A few more thoughts that didn't quite fit into my review.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
--On whether Comstock is a true-believer or a charlatan: he's pretty clearly (to me) the former. Exploiting tears and choosing a future based on all possible outcomes may be cheating in the Prophet game, but it doesn't reflect anything about how Comstock sees himself and his faith/delusion. He in fact may view his access to this ability (albeit granted by the science of the Luteces) as evidence of his Prophet-hood. Notice he doesn't let a lot of other people use his technology. The angel Columbia came to him and bestowed this gift. If anything, Comstock is a pragmatic true-believer. Remember: he has a mission in mind (to "drown in flame the mountains of man") and in order to reach the universe where he pulls that off, he needs to navigate the choppy waters of the infinite universes. Maybe "the Prophet" thing is seed for the marks, but the man still pretty clearly believes in the destiny he sets for himself.
--Speaking of the Luteces, how were they luring Booker into their universe to stop Comstock? Presumably, Booker's debts had been paid by selling Anna/Elizabeth, right? Unless he found some more in the intervening twenty years, which he well may have. But how do they reach Booker with their offer and why doesn't he recognize them the first time he runs into them in Columbia? And who was the body in the lighthouse with the warning about not disappointing them (one of the 122 Bookers that failed, maybe)?
--And what's Rosalind Lutece doing in Columbia in the first place? We know that she and Robert were killed as a result of their plan to stop Elizabeth from fulfilling Comstock's prophecy, so it's safe to assume that neither is a dyed in the wool Comstock-ian (Robert, having only been pulled into Columbia because his counterpart was already there, threatens to leave if Rosalind doesn't help in this mission). Combined with being scientifically-inclined and British (right?), they don't seem perfect fits for Columbia's racist, nationalist, hyper-religious society in the sky. Maybe it gave them a chance to work on their quantum mechanical discoveries that they never received on the ground, so they put up with the ideology as background noise and rebelled when things started going too far? That makes the most sense to me.
--Last point on the Luteces: if the same person from separate universes can be of different genders, what is the mechanic that determines the differences between universes? Booker's decision to get baptized/not baptized and the reliability of coin flips (chance doesn't seem to be affected) would each indicate that choices are the determining factor. Given that Infinite takes place in 1912 and presuming that the Luteces were born forty or fifty years before that, gender choice must be taken out of the equation. So how did one Lutece end up female and the other male? And what implications does that have for other dimensionality differences?
--A grassroots progressive movement calling themselves "the Vox Populi." Ridiculous.
--In his Gameological review, John Teti (in one of several underwhelmed reactions) laments the short-shrift given the political aspects of the game: Comstock vs. Daisy Fitzroy and the parallels with Tea Party vs. Occupy, etc. I partly agree with this, and said as much in my original review, and understand the disappointment. But the thrust of Infinite is Elizabeth, not the Vox Populi. Booker's purpose in Columbia is to "bring back the girl" and only gets drawn into brief confederacy with Fitzroy out of necessity. And Teti even calls the Elizabeth/universe bending aspects the game's "most compelling thematic thread." Infinite could not have given both plots their due focus and done credit to either. Something had to give and Ken Levine and his developers made the right choice in focusing on something so comparatively under-utilized in gaming and narrative forms overall.
--Teti also expresses dissatisfaction with the implied false equivalence between Comstock and Fitzroy, which I agree may have come off a bit ham-handed as Infinite attempted to tie up that arc. However, I'm not sure the game ever implies that these two are on the same level. Fitzroy has too strong an obsession with image and keeping a clean narrative, but her goal (whatever the manipulative and violent means to achieve it) is a freer and generally less exploitative Columbia. That's not the same thing as Comstock's racially pure society with a holy duty to incinerate "the Sodom below." Both are barbarous assholes, but only one is a purposefully evil barbarous asshole. Levine never stoops to calling them equally terrible. Again, Booker has no truck with Fitzroy and doesn't aim to gun her down as he eventually does Comstock. Elizabeth only runs Fitzroy through (with the most intense pair of scissors you'll ever see) after Fitzroy threatens a child. Which, okay, dick move. But Comstock remains undeniably the chief villain, beginning to end.
--For all those interested in narrative construction, especially in games, I highly recommend Kevin Wong's article on the meta-commentary of Infinite. Wong does a much better job than I did of highlighting the differences--and occasional conflicts--between authorial intent and player choice. He also makes some observations about games and free will that do not bode well for even the most vivid game characters. Not to mention the players controlling them.
--Love the touch of Comstock viewing Abraham Lincoln as "the Great Apostate." And a fraternity founded in reverence for John Wilkes Booth. The historical Easter eggs are fantastic.
--Finally, there's probably not any chance of DLC containing new levels or anything like that, is there? Season Pass exists, but it mostly looks like weapons upgrades. Infinite really is too tightly constructed to allow for additional levels, anyway. Which is a shame on the one hand because Columbia, like Rapture before it, is a place I'd happily explore for hours more. On the other, a sequel along the lines of Bioshock 2 that would provide further exploration but little more satisfaction may only prove disappointing.
No comments:
Post a Comment