Bioshock Infinite's story is OBJECTIVELY better than the original Bioshock [SPOILERS]

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

So I just beat Bioshock Infinite the other day, and I read through a few story/ending discussion threads to see other people's reactions, different takes on the story, etc. I was shocked to see some people saying Bioshock Infinite's story was just bad writing/storytelling/filled with holes to then see that same person point to the original Bioshock as a good story. What?!?! The plot of Bioshock was horrible.

When the twist happened in Bioshock, my initial reactions were "Wow! Awesome! Really great twist!" Literally 10 seconds later, I put everything together, and then realized it didn't make any damn sense. Bioshock's plot is basically an elaborate assassination plot that happens to be, perhaps, the worst assassination plot ever (since it had an extremely low % of actually working). You couldn't kill Ryan with physical violence because of the Vita-chambers, and Ryan knew about the mind control (All Ryan had to say was "Would you kindly not kill me?"). The very reason Atlas/Fontaine wants you to kill Ryan is because he knows the Vita-chambers will work for you (the same blood as Ryan) so you can't really die from the splicers and whatnot on the way to Ryan; therefore, he had to know you can't kill Ryan by normal means. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about not knowing that Ryan knew about the mind control. A much better means of killing Ryan would have been poisoning him or something. Ryan only died because he wanted to and he disabled his own Vita-chamber.

Now onto Bioshock Infinite. If you liked it, fine; if you didn't, fine as well. But to not like it because the plot has holes (especially while praising the original Bioshock) is idiotic. Whether the multiverse actually exists isn't a known fact, it's a theory (that really can't be dis-proven). We don't even know if they exist nor how things would resolve themselves if we were able to go back and forth between them.

1) I don't get how anyone can prove that Bioshock Infinite doesn't make sense.
2) Since you can't prove unequivocally that the story has a hole, why would then want the plot to have holes? Just to have an objective (instead of subjective) reason to not like the plot?

It seems like people are just wanting to not like the ending, and then coming up with their own made up plot holes to "prove" the story has holes just to contrive a reason that the story is factually bad. Why try to prove the story doesn't work when you can just as easily prove it does work all while getting even more enjoyment out of your $60? The people showing ways in which the story does work itself out are using logic and using math to demonstrate what infinities are.

There's some issues with the story. For example, once Booker and Elizabeth went through the first tear on their quest to get guns from the gunsmith to give to Fitzroy for an airship, they should've known to either not go through or go through and just give up on the whole quest. Before you go through, Elizabeth says they can't get back so that means once you go through, that deal with Fitzroy is void and there's no point in getting the guns or the machinery. The characters (especially Elizabeth) should've figured that out much sooner. But that really doesn't ruin the main plot, it's not a plothole so-to-speak.

Lastly, people need to stop parroting Yahtzee because when you do, you disappear up his butt.

OBJECTIVELY! You hear me? OB! JECT! IV! LEE!

Ai yay yay.

Personally I liked both stories for different reasons. The first Bioshock was the story of Ryan, Tenenbaum and Rapture. It just happened to be viewed from the perspective of his would-be assassin.

Infinite was the story of Booker, Elizabeth and Comstock. It just happened to take place in a magical American sky city.

I guess I slightly prefer Infinite's plot, but that's because I prefer character driven stories. It's preference, not a matter of OBJECTIVITY.

Oh, lastly, all the plot holes you pointed out in the first game stem from them trying to include Vita-chambers as a real part of the game world rather than just a game mechanic. It was a bad idea from the start really. My way of dealing with this is to turn off vita chambers in the options, then pretend they don't exist. Fontaine would still have a use for Jack since he can use the bathyspheres and has a degree of immunity to the security systems, so he's still a viable assassin.

For me, I don't really like it when video game stories try to implement time and/or dimensional travel into the story. Just makes everything too confusing and messy. The only game that I can think of which did that kind of thing well was Chrono Trigger, and even then, certain aspects about it are kinda sketchy.

That being said, Infinite's story was good for what it is. The whole dimensional tear thing sorta made the plot a bit messy at times, but I still liked it.

