392 réponses à ce sujet

[Deflagratio]

Outside of how Elizabeth can serve as a kind of "Companion Model" for NPC interaction and storytelling in the world, particularly without such a disconnect with the rest of the game as Dragon Age's "Camp" and Mass Effect's "Normandy" what can DA:I really learn from Bioshock: Infinite?

[In Exile]

Deflagratio wrote...
The Paradox is resolved by the realization that it isn't time travel. The game doesn't even subtly imply the fact that it's a multiple-universe theory of which all possibilities exist at all times and occur simultanously. Elizabeth isn't killing Comstock, she's breaking off a strand from the possibility space effectively negating every universe in which Comstock existed. 

And all of that psuedoscience babble amounts to this: (i) Elizabeth erases Comstock from existence and, by extension, erases every impact he ever had, including his kidnapping of her and the source of her powers, (ii) Elizabeth does not erase Comstock from existence, retaining her powers and the events that lead up to it, meaning that nothing that is ever different occurs any differently, meaning that her actions are meaningless. Comstock still exists. 

This nonsense about negating every universe that Comstock existed negates her existence all the same. Thinking that the problem with the time-travel paradox is time and not causality is the mistake that you have made. 

And if Elizabeth exists outside space-time itself, then we run into lots of other conceptual problems, like how she (being space-time, effectively) can exist in its absence. Its a nonsensical proposition. 

I mean, it is hard to even come up with a way to express things about this game without degenerating the entire conversation into basically meaningless words and rulesets that operate on the author said so. 

Remember, because every single instance of Elizabeth is spread across two universes, she actually exists within the area between that the game refers to as the "Possibility Space". The Lutece Twins also exist in this realm.

Except that neither universe exists the second that Comstock ceases to exist. There are no two universes, because the universes are linked. And the Lutece twins existence does not address the paradox because there has never been a moment - before the end of the game - where Booker and Elizabeth reached the end. If we assume that Elizabeth changed anything, that is. 

If Elizabeth did reach the end before.. then we just have the cycle of eternal reccurence. 

First off, Booker doesn't die, Elizabeth does, while all of the Comstock universe just doesn't exist.

The ending is not amibiguous on this point. Elizabeth drowns Booker. 

 The debate on if Anna still exists is arguably open for debate, but Booker's survival and existence is not. 

That is most certainly up for debate. Thematically, that is one of the few interesting questions that Bioshock Infinite actually raises: the enternal cycle of events and whether Booker is trapped in them.

As for the mass casualties inflicted by essentially snuffing out parallel universes, that's a bit beyond contemplation at this point in our understanding of the theories that lend some credence to "Multiverse" existences. Is the idea of an unconcieved child a murder? Can nonexistence be deemed criminal?

There is nothing complicated about this. If we suppose that there is no afterlife, death is just non-existence. There is no functional difference between erasing someone from existence and killing them. And then if we do have an afterlife, we get into quite serious problems about the actual immorality of killing. Which of all things, the Order of the Stick webcomic gets across best. 

Modifié par In Exile, 14 septembre 2013 - 07:03 .

[Zu Long]

Deflagratio wrote...


I'm sorry you don't value your own opinion enough to defend it. And let's be clear, an opinion cannot be proven wrong, but the premises on which it is founded most certainly can be, which is why your definition of what is a "Cluster****" is important in this context.

It is not my opinion I devalue but rather your need to attack it. I see no point in it. I have stated my own opinion, and decline to be drawn into a protracted arguement over whether or not it is legitimate, which it appears is your aim. I'm sorry that seems to be frustrating you.

[Deflagratio]

In Exile wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...
The Paradox is resolved by the realization that it isn't time travel. The game doesn't even subtly imply the fact that it's a multiple-universe theory of which all possibilities exist at all times and occur simultanously. Elizabeth isn't killing Comstock, she's breaking off a strand from the possibility space effectively negating every universe in which Comstock existed. 

And all of that psuedoscience babble amounts to this: (i) Elizabeth erases Comstock from existence and, by extension, erases every impact he ever had, including his kidnapping of her and the source of her powers, (ii) Elizabeth does not erase Comstock from existence, retaining her powers and the events that lead up to it, meaning that nothing that is ever different occurs any differently, meaning that her actions are meaningless. Comstock still exists. 

