An analysis of why Bioshock Infinite is incredibly overrated.

[surpriselol]

First of all let me begin by saying this game is good, but not great. It has a lot of polish that makes it seem good. Passable graphics, well designed mechanics, standard but enjoyable weapons and powers, excellent voice acting and interesting locales.

But if you dig just a little bit under the surface of this game, it falls apart. First of all, this is barely what I'd call a 'game'. It's more of an interactive story, much like the early Metal Gears (especially Metal Gear Solid 2) which are more story than game. Yes, there are guns and stealth and other 'game mechanics' but the fact is that those things are just there to primarily support the story of the game, not enhance fundamental gameplay. And this is the case with Bioshock. Yeah, there are enemies. Yeah, there are guns and vigors. But they feel forced and the vigors seem unnecessary relics of past Bioshocks. Why do the vigors exist in this world? There is no logic for them to be here. They make the world seem more unbelievable than add to the believability of an early 'colonial' floating city (already initially a difficult thing to sell). Even the enemies and weapons just seem kind of pointless; supporting roles in a game lead by a brash, overzealous story, which leads me to my next point.

One of the things modern video game script writers absolutely do not understand is subtlety. I think a lot of the time they struggle with implementing a story that works in tandem with the action in a way that will not only enhance the action, but reinforce it. One of the big problems with Infinite is that it bashes you over the head repeatedly with its anti-right wing, anti-colonialisation message to the point of comedy. There are valuable messages to be had here, but they're not terribly new in Western society, nor are they subtle in any conceivable way. Quite the opposite. At every possible opportunity this game is just pounding you with its 'this is good, this is bad' message and after about 5-6 hrs of playing this game I am totally sick of it. You know what? I GET IT IRRATIONAL GAMES. RACISM IS BAD. SEGREGATION IS BAD. WHITE SUPREMACY AND EUROCENTRISM IS BAD. Yes, we all know. If there was more to the overarching story than that it might be interesting but for the love of God I GET IT. Which brings me to my next point.

Booker and Elizabeth have a good relationship and this is a really good aspect of the game, but why in the world can she open tears? Was this added purely to add a cool factor to the game? Because honestly this doesn't add to the believability of this world, at all. First of all, if she hated being trapped in a tower for her entire life (and everyone would) then hey, guess what? YOU CAN OPEN A TEAR AND ESCAPE YOU KNOW. The fact she is still 'trapped' in that tower at her age is 100% baloney. I know that you can try to justify the story and explain it with reason in ways like 'maybe she just never found a tear she wanted to escape through' or 'maybe she was afraid to leave' but I just don't buy that at all.

Edit: After finishing the game I understand why she couldn't open any tear she wanted but it does not explain why she couldn't escape through one of the tears she *could* open. Somewhere in the tedious first half of the game she mentions she doesn't want to escape because of 'family' yet she has no family and talks endlessly about escaping. Towards the end she says she'd rather die than go back to the tower. None of this makes any sense.

And unfortunately it's all a little too hard to swallow for me. Columbia looks nice and it has interesting and well-designed locations, but the combat is average FPS fare. Gone are the days of laying traps with your plasmids and mini-turrets and preparing to fight a Big Daddy or hordes of splicers while you protect a little sister. Gone (most importantly) is the time and thought you'd put into these areas of combat and the choice that came with overcoming those obstacles. This doesn't exist in Infinite. One of the best things about the combat in earlier Bioshocks is completely absent here. You can put 0 thought into what you're doing and still easily come out ahead. Shoot things, use a vigor every now and then and you're done. And this is exacerbated by the fact that this game is too easy.

I am not a big FPS person. I don't play Call of Duty games or Battlefield, but I do enjoy 'themed' FPS, I guess you could say. I played the original Doom as a young teen, and Quake, and enjoyed both of those games and their sequels immensely. I enjoy FPS games that don't attempt to be straight up 'realistic world' shooters and that's purely an issue of subjective taste, but it's also the reason why I enjoyed the first two Bioshocks a lot. Having said all of that, I'd say I'm 'decent' at FPS games. Par for the course, not instantly headshotting from outside draw-distance by any means, but I'm decent.

I'm currently playing this game on Hard, and I have no idea why it's called Hard. For me, there is absolutely nothing 'hard' about this difficulty setting. Enemies die quickly, Crows and other advanced enemies really aren't that hard to dispose of, and ammo and currency is plentiful. Infinite on Hard is actually a substantial amount easier than Bioshock 2 on Normal. Which is a direct result of being overly obsessed with story-telling and not with gameplay. This unfortunately, leads me to my next point.

Like I said, I'm 5-6 hours into this game and I'm bored. The world isn't believable for me; there's no strategy in the combat (or at least, nothing at all relative to previous Bioshock games); I'm incredibly sick and tired of being slapped in the face with the overarching, brazen themes of the story and most of all: it's too easy. I'm bored with the story and the game (if you can call it that) itself. I'm bored with the combat. I'm bored with the seemingly pointless journys to ironically interestingly designed locations to be given one more piece of story and not an interesting, intelligently designed area of combat.

Will I finish the game? Sure. Will I care? Not at all.

[Tusken GA]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

Publicado originalmente por Tuskan GA:

I played almost the entire game without using the Vigors. To me, they were superfluous; nifty and interesting, but unecessary.

You don't build variability into a game by creating unecessary mechanics. In order to make a game with genuine play-how-you-want gameplay, you need to make there be tradeoffs. If you choose not to use Vigors, what do I need to do to compensate? If I choose to use Vigors, what do I need to do to compensate?

If there are no tradeoffs, the system doesn't work right. At that point, using Vigors is simply an unecessary decision.

As for the story and ending, I have my issues with them but I'm still editing my blog post on the subject so I'll post it here when I'm done. Suffice it to say I thought the ending was a disappointment because it removed player/protagonist agency when it should have given us the illusion of choice. As a result what should have been a Hero's Sacrifice became something else entirely.

The game was not about choice. All the "choices" in the game were meaningless. That was the point, they were a single instance in an infinite set of such instances.

The whole thing is philosophically great, and may even be a commentary on the perceived need for "choices" in video games.

You misunderstand, but as I said I'm not trying to illustrate my point yet. I didn't think there was a problem with a lack of choice, I thought there was a problem with a lack of agency. A story can have a fixed ending but when a protagonist does not have agency in that ending, there's a problem.

Even if that protagonist doesn't have a choice, they still have agency in enacting their own demise. They may have no choice but to sacrifice themselves to save the world but they still "choose" to do it.

This game's ending doesn't give the protagonist nor the player that agency. We either accidentally choose to do the right thing or are manipulated into doing the right thing. Either way, the actual "choice" to do the right thing is out or our hands and into the hands of others (fate or elizabeth).

That detracts from the impact of the ending.

But like I said, I'm not going to go into crazy detail yet why I think this happened and what I think is really wrong. I've already gone into more detail than I intended.

I'm editing my blog post on the subject and I'll simply link to that when I'm done.

[Caelinus]

Publicado originalmente por Tuskan GA:

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

The game was not about choice. All the "choices" in the game were meaningless. That was the point, they were a single instance in an infinite set of such instances.

The whole thing is philosophically great, and may even be a commentary on the perceived need for "choices" in video games.

You misunderstand, but as I said I'm not trying to illustrate my point yet. I didn't think there was a problem with a lack of choice, I thought there was a problem with a lack of agency. A story can have a fixed ending but when a protagonist does not have agency in that ending, there's a problem.

Even if that protagonist doesn't have a choice, they still have agency in enacting their own demise. They may have no choice but to sacrifice themselves to save the world but they still "choose" to do it.

This game's ending doesn't give the protagonist nor the player that agency. We either accidentally choose to do the right thing or are manipulated into doing the right thing. Either way, the actual "choice" to do the right thing is out or our hands and into the hands of others (fate or elizabeth).

That detracts from the impact of the ending.

But like I said, I'm not going to go into crazy detail yet why I think this happened and what I think is really wrong. I've already gone into more detail than I intended.

I'm editing my blog post on the subject and I'll simply link to that when I'm done.

That is a matter of opinion. Personally I am totally fine with the lack of player input in the end, because the story they told could not have the impact it did while trying to offer the illusion of agency.

This was a story about a man and his daughter. Not about the player. It was more of an interactive and detailed movie then it was a game ala Mass Effect.

[Tusken GA]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

Publicado originalmente por Tuskan GA:

You misunderstand, but as I said I'm not trying to illustrate my point yet. I didn't think there was a problem with a lack of choice, I thought there was a problem with a lack of agency. A story can have a fixed ending but when a protagonist does not have agency in that ending, there's a problem.

Even if that protagonist doesn't have a choice, they still have agency in enacting their own demise. They may have no choice but to sacrifice themselves to save the world but they still "choose" to do it.

This game's ending doesn't give the protagonist nor the player that agency. We either accidentally choose to do the right thing or are manipulated into doing the right thing. Either way, the actual "choice" to do the right thing is out or our hands and into the hands of others (fate or elizabeth).

That detracts from the impact of the ending.

But like I said, I'm not going to go into crazy detail yet why I think this happened and what I think is really wrong. I've already gone into more detail than I intended.

I'm editing my blog post on the subject and I'll simply link to that when I'm done.

That is a matter of opinion. Personally I am totally fine with the lack of player input in the end, because the story they told could not have the impact it did while trying to offer the illusion of agency.

This was a story about a man and his daughter. Not about the player. It was more of an interactive and detailed movie then it was a game ala Mass Effect.

My problem isn't one of video games; if this happened in a book or a movie, it would be just as much of a problem.

We may not have had an actual choice to sacrifice Booker but Booker himself should have. He didn't, and that's the problem. The protagonist had no agency in his own demise and by extension we had no agency.

This discussion is muddied by the whole Interactivity thing. It's best for your understanding if you look at the ending as if there was no interactivity and view my position as the same.

I'm a big fan of video games and don't have a problem with linear games that have no choices to be made. I loved Halo and Half Life and similar games. I don't care if a game doesn't try to integrate choice into their structure.

This is different. The protagonist's agency was removed and in order for you to understand what I mean by that you need to stop thinking about the interactive nature of video games.

[Jimmi Stixx]

Was playing Half-Life 2 earlyer for about 20 minutes. Its 10 times this game is and it's 9 years older.

[Caelinus]

Booker did not struggle, the dialogue towards the end from a confused and scared Booker implied he knew what was coming. He understood.

I find it troubling that you think that every story has to follow the heroic archetype. Now your point is even more opinion now that you have divorced it from the gameplay. A protagonist does not always need agency in their own death to tell a story, nor does every story of redemption need to end *with* the redemption. (Booker had already redeemed himself at this point.)

Also, the drowning was not a "demise" but a rebirth, as the time was erased and he was sent back to a world where nothing had happened. He was not just drowned, he was baptized, and was reborn, in a much more literal sense then the baptism by the priest would have been.

[NoMoreClaymores]

Publicado originalmente por Clagnaught:

4) We can disagree on whether or not you like the combat or the story, but I honestly don't get why you say BioShock Infinite isn't a game. This makes no sense to me. You are in complete control of Booker for at least 95% of the game. Everything is in the first person perspective, and there are no animated cutscenes. You mention Metal Gear Solid, yet BioShock Infinite is pretty much the opposite of games like MGS. (Not that I'm complaining. I love Metal Gear) Closer examples of games that act like interactive stories are The Walking Dead, Heavy Rain, or a visual novel. Even Metal Gear Solid isn't an interactive story. It's a game with long ass cutscenes. Putting the lack of cutscenes aside, you are constantly playing the game. When you go up to the lighthouse, you are playing the game. When you are upgrading your guns, you are playing the game. When you are shooting people, you are playing the game. When you listen to the audio recordings, you are still playing the game. Even when the story segments happen, you aren't sitting there for 30 minutes doing nothing. They are either spread out over an entire section and/or you can still walk around or do your own thing.

Well said. The argument that B:I is more an interactive story is ridiculous. It's not Max Payne, or Walking Dead, not even close.

[Tusken GA]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

Booker did not struggle, the dialogue towards the end from a confused and scared Booker implied he knew what was coming. He understood.

I find it troubling that you think that every story has to follow the heroic archetype. Now your point is even more opinion now that you have divorced it from the gameplay. A protagonist does not always need agency in their own death to tell a story, nor does every story of redemption need to end *with* the redemption. (Booker had already redeemed himself at this point.)

Also, the drowning was not a "demise" but a rebirth, as the time was erased and he was sent back to a world where nothing had happened. He was not just drowned, he was baptized, and was reborn, in a much more literal sense then the baptism by the priest would have been.

See, this is why I didn't want to get into it. My point isn't clear to you because I haven't conveyed it well because I've been trying not to as I know my blog post would be quite a bit more clear.

I think nothing of the sort regarding heroic archetypes, you've just assumed that I do for whatever reason.

If an event happens in a story it needs to have a catalyst, can we agree on that? If a protagonist does something it also needs to have a catalyst, can we agree?