Overall though, I prefer how Bioshock 1 handled it's story. I guess I can kinda agree that the vita chamber thing is a bit weird. Do they ever explain why Andrew Ryan didn't just respawn? You know, considering the vita chambers are connected to him and his close relatives?

Honestly I just vastly prefer the original Bioshocks setting and tone over than of Infinite. Infinite's setting while pretty to look at is just never really used to its advantage. The skylines are a neat gimmick for a few arena fights, but that's really the extent of their purpose and otherwise the city might as well have been on the ground for all the difference it made, visuals aside. Water meanwhile, the groaning creaks of water pressure and the constant drip, drip, drip of the slowly drowning city defined Bioshocks experience. Bioshock was more cohesive as well, everything had a place and purpose. Infinite's setting does not feel much the same, I mean why are plasmids there? I get that someone was looking through a 'tear' and leaned how to make them, but aren't plasmids made from a rare sea slug as established in Bioshock? Where are people who live in the clouds getting the stuff for these? And even dismissing that, it just doesn't seem to have had any effect whatsoever. You see a few mini-boss that use specific plasmids, but that's about it, you'd think suddenly having access to what are in effect magical powers would have some effect on society, for example like what happened in Rapture. It never really makes any sense for plasmids be there beyond that Bioshock had plasmids and the devs knew players expected more from Infinity, regardless of plot.

The enemies were also much more compelling in Bioshock, where you're fighting the damaged remnants of a once great society. Their brains and bodies driven past the brink of human endurance to make them something else entirely, giving us personality like the Doctor or Cohen. What might have been brilliant minds driven to unspeakable madness and cruelty! And to add to that the dynamic between the Big Daddy and little Sisters was great. These giant roving boss battles that could be planned for in advance or even used to your advantage. That it's always ME who had to attack THEM also added a bit of pitiable sadness to their existence as well, and seeing the little Sisters crying over their fallen protectors was a touching addition. Killing splicers meanwhile is almost a mercy, seeing these once regular people driven to monstrous extremes. It's saddening.

Infinity doesn't really have that. The enemies are people and frankly that you unthinkingly gun down dozens of them if not hundreds is a jarring disconnect given the games attempts at emotion. That guy right there who I just shot in the face was just doing his job, that one I gutted with my spinny thing was a father of three, and that woman I just threw off a ledge to plummet to her demise was fighting for what she thought was a better future. Frankly DeWitt is a monster and the game never even calls you out on it either, Spec Ops at least makes you realize the ridiculousness of gunning down people, Infinity just brushes it aside and ignores it which considering its heavy-handed attempts at moralizing is a bit disconcerting. Infinity also lacks the interesting dynamic the Big Daddy provided. Those Handymen are clearly meant to be the 'daddy' of Infinity but they only show up for scripted encounters and must be fought and killed without choice or consequence. We never see a moment of sadness or a pang of regret on seeing someone mourn their demise like the little Sisters did, the handymen are just another generic enemy that needs butchering.

And I haven't even gotten into the story itself or it's somewhat melodramatic ending...

Of course System Shock 2 is better than either Bioshock or Infinite, but that's another rant entirely. Still if you prefer Infinite all the power to you, but I wouldn't go around calling it 'objectively' better when there are plenty of holes to poke in both games and it's only a matter of personal preference which game comes out the better.

Objective, adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Since, the quality of the story telling of Bioshock Infinite vs. Bioshock cannot be compared in a fully logical manner independent of the subjective opinions of those discussing it.

If, for example, there is someone who cannot stand time travel. They can't help but think through all the implications, so any time travel story will only give a headache. Thus, to this person, Bioshock Infinite story, which is based upon time travel, is subjectively worse than Bioshock's.

Artistic expression, qualities not related to an objects size, shape, condition, or any qualities that exist (as far as we know) distinct of the thoughts of any human being, are subjective.


I bet you didn't see that clip coming, huh? XD

But really, don't try to assert your preference as fact. It's not. All it does is make you look silly. Even if you could objectively prove that the Infinite story was "better" than the first game's story it means dick-all to people who prefer the first game and you just come off as trying to force your preferences on others.