You're still invoking a paradox that requires linear time travel. This absolutely cannot be the case because multiple tears throughout Columbia glimpse into the world at different points in the nonlinear time.

In Exile wrote...

This nonsense about negating every universe that Comstock existed negates her existence all the same. Thinking that the problem with the time-travel paradox is time and not causality is the mistake that you have made. 

And if Elizabeth exists outside space-time itself, then we run into lots of other conceptual problems, like how she (being space-time, effectively) can exist in its absence. Its a nonsensical proposition. 

If you look up Michio Kaku's concept of multiverse reality, you can see what amounts to the "Possibility space" it isn't out of the universe, it's more like an interdimensional medium. If each individual universe is an electron, the "Possibility Space" (Actual in game term) is the Higgs field.

I have to say that Bioshock:Infinite isn't trying to pass this off as real science, just thematic reinforcement.

In Exile wrote...
I mean, it is hard to even come up with a way to express things about this game without degenerating the entire conversation into basically meaningless words and rulesets that operate on the author said so.

Um yes... because it's a work of fiction.  It operates in consistency within its own rules. If I ever gave the impression that Bioshock:Infinite was a documentary, I'm truly sorry. Quantum mechanics is just a theme of Bioshock:Infinite, it's not attempting to advance the science.

In Exile wrote...


Except that neither universe exists the second that Comstock ceases to exist. There are no two universes, because the universes are linked. And the Lutece twins existence does not address the paradox because there has never been a moment - before the end of the game - where Booker and Elizabeth reached the end. If we assume that Elizabeth changed anything, that is. 

If Elizabeth did reach the end before.. then we just have the cycle of eternal reccurence. 

More Father paradox, which doesn't exist in the theory of multiverse.  It's a preposterous concept that an individual could manipulate space-time the way Elizabeth does, but it's also preposterous that positive and negative charges passed through an element to increase and decrease mass. Elizabeth is just Bioshock:Infinite's Element Zero.

I'm only arguing consistency within the fiction.

In Exile wrote...
The ending is not amibiguous on this point. Elizabeth drowns Booker. 

The exact words before being "Drowned":  "I'm Both."

If you're right, she can't be killing Comstock already, since the paradox negates that possibility. It's a little thick on symbolism, but I can say without ambiguity that Elizabeth is simply removing the choice itself from existence.

In Exile wrote...
That is most certainly up for debate. Thematically, that is one of the few interesting questions that Bioshock Infinite actually raises: the enternal cycle of events and whether Booker is trapped in them.

The date on Booker's desk in the Epilogue is after he gave Anna to Robert. To be fair, you've really got to pay attention on this one. One of the constants is that Anna/Elizabeth is always surrendered before that date... At least there's never any evidence given to the contrary in game.

In Exile wrote...

There is nothing complicated about this. If we suppose that there is no afterlife, death is just non-existence. There is no functional difference between erasing someone from existence and killing them. And then if we do have an afterlife, we get into quite serious problems about the actual immorality of killing. Which of all things, the Order of the Stick webcomic gets across best. 

I hope I read this incorrectly... Life only has meaning if there is an afterlife?

Zu Long wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...


I'm
sorry you don't value your own opinion enough to defend it. And let's
be clear, an opinion cannot be proven wrong, but the premises on which
it is founded most certainly can be, which is why your definition of
what is a "Cluster****" is important in this context.

It
is not my opinion I devalue but rather your need to attack it. I see no
point in it. I have stated my own opinion, and decline to be drawn into
a protracted arguement over whether or not it is legitimate, which it
appears is your aim. I'm sorry that seems to be frustrating you.

I merely seek to understand your perspective. Your opinion is of no concern to me, your perspective is.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:39 .

[Zu Long]

VampireSoap wrote...

I'm sorry...but can you guys not focus so much on Bioshock Infinite's story? Yes, it's kinda relevant to the title, but come on, you all know what I asked for.

What you asked for was a comparison of the hypothetical story of DA:I to Bioshock's destinctly non-hypothetical story. Since actually comparing the two is de facto impossible, we are left with trying to guage the strength of Bioware's other stories, and determining the strength of Bioshock Infinite's story...which are all subjective.

Personally, I think WoolyJoe had the best answer on Page 8 there.