Can we also agree that an action taken by a protagonist should be an action that protagonist would do? How about an action taken by a protagonist should be of that protagonist's own volition?

This is what I mean when I say protagonist agency. It's the idea that the protagonist drives the story and any actions taken by the protagonist are of the protagonist's own choosing.

The player is the protagonist so PLAYER agency is also a valid term in most cases. However there are times when player agency is removed. In such times, protagonist agency should always be maintained.

When I divorced gameplay from story I was attempting to make you think about the situation from a purely narrative perspective so that you could see this underlying point. It obviously failed, but whatever.

At the end of the story of Bioshock Infinite, protagonist agency was removed.

Booker, as a response to Liz's dialog, chose to kill Comstock before he had the opportunity to do the things he did.

However, he did not know that Comstock was him and would therefore be killing himself.

He made the right choice but he didn't everything he needed to know about that choice.

He accidentally, or at the subtle prompting of Elizabeth, chose to sacrifice himself to save the world.

It WAS a Heroic Sacrifice, but it was accidental. He didn't get transported to an alternate realm having no recollection of his adventures, he was wiped from the face of history in all alternate timelines.

That was his decision; to kill Comstock in his crib, to erase the man from existence. He made the right choice, but it also happened to be a Heroic Sacrifice.

This pivotal decision was made accidentally. Protagonist agency was removed when making this choice. Booker chose to kill Comstock, not himself. The fact that he was Comstock was only revealed later.

That's poor storytelling. You don't have a protagonist make a choice like that without knowing the consequences. It'd be like a soldier jumping on a grenade because he thought it'd be friendly. It'd be like a protagonist pressing buttons at random and successfully averting a nuclear apocalypse.

[Caelinus]

But people make almost all choices in real life without knowing the full information behind them. This was the story they were telling. Booker did not KNOW that he was the one to die, but that does not invalidate the choice or the way of telling it.

What you are referring to would destroy the entire point of dramatic irony. The actors in a story do not need to know or understand the significance of their decisions in order to make them, they only have to know what they know already. Booker made a logical choice based on the information he had, and it happened to be the correct one even though he did not fully understand the implications as of yet.

That is not lazy storytelling, it has been a staple of stories for millennia.

A common example of this is Oedipus, where he chooses to run so that he would not kill his father, never knowing that the very choice to run was what would cause him to kill his father.

The point is that Booker is not the one pulling the strings, he never was. It is Elizabeth, and the Lucetes who are the ones who know what is happening. And all of Bookers actions are just what I said: Dramatic irony.

The interesting thing about this portrayal of the events is that Booker is you. And you you are partial to his own state, and learn things only when he learns them. Unlike in Oedipus, you are not the audience, you are the participant who does not understand the irony of his choices.

So in short, not lazy, it is actually quite well done.

[Bite]

Publicado originalmente por Tuskan GA:

That's poor storytelling. You don't have a protagonist make a choice like that without knowing the consequences. It'd be like a soldier jumping on a grenade because he thought it'd be friendly. It'd be like a protagonist pressing buttons at random and successfully averting a nuclear apocalypse.

To be fair, that's not poor storytelling, that is just a story that does not appeal to your taste, in all fairness, the story is quite well told, the twists are entertaining and the pacing is decent, all the right elements are put in place so that when you play it again you get more of the big picture, to me, that works as "good" storytelling, as for taste, IMO, for -me-, I don't like the whole multiverse, time travell, jibber jabber, a part of me hates this game for going from the social logic of Bioshock 1 to a more sci-fi logic in Infinite, it just doesn't appeal to me, I don't like it, but I do love the game, the story doesn't appeal to me, I could point a lot of tings why I don't like it, but it does a good job of engaging me, even if I don't like it's elements, for what it's worth, it did turn out into one of my favourite games thus far.

One of the reasons why I bought Infinite was because the ending was advertised as something that hadn't been done in many games before, I think they acomplished that, at least by following your logic they managed to acomplish what was right for their vision, even if their story didn't please you.

[Tusken GA]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

But people make almost all choices in real life without knowing the full information behind them. This was the story they were telling. Booker did not KNOW that he was the one to die, but that does not invalidate the choice or the way of telling it.

What you are referring to would destroy the entire point of dramatic irony. The actors in a story do not need to know or understand the significance of their decisions in order to make them, they only have to know what they know already. Booker made a logical choice based on the information he had, and it happened to be the correct one even though he did not fully understand the implications as of yet.

That is not lazy storytelling, it has been a staple of stories for millennia.

