Where the mechanics are actually part of the point.

I mean, I'd think that in this world post Spec Ops The Line we'd at least give some thought about whether or not butchering our way through a game world is truly necessary.

And then there's the little issue where there is literally no reason for so much of the gameplay decisions and features other than "in the last game" whether that's the Handymen, the vending machines, the Vigors, or even most of the combat. And at least with Bioshock everything was implemented and tied together so very well. The Big Daddies, the Splicers, and the fact that the maps weren't just chains of shooting galleries with bits of plot between them.

And also that you could use your powers for things in the environment. Electrocute this to turn on power. Burn this or melt this. Freeze this. Use telekinesis to do this. Simple, perhaps, but it certainly provided a great deal more "context" than much of what Infinite provides, by actually making you feel like the gameplay and story were taking place in the same realm.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:19:21 PM by unnoun

I'm not talking about any of that. Gameplay and story being well-integrated or not, the point is that there is a story, and you can't help but notice it unless you turn off the sound and the subtitles and pretend you're playing Quake.

It's well and good to observe that there is a dissonance between the mechanics of the game and the plot surrounding them, but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend the plot doesn't exist while reviewing the plot.

I think there are places where the game and story are dissonant but they are not the violent ones. Booker is undeniably a violent man and the game forces you into most of the violent situations. However, Booker's motivations for his violence do change.

When you break into Comstock house to save Elizabeth from the scientists performing the painful procedure on her, didn't you feel vindictive and justified in shooting the unarmed technicians doing it?

edited 18th Oct '13 2:28:53 PM by Elle

I'm not saying that the violence itself is the most dissonant thing. Perhaps the main issue is that it appears to be the only mechanic. Yes, that sequence implemented violence extremely well. But there are plenty of other sequences that don't, where you could likely cut an entire shooting gallery section without missing a beat.

I don't think what you're talking about is actually Ludonarritive Dissonance, or what we called Gameplay and Story Segregation long before a blogger coined the term in relation to this game, though LD is probably more specific. Ludonarritive Dissonance specifically means that the themes or the text of the story are in contradiction with the gameplay. i.e how in the Tomb Raider remake, Lara seems to switch too easily between terrified rookie in cutscenes to scarily competent killer in the game.

Or around the part I spoilered last post, how Elizabeth goes right back to her cheery-sounding lockpick-aid mode as little as seconds after you get her out.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:33:31 PM by Elle

That I agree with. Bioshock could work with violence as the only string in it's bow and BI really desperately needed some kind of other mechanic to make things work.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:32:34 PM by odafangirl

I'm not entirely sure that I understand, unnoun. Do you want to play an FPS where you kill things violently by the inherent nature of the genre (narrative be damned), or do you want an intellectually demanding story about a deeply conflicted man kidnapping a girl whom he turns out to be rescuing from slavery and who later rescues him from his own past?

Look, while I haven't played the game, I have watched it all the way through, and many of the battles seem like an excuse to have fights rather than fitting seamlessly into the story. That doesn't mean that the story can be thrown out the window when judging the game.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:34:00 PM by Fighteer

I want the latter. Not necessarily the former because not every FPS has been exclusively about killing things violently. I mean, Deus Ex and System Shock 2 at least provided you with additional options. Having murder as your sole gameplay mechanic doesn't quite match Infinite's aesthetic to my mind.

Honestly, I never got past the first couple hours of the original Bioshock (I mean to someday) so any judgements I make about the game are independent of that.

Fighter, none of us are really arguing it should be, and agreeing that people who do are probably playing the wrong game at best. But it's still a factor of Elizabeth's character, and while I hesitate to call it a flaw, it is a bit of an imperfection.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:38:38 PM by Elle

If you buy 'Bioshock Infinite', what parts of it you choose to enjoy are up to you. It is not the developers' or the game's fault if you ignore one part or another of the product. If we choose to completely ignore the story, and thus see only a colourful vehicle for killing things, with the animation of a woman providing us with resources and interdimensional backup, that's our own fault, not the product's. The story itself, however, absolutely does not pose Elizabeth as a trophy.

This is precisely what I'm saying.

If you ignore 3/4 of the game and then judge the entire product on the basis of the 1/4 you played, you lose the right to have your judgement be considered valid.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:40:42 PM by Fighteer

I think we're having two different arguments here. It's kind of confusing. :/

Why not? Does resorting to violence first and foremost not match up to Booker's established character as a career thug?

edited 18th Oct '13 2:42:16 PM by TobiasDrake

I think I've lost track of what unnoun is saying.

That too. Booker is so violent that Elizabeth straight up calls him a monster at one point. The story acknowledges the violence of the game mechanics.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:44:57 PM by stripes-the-zebra

Yeah, I think it's gotten to "we both agree it's wrong but we disagree over how wrong it is.

There appear to be some folks who consider Bioshock Infinite to be promulgating stereotypical male-female roles because, if you ignore the story, Booker is a generic FPS male hero who kills people, and Elizabeth is a generic FPS female follower who gives him powerups so he can kill people.

My contention is that this is a viciously dishonest way to review the game.

Booker and Elizabeth are many things, but they are only generic if you don't look past the box art.

The review never actualy said that and I'm not sure that anyone did. The review that got linked is grossly mus-interpreting the story but not really ignoring it.

I'm also saying that based on my own play-through, there are a number of factors where I could see how someone might make that sort of mis-judgement.

...I'm not entirely certain I can explain why having violence be so abundant in Bioshock worked for me but didn't in Infinite. I mean, I don't mind that Infinite had combat and that it was violent. That's not what causes the disconnect.

Neither am I of the opinion that Infinite is that bad a game. And while Elizabeth isn't the long-heralded "strong female character" to my mind because of so many aspects of the presentation, she is still a damned good character, and an amazing step in the right direction.

Perhaps it's that Killing Is Too Easy?

Perhaps it's this point on the second page, of why he said it doesn't work for him? That it was perhaps a touch too over the top?

I dunno. I guess I'm just really empathizing with Yahtzee on this one.

And why did they have to establish his character as a career thug? Why must that be such a defining trait?

edited 18th Oct '13 2:53:01 PM by unnoun

I actually wonder if Tom got to the end of the game. If not, maybe he wouldn't say that Elizabeth was portrayed as a trophy if he had known she's Booker's daughter.

I felt that Infinite paid attention to the fact that it was so violent. I was pretty disgusted, and when I realized that Elizabeth was screaming because of the more brutal killings, I tried to avoid them.

As for why Booker is a career thug, I first have to ask, did you play and finish the game?

edited 18th Oct '13 2:56:28 PM by stripes-the-zebra