I don't know which game's story I liked better, honestly. They almost seem like two different animals to me. Infinite felt more like experimenting with the story while the first game felt more like trying to master well worn roads. I'm not a fan of multiverse/time travel shenanigans, but I generally just dismissively wave them away then get angry about them. The part that actually pissed me off was

Phoenixmgs:

There's some issues with the story. For example, once Booker and Elizabeth went through the first tear on their quest to get guns from the gunsmith to give to Fitzroy for an airship, they should've known to either not go through or go through and just give up on the whole quest. Before you go through, Elizabeth says they can't get back so that means once you go through, that deal with Fitzroy is void and there's no point in getting the guns or the machinery. The characters (especially Elizabeth) should've figured that out much sooner. But that really doesn't ruin the main plot, it's not a plothole so-to-speak.

Actually, that's not a plot hole either. While they guessed it was a different reality, and they figured they probably wouldn't be able to go back, they didn't know how that reality was different from their own. For all they knew they may have made the exact same deal with Fitzroy in that reality was well, with the only difference in that reality being that the gunsmith is still alive and still has all the guns. It was all a gamble.

Infinite's story might be impressive to someone who has never heard of the whole multiverse theory before, but otherwise it's pretty ordinary. In other words, if you know who Ace Rimmer and Arnold Rimmer are, it's hard to take Infinite seriously. It's certainly not 'OBJECTIVELY' better, because that isn't a thing that exists.

Zhukov:
Oh, lastly, all the plot holes you pointed out in the first game stem from them trying to include Vita-chambers as a real part of the game world rather than just a game mechanic. It was a bad idea from the start really. My way of dealing with this is to turn off vita chambers in the options, then pretend they don't exist. Fontaine would still have a use for Jack since he can use the bathyspheres and has a degree of immunity to the security systems, so he's still a viable assassin.

That's a valid point. I'm not sure if Atlas/Fontaine would know that Ryan knew about the mind control (I don't have the game anymore and I obviously don't remember if he did or did not or if it wasn't said either way). To me, the Vita-chambers were kinda part of the world just because the game's save system allowed you to save at any time (not just the PC version but consoles too). If it was just there for a game mechanic, there wasn't any reason for it in the first place. Even though Jack is still maybe an alright assassin without the Vita-chambers (he doesn't have that certain set of skills that assassins have plus he doesn't have any plasmids either at the start), with the Vita-chambers he's a really awesome choice for an assassin (but not for assassinating Ryan). That's just my feeling on it. The worst part is the Vita-chamber audio diary is found just before you confront Ryan so it literally did take me 10 seconds or so after the twist to be like "Wait... That was a horrible assassination plan."

scorptatious:
I guess I can kinda agree that the vita chamber thing is a bit weird. Do they ever explain why Andrew Ryan didn't just respawn? You know, considering the vita chambers are connected to him and his close relatives?

I was searching every corner when I played Bioshock and there's actually a Vita-Chamber just before you confront Ryan, like literally a room before. If you go up to it, you have the option to repair it but that doesn't do anything.

The Madman:
Honestly I just vastly prefer the original Bioshocks setting and tone over than of Infinite....

And I haven't even gotten into the story itself or it's somewhat melodramatic ending...

When I mean story, I just mean literally main series of events. Basically what MovieBob fast-talks through to quickly summarize Bioshock Infinite in that one Big Picture episode. On that level, Bioshock Infinite is better as a story. All the other stuff you say in favor of Bioshock is fine and all but I wasn't even trying to say Infinite did those things better or not.

Not G. Ivingname:
Since, the quality of the story telling of Bioshock Infinite vs. Bioshock cannot be compared in a fully logical manner independent of the subjective opinions of those discussing it.

I'm merely saying the main series of events in Infinite make more logical sense than the original Bioshock's main series of events (which have real big holes with the main series of events). Both Infinite and Bioshock put a good amount of effort into the plot; Bioshock's plot falls apart at basic levels whereas Infinite did not. That's why I'm saying Infinite's plot is objectively better.

scorptatious:
For me, I don't really like it when video game stories try to implement time and/or dimensional travel into the story. Just makes everything too confusing and messy. The only game that I can think of which did that kind of thing well was Chrono Trigger, and even then, certain aspects about it are kinda sketchy.

