It ignores all kinds of reality. It's a city floating in the fricking sky. I sense that you want it to have a certain message, and I say it's better and more interesting piece of art because it does make us uncomfortable, and it doesn't provide a didactic message, except maybe that history presents us with certain patterns, and those patterns tend to repeat.

Right. How do you make a game about murder, guilt, racism, etc without a didactic message?! It's using serious themes to appear serious, while ultimately espousing a completely juvenile philosophy. That's why I dislike it.

I completely disagree. I can't help but suspect that the message you want it have is the simplistic juvenile one. Art isn't propaganda--that's why it doesn't have a didactic message. Art can have a greater impact than any explicit message could, though, because experiencing art mimics experiencing life. The game doesn't have to announce that segregation is bad. Regardless, that wouldn't have the impact as does noticing, for example, that different bathrooms are available to different groups. BioShock Infinite is a game that rewards knowledge of history from multiple perspectives, not just Howard Zinn's perspective. As I've stated, I've got my issues with the game and problems with the way it presents certain ideas, but I'll defend it against the juvenile charge any day of the week.

If all it does is imitate life, it's not very good art is it? Art adds understanding. And that means making bold statements about how you perceive things to be, or how they should be.

I never said that's all it does. If we can all agree on what the message of a piece of art is, it's not very good art. Art imparts understanding by making think about the world in new ways, but the bold statement is up for interpretation.

What understanding does Bioshock Infinite add to any of the themes it imports?

I've already stated some thoughts on this, when I said what I said about how the game explores the dynamics of racism and violence in history. To me this is bold in that it goes against what is popular currently. We're reverting back to racism and essentialism. Identity politics basically is a way a justifying bigotry behind the mask of fighting bigotry. I'll stop now because I don't think this is the place for this.

It ignores all kinds of reality. It's a city floating in the fricking sky. I sense that you want it to have a certain message, and I say it's better and more interesting piece of art because it does make us uncomfortable, and it doesn't provide a didactic message, except maybe that history presents us with certain patterns, and those patterns tend to repeat.

Right. How do you make a game about murder, guilt, racism, etc without a didactic message?! It's using serious themes to appear serious, while ultimately espousing a completely juvenile philosophy. That's why I dislike it.

I completely disagree. I can't help but suspect that the message you want it have is the simplistic juvenile one. Art isn't propaganda--that's why it doesn't have a didactic message. Art can have a greater impact than any explicit message could, though, because experiencing art mimics experiencing life. The game doesn't have to announce that segregation is bad. Regardless, that wouldn't have the impact as does noticing, for example, that different bathrooms are available to different groups. BioShock Infinite is a game that rewards knowledge of history from multiple perspectives, not just Howard Zinn's perspective. As I've stated, I've got my issues with the game and problems with the way it presents certain ideas, but I'll defend it against the juvenile charge any day of the week.

If all it does is imitate life, it's not very good art is it? Art adds understanding. And that means making bold statements about how you perceive things to be, or how they should be.

What understanding does Bioshock Infinite add to any of the themes it imports?

It ignores all kinds of reality. It's a city floating in the fricking sky. I sense that you want it to have a certain message, and I say it's better and more interesting piece of art because it does make us uncomfortable, and it doesn't provide a didactic message, except maybe that history presents us with certain patterns, and those patterns tend to repeat.

Right. How do you make a game about murder, guilt, racism, etc without a didactic message?! It's using serious themes to appear serious, while ultimately espousing a completely juvenile philosophy. That's why I dislike it.

I completely disagree. I can't help but suspect that the message you want it have is the simplistic juvenile one. Art isn't propaganda--that's why it doesn't have a didactic message. Art can have a greater impact than any explicit message could, though, because experiencing art mimics experiencing life. The game doesn't have to announce that segregation is bad. Regardless, that wouldn't have the impact as does noticing, for example, that different bathrooms are available to different groups. BioShock Infinite is a game that rewards knowledge of history from multiple perspectives, not just Howard Zinn's perspective. As I've stated, I've got my issues with the game and problems with the way it presents certain ideas, but I'll defend it against the juvenile charge any day of the week.

It ignores all kinds of reality. It's a city floating in the fricking sky. I sense that you want it to have a certain message, and I say it's better and more interesting piece of art because it does make us uncomfortable, and it doesn't provide a didactic message, except maybe that history presents us with certain patterns, and those patterns tend to repeat.

Right. How do you make a game about murder, guilt, racism, etc without a didactic message?! It's using serious themes to appear serious, while ultimately espousing a completely juvenile philosophy. That's why I dislike it.

Note that when I mention abolitionists and civil rights advocates, I'm not just talking about those who were minorities. I certainly believe that the success of the 1960s civil rights movement owes a great debt to MLK's religious appeal to a mostly religious country. Successful non-violent revolutions depend on those with power having a conscience. I have to ask, based on your post, what is the other side of the non-violent revolution coin? I'm really having trouble parsing this sentence: "That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages." I don't know what "that" or "your minorities" refers to. The Vox uprising in the game is an amalgam--there are obvious similarities to Nat Turner's rebellion and to the Boshevik revolution, both of which were pretty freaking bloody.

The Vox and Founders do not have a master slave relationship, so Nat Turner is irrelevant. It completely parallels the situation of blacks in the USA in the mid century, so Boshevik is irrelevant. I mean dude, the game is drenched with historical Americana and notions of white superiority.

Sure. Columbia is the worst of America in relief, and maybe Levine's gutsiest move was not adhering to today's identity politics construction of history. Racism is not the sole domain of the powerful. Violence is not either. Both are contagions orviruses, and both live on generation after generation.

