|
Post by Clint Johnston on Aug 5, 2013 6:12:27 GMT 1
I have a problem with the ending. The surprise twist specifically. Not with the surprise itself, it was a good payoff for the story and made sense. But with the big reveal. The fact that Booker is actually Comstock from a different reality. The reason I have a problem with it is that it's supposed that Booker's conversion to Christianity is the divergent point that determines his fate. This is just wrong. My faith is not something that turns you into a rabid ideologue. It certainly wasn't who Jesus was. Comstock's philosophy took the bible and through it out the window. Artistically, it was the right choice. It knitted the beginning of the story and the entrance to the city to the final moment. But it short-changed important things about Booker's conversion like his relationship with Christ. Anybody who truly invested in such a relationship, (as Booker would have done, given his level of guilt) would not have ended up as twisted as Comstock. It's like in the film the Ten Commandments. Before Moses meets God, he's an engaging character with charm. After he meets God, he turns into a complete jerk (to his mother, to his wife, to everyone who isn't doing as he says. That's just not how God works. That's not saying that someone could have a conversion moment and not promptly go off the racist city founder deep end, but it's highly unlikely. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Aug 5, 2013 10:07:46 GMT 1
I expected this reaction to happen. To be honest i'm suprised you went through the baptism thing very early on in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Aug 5, 2013 17:13:42 GMT 1
Well I'm not a rage quit player and baptism seemed to be the only way to enter the city (though why the preacher had not been briefed by Comstock to look for the tattoo on Booker's hand baffles me) and he was reluctant enough about it. As an element of the story in the beginning it made sense. Infiltrating this weird cult you have to do some crap.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 5, 2013 21:44:28 GMT 1
The video that glow posted on this game thoroughly deconstructed it. Now I'm even less interested than I was when I just thought it was a l=palette swap of bioshock
|
|
|
Post by spookyjacobs on Aug 8, 2013 0:23:10 GMT 1
I'll admit that I haven't played this game since I'm not interested in the Bioshock series, so I might be missing something, but are you saying that it's implausible to think that someone who's turned to religion would become evil or do bad things?
It seems to me that plenty of evil things have been done throughout history in the name of religion by very religious people. Crusades, massacres that get as bad as genocide, persecution, torture, etc have all been committed by people who had a "relationship with Christ" in the name of their religion. And whether or not it's preached in the Bible, Christianity has produced countless "rabid ideologues" who have done incredible damage. Even today, such people still exist. Instead of killing and torturing, they limit themselves to poisoning modern civilization with their hate and fear mongering.
Maybe someone in this character's position might not have used religion for evil, but it's far from being implausible or lacking precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Aug 8, 2013 3:20:34 GMT 1
The thing I feel about Bioshock Infinite, is that while the overall gameplay was mostly good, it's that the social/racial/religious message it tried to portray and analyze, have very little bite, and have been done far better in other mediums. Ken Levine could have learned a lot from film, such as messages about racism (The Defiant Ones (1958), In the Heat of the Night (1967), Do the Right Thing (1989), Romper Stomper (1992), American History X (1998), Crash (2004), and many more), messages on religion (Inherit the Wind (1960), and many others). Though I'm not particularly aching that it wasn't implemented, the racism by the characters in the game could have had more bite to it. Would it really hurt that the words "nigger", "mick", "chink" and other derogatory terms were used? If Levine was pushing for a strong anti-racist/anti-xenophobic message, he could have been a little more accurate with it (those particular racist terms were very widely used at the time Infinite was set, and are still used regularly in a belittling fashion).
Yes, derogatory terms are not pleasant, and many have a bad history of oppression and unnecessary social degradation attached to them. But I do feel it's pretty bad and negligent to not acknowledge the fact that such magnitude of racism exists in the real world. Such edginess has been done in film countless times, and even a movies that weren't inherently about the dramatic implications of racism itself and instead about plot related exploitation/blaxploitation (Django Unchained (2012)) have implemented derogatory terms several times with very little outcry since many are quite comfortable with it. I'm just kind of wondering when video games will do that the same way Django Unchained/Do the Right Thing/American History X utilized that sort of uncomfortable racial bite. What's the most harm that could be done (if done properly) other than a few ignorant media sources decrying the particular game as well as the industry for being racist/satanic/anti-white/black/blue/green/purple/blah de blah and then nobody giving a damn about frivolous accusations afterward?