A common example of this is Oedipus, where he chooses to run so that he would not kill his father, never knowing that the very choice to run was what would cause him to kill his father.

The point is that Booker is not the one pulling the strings, he never was. It is Elizabeth, and the Lucetes who are the ones who know what is happening. And all of Bookers actions are just what I said: Dramatic irony.

The interesting thing about this portrayal of the events is that Booker is you. And you you are partial to his own state, and learn things only when he learns them. Unlike in Oedipus, you are not the audience, you are the participant who does not understand the irony of his choices.

So in short, not lazy, it is actually quite well done.

Dramatic Irony only works when the Audience knows things the Characters don't.

That's actually the definition of dramatic irony. If the audience doesn't know things that the characters don't know, then it's not dramatic irony, so that's no defense at all.

The issue with the way this was handled is that a major plot point amounts to an accident. Sure you CAN do that in a story if you want to, but its not recommended in dramatic stories because its comical.

He Accidentally chose correctly or Elizabeth manipulated him into choosing correctly. Booker is the protagonist; he drives the story. He may not be in control of the overarching flow of the story but he has agency in the events of that story.

They push and prod him maybe but he always chose his own actions, even if they were actions the others wanted him to take.

If you want to get down to it, manipulation at the very end of this story changes suicide to murder. He didn't choose to kill himself, they murdered him.

He could have chosen to kill himself and they may have led him to do so but the way it is handled is murder, not suicide.

Think about it; what difference would it ultimately have made to have Booker, knowing he was Comstock, choose to kill himself? The same result is achieved, the same machinations by Elizabeth and the Lucettes is satisfied, the futility and irrelevancy of Booker's agency is still conveyed, so what really changes?

I'll tell you what: Protagonist agency would be maintained. It may have been what they wanted him to do all along but he chose to do it for his own reasons.

He didn't choose to kill himself, he chose to kill Comstock. It was either an accident or manipulation, and neither option is good.

[Caelinus]

Publicado originalmente por Tuskan GA:

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

But people make almost all choices in real life without knowing the full information behind them. This was the story they were telling. Booker did not KNOW that he was the one to die, but that does not invalidate the choice or the way of telling it.

What you are referring to would destroy the entire point of dramatic irony. The actors in a story do not need to know or understand the significance of their decisions in order to make them, they only have to know what they know already. Booker made a logical choice based on the information he had, and it happened to be the correct one even though he did not fully understand the implications as of yet.

That is not lazy storytelling, it has been a staple of stories for millennia.

A common example of this is Oedipus, where he chooses to run so that he would not kill his father, never knowing that the very choice to run was what would cause him to kill his father.

The point is that Booker is not the one pulling the strings, he never was. It is Elizabeth, and the Lucetes who are the ones who know what is happening. And all of Bookers actions are just what I said: Dramatic irony.

The interesting thing about this portrayal of the events is that Booker is you. And you you are partial to his own state, and learn things only when he learns them. Unlike in Oedipus, you are not the audience, you are the participant who does not understand the irony of his choices.

So in short, not lazy, it is actually quite well done.

Dramatic Irony only works when the Audience knows things the Characters don't.

That's actually the definition of dramatic irony. If the audience doesn't know things that the characters don't know, then it's not dramatic irony, so that's no defense at all.

The issue with the way this was handled is that a major plot point amounts to an accident. Sure you CAN do that in a story if you want to, but its not recommended in dramatic stories because its comical.

He Accidentally chose correctly or Elizabeth manipulated him into choosing correctly. Booker is the protagonist; he drives the story. He may not be in control of the overarching flow of the story but he has agency in the events of that story.

They push and prod him maybe but he always chose his own actions, even if they were actions the others wanted him to take.

If you want to get down to it, manipulation at the very end of this story changes suicide to murder. He didn't choose to kill himself, they murdered him.

He could have chosen to kill himself and they may have led him to do so but the way it is handled is murder, not suicide.

Think about it; what difference would it ultimately have made to have Booker, knowing he was Comstock, choose to kill himself? The same result is achieved, the same machinations by Elizabeth and the Lucettes is satisfied, the futility and irrelevancy of Booker's agency is still conveyed, so what really changes?

I'll tell you what: Protagonist agency would be maintained. It may have been what they wanted him to do all along but he chose to do it for his own reasons.

He didn't choose to kill himself, he chose to kill Comstock. It was either an accident or manipulation, and neither option is good.

1. Why do you think Booker is the protagonist? He is the viewpoint character but that does not mean he is the protagonist storyline wise. In this case I think there are actually 2 characters driving the plot, Booker/Comstock and Elizabeth, with the Lectetes playing the Fool (the role in fiction obviously).

2. I did mention that this is the reverse of dramatic irony due to the medium. You are playing the role of one of the characters in the play, whereas the scientists are the audience/4th wall straddlers. (The Fool)

3. Yes, they did murder him.

4. Comedies and Tragedies have almost the same structure in regards to protagonist agency. Primarily because they come from the same movement in plays. (Tragedy being played in honor of Dionysus.) So it is not comical that his choice "amounts to an accident" it is tragic.

5. What I am getting from this is that you like hero quest style literature. Probably don't enjoy existential anything. What annoys me is that you are claiming that their artistic vision is somehow worse then yours. The fact is: I LOVE that he was murdered. I thought he would commit suicide. I was expecting it for half the game. The fact that Elizabeth kills him caught me totally off guard, and it fit so well with the mood and the tone and the reality of Booker's own weaker nature. (One version is a drunk and a lout, the other an evil racist.)

[Yakama Joe]

Well. I played system shock and system shock 2.
I thought bioshock one was overrated and hated it for not living up to my madeup standards.
I finally understood my folly in thinking bioshock was overrated when I played bioshock infinite.
Bioshock infinite is not overrated, you just have played bioshock and you are falling into the same trappings of not really understanding what you want (I am assuming you are younger than thirty years old and have only played bioshock one).

trust me, once you play the next bioshock you will not think bioshock infinite is so bad.

It is you, not the game. Bioshock infinite is freaking amazing and thats coming a self-described hardcore gamer.

Infinite is not a 10/10 but i think it is better than halflife 2 which is the best shooter ever. Halflife 2 still has the best shooting and environmental puzzles but bioshock infinite has better everything else.

(Hell, the game is an instant classic in my book purely based on how great it was to have an npc companion that was not a burden that needed to be babysitted nor was easy to forget about).

[Caelinus]

Publicado originalmente por James Madison:

(Hell, the game is an instant classic in my book purely based on how great it was to have an npc companion that was not a burden that needed to be babysitted nor was easy to forget about).

TRUE THIS. Gold standard of NPC behavior. I *missed* her when she was gone. I legitimately wanted to save her to get her back. Never been that attached to an NPC before.

[Tusken GA]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

5. What I am getting from this is that you like hero quest style literature. Probably don't enjoy existential anything. What annoys me is that you are claiming that their artistic vision is somehow worse then yours. The fact is: I LOVE that he was murdered. I thought he would commit suicide. I was expecting it for half the game. The fact that Elizabeth kills him caught me totally off guard, and it fit so well with the mood and the tone and the reality of Booker's own weaker nature. (One version is a drunk and a lout, the other an evil racist.)

That's where you're wrong. By the time Elizabeth kills Booker, Booker's character development had established he would have chosen suicide. Even his dialog when it's revealed to him that he is Comstock shows this.

Did you notice the change in coordinates the second time they boarded the Airship? Did you notice how it wasn't the same as those that would have taken Booker and Elizabeth to New York?

Did you notice the way Booker stepped up after they entered the War Torn Columbia? How he chose to fight for the people after seeing how they idolized him? Did you see how hard he fought to get to Elizabeth and how hard her reality hit him?

By the time Booker reaches the end of the game, he's a different person than when he entered. For a different reason than the baptism thing. He found something to fight for. SomeONE to fight for.

All the foreshadowing in the game led to this moment.

He WOULD have made the right choice if he knew the consequences. I know that because I watched him grow into the type of person that would. They stole that opportunity from him arbitrarily, and I take issue with that.

Everything indicated he would make the right choice anyway so his murder was unnecessary. THAT'S my problem. Their artistic vision can't even be called that because they abandoned the dramatic developments of the character they created to force a further twist into a twist of an ending.

[Nerevars Goat Univeron]

Publicado originalmente por Caelinus:

Publicado originalmente por James Madison:

(Hell, the game is an instant classic in my book purely based on how great it was to have an npc companion that was not a burden that needed to be babysitted nor was easy to forget about).

TRUE THIS. Gold standard of NPC behavior. I *missed* her when she was gone. I legitimately wanted to save her to get her back. Never been that attached to an NPC before.

I thought I was just insane. Good to know other people felt that way too.