[JimmyBazooka]

"...Will it be on par with Bioshock: infinite's?"
Wow. Buahahaha. Even a 5 year old's writing would be better than BI plot. It's a pretentious and contrived mess. Not anywhere near the first Bioshock. BI is an overhyped mindless game. There - I've said it.
I'll just wait for white knights and fanboys to attack me now over this with their raging hard-on.

[Fredward]

JimmyBazooka wrote...
"...Will it be on par with Bioshock: infinite's?"
Wow. Buahahaha. Even a 5 year old's writing would be better than BI plot. It's a pretentious and contrived mess. Not anywhere near the first Bioshock. BI is an overhyped mindless game. There - I've said it.
I'll just wait for white knights and fanboys to attack me now over this with their raging hard-on.

Why so passive-aggressive dudebro?

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:44 .

[In Exile]

Deflagratio wrote...
You're still invoking a paradox that requires linear time travel. This absolutely cannot be the case because multiple tears throughout Columbia glimpse into the world at different points in the nonlinear time.

No. You're fixated on time. What's relevant is causality. The only way that Elizabeth can ever have an effect on Comstock is that events flow in causal fashion from points, and erasing the antecedent point erases all possible effects after that point. 

The only way Comstock can cease to exist by having anything happen to Booker only works if a change in a causal antecedent changes all causally subsequent events. Time is irrelevant. It's the linkage between events that matters, it's the linkage beween events that Elizabeth's intervention is based on, and it's the linkage between events that calls her own existence into question if her strategy is meant to be succesful. 

If you look up Michio Kaku's concept of multiverse reality, you can see what amounts to the "Possibility space" it isn't out of the universe, it's more like an interdimensional medium. If each individual universe is an electron, the "Possibility Space" (Actual in game term) is the Higgs field.

That's just nonsense. I can write a theory about how the fabric of the universe is upheld by a drunk leprachaun, but that isn't intellectual or deep, it's nonsense. Taking a barely servicable psuedoscientific theory and throwing it in a game isn't deep unless you're using it to explore actual questions about human nature in a revealing way, and Bioshock Infinite never gets into the actual interesting questions it tries to rase. 

Um yes... because it's a work of fiction.  It operates in consistency within its own rules. If I ever gave the impression that Bioshock:Infinite was a documentary, I'm truly sorry. Quantum mechanics is just a theme of Bioshock:Infinite, it's not attempting to advance the science.

Quantum mechanics isn't a "theme". Science is a medium to tell a story, like I said. But Bioshock isn't telling a story through the psoeduscientifc nonsense it's peddling. The story it's telling is the psuedoscientific nonsense. 

Peel away the incoherent rules - and they are incoherent - and there's nothing left but simple themes that don't really get explored in depth like patriotism, redemption and racism. 

Bioshock Infinite never spends enough time with anything it raises to constitute an actually deep or revealing story about anything, and it can't stand as good science fiction because it's rules are just nonsense even by their own standards. 

More Father paradox, which doesn't exist in the theory of multiverse.

As I've explained multiple times, Bioshock Infinite's plot does not suppose that any particular reality is distinct from any other in the sense of being causally "unchained". Elizabeth's intervention only works if events are causally linked and "split" like decision trees. She erases the point before the split, no subsequent branches. Except that in this case, her very existence and the existence of her powers are a consequence of there being a Zachary Comstock. She removes Comstock, she negates the causal chain that gives rise to her own existence. 

It's not complex. 

It's a preposterous concept that an individual could manipulate space-time the way Elizabeth does, but it's also preposterous that positive and negative charges passed through an element to increase and decrease mass. Elizabeth is just Bioshock:Infinite's Element Zero.

I'm not sure what parallel you think you're drawing here. 

I'm only arguing consistency within the fiction.  

Element zero is a neutron. it is not "consistent" with anything in mass effect, since mass effect wants to pretend that things in it happen based on IRL science that would negate the existence of magical neutrons. 
 

The exact words before being "Drowned":  "I'm Both."

If you're right, she can't be killing Comstock already, since the paradox negates that possibility. It's a little thick on symbolism, but I can say without ambiguity that Elizabeth is simply removing the choice itself from existence.

Nonsense isn't symbolism. The bolded line isn't even English - it's just word salad. 

I hope I read this incorrectly... Life only has meaning if there is an afterlife?

You are clearly reading it incorrectly since I never even used the word "meaning" in that paragraph. 