And let's not forget about Elizabeth, who inexplicably relied too much on Booker for her own safety and well being, even though she seemed rather predisposed (due to her introductory scenes) being an introverted and educated sort who wouldn't rely on anyone. Even Booker.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Aug 8, 2013 5:25:40 GMT 1
I'll admit that I haven't played this game since I'm not interested in the Bioshock series, so I might be missing something, but are you saying that it's implausible to think that someone who's turned to religion would become evil or do bad things? It seems to me that plenty of evil things have been done throughout history in the name of religion by very religious people. Crusades, massacres that get as bad as genocide, persecution, torture, etc have all been committed by people who had a "relationship with Christ" in the name of their religion. And whether or not it's preached in the Bible, Christianity has produced countless "rabid ideologues" who have done incredible damage. Even today, such people still exist. Instead of killing and torturing, they limit themselves to poisoning modern civilization with their hate and fear mongering. Maybe someone in this character's position might not have used religion for evil, but it's far from being implausible or lacking precedent.WARNING: Clint is going to talk about Faith. These are his opinions and beliefs, and no requirement is being placed on anyone else here. What I'm saying is that for someone who's turned to God, really and truly, Comstock's actions would be impossible. It's just so far out of what's in the Bible that to even begin would necessitate never having had any true faith in the first place. That's not to say that those with faith never screw up. But to the point where you organize an entire city with racist principles? Not a likely transformation. While it's true that the Crusades and many atrocities were committed in God's name, they were not committed with God's approval. 2 Peter 3:9 "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Therefore the Crusades were an invention of Man and what was done during them should not be attributed to God, but to the people who committed them and the people who manipulated others into thinking that they were accomplishing something for God. A person who has committed their life to Christ and invests in a personal relationship with him is still capable of sin (we all have a sinful nature) but the more they invest in Jesus, the less likely they are to become any of the things you say. Your last sentence is unclear. How would you say that Christians are poisoning modern civilization with their hate and fear mongering? What actions in particular are you referring to? I'd like to know so I can respond more directly.
|
|
|
Post by spookyjacobs on Aug 8, 2013 6:52:42 GMT 1
What I'm saying is that for someone who's turned to God, really and truly, Comstock's actions would be impossible. Then I guess he didn't. That's all I can really say since I don't actually know the character or his circumstances. And as for my other comments, let's not. That conversation doesn't lead to a positive place and I should have known better when I made the original post.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 8, 2013 10:24:59 GMT 1
Not speaking for anyone but myself here. Just my own opinionated BS. The way people adhere to religion is a often a by product of how it was taught to them. Comstock may not have turned to Christianity in the way you feel it works Clint, but the fact remains that social engineers, racist and homophobic apologists, and many purveyors of misery were taught their beliefs at the pulpit. This is fact not speculation. This is why they pound on that old book as justification for denying blacks rights in the 60s and why they do the same thing now about LGTB folk now. You cannot address this problem while denying it's existence. I don't like this any more than you do Clint but the fact remains that until the worst of the vipers that wear preachers garments stop spreading their poison we will have the kinds of things that pondyjacobs was talking about. The KKK, Inquisition, forced conversion of native Americans were done with the trappings of Christianity. Whether God would actually endorse the acts was not anyone's point. It's still done in God's name. Such is the reality of flawed people trying to act on the wishes of some ethereal and mostly absent perfect being being. Cali, you're right, sanitizing the language takes most of the teeth out of the message. Some PC assholes are trying to do the same thing to "To Kill a Mockingbird." They want the "n" word sanitized out of the book. The magnitude of hatred expressed in that work has reduced impact without showing that word. One of my junior high school teachers lobbied against this absurdity. I don't know how successful she was. Edit, WOW, the new site actually changed Cali to Party,Party Party through the use of the @ sign.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Aug 8, 2013 13:44:39 GMT 1
Pondy - Alright then. If you want to talk over PM contact me anytime.
Linders - The thing is, he's not mostly absent. I talk to him everyday. If they did, a lot of those things wouldn't have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Aug 9, 2013 5:36:38 GMT 1
Edit, WOW, the new site actually changed Cali to Party,Party Party through the use of the @ sign. The machine is ahead of its time, captain!
|
|