I hate it when people break up the comment into individual responses. Makes it so much trickery to reply. If you are just gonna answer in chronological order then do so. Just a personal pet peeve.
I hate it when people answer in a long continuous post. It's very inconvenient having to scroll back and forth so much.
Now I find it funny that you call them studies, when a study is something that sets out with intent to understand and or prove something. Like I already said you can find unintentional meaning in something but when it isn't what the author intended then it does not translate into depth. An unintentional commentary is exactly that, unintentional, non-deliberate, an accident. It says something about something without ever realizing that it did. The same way that people are claiming Bioshock Infinite is a metacommentary on ludonarrative dissonance so is MOH: Warfighter a metacritique of the current state of modern military shooters. An utterly unintentional critique of the genre they are in made apparent by their failings rather than the intent of the developers.
First of all, unintentional meaning is still very meaningful. For instance, unintended meaning can highlight a lack of understanding of the issues by the developers, publishers and marketers of the product, which in turn reflects back on society and gaming at large. Also, many of the greatest classics in cinema became such due to random events caught on film, lack of budget, mistakes and last second things thrown together in a panic, that accidentally changed the entire tone of the work.
Secondly, all art is born in the eye of the beholder, without which no art could exist.
Also, you know whether or not the meaning or perceived depth is not intended _how_ exactly? :)
So Comstock decided to do what he did because of his baptism... but why. You see all the why's have not been answered. So he decided to reshape his past into something noble. Why? Wasn't he ashamed of his past and seeking redemption from it? At what point did religion make his past noble again, I think the "So you want to wash away your Sin" pamphlet the priests hand out quite clearly state that they are sins, not something to be proud of and parade, not even after the baptism.
Because by his baptism, he received (in his mind) a divine cleansing that freed him of all guilt associated with his past. A cleansing that changed his perception of himself and the world. Gaining influence and eventually being worshiped as a divine prophet he believed himself infallible, and so none of his previous actions could have been wrong. No, they must be noble!
Or perhaps the guilt still remained, which would be more in line with the themes of the game. The only way he thought to rid himself of his past was to have his people worship _his past_ as much as they already worshiped _him_.
Now I never talked about apathy as NOT being part of Bookers character. I stated instead how a completely apathetic character cannot possibly in anyway be affected at all by these themes passing by. They might as well not be there because he equates them to zero garnering no influence in his actions from them. Racism, class struggle, inequality, the burning of New York, etc, in the end all equate to a big flat 0 in his decisions and thoughts.
He equates them to obstacles, that he want's no part in. They must be there; you are forgetting about the players reaction. ;)
So Booker refused the baptism stating that a dunk in the water cannot magically poof away your actions. Why did this result in apathy? Why did this not result in a desire to change oneself? Was it events in his life afterwards? Why is Booker still the same after dying each time the working theory being that an alternate you from another timeline that made it to the same point replaces you? Why did Booker in another timeline decide to support the Vox? We know our brooding Booker wouldn't but why would that Booker suddenly choose to do so?
There may be an infinite number of Bookers in an infinite number of New Yorks that never went to the baptism and changed their life for the better. Also yes, not getting an excuse for his past he continued wallowing in self pity, most likely further strengthened by the loss of his wife and later selling his child. Years of depression is a pretty good way to become apathetic.
In the timeline where Booker supports the Vox, Elizabeth was moved from the tower before he got there. So, Booker joined the rebellion in order to get to Elizabeth, and when he died he was used as a martyr and a symbol for the rebellion.
That last argument about Citizens naturally supporting Comstock is undone the second we see the Columbia equivalent of the Underground Railroad. There is quite a clear wrong here and it is the writing. I do say that the Vox go quite a long stretch from revolt of the people to murderous roving bands in just a single cutscene, again not explaining why this happened, just that it did happen.
Not to mention that the patriots also underwent a change from police force to military death squad quite quickly again without motivation at to why that change happened.
The rebellion had been going for a long time before Bookers arrival so military existed on both sides. There's no sudden change, only in what is thrown at you specifically. And the point is that suddenly gaining immense power over your oppressors can fundamentally change you. Fitzroys Voxophones attest to this. Besides, the rebellion started much earlier in the alternate timeline, so the actual path to their particular brutality can only be viewed through Fitzroy. Her path is pretty clearly paved if you payed attention.
Again Bioshock Infinite tells us about things that happaned, and only tells us part of the things leaving any motivation out of the picture. It shows us a bit of the things that transpired, but leaves the clinging points out of focus. It never shows and tells us the why's.
I consider the need to spell every motivation out to be very poor storytelling.
Nice thanks you for that Ken Levine I have fucking eyes and I could see that to but WHY did he decide that? What denomination did he adhere to? Was it Mormonism? I could understand the racism a bit better if he was a fundamentalist Mormon where Black Skin = Evil, but even then the motivation behind it all still isn't clear. Why did he do it, what made him think that way. Did a black man eat his dog? What does he have against the Irish?
Good, now you're asking questions. The first step towards figuring out the truth. :)
Why would he EVER allow a vigour called Devils Kiss to be produced if he is such a religious zealout?
Fink created the vigors. Comstock gained a lot from Fink, so he has pretty much free reign.
And yeah, if he really is such a religious zealot, then he would not allow the devils name or likeness to be on anything!
Hmm, I guess he's not such a cartoon character after all. ;)
The Comstock citizens go from casual racists to practicing it like a religion. Giving it roots in Historical events only serves to highlight just how insanely farcical it is seeing as even the deepest of the deep south did not erect a cathedral to John Wilkes Booth, which also seems kind of weird because it is again not explained why Comstock and Lincoln disagree to the point where Comstock vilifies him.
I wouldn't exactly call the KKK subtle if that's what you're referring to. And they've never exactly been given free reign to do whatever they want to, yet still managed to create a ritualistic racist organization making no sense whatsoever. Columbia has had the time to inbreed the ideals it was founded upon for a number of years, with a leader worshiped as the second coming endorsing their beliefs.
While it's never stated that Comstock vilifies Lincoln, he might very well have let the raven worshiping KKK people erect those statues for themselves.
...the main reason we are given for secession is that Columbia gets recalled after almost starting an international incident, not because of disagreements in politics, so again the utter vilification makes no sense.
And you don't think the international incident was started due to political disagreements?
Comstock considers his actions righteous, America does not, hence Columbia secedes from America.
Again the actions are told to us and partially shown but the motivations behind the actions are obscured in narrative mist.
Unless you start to consider how they interlock and see a pattern leading back to their cause.
_Every story_ is a stating of a series of events, that can be broken down into bullet points and called shallow, should you so desire.
You are asking all of these questions, expecting the game to simply tell you instead of thinking about the implications of the dissassociations the story is presenting you with.
No matter how good this story might be to you nor how shitty it appears to me, the one thing that is undeniable is the middle of the road gameplay and bad design.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
You will have to forgive me for having the idea that this game is some kind of messiah of videogaming to you and you will defend anything about it to the bitter end. To such a response I only have to say the following:
I never claimed any such thing. I just think that you're wrong in making broad proclamations about how shallow it is, while the opposite is obvious to so many of us.
When the commentary is indistinguishable from the thing it is commenting on. It failed at it's job.
You are confusing "commentary" with "criticism".