That being said, Infinite's story was good for what it is. The whole dimensional tear thing sorta made the plot a bit messy at times, but I still liked it.

Overall though, I prefer how Bioshock 1 handled it's story. I guess I can kinda agree that the vita chamber thing is a bit weird. Do they ever explain why Andrew Ryan didn't just respawn? You know, considering the vita chambers are connected to him and his close relatives?

Ryan's personal chamber was turned off, and according to the lore, you had to be within a certain distance for them to work.

Phoenixmgs:

The very reason Atlas/Fontaine wants you to kill Ryan is because he knows the Vita-chambers will work for you (the same blood as Ryan) so you can't really die from the splicers and whatnot on the way to Ryan; therefore, he had to know you can't kill Ryan by normal means. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about not knowing that Ryan knew about the mind control. A much better means of killing Ryan would have been poisoning him or something. Ryan only died because he wanted to and he disabled his own Vita-chamber.

I don't see the problem.

Fontaine and Tennenbaum created Jack years before. Fontaine sent Jack to the surface to be triggered to later on to go kill Ryan. Frank couldn't get to Ryan because he was too far away, and also because of the amount of ground. Ie, he would die before reaching him.

He used Ryan's half son knowing that he wouldn't die because he was engineered to be stronger against splicers, and also because, in the games lore, the security bots wouldn't do as much damage because they were engineered to not target Ryan. But because he was only his half son, they wouldn't completely leave him alone.

I don't see how this is bad storytelling.

CityofTreez:

Phoenixmgs:
The very reason Atlas/Fontaine wants you to kill Ryan is because he knows the Vita-chambers will work for you (the same blood as Ryan) so you can't really die from the splicers and whatnot on the way to Ryan; therefore, he had to know you can't kill Ryan by normal means. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about not knowing that Ryan knew about the mind control. A much better means of killing Ryan would have been poisoning him or something. Ryan only died because he wanted to and he disabled his own Vita-chamber.

I don't see the problem.

Fontaine and Tennenbaum created Jack years before. Fontaine sent Jack to the surface to be triggered to later on to go kill Ryan. Frank couldn't get to Ryan because he was too far away, and also because of the amount of ground. Ie, he would die before reaching him.

He used Ryan's half son knowing that he wouldn't die because he was engineered to be stronger against splicers, and also because, in the games lore, the security bots wouldn't do as much damage because they were engineered to not target Ryan. But because he was only his half son, they wouldn't completely leave him alone.

I don't see how this is bad storytelling.

The Vita-chambers revive Ryan too!!! If Jack goes in there and beats him up or shoots him, Ryan is revived. Ryan only died because he disabled his own Vita-chamber for some reason.

Festus Moonbear:
Infinite's story might be impressive to someone who has never heard of the whole multiverse theory before, but otherwise it's pretty ordinary. In other words, if you know who Ace Rimmer and Arnold Rimmer are, it's hard to take Infinite seriously. It's certainly not 'OBJECTIVELY' better, because that isn't a thing that exists.

Multiverse theory is more scientific philosophy than actual science to begin with.

Phoenixmgs:

Festus Moonbear:
Infinite's story might be impressive to someone who has never heard of the whole multiverse theory before, but otherwise it's pretty ordinary. In other words, if you know who Ace Rimmer and Arnold Rimmer are, it's hard to take Infinite seriously. It's certainly not 'OBJECTIVELY' better, because that isn't a thing that exists.

Multiverse theory is more scientific philosophy than actual science to begin with.

I meant that 'OBJECTIVELY better story' isn't a thing that exists, not multiverse theory. Science fiction stories involving multiple or infinite universes based on branching paths are old hat. But at least Columbia didn't turn out to be a 'dream within a dream'...

Festus Moonbear:

Phoenixmgs:

Festus Moonbear:
Infinite's story might be impressive to someone who has never heard of the whole multiverse theory before, but otherwise it's pretty ordinary. In other words, if you know who Ace Rimmer and Arnold Rimmer are, it's hard to take Infinite seriously. It's certainly not 'OBJECTIVELY' better, because that isn't a thing that exists.

