next »

[s0]

Yeah I don't deny he has a point, but I don't think we've reached the point where games "with pretentions" should just remove the tutorial. I don't want to think of games in mass market terms but, well, that's the point they're still at.

no disagreement there and im not against tutorials at all.

but:

Also controls are an artificial and superficial barrier of entry. It's like if books had really needlessly complicated covers which required a mini tutorial just to get them open so you could read them. Or look at film (haha pun) which basically, all you have to do is look and listen to it. It's not intrinsically hard to just use. Learning how to understand films, direction, cinematography, etc are not really analogous to basic video game controls.

imo it's a mistake to think of a game's interface as being the same thing as a dvd menu or a book cover. actually in a lot of cases (p much all real-time games ever created for instance) the interface IS the game. think about it like this: a movie is still a good movie if the dvd menu sucks, but an FPS with broken controls is a bad FPS.

A book can be really inaccessible but you can still physically look at the words on the pages. The only thing that is really equivalent is "you put the disc in with the label facing upwards and then you press the Play button".

two things about that:
1. of course i can still read a book i don't understand but i wouldn't get anything out of it, so what's the point? sure, in theory there's a difference between that and not knowing basic FPS controls but in practice the outcome is the same.

2. it comes down to literacy. i wouldn't say a book that's written in chinese is "artificially difficult" to read just because i don't speak chinese.

[Blademasterbobo]

the problem is that AAA games cost what might as well be an infinitely higher amount of money to create compared to books. you can't compare novels to games, because if games tried to do that shit and intentionally cut off that many people from playing them, the company creating the game would go bankrupt. AAA games are too commercially driven to do things like that. you get the same problem with hollywood or w/e, too, although it seems like it's too a lesser degree, because you get directors who have proven themselves and are allowed to do whatever. even that rarely happens with games, because it's usually not a "director" being funded by a publisher / producer, it's a corporation. the closest thing to "directors" that AAA game companies usually have are people like Peter Molyneux, who often just end up getting turned into PR figure-heads. (i realize there are exceptions, like Fumito Ueda, but they're far more exceptional than with film.)

[shinygerbil]

points made

Yeah, that's why I added an extra statement in an edit. It is a little extreme to look at it like that, I admit, and doesn't necessarily make sense. I was thinking more in terms of the way it is possible to read, say, (obvious example incoming) Animal Farm and understand it on the surface. This is kind of derailing the original discussion though. Controls are a big part of what makes games games, but WASD and mouselook are pretty much the only universal constants that exist. (Even beyond that, things start to diversify - I hate the way Bioshock uses F as the 'use' button instead of E. But that only serves to highlight the possible need for a tutorial or basic control explanation for the uninitiated.)

[mono]

@Blademasterbobo

Yes, sadly creative vision is so completely tied to budget. I wish big publishers would support smaller creative projects kind of like Sony does but they are too afraid to lose any money. I don't think they would if they just budget it reasonably which totally goes against their philosophy of pumping a lot of money into something to get even more back.

[ham and brie]

It's not a philosophy, it's the business model. Big publishers have larger per project overhead so involving them means the balance of what's efficient is pushed toward aiming to sell more.

[mono]

It's not a philosophy, it's the business model. Big publishers have larger per project overhead so involving them means the balance of what's efficient is pushed toward aiming to sell more.

Right, but I'm talking how large publishers could ideally bring back middle-ground games that are rare now-a-days. I agree with you in that this would be unlikely.

[Fallsburg]

How is it subtle? They don't exactly hide Booker's background of his brutality at Wounded Knee and his work for the Pinkertons (of which he got fired for being too rough).

Not to mention Comstock (essentially the same person), a man who would only be satisfied when the entire Earth is destroyed.

If you think that's subtle then you are mentally deficient.

Man have you even heard of the battle of wounded knee?

Yeah, I got all of that.

And yet, the game still treats Booker as a sympathetic character, while demonizing essentially everyone else.  The game ignores the wanton death and destruction caused by Booker, and seems to treat it as the correct or just thing to do.  Comstock, Fink, and Daisy are all treated as worse than Booker, despite Booker's past and present. The ending treats Booker's death as a noble sacrifice to stop Comstock from coming into existence, not a payment for his own crimes.

That's why I say it is too subtle.  Because on the one hand, the game says that Booker used to be bad, but on the other it treats his actions in the game as just and gives him the moral high ground over everyone else.  So, while I can appreciate the argument that the game is trying to rub the player's nose in their own actions, I don't buy it. 

[SundownKid]

the problem is that AAA games cost what might as well be an infinitely higher amount of money to create compared to books. you can't compare novels to games, because if games tried to do that shit and intentionally cut off that many people from playing them, the company creating the game would go bankrupt.