Modifié par In Exile, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[Zu Long]

Deflagratio wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

It
is not my opinion I devalue but rather your need to attack it. I see no
point in it. I have stated my own opinion, and decline to be drawn into
a protracted arguement over whether or not it is legitimate, which it
appears is your aim. I'm sorry that seems to be frustrating you.

I merely seek to understand your perspective. Your opinion is of no concern to me, your perspective is.

Judging by your other conversation with In Exile, your version of understanding seems involve a lot of arguing. Again, I decline.

[Angrywolves]

Don't know anything about that bioshock game.
Didn't the Last of Us get 10/10 from most reviewers ?
That's probably more along the line of what Bioware wants.

[Fast Jimmy]

Quantum mechanics isn't a "theme". Science is a medium to tell a story, like I said. But Bioshock isn't telling a story through the psoeduscientifc nonsense it's peddling. The story it's telling is the psuedoscientific nonsense. 

Peel away the incoherent rules - and they are incoherent - and there's nothing left but simple themes that don't really get explored in depth like patriotism, redemption and racism. 

I disagree with this, but for only superficial reasons.

The point and crux of the story is the psuedoscientific nonsense (alternate realities, causality and the false sense of choice in a pre-determinalism multi-verse). The themes of patriotism, fundamentalism and racism are, quite simply, cheap veneers to allow the player to kill all the neccessary enemies, qualm free.

The player is set to see the world as being controlled by evil men, so killing said men (and then lackies) is okay. Notice that when the Vox Poluli suddenly become enemies the player begins to fight, the characters themselves begin to be guilty of the same type of cruelty and brutality as the previously villainized legion of Comstock followers. As if to say "these are now okay people to kill" rather than truly explore the topic of how power and feelings of revenge can drive dark behavior.

The topics the Vox Populi bring up are "addressed" about as much as the supposed "themes" of racism, nationalism and fundamentalism. Which is to say, they aren't addressed at all... except to say that when people exhibit these behaviors, they are okay to kill without conscience.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 septembre 2013 - 09:07 .

[AutumnWitch]

"Will there be a jaw-dropping revelation at the end of the game that forces us to reexamine our perception of the real world? Will there be a hidden and yet deeply philosophical theme in the game?"

I guess I am a bit naive or not a real gamer or whatever other else people will call me BUT I play video games to be entertained and/or for the escapism.

If the game just happens to give me some type of cool look at or new understanding of the human condition great. But if it gives me hours and hours of fun and mindless entertainment that is just as good to me.

I don't play games as "morality plays" nor do I look at them for some amazing insight to the universe. I want to have fun and really enjoy my immersion into that universe.

So whether DAI does either to me doesn't matter as long as at gives me hours of fun and entertainment. I want it to take me away and let me forget the mindless mediocrity that is usually life.

TBO if I want to learn about morality or examine the human condition I will read books or go find it myself by experiencing it in person.

[Deflagratio]

Restating my premise just because it gets lost in all this bickering.

Bioshock: Infinite sufficiently addresses the plot threads it creates.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
No. You're fixated on time. What's relevant is causality. The only way that Elizabeth can ever have an effect on Comstock is that events flow in causal fashion from points, and erasing the antecedent point erases all possible effects after that point. 

The only way Comstock can cease to exist by having anything happen to Booker only works if a change in a causal antecedent changes all causally subsequent events. Time is irrelevant. It's the linkage between events that matters, it's the linkage beween events that Elizabeth's intervention is based on, and it's the linkage between events that calls her own existence into question if her strategy is meant to be succesful.
[/quote]

She exists as an entity between this causality/antecedent relationship. The same way the Lutece Twins do after Comstock kills them. It's... Admittedly a little stupid, but it does still solve the paradox technically.  I would concede you're right, but the game takes pains to establish this. The Lutece Voxophones prattle on about why Elizabeth is the only solution to what would otherwise be an endless cycle.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
That's just nonsense. I can write a theory about how the fabric of the universe is upheld by a drunk leprachaun, but that isn't intellectual or deep, it's nonsense. Taking a barely servicable psuedoscientific theory and throwing it in a game isn't deep unless you're using it to explore actual questions about human nature in a revealing way, and Bioshock Infinite never gets into the actual interesting questions it tries to rase. 
[/quote]

Strawman argument. You can do better man.

Either way, I don't think I ever claimed Bioshock: Infinite was deep or even intellectual. Merely that it works.


