I think playing Dishonored again might be the better decision.
I think playing Dishonored again might be the better decision.
Never played it... worth adding to my Steam wishlist?
I think playing Dishonored again might be the better decision.
Never played it... worth adding to my Steam wishlist?
I think playing Dishonored again might be the better decision.
Never played it... worth adding to my Steam wishlist?
What, Christ, yes
OK, OK... it also had mixed reviews so I wasn't entirely sure :)
At the end of the day he's a comedy writer, and his shtick is to go balls-in and bash the hell out of a game for humorous purposes. It's fun, but I don't put much stock in him beyond that.
There are games that have mixed reviews because they're mediocre, and games that have mixed reviews because they're ambitious and interesting and nobody quite agrees on whether they pull it off.
Where are you getting your reviews from? Some kind of aggregator? Game reviews are Really Really Bad and game players are generally inarticulate idiots who don't understand why they react the way they do, so this may not be a super great diagnostic technique.
I'm honestly shocked you didn't hear much about Dishonored, it got a ton of coverage on RPS and huge buzz for being (finally) a spiritual successor to Thief and its ilk.
I thought it was quite good and its flaws were excused by its strengths, but then again I thought BSI was one of the most disappointingly vapid games ever made, so we may diverge on this point :nervous:
A successful game needs to present its story, as you say, in layers - mechanically, environmentally, and narratively. BSI has three disconnected layers which mostly fail to interface, even when the story's subtext pulls at the deployment and consequences of violence as a central theme.
I don't think we fundamentally disagree at all, but I don't believe the game's execution qualifies it as more than a footnote to the original Bioshock on any level. You're making an argument based on intentionally isolated formal elements but I think the argument falls apart when you actually get into the content of those elements.
If anything I think BSI is a howl of protest against itself: a densely narrative game trying desperately to escape from the plodding overpolish of a AAA shooter and the massive disconnected air-city of its own design process. When the game finally takes over and gets out, removing all the guns and glitz in favor of a completely linear roller coaster, it can find no way to continue to exist as a game, and extinguishes itself not just by ending but through an ending that prevents the story from happening. Elizabeth destroys Booker to break the cycle. Levine dissolves Irrational so he can stop making AAA games.
Especially in the case of Bioshock Infinite, which is a pretty explicit commentary on games, those who play them and those who make them, discarding the subtextual layer or claiming it is irrelevant is not a particularly useful way of thinking.
As I put it in my Steam review: Saying Bioshock Infinite is about guns, violence, jingoism, American Exceptionalism, systemic racism, a story about a man trying to save a girl, a game where the violence doesn't fit with the narrative, etc - which are all ideas that people apply to this game - is like saying "Gulliver's Travels" was about a man cast from country to country of strange, non/quasi-human entities. It misses the point spectacularly.
Some games are about the plot they portray on the surface. In fact, I'd say most. Others are about something else - and that, IMHO, is where games, like film and writing, become art unto themselves.
This is approaching off-topic, but since I rarely get the chance, I'll just say that I don't understand what's the point of subtext like that or what about it is that people seem to enjoy. If I watch a movie or play a game then it's about what it depicts, nothing else. It can evoke emotion, I can relate to the characters, I might find it exciting or the ideas interesting, sure, but to say that this or that is "about" some abstract thing almost always comes off as nonsense, to me. I just don't see it, and if someone explains what it's "about" I might see how it's indeed a central element in the story, but that simply doesn't do anything for me.
I can't think of a single example of any fiction which I could with a straight face say I think is about something outside the plot synopsis.
Unsurprisingly, it's way way more common in movies than games; I've seen a whole lot of movies in recent times which I found boring and nonsensical and unable to get anything out of, which were nevertheless praised by critics and said to be exquisite portrayals or poetic dissections of this or that. In games there's the gameplay, and if I don't get the subtext of the story then it doesn't really impact my enjoyment of the game. I'm sure I wouldn't find BI boring and nonsensical because firstly it has gameplay and secondly because it apparently has a surface-level plot in addition to the subtext, but what you said is such a clear example of the kind of alien approach to stories that I couldn't let it pass unremarked.