No. What exactly turned people on to playing FPS in the first place? Culture can be changed simply by changing the type of game, as long as it's worth people's time. The same thing is true of books and movies, just because it's a commercially safe decision doesn't mean it's the only possible decision, just the one that is "guaranteed" to make the most cash. The problem is not that it's an FPS, it's that they don't know how to make something quality that isn't an FPS.

[deathtotheweird]

Fallsburg I think we played a totally different game or you didn't play it at all because you are coming to completely different conclusions than what the game actually portrayed. You either have some selective memory or you didn't pay attention to the story at all. I can't argue with you if you don't know what you're talking about, you're just making shit up now.

[Blademasterbobo]

sundownkid idk wtf you're going on about, but that can't be a reply to what i said cuz it's talking about something completely different. are you crazy?

allen the funniest instance of what fallsburg is talking about "oh no the rebels are evil now cuz she tried to kill a white kid oh noooo" the game is extremely poorly written when it comes to any moral dilemmas or whatever haha

[Fallsburg]

Fallsburg I think we played a totally different game or you didn't play it at all because you are coming to completely different conclusions than what the game actually portrayed. You either have some selective memory or you didn't pay attention to the story at all. I can't argue with you if you don't know what you're talking about, you're just making shit up now.

Well, I'm not quite sure what I made up, and I'm pretty sure I can lay out the story line point by point, so I'm just going to say that our interpretations differ and leave it at that.

[Blademasterbobo]

[Nillo]

So, yeah. I just beat Bioshock Infinite on Normal. Not sure if I'll be going back to it on a proper difficulty level... while I certainly liked the story and the ending, the gameplay never really seemed that interesting to me (probably because I don't play shooters in the first place). In fact, as the game progressed I began to see the violent parts of the game as a nuisance, an obstacle between me and the rest of the story. I'd walk into rooms and go "Oh, shit... here's another large area filled with ammunition, so in a few seconds I'm going to be attacked by a bunch of enemies I don't care about".

It's a very strange game, and I think that's my favorite thing about it. People interpret it in different ways, which leads to the kind of post-game discussion that you see an example of here. I have saved a number of bookmarks to sites with spoiler-laden discussion about Bioshock Infinite, and I'm gonna go and check them out now.

[deathtotheweird]

Was reading this article http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-bioshock-infinite.html
And it again seems there are a lot of people misinterpreting the violence in the game.

Though there is some sense in the comments, as one person eloquently put:

When you boil it down, Booker DeWitt is slaughtering his way through legions of Columbians, people who trusted, obeyed, or reviled him, as Comstock. This is important. The single-mindedness of Booker’s quest is in a sense as deranged as the other Booker’s quest. He is, it seems, above all else a killer. Make sense that he would be doing a lot of that throughout the game.

Campster, through his Errant Signal series, also uploaded his video critique on the game as well:



Most of which I agree with-especially when he talks about the sub-par combat, lack of depth, and health system- but like Thomas I feel they both miss the point of the violence. Though I do agree that perhaps the number of encounters and enemy counts were a bit too much.

But it's not too much to expect that Comstock would go to extreme lengths to prevent Booker from stealing his 'lamb'. And with religious indoctrination, the motives of the guards aren't really as questionable as Campster tries to portray them as being. They have more right or desire to attack Booker than any of the splicers in the first Bioshock, yet he portrays the motivations of the original Bioshock's enemies in a much more positive light. That doesn't really make much sense to me. The splicers attack the player because they were crazy and because Andrew Ryan purposefully injected a pheromone into the air to control them. I don't see how that is more believable than a bunch of religious zealots going after a guy who has stolen their religious icon.

[AshfordPride]

That doesn't really make much sense to me. The splicers attack the player because they were crazy and because Andrew Ryan purposefully injected a pheromone into the air to control them. I don't see how that is more believable than a bunch of religious zealots going after a guy who has stolen their religious icon.

We never humanize the splicers.  We never show a splicer talking with another one about how once they clock out of being a crazed maniac they're going to go home and see if the wife wants the cuddle a bit and rent a movie.  These people are crazy, they've checked the fuck out.  We never make them seem human, and whenever we do see a splicer act human it seems entirely sad.  When you see a splicer painting, only to rip the easel down and draw a weapon and start screaming DONT LOOK AT ME, DONT LOOK AT ME you don't feel bad about shooting back.  At best a splicer can find this spot as this weird parody of humanity, like they're desperately trying to be a normal human being but seem to be so far gone that they're just fucking it up in nearly comical ways.  Like that one woman singing a lullaby to a gun in a pram in the first Bioshock.