Multiverse theory is more scientific philosophy than actual science to begin with.

I meant that 'OBJECTIVELY better story' isn't a thing that exists, not multiverse theory. Science fiction stories involving multiple or infinite universes based on branching paths are old hat. But at least Columbia didn't turn out to be a 'dream within a dream'...

If Story X makes sense and Story Y doesn't make sense, Story X is the objectively better story by default. That's is my point. I'm not saying Infinite's story is better because I was impressed, blown away, or even liked the story. For all anyone knows, I might hate the story, but that doesn't matter because a story making sense is better than one not making sense.

Objectively, both games have a story.

That's all you can say objectively.

When my reich is established, people who use "objectively" incorrectly, or worse, because it makes them feel like their point is more valid, will be hideously tortured.

Objectively, this will mean that there will be using "objectively" in the wrong context. Subjectively, the world will be a better place.

GonvilleBromhead:
Objectively, both games have a story.

That's all you can say objectively.

When my reich is established, people who use "objectively" incorrectly, or worse, because it makes them feel like their point is more valid, will be hideously tortured.

Objectively, this will mean that there will be using "objectively" in the wrong context. Subjectively, the world will be a better place.

One story has plot holes, the other doesn't. That's an objective fact.

Phoenixmgs:

If Story X makes sense and Story Y doesn't make sense, Story X is the objectively better story by default.

Even if that were true, you should be prepared to consider the possibility that although Story X doesn't make sense to you, it may well make sense to others. But is it even true? Does logical narrative = good narrative? That itself is a subjective judgement. Plenty of enjoyment has been derived from stories that 'don't make sense', and many stories that 'do make sense' have not been as well enjoyed. I could write a story in ten seconds that 'makes sense', but I doubt people would love it as much as, say, the Harry Potter books or the Back to the Future movies, which 'do not make sense' as far as logic goes, for many reasons. That's just a simple example. You could easily make a list of classic novels, films and games with stories that have logical problems, but that is not the same thing as saying they have bad stories, or that other works without logical flaws are objectively superior to them.

(By the way, Bioshock Infinite is not without its plot holes, so your argument does not hold up in any case, regardless of the subjectivity/objectivity question.)

The Madman:
Frankly DeWitt is a monster and the game never even calls you out on it either, Spec Ops at least makes you realize the ridiculousness of gunning down people, Infinity just brushes it aside and ignores it which considering its heavy-handed attempts at moralizing is a bit disconcerting.

Apart from all the times that it is brought up. Him trying to convince Elizabeth he's not a sicko, the entire guilt trip that was the Museum level... I mean which bit do you want to pick?

The point was he knows he's terrible which is why he's an alcoholic lowlife. Comstock is as well, but he takes pride in everything he does.

Personally I'd feel more guilty in killing somebody who is a mentally damaged addict than someone who righteously believed in a cause I opposed and wanted to kill me for it. I mean if you would prefer killing the first then just keep killing Booker.

Festus Moonbear:

Phoenixmgs:

If Story X makes sense and Story Y doesn't make sense, Story X is the objectively better story by default.

Even if that were true, you should be prepared to consider the possibility that although Story X doesn't make sense to you, it may well make sense to others. But is it even true? Does logical narrative = good narrative? That itself is a subjective judgement. Plenty of enjoyment has been derived from stories that 'don't make sense', and many stories that 'do make sense' have not been as well enjoyed. I could write a story in ten seconds that 'makes sense', but I doubt people would love it as much as, say, the Harry Potter books or the Back to the Future movies, which 'do not make sense' as far as logic goes, for many reasons. That's just a simple example. You could easily make a list of classic novels, films and games with stories that have logical problems, but that is not the same thing as saying they have bad stories, or that other works without logical flaws are objectively superior to them.

(By the way, Bioshock Infinite is not without its plot holes, so your argument does not hold up in any case, regardless of the subjectivity/objectivity question.)

Logical narrative = competent narrative, competent narrative > incompetent narrative. It's not that every little part of the story has to make perfect logical sense because if there's a little side story where there's a plot hole, you can kinda say to yourself that didn't happen and just take it out (make your own little edit) because that doesn't affect the main plot line. Bioshock's plot hole makes the main plot line completely nonsensical. I've skimmed through a few topics discussing Infinite's plot and I've yet to see any plot hole that has both of the following properties: 1) holds water & 2) that would totally mess up the main plot. Feel free to enlighten me on such plot holes. In another post, you say it's hard to take Infinite seriously because such and such, now you say Infinite has plot holes. Why don't you actually explain yourself? Do you get off on withholding?

Phoenixmgs:

GonvilleBromhead:
Objectively, both games have a story.

That's all you can say objectively.

When my reich is established, people who use "objectively" incorrectly, or worse, because it makes them feel like their point is more valid, will be hideously tortured.

Objectively, this will mean that there will be using "objectively" in the wrong context. Subjectively, the world will be a better place.

One story has plot holes, the other doesn't. That's an objective fact.

Urm, no. Plot holes do not necessarily imply a bad story. You may not like stories with plot holes - a perfectly legitimate subjective opinion.

Now, please, if you'd like to stand in front of the palisade whilst the scarlet wearing fellows opposite stick some .455 into their Martini-Henry's...

Zhukov:
OBJECTIVELY! You hear me? OB! JECT! IV! LEE!

Ai yay yay.

Personally I liked both stories for different reasons. The first Bioshock was the story of Ryan, Tenenbaum and Rapture. It just happened to be viewed from the perspective of his would-be assassin.

Infinite was the story of Booker, Elizabeth and Comstock. It just happened to take place in a magical American sky city.

I guess I slightly prefer Infinite's plot, but that's because I prefer character driven stories. It's preference, not a matter of OBJECTIVITY.

Oh, lastly, all the plot holes you pointed out in the first game stem from them trying to include Vita-chambers as a real part of the game world rather than just a game mechanic. It was a bad idea from the start really. My way of dealing with this is to turn off vita chambers in the options, then pretend they don't exist. Fontaine would still have a use for Jack since he can use the bathyspheres and has a degree of immunity to the security systems, so he's still a viable assassin.

Yeah this. I prefer Infinite's plot because of the character focus but I found Rapture more interesting to explore. But the Vita Chambers were a dumb idea to begin with both mechanically and narratively. Defanged any challenge really. System Shock 2's system was the best. You would respawn but once you were out resources BAM dead.

Phoenixmgs:

Logical narrative = competent narrative, competent narrative > incompetent narrative.

That is a subjective judgement. There really isn't anything to add to this point, other than to keep rephrasing it. As for Infinite's plot holes, they are too obvious to require elaboration. Here's a hint: there's a big clue in the title of the game itself. As soon as you introduce multiverse based on infinite branching paths, you cannot avoid reducing the plot to zero. That's just the way it is. For every 'yes', a 'no' is also played out. Infinitely. That's what the concept means. I suspect that Levine took the criticism about binary choice in Bioshock to heart, and decided to subvert it. That's a fair enough decision, but it does inevitably open a hole that needs must eliminate the 'main plot' while simultaneously affirming it, and all other possible plots. Comstock wins, Booker wins, Elizabeth wins, Hitler wins, and they all also lose, and every other possibility as well. No happy ending, no sad ending, no ending, no meaning. To talk about 'plot holes' with such a backdrop is utterly meaningless: there isn't any plot, just hole. Maybe that's the point. One big tear.

But anyway, given that caveat, here's a good old-fashioned plot hole in Bioshock Infinite for you, one which renders the entire final battle totally pointless: Elizabeth now has full control of her powers, and can open up a tear into Kansas and bring a tornado out of it - and she can do this at will, not randomly, because she threatens Booker with it for a moment. Then - inexplicably, amazingly, ridiculously - she reverts back to 'person who throws you things' for the final battle against the blimps. Why? Because they needed to give all us rootin tootin bad boys a final battle - a Call of Duty 'defend the area' battle, no less - so the story had to be ignored and indeed utterly contradicted for a few minutes. Maybe some people would have lost their hardons if the final battle had been 'won' by Elizabeth as we/Booker looked on in amazement, but it would have been more consistent with the actual story.

Anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter. Maybe in a parallel universe, Elizabeth does use her tornadoes to win the battle. If I ever play Infinite again, I'll be sure to shut it down at that moment and just imagine this is the case, to preserve my sanity. There's also a parallel universe where I don't post any more in this thread because I predict it will go round in circles and I'm supposed to be working. Hell, I'll make it this one!

I like BioShock more because after the twists happened, you still had hours to play and the narrative changed accordingly. Same reason I love KotOR that much. In BioShock Infinite the twists happened at the end with basically a few minutes left from the game. And all you did was walking thereon.

Not to mention I found the whole Comstock twist underwhelming, since the Hero = Villain in multiverse stories is as basic as it can get.

I've yet to play Bioshock Infinity, but I wholeheartedly agree about the original Bioshock. When you took a step back and looked at the plot as a whole it was pretty silly, and just not believable.

It's a computer game and I appreciate that believability isn't gonna be a prime concern, but the game's plot definitely shouldn't be lorded as astounding either.

The praise for the game as a whole has me a bit baffled too. It's presented astoundingly, and the tone and vibe of the whole shebang is brilliant, but how people think that translates into either superb gameplay, a superb game or superb story is a bit beyond me. The combat lacks, the story lacks, the game......just lacks. Still good - 7/10 for me - but overrated beyond words IMO.

I am not a fan of when games have multiunivereses and time travel and paradoxes and stuff, it just makes its incredibly difficult to follow and then you have to spend an hour reading forums to actually understand the game, especially paradox endings they just suck to me.

CityofTreez:

He used Ryan's half son knowing that he wouldn't die because he was engineered to be stronger against splicers, and also because, in the games lore, the security bots wouldn't do as much damage because they were engineered to not target Ryan. But because he was only his half son, they wouldn't completely leave him alone.

I don't see how this is bad storytelling.

What in the name of Yahtzee is a half son? was it DP and the sperm merged? because I don't remember that at all, and I can't say I've heard the term half son before.

Jack was the illegitimate son of Andrew Ryan due to Ryan not being married to Jack's mother, but yes engineered to age faster and obey commands, Fontaine pretty much had to use Jack as Ryans assasin because no one else could get to Ryan because of the Bathysphere Dna locks, had Ryan not screwed around Fontaine wouldn't have had his assassin.

GonvilleBromhead:
Urm, no. Plot holes do not necessarily imply a bad story. You may not like stories with plot holes - a perfectly legitimate subjective opinion.

Now, please, if you'd like to stand in front of the palisade whilst the scarlet wearing fellows opposite stick some .455 into their Martini-Henry's...

Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

Festus Moonbear:
As for Infinite's plot holes, they are too obvious to require elaboration. Here's a hint: there's a big clue in the title of the game itself. As soon as you introduce multiverse based on infinite branching paths, you cannot avoid reducing the plot to zero. That's just the way it is. For every 'yes', a 'no' is also played out. Infinitely. That's what the concept means. I suspect that Levine took the criticism about binary choice in Bioshock to heart, and decided to subvert it. That's a fair enough decision, but it does inevitably open a hole that needs must eliminate the 'main plot' while simultaneously affirming it, and all other possible plots. Comstock wins, Booker wins, Elizabeth wins, Hitler wins, and they all also lose, and every other possibility as well. No happy ending, no sad ending, no ending, no meaning. To talk about 'plot holes' with such a backdrop is utterly meaningless: there isn't any plot, just hole. Maybe that's the point. One big tear.

But anyway, given that caveat, here's a good old-fashioned plot hole in Bioshock Infinite for you, one which renders the entire final battle totally pointless: Elizabeth now has full control of her powers, and can open up a tear into Kansas and bring a tornado out of it - and she can do this at will, not randomly, because she threatens Booker with it for a moment. Then - inexplicably, amazingly, ridiculously - she reverts back to 'person who throws you things' for the final battle against the blimps. Why? Because they needed to give all us rootin tootin bad boys a final battle - a Call of Duty 'defend the area' battle, no less - so the story had to be ignored and indeed utterly contradicted for a few minutes. Maybe some people would have lost their hardons if the final battle had been 'won' by Elizabeth as we/Booker looked on in amazement, but it would have been more consistent with the actual story.