But it ignores the reality of how the civil rights movement in America was actually won. The way the Vox behaved… perhaps the founders were right to oppress them. That's what's uncomfortable. The game cops out by saying both sides are equally bad. That's a chickenshit way to make a game that aspires to great ideas.

It ignores all kinds of reality. It's a city floating in the fricking sky. I sense that you want it to have a certain message, and I say it's better and more interesting piece of art because it does make us uncomfortable, and it doesn't provide a didactic message, except maybe that history presents us with certain patterns, and those patterns tend to repeat. Maybe recognizing those patterns helps us understand with compassion how we got here, and not be so self-righteous that we're better than all who came before. Of course the game is also about gaming, and the limits to our agency in that activity. There's a lot to unpack--it's a shaggy monster of a game that has its flaws, but I'm very glad it exists.

Note that when I mention abolitionists and civil rights advocates, I'm not just talking about those who were minorities. I certainly believe that the success of the 1960s civil rights movement owes a great debt to MLK's religious appeal to a mostly religious country. Successful non-violent revolutions depend on those with power having a conscience. I have to ask, based on your post, what is the other side of the non-violent revolution coin? I'm really having trouble parsing this sentence: "That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages." I don't know what "that" or "your minorities" refers to. The Vox uprising in the game is an amalgam--there are obvious similarities to Nat Turner's rebellion and to the Boshevik revolution, both of which were pretty freaking bloody.

The Vox and Founders do not have a master slave relationship, so Nat Turner is irrelevant. It completely parallels the situation of blacks in the USA in the mid century, so Boshevik is irrelevant. I mean dude, the game is drenched with historical Americana and notions of white superiority.

But it ignores the reality of how the civil rights movement in America was actually won. The way the Vox behaved… perhaps the founders were right to oppress them. That's what's uncomfortable. The game cops out by saying both sides are equally bad. That's a chickenshit way to make a game that aspires to great ideas.

P.S. It's not that I didn't have other problems with the story. If I recall, in his universe, religion served only to justify oppression, whereas in actual American history abolitionists and civil rights advocates have often been motivated by their faith.

Yeah. I mean, the civil rights struggles in the USA were mostly won through nonviolence. Yet here the Vox are bloodthirsty savages. Two sides of the same coin Irrational says! Uh no. That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages. That could work if the game explored the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed vis a vis violence, but it didn't.

Note that when I mention abolitionists and civil rights advocates, I'm not just talking about those who were minorities. I certainly believe that the success of the 1960s civil rights movement owes a great debt to MLK's religious appeal to a mostly religious country. Successful non-violent revolutions depend on those with power having a conscience. I have to ask, based on your post, what is the other side of the non-violent revolution coin? I'm really having trouble parsing this sentence: "That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages." I don't know what "that" or "your minorities" refers to. The Vox uprising in the game is an amalgam--there are obvious similarities to Nat Turner's rebellion and to the Boshevik revolution, both of which were pretty freaking bloody.

Did I ever tell you about the time I accidentally almost broke TrueAchievements a year ago?

Sit on my lap, son—and I'll tell you a story...

But honestly, back on topic—I did post a little hastily, but I felt so surprised that TA had such a near-perfect review of D2. I wasn't surprised by Yahtzee of course, his quips and gripes are what make the show—but I was surprised that he complimented the design(though, at its most basic level). And when he said that staring at the wall in awe of the design was more exciting than playing the game, that obviously was a less than near-perfect review. My general opinion of D2 as a whole is average/slightly above average, so basically in the middle. Most of the opinions I've seen on varying sites over D2 range from nods of appreciation to shrugs of indifference, to pure hatred. It just intrigued me to see this shining beacon of what seems like adoration!

Now I don't remember who said it anymore, the reply got lost in that soup of crazy up there--but they were right, people can have opposite opinions, and they have the right to do so, as well.

I have my own "review" of Destiny 2/Beta on Word somewhere, and I nibble on it from time to time. I'll try and get that up soon, but it'll also be a wild mess.

Whenever I make a thread, people knock it so far off the tracks, it sinks in the ocean!

Then flies up into orbit.

P.S. It's not that I didn't have other problems with the story. If I recall, in his universe, religion served only to justify oppression, whereas in actual American history abolitionists and civil rights advocates have often been motivated by their faith.

Yeah. I mean, the civil rights struggles in the USA were mostly won through nonviolence. Yet here the Vox are bloodthirsty savages. Two sides of the same coin Irrational says! Uh no. That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages. That could work if the game explored the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed vis a vis violence, but it didn't.

It's stupid and lazy.

Completely disagree.

The plot threads surrounding Fitzroy, from her role as the only friend to Lady Comstock when that unfortunate woman was forced to live a lie by her Prophet, to her being framed for Lady Comstock’s murder, to her discovering the plight of her people (the ones not privileged enough to work in the homes of the rich), to finding she could be a rallying spark to free her people, to unfortunately becoming obsessed with revenge and revolution through violence.

Hers was a complex, heartening, tragic, and dangerous tale that was smartly told across the entire game. And the messages were clear. People in Fitzroy’s position could be comforting friend and also, with the wrong push, could be murderous leaders.

Lazy and stupid, it was not.

P.S. It's not that I didn't have other problems with the story. If I recall, in his universe, religion served only to justify oppression, whereas in actual American history abolitionists and civil rights advocates have often been motivated by their faith.

Yeah. I mean, the civil rights struggles in the USA were mostly won through nonviolence. Yet here the Vox are bloodthirsty savages. Two sides of the same coin Irrational says! Uh no. That just makes your minorities bloodthirsty savages. That could work if the game explored the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed vis a vis violence, but it didn't.

It's stupid and lazy.

Cause the more I drink the more I like to cuddle! ;)