Like, holy shit man, when Booker kills Comstock it feels like I'm murdering Santa Clause.  This isn't how you present the man who was trying to physically condition his daughter into being a mindless drone to carry on his insane religious fervor.  And yet it's framed too poorly to make Comstock seem sympathetic because we had a nice little detour in the asylum to remind us that Comstock is a maniac who shouldn't be allowed to live.

This game is dissonance'd as fuck because it's six games cobbled together.  All this sympathy you have for killing the commonfolk of Columbia seems to come from a time where this game clearly allowed you to choose more of your battles, to not have to murder anyone who had the misfortune of glimpsing you. 

[deathtotheweird]

What? Comstock was always a creepy old man who says creepy shit. He is racist, a liar, and a murderer, among many other things. He sets an entire army out to kill you, and his ultimate goal is the destruction of mankind (minus the citizens of Columbia, his 'ark'). How the fuck is he anything like Santa Claus? Maybe if Santa Claus put guns in the hands of his elves and had them march around New York on Christmas Eve shooting everything that moves while simultaneously dropping napalm from his sled while subjecting his daughter to cruel and unusual experiments.

I think what is getting you all fucked up is that he has charisma. He appears likeable even though he's a dangerous monster. Kind of like Ted Bundy or David Koresh. I think that's kind of the point, it fits in with his character. But I don't think it makes him any more likeable than it does Charles Manson, once you get to know him. Which the player does very on, via the audiologs.

[AshfordPride]

His final confrontation is what I'm talking about.  The area just feels nice.  It's very easy to detach everything he's done from afar when you're now standing right next to a guy who feels like a nice grandpa.  Watch out Elizabeth, he's got a tray of Weather's Originals!  You beat him to death and drown him because he was kind of grappling with Elizabeth...  It just doesn't seem like the logical conclusion.  You  should've done that when he was at his worst in the asylum, where you witness him just fucking defiling Elizabeth.  That's where beating an old man to death feels right.  Here it all just feels sort of too late.  He's beaten, he's done trying to kill you, and he seems more than willing to tell you what's going on if Elizabeth would just show Booker her fucking finger.

You don't reduce a distorted voiced maniac who kills everyone he has a close acquaintance to and wants to kill literally everyone into the Wizard of Oz in the last couple of minutes.  It's like if the Tin Man started hacking the Wizard to death shouting "WHERES MY HEART?  WHERES MY HEART?" after you pull back the curtain.

Also, did I mention that I feel like this whole game was a scrapped Wizard of Oz allegory? 

I get that sometimes.

[shinygerbil]

Also, did I mention that I feel like this whole game was a scrapped Wizard of Oz allegory?  

I get that sometimes.

you're not the only one

Edit: also

His final confrontation is what I'm talking about.  The area just feels nice.  It's very easy to detach everything he's done from afar when you're now standing right next to a guy who feels like a nice grandpa.  Watch out Elizabeth, he's got a tray of Weather's Originals!  You beat him to death and drown him because he was kind of grappling with Elizabeth...  It just doesn't seem like the logical conclusion.  You  should've done that when he was at his worst in the asylum, where you witness him just fucking defiling Elizabeth.  That's where beating an old man to death feels right.  Here it all just feels sort of too late.  He's beaten, he's done trying to kill you, and he seems more than willing to tell you what's going on if Elizabeth would just show Booker her fucking finger.

I think the game is rather counting on you, the player, to remember the things Comstock has done, rather than suddenly be blinded to his previous acts because he smiles at you. Also, Booker spends most of the previous half an hour going "ima KILL comstock, let's go KILL comstock, i HATE comstock" so it's rather likely he would be in a bit of a blind rage. I think what I'm trying to say is, it's very easy to be detached as a player of a videogame, especially as people who are prone to deconstructing/analysing games, we're more susceptible to detach ourselves at any moment. From what I recall, events certainly haven't 'cooled off' by the time we reach the sanctuary...I do remember being slightly taken aback by the sudden murder, but in a "whoah booker is mad" kinda way, not a "this narrative is incongruous" kinda way.

[Udderdude]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/7105-BioShock-Infinite

Lots of references to the game disappearing up it's own ass in this one.

He still gave it a thumbs up, though. :p

[deathtotheweird]

http://www.destructoid.com/why-does-bioshock-infinite-need-to-be-non-violent--251424.phtml

this is a good article.

Booker's claims of regret ring hollow when he's mashing faces to pieces with his whirly claw of death -- and they're supposed to. His entire story is one of denial, of claiming he's better than those around him, and ultimately, devastatingly, being proven wrong. That first time he gladly grinds a spinning metal claw into somebody's face is the first clue that Booker's claims of putting his past behind him are bullshit.