To each their own. But to pick a few examples...QuoteI can't think of a single example of any fiction which I could with a straight face say I think is about something outside the plot synopsis.
Depends on what you've read. To pick a few well-known examples though... is Gulliver's Travels (Jonathan Swift) really about visits to lilliputians, Houyhnhnms, etc? Is Lord of the Flies (William Golding) about a bunch of boys that go feral? How about the I, Robot collection (Isaac Asimov) - is it really just about robots in every day life? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams) - about Earth being blown up and interstellar travel? I think you'll find that most works of fiction have a lot more to them than their plot synopsis.
I think Infinite mostly doesn't even attempt to be art in any way specific to games. Unlike BioShock 1, it tells a story about choice that could fit well in a movie, a book, a television show. It doesn't much leverage the unique capabilities of its medium. Far from a particular triumph or watermark for the art of game narrative, I think it's actually a bit of a dead end. I think Bastion or Alpha Protocol are both much sharper examples of how games can be written to succeed in a way possible only in games.
To each their own. But to pick a few examples...QuoteI can't think of a single example of any fiction which I could with a straight face say I think is about something outside the plot synopsis.
Depends on what you've read. To pick a few well-known examples though... is Gulliver's Travels (Jonathan Swift) really about visits to lilliputians, Houyhnhnms, etc? Is Lord of the Flies (William Golding) about a bunch of boys that go feral? How about the I, Robot collection (Isaac Asimov) - is it really just about robots in every day life? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams) - about Earth being blown up and interstellar travel? I think you'll find that most works of fiction have a lot more to them than their plot synopsis.
I've read very very little, and none of those and no other remarkable classics either that I recall. I of course know what those are about plot-wise and have seen adaptations, but I've never read the books.
I think BSI is a bold statement that does advance the art form, and exercise in demonstrating to players why lack of agency is unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and ultimately meaningless, and a cry to move games forward as art and not Call of Duty #2437: Ghostly black zombie warfare tactics.
Huh
Well I must admit I hadn't considered BSI as intentionally built on bad design elements in order to convey a beyond the 4th wall message. I had just finished DE:HR and was miffed that all player choice was taken away and I was railroaded into senseless violence. I felt completely unmotivated in most cases to kill any of the opponents and felt it was a chore I had to trudge through to progress the story. I suppose I appreciate what they where trying to do given the context MP and GB provided, but from a pure enjoyment perspective I still would have preferred player agency and a better gameplay vehicle for the story.
I think BSI is a bold statement that does advance the art form, and exercise in demonstrating to players why lack of agency is unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and ultimately meaningless, and a cry to move games forward as art and not Call of Duty #2437: Ghostly black zombie warfare tactics.
There's a little irony here because (WHOA GET READY IT'S ON OHHHHHHHHHH ****) Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was a better story about violence and agency than BioShock Infinite. It's super subversive.
I think BSI is a bold statement that does advance the art form, and exercise in demonstrating to players why lack of agency is unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and ultimately meaningless, and a cry to move games forward as art and not Call of Duty #2437: Ghostly black zombie warfare tactics.
There's a little irony here because (WHOA GET READY IT'S ON OHHHHHHHHHH ****) Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was a better story about violence and agency than BioShock Infinite. It's super subversive.
To be fair, I have avoided the entire Heavy Call of Battlefield genre since, ohhh, BF1942 and its expansions.
Also yes, every part of BioShock 1 after 'would you kindly' is basically dead waste - but before that it's a story that only works in games. The fundamental power of BS1 lies in the implied ability to do whatever you please combined with the textual/formal assonance of the 'but would you kindly' design reality/control phrase.
Right: playing as Elizabeth is clearly the game BSI wants to be, but it's an unreachable dream within the constraints of the game's development and target market.
I read up on them, but (fittingly, perhaps) you're playing as a fairly Bookerized Elizabeth, without most of her agency. It's still a better game, though, as the RPS review seems to argue: more stealth, more environmental context.
Given that it's Elizabeth's story and the player is merely a force in the world that shapes her agency (you have none), and your force is essential to her exercise of agency, that wouldn't be possible.
Now, had the game played as Elizabeth herself and Booker been the AI companion, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Frankly, it would have been a much bolder exercise and a much more fulfilling one in terms of both narrative and subtext, too... but it wouldn't have gotten through the AAA gaming exercise. And that, I suspect, is why BSI goes the way it does - it cannot acceptably be what it should have been, and so it critiques that very notion and still caps off the 'Shock' experience.
I think Booker could still have fulfilled his role as merely a force shaping Elisabeth's Agency just as easily by having to commit a few meaningful killings over the course of fleeing the Columbia as opposed to being a one man SS Einsatzgruppen.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last statement that I wouldn't mind if the lack of agency if the character's actions made sense within the context of the story.
Well I must admit I hadn't considered BSI as intentionally built on bad design elements in order to convey a beyond the 4th wall message.
People who don't like or want to engage with subtexts do not need to engage with such kinds of material.
Alas, there are those of us who do like that sort of stuff. Censoring this layer because you don't like it is not sensible, IMHO. There's a lot of other layers that I don't give too much of a damn, but I don't piss condescendingly in their playground as if they are idiots who take their joys too seriously.
I'm just saying that just because you see some dots and connect them, and get an image, doesn't mean that image was planned or that it even is the image you're supposed to see.
I'm just saying that just because you see some dots and connect them, and get an image, doesn't mean that image was planned or that it even is the image you're supposed to see.
Any sufficiently well-written text will be able to support multiple meanings. However, claiming that no reading is valid because they all might be is stupid. Your stance, which is depressingly common among those who see gaming as only a way to pass a few hours, is one of the big things that makes video game criticism as bad as it is, both on the professional and amateur level.
Without accepting that games can mean something beyond the superficial level, games can not evolve. Luckily, the current crop of game designers understands this.
I'm just saying that just because you see some dots and connect them, and get an image, doesn't mean that image was planned or that it even is the image you're supposed to see.
I can write an essay on why Super Mario is really a story about a struggle against socialist tyranny, but doesn't mean it was made as such.
All I can say is that no game that fit into that category comes to my mind. Can you give an example?
I mean, I'm having a rather hard time seeing the subtextual content of the examples I gave above, or games of a similar sort.
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
All I can say is that no game that fit into that category comes to my mind. Can you give an example?
I mean, I'm having a rather hard time seeing the subtextual content of the examples I gave above, or games of a similar sort.
Luckily for you, Errant Signal has just uploaded a video precisely about what game mechanics conveys with one big example: Assassin's Creed!
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
Not entirely. The biographical and contextual information about an author is important; its their intentions that are less so. Subtext has a lot to do with who an author is, but not what they say it means (because what they say it means and what the combination of the text and the author's context reveal are often two very different things) Tolkien insisted to his dying day that The Lord of the Rings was not meant to be in any way allegorical to the Great War and Second World War and their toll and losses incurred, yet arguments are routinely and quit successfully made that the books are indeed allegorical in practice, and that has much to do with Tolkien's personal life experiences.
Yes, but Phantom wasn't limiting his criteria to 'purely mechanics-driven', he simply said that mechanics can carry meaning, which doesn't preclude said games from having stories. Luis' link showed this.All I can say is that no game that fit into that category comes to my mind. Can you give an example?
I mean, I'm having a rather hard time seeing the subtextual content of the examples I gave above, or games of a similar sort.
Luckily for you, Errant Signal has just uploaded a video precisely about what game mechanics conveys with one big example: Assassin's Creed!
Which I would not rate as a purely mechanics-driven game. Look at the examples I gave to define that category for the purposes of my argument: Tetris. 2048. These are not games that tell stories; Assassin's Creed however very definitely is.
I'm skeptical that literary critics writing after the fact, viewing an author's work through their own attitudes and biases, can determine the true meaning of an author's work more accurately than the author themselves can.
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
Not entirely. The biographical and contextual information about an author is important; its their intentions that are less so. Subtext has a lot to do with who an author is, but not what they say it means (because what they say it means and what the combination of the text and the author's context reveal are often two very different things) Tolkien insisted to his dying day that The Lord of the Rings was not meant to be in any way allegorical to the Great War and Second World War and their toll and losses incurred, yet arguments are routinely and quit successfully made that the books are indeed allegorical in practice, and that has much to do with Tolkien's personal life experiences.
I'm skeptical that literary critics writing after the fact, viewing an author's work through their own attitudes and biases, can determine the true meaning of an author's work more accurately than the author themselves can.
I write Homeric epics about Minesweeper.
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
Not entirely. The biographical and contextual information about an author is important; its their intentions that are less so. Subtext has a lot to do with who an author is, but not what they say it means (because what they say it means and what the combination of the text and the author's context reveal are often two very different things) Tolkien insisted to his dying day that The Lord of the Rings was not meant to be in any way allegorical to the Great War and Second World War and their toll and losses incurred, yet arguments are routinely and quit successfully made that the books are indeed allegorical in practice, and that has much to do with Tolkien's personal life experiences.
I'm skeptical that literary critics writing after the fact, viewing an author's work through their own attitudes and biases, can determine the true meaning of an author's work more accurately than the author themselves can.
Why shouldn't they be able to? I'm speaking here as someone firmly in the author camp.
I find it far more interesting to examine what the author's original intents were for their work,
Calling the author's dicta about the meaning of a word scientific also misses the vital point that the author does not completely understand what the work means. Like a sailor trying to chart an ocean's shore while drowning in a maelstrom, the author is too close to the work and to their social context to get a good survey.
e: SUBTEXT YO there's a genuinely pretty good scene in Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Seth wherein Palpatine talks to Anakin about a legendary Seth who could create life. In the background, space dancers at a future zero-G space opera swim in and out of a gigantic egg-like sphere, trailing their robes like tiny sperm. Does it matter whether this was done on purpose? Not from a Jedi.
No they're Seth LordsAHA my keenly refined subtextual sonar has identified the author's delusions of grandeur
So basically. From that point of view (From what I understand), an author's writings are nothing more than the keys to your own imagination. What you see on the road trip you decided to take across Seth-Dickinson side is yours to interpret as you wish?Seth Lord -> Procreation Ballet -> Seduced by "the dark side"
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
Not entirely. The biographical and contextual information about an author is important; its their intentions that are less so. Subtext has a lot to do with who an author is, but not what they say it means (because what they say it means and what the combination of the text and the author's context reveal are often two very different things) Tolkien insisted to his dying day that The Lord of the Rings was not meant to be in any way allegorical to the Great War and Second World War and their toll and losses incurred, yet arguments are routinely and quit successfully made that the books are indeed allegorical in practice, and that has much to do with Tolkien's personal life experiences.
I'm skeptical that literary critics writing after the fact, viewing an author's work through their own attitudes and biases, can determine the true meaning of an author's work more accurately than the author themselves can.
Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) basically then?
Not entirely. The biographical and contextual information about an author is important; its their intentions that are less so. Subtext has a lot to do with who an author is, but not what they say it means (because what they say it means and what the combination of the text and the author's context reveal are often two very different things) Tolkien insisted to his dying day that The Lord of the Rings was not meant to be in any way allegorical to the Great War and Second World War and their toll and losses incurred, yet arguments are routinely and quit successfully made that the books are indeed allegorical in practice, and that has much to do with Tolkien's personal life experiences.
I'm skeptical that literary critics writing after the fact, viewing an author's work through their own attitudes and biases, can determine the true meaning of an author's work more accurately than the author themselves can.
The relevant expression here is "true meaning". There is no such thing as "true meaning". It's a relic from absolutism and objectivism. Leave it alone and it all comes together and start make sense!
So basically. From that point of view (From what I understand), an author's writings are nothing more than the keys to your own imagination. What you see on the road trip you decided to take across Seth-Dickinson side is yours to interpret as you wish?Seth Lord -> Procreation Ballet -> Seduced by "the dark side"
Dick-in-son -> NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Conclusion -> Vader is a homophobe
Subtext 8=====> Intention
Subtext 8=====> Intention
8=====>
Some critics who I won't mention by name see [REDACTED] everywhere but SOMETIMES IT'S JUST A CIGAR GET OUT OF MY HEAD8=====>
I read this text as being an expression of the author's insecurity with his [REDACTED] deformity.