[quote]In Exile wrote..
Quantum mechanics isn't a "theme". Science is a medium to tell a story, like I said. But Bioshock isn't telling a story through the psoeduscientifc nonsense it's peddling. The story it's telling is the psuedoscientific nonsense. 
[/quote]

You're going to have to extrapolate this one a little bit. Particularly how Science is a medium to tell a story. Other than that, I can just say you're wrong. It's telling a story of redemption, with Liz's manipulation of the "Psuedoscientific nonesense" as the vessel of deliverance.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
Peel away the incoherent rules - and they are incoherent - and there's nothing left but simple themes that don't really get explored in depth like patriotism, redemption and racism. [/quote]

You're going to have to tell me these incoherent rules. Please include where they cause discrepencies as well if you would. This is the heart of my argument.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
Bioshock Infinite never spends enough time with anything it raises to constitute an actually deep or revealing story about anything, and it can't stand as good science fiction because it's rules are just nonsense even by their own standards. [/quote]

I absolutely agree, a lot of these themes were painfully underdeveloped.



[quote]In Exile wrote..
As I've explained multiple times, Bioshock Infinite's plot does not suppose that any particular reality is distinct from any other in the sense of being causally "unchained". Elizabeth's intervention only works if events are causally linked and "split" like decision trees. She erases the point before the split, no subsequent branches. Except that in this case, her very existence and the existence of her powers are a consequence of there being a Zachary Comstock. She removes Comstock, she negates the causal chain that gives rise to her own existence. 
[/quote]

Except the space between. Irrational went through considerable pains to design an entire level (Two technically) to illistrate that point.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
It's not complex. 
[/quote]

That's cute. It's not complex, but it's still wrong. No amount of passive-aggressive belittling will change that.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
I'm not sure what parallel you think you're drawing here. 
[/quote]
Obviously...

[quote]In Exile wrote..
Element zero is a neutron. it is not "consistent" with anything in mass effect, since mass effect wants to pretend that things in it happen based on IRL science that would negate the existence of magical neutrons. 
[/quote]

When dealing with any work of fiction, there's something called suspension of disbelief. Push that too far and you have narrative collapse.  Maybe you hit that point any time something ventures outside your world experience. The Element Zero example taken from Mass Effect was an example. The Creators ask you to suspend disbelief and accept that "If this substance allowed this..." and then they build their lore which feeds the narrative. It works the same way with Bioshock : Infinite's Elizabeth.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
Nonsense isn't symbolism. The bolded line isn't even English - it's just word salad. 
[/quote]

No, but the Lighhouses, the Ocean, the Baptism and the Reverand were all symbolism.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
You are clearly reading it incorrectly since I never even used the word "meaning" in that paragraph. 
[/quote]

That's good to know, I could have sworn you said:

[quote]In Exile said...
.. And
then if we do have an afterlife, we get into quite serious problems
about the actual immorality of killing.
[/quote]

That implies that only the existence of an afterlife gives any weight to morality of murder. I think you just meant in this context of the discussion though, not as a generalization.

You know, I think if you hadn't attempted to belittle me, we could have been great friends.

It'll be a while before I can respond to anything again. If you really care enough, you can PM a link to, or any response. Just so I don't have to dig through pages to find it... Though something tells me this thread will probably die once I'm not bumping it.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 10:12 .

[Navasha]

The scientific arguments aside, I found Bioshock to still be a poorly told story (the point of the thread).
The protagonist was neither likeable nor sympathetic in any way. In fact, I can't even think of a single character in the entire game that had a single decent quality.

This isn't something BIoware should ever aspire to achieve. Bioware's stories and characters have some heart and emotion behind them. I have a hard time playing an "evil" character in a Bioware game because it feels wrong to pick half of the truly vile options.

I didn't have the same sensation at all in B:Infinite. Everyone you met was vile, evil, unscrupulous, etc. A good story should never make the observer(player) feels as though they don't like anything about the world. A lot of the impact that COULD have been made when Booker allows himself to be erased is drastically diminished because at that point, the player is thinking "good riddance".

Modifié par Navasha, 14 septembre 2013 - 10:38 .

[Amberion]

VampireSoap wrote...

Will we remember the game plot even years after playing DAI? And I don't mean the ME3 kind of remember.

Will there be a jaw-dropping revelation at the end of the game that forces us to reexamine our perception of the real world? Will there be a hidden and yet deeply philosophical theme in the game?

Will the circle be unbroken, by and by, by and by? Is a better home awaiting in the sky, in the sky?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[Amberion]

Navasha wrote...

The scientific arguments aside, I found Bioshock to still be a poorly told story (the point of the thread).
The protagonist was neither likeable nor sympathetic in any way. In fact, I can't even think of a single character in the entire game that had a single decent quality.

This isn't something BIoware should ever aspire to achieve. Bioware's stories and characters have some heart and emotion behind them. I have a hard time playing an "evil" character in a Bioware game because it feels wrong to pick half of the truly vile options.

I didn't have the same sensation at all in B:Infinite. Everyone you met was vile, evil, unscrupulous, etc. A good story should never make the observer(player) feels as though they don't like anything about the world. A lot of the impact that COULD have been made when Booker allows himself to be erased is drastically diminished because at that point, the player is thinking "good riddance".

I just feel I should point out that nowhere is there a requirement that we like the characters. Booker is the way he is because he's a product of his time. He's got a mission and he's gonna do it, and he doesn't care who he's gotta run over to get to his goal.

Personally, I like Booker. His flaws make him more interesting. He made a mistake a long time ago, and he's been punishing himself ever since. Now he has a chance to set things right, and the big twist is how he manages it.

[David7204]

Does Infinite 'force' you to do evil things as a player?

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Does Infinite 'force' you to do evil things as a player?

Play the game to find out 

[David7204]

I have the first BioShock and was ultimately unimpressed despite all the raving reviews it got. So no, I don't think I'll be playing Infinite anytime soon.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 11:10 .

[Amberion]

Bioshock Infinite is a totally linear experience. There are no branching pathways or choices you can make that affect the story.

[Navasha]

Amberion wrote...
I just feel I should point out that nowhere is there a requirement that we like the characters. Booker is the way he is because he's a product of his time. He's got a mission and he's gonna do it, and he doesn't care who he's gotta run over to get to his goal.

The problem though is the player is never given a hook as to why they should care.   In a very real sense, you are handed a pistol and told to go kill people without any real explanation as to why.   What debt?  We are never really given an adequate desire to perform this mission.   Killing a bunch of people and kidnapping someones kid to pay off a few gambling debts hardly seems very motivational.

I don't mind if the characters are irredeemable and not likeable, but there was no hook for the player either.  You spend the first few hours of the game as a player wondering, "Why am I doing this again?"

[In Exile]

[quote]Deflagratio wrote...
She exists as an entity between this causality/antecedent relationship. The same way the Lutece Twins do after Comstock kills them. It's... Admittedly a little stupid, but it does still solve the paradox technically.  I would concede you're right, but the game takes pains to establish this. The Lutece Voxophones prattle on about why Elizabeth is the only solution to what would otherwise be an endless cycle. [/quote]

It doesn't solve the paradox. A logical inconsistency isn't a solution. The game wants to say that Elizabeth is magic and that none of the established rules apply to her. Except for the fact that her "powers" are a function of those rules applying to her. 

[quote]Strawman argument. You can do better man.[/quote]

Since I wasn't attempting to characterize your position as anything, it can't be a strawman. It was a reduction to the absurd. That one can come up with some psuedoscientific theory and say some reputable scientist is pushing is not to give it any kind of actual credibility. 

[quote]Either way, I don't think I ever claimed Bioshock: Infinite was deep or even intellectual. Merely that it works. [/quote]

We can quibble about whether the parallels you've drawn between psuedoscientific works and BI really amount to an implication that the plot is both intellectual and deep, but let's just say I concede the point and admit I overstepped to not go on another tangent. 

[quote]You're going to have to extrapolate this one a little bit. Particularly how Science is a medium to tell a story. [/quote]

In brief, any kind of science-fiction (science-fantasy is really more appropriate) that attempts to use some reality bending power, whether based on machines or a machine like theory of the universe or unexplained magic isn't about science, it's about creating a plot and world where the author can tell some kind of story, ideally about the human condition. Think Blade Runner. 

[quote]Other than that, I can just say you're wrong. It's telling a story of redemption, with Liz's manipulation of the "Psuedoscientific nonesense" as the vessel of deliverance. [/quote]

It's an attempt to tell a story about redemption... except that redemption gets lots in the psuedoscientifc tangent that the game flies off on near its end. When one incoherent idea overshadows everything else, whatever your intended theme was, you've failed to make the game (or story) about it.

Mass Effect 3's ending is a good illustration of this. 

[quote]You're going to have to tell me these incoherent rules. Please include where they cause discrepencies as well if you would. This is the heart of my argument. [/quote]

I did. I'm not about to write an exhaustive essay on a video-game, so I've settled on the ending. 

[quote]Except the space between. Irrational went through considerable pains to design an entire level (Two technically) to illistrate that point.[/quote]

That notion is just garbage. Look, the absence of causality is not even a "thing" that we can conceive. The linear flow of events is hardwired into our perception of the world and there is not a single level in Bioshock infinite that ever alters that. Irrational went to great pains to talk about some gap existing and asked the players to accept it is a thing that exists for the sake of the narrative, but it is not (i) coherent and (ii) well-articulated. 

So, yes, they tried very hard to insist that it exists. 

[quote]That's cute. It's not complex, but it's still wrong. No amount of passive-aggressive belittling will change that.[/quote]

I hope the irony of this post isn't lost on you.

[quote]When dealing with any work of fiction, there's something called suspension of disbelief. Push that too far and you have narrative collapse.  Maybe you hit that point any time something ventures outside your world experience. The Element Zero example taken from Mass Effect was an example. The Creators ask you to suspend disbelief and accept that "If this substance allowed this..." and then they build their lore which feeds the narrative. It works the same way with Bioshock : Infinite's Elizabeth. [/quote]

That's not the point I made. The point I made was that the second that the authors do this, they abando0n our physical rules. They do their best - and some do it better than others - to generally try and have their magic rules kind of make sense toghether and not contradict each other, but no one can do that perfectly becaue no one can sit around and try to forese not just the implication of a single rule of theirs but the combinatorially explosive number of ways those rules can interact. 

The Quarians are a great example. At different points in the ME trilogy Bioware essentially gives them two diametrically opposed immonological syndromes. Biologically, it's nonsense. It's also silly to object to it as nonsense because it has narrative weight. The only time it would make sense to object is if someone defends ME as being internally consist on its science, because it is evidently not. 

[quote]No, but the Lighhouses, the Ocean, the Baptism and the Reverand were all symbolism.[/quote]

They certainly were. 

[quote]That implies that only the existence of an afterlife gives any weight to morality of murder. I think you just meant in this context of the discussion though, not as a generalization.  [/quote]

No, actually. It implies the opposite. That if people have an afterlife, and an immortal afterlife at that, then the distinction that we draw between assault and murder gets quite a lot more complicated. Once "killing" no longer actually ends a persons existence - and we know it can't - them we're reduced to a spectrum of assaults instead of a meaningful ordinal dichotomy between murder and beating.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 septembre 2013 - 11:14 .

[David7204]

Amberion wrote...

Bioshock Infinite is a totally linear experience. There are no branching pathways or choices you can make that affect the story.

Right, so does that linear experience include the player character doing evil things?

Also, I watched the trailer and seem to remember a few times where the player can choose to take an action or not. Shoot a dying horse or let the girl try and heal it. Stuff like that. That's not in the final game?

[Amberion]

Navasha wrote...

Amberion wrote...
I just feel I should point out that nowhere is there a requirement that we like the characters. Booker is the way he is because he's a product of his time. He's got a mission and he's gonna do it, and he doesn't care who he's gotta run over to get to his goal.

The problem though is the player is never given a hook as to why they should care.   In a very real sense, you are handed a pistol and told to go kill people without any real explanation as to why.   What debt?  We are never really given an adequate desire to perform this mission.   Killing a bunch of people and kidnapping someones kid to pay off a few gambling debts hardly seems very motivational.

I don't mind if the characters are irredeemable and not likeable, but there was no hook for the player either.  You spend the first few hours of the game as a player wondering, "Why am I doing this again?"

A lack of a hook is not necessarily a critical flaw. In terms of hooking the player into the game, I would say the device that sends you to Columbia is a pretty good initial hook that makes the player go 'whoa!'. This isn't character linked, but scene linked.

As for 'desire,' well, this game felt to me like a throwback to an earlier age of FPS games, where the player's desire to play is assumed to be self-motivated. It's a game; we play it because we want to play it. The character motivations and story come a bit later. If you as a player need motivation to play a game, you've got bigger problems I don't know what to do with.