Your first example isn't a plot hole. The Yes (to the baptism) of the Yes/No that creates the Infinite Comstock universes was removed. The Yes of a single Booker decision was removed, there are still infinite universes and branching paths, just none that have Comstock and Columbia.

Your second example doesn't affect the main plot line, which I said was 1 of 2 properties that needed to be met. They win the battle (it doesn't matter how) and the ending still happens as it did.

Phoenixmgs:

If Story X makes sense and Story Y doesn't make sense, Story X is the objectively better story by default. That's is my point. I'm not saying Infinite's story is better because I was impressed, blown away, or even liked the story. For all anyone knows, I might hate the story, but that doesn't matter because a story making sense is better than one not making sense.

Still not an objective fact. If I say I like the original Bioshock's story better that's my opinion and quality when it comes to story isn't something you can measure. It's a matter of preference. Point out things that are flawed, point out things that doesn't add up, all of that is worthless effort.

1+1=2 is an objective statement given the values we have assigned both numbers. Even that is only objective as long as long as we have the same numerical system and the meaning of the symbol +. 1+1 could just as well be 10. Writing objective in caps doesn't make it a fact.

Yopaz:
Still not an objective fact. If I say I like the original Bioshock's story better that's my opinion and quality when it comes to story isn't something you can measure. It's a matter of preference. Point out things that are flawed, point out things that doesn't add up, all of that is worthless effort.

I literally just posted this as you replied:

Phoenixmgs:
Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

Phoenixmgs:
Your first example isn't a plot hole. The Yes (to the baptism) of the Yes/No that creates the Infinite Comstock universes was removed. The Yes of a single Booker decision was removed, there are still infinite universes and branching paths, just none that have Comstock and Columbia.

I'm sorry, but that's not true and it shows you don't understand what 'infinite' means. You can't 'remove the single Booker decision' because there will always be a universe where you didn't choose that path. There are infinite Bookers and infinite Lizzies making infinite decisions, and they cannot be 'removed' on pain of erasing the whole concept of infinitude. That so many people apparently don't get this (if what forum discussions tell me is true) is mind-boggling to me. All it does is make another branching path: one where Lizzy drowns Booker, and another where she doesn't. Again: that's what 'infinite' means. All these diagrams you find online have the same problem: they have all multiple branches for every other decision, but only one branch for the 'original Booker' decision. No sorry dudes, you can't do it that way. That 'original' Booker also needs two branches (or rather, infinite branches): one for 'drowned', one for 'not drowned', one for 'something else entirely' (perhaps hot sweaty mansex with the priest), and so on. Sing it with me: that's what 'infinite' means.

Phoenixmgs:

GonvilleBromhead:
Urm, no. Plot holes do not necessarily imply a bad story. You may not like stories with plot holes - a perfectly legitimate subjective opinion.

Now, please, if you'd like to stand in front of the palisade whilst the scarlet wearing fellows opposite stick some .455 into their Martini-Henry's...

Fine. Infinite has a coherent plot while the original does not, that's an objective statement. I read people complaining Infinite's plot didn't make sense while citing Bioshock with having a coherent plot, which was the basis for many saying Bioshock's plot was better.

Coherency itself is subjective in storytelling, you have a subjective opinion and thats great, argue from that angle and stop trying to apply objectivity to something that has none.

Reading all the attempts to explain the original Bioshock's just highlights where it falls down - it's plot shouldn't be that convoluted or open to interpretation. It should be simple enough for such disputes to be rendered irrelevant.

But how can Infinite be objectively better when Bioshock is the one with Objectivism?

Does. Not. Compute.

scorptatious:

Overall though, I prefer how Bioshock 1 handled it's story. I guess I can kinda agree that the vita chamber thing is a bit weird. Do they ever explain why Andrew Ryan didn't just respawn? You know, considering the vita chambers are connected to him and his close relatives?

Ryans vita chamber in his office was turned off.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
But how can Infinite be objectively better when Bioshock is the one with Objectivism?

Does. Not. Compute.

Or: Bioshock is infinitely better because Infinite is the one with Infinitism. Or something.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked