Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: yet another part of the media blitz

  1. #1

    yet another part of the media blitz

    http://www.joystiq.com/2012/12/07/ex...hock-infinite/


    "One area of the city is dedicated to the bravery of John Wilkes Booth, who Columbia's population says rightfully murdered the man responsible for the wrongful emancipation of the union."

    hmmmm .... confededrate flags (if they weren't so controversial) might be more appropriate instead of those pseudo US flags ???

    Religion with the point of pro-slavery now ??? This game is seriously warping away from what it was originally shown as.


    Little to do with 'American Exceptionalism'


    I wonder what it will warp into next.

    ----------


    "after being forcefully baptized for permission to enter its walls in his secret search of Elizabeth"

    less and less...


    "DeWitt wins a raffle which awards one "lucky Columbia citizen" the right to throw a baseball at an interracial couple.
    "

    hmmmm....


    "Enemies take quite a few shots before they fall " ..."This, however, may be remedied by purchasing upgrades"

    sounds like Crisis - upgrades instead of skill ... fabricated gameplay

  2. #2
    yeah, that's weird, they hate Lincoln now? what about the Lincoln mask Elizabeth wore in the E3 2011 trailer?

    it sounds like they've made Columbia less sympathetic, I mean jeez, now it sounds like the Vox Populi are totally right and Columbia deserves to burn

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by vimandvigor View Post
    yeah, that's weird, they hate Lincoln now? what about the Lincoln mask Elizabeth wore in the E3 2011 trailer?

    it sounds like they've made Columbia less sympathetic, I mean jeez, now it sounds like the Vox Populi are totally right and Columbia deserves to burn


    Will have to see what the vox populi have morphed into. "Burn baby Burn" is hardly a basis for society.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tejas (but I've lived all over)
    Posts
    6,668
    Quote Originally Posted by watchman View Post
    hmmmm .... confededrate flags (if they weren't so controversial) might be more appropriate instead of those pseudo US flags ???
    Except that same article states that Columbia was a proud member of the union. So, no, a Confederate flag doesn't sound more appropriate.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by japester View Post
    Except that same article states that Columbia was a proud member of the union. So, no, a Confederate flag doesn't sound more appropriate.
    So were the confederate states before the slavery issue made them secede. Many men from every confederate state went to the North to fight FOR the Union during the Civil War.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by vimandvigor View Post
    it sounds like they've made Columbia less sympathetic, I mean jeez, now it sounds like the Vox Populi are totally right and Columbia deserves to burn
    Told ya that leftists are right. I can only hope you are given a choice to side with the Vox Populi at the end...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    211
    It does seem like they moved away from Lincoln as he was shown in the E3 trailer, but in order for there to be one extreme, there has to be a polar opposite. I would wait until to see the Vox in action before I assume intent regarding their portrayal.

  8. That's just it. Why can't we just wait and see what has Columbia turned into? I don't think that the game will show that the Vox are the right guys and that the Founders and Comumbia itself are the wrong fraction. I mean, Ken said, that the gamer will choose the side which you want to be sympathetic to. So maybe this is one of these sections, where the descions were made differently than before. How can we know which part of the game it is. Maybe the conflict is pretty advanced at this point and we do not even know any of the circumstances and the things that happened before. I would be patient and not overreact because some info may seems different than before. I bet that Irrational and the Bioshock Infinite Team have thought about all that...and they took their time to do so. I can not imagine that they have wasted the time and now change Bioshock Infinite to some strange transfer picture of what it has been before.
    See, all the ones who have played it were simply amazed. And we know that they were expecting a great game. So why should it be a bad one now for us? I remember when almost everybody complained about the setting. They wanted to go to Rapture once again...and now Columbia is fine with everybody too. When images of Booker were revealed a lot of people complained about his style and look, that he has got an own character and almost everything. And now it is fine too. So why can't we just wait for the final result and THEN start to complain about the things we don't like. After we are able to judge the game as a whole piece of art and not just some small glimpses that have got no real context with the story and the feeling at all?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by fullmoonstar View Post
    That's just it. Why can't we just wait and see what has Columbia turned into? I don't think that the game will show that the Vox are the right guys and that the Founders and Comumbia itself are the wrong fraction. I mean, Ken said, that the gamer will choose the side which you want to be sympathetic to. So maybe this is one of these sections, where the descions were made differently than before. How can we know which part of the game it is. Maybe the conflict is pretty advanced at this point and we do not even know any of the circumstances and the things that happened before. I would be patient and not overreact because some info may seems different than before. I bet that Irrational and the Bioshock Infinite Team have thought about all that...and they took their time to do so. I can not imagine that they have wasted the time and now change Bioshock Infinite to some strange transfer picture of what it has been before.
    See, all the ones who have played it were simply amazed. And we know that they were expecting a great game. So why should it be a bad one now for us? I remember when almost everybody complained about the setting. They wanted to go to Rapture once again...and now Columbia is fine with everybody too. When images of Booker were revealed a lot of people complained about his style and look, that he has got an own character and almost everything. And now it is fine too. So why can't we just wait for the final result and THEN start to complain about the things we don't like. After we are able to judge the game as a whole piece of art and not just some small glimpses that have got no real context with the story and the feeling at all?
    Very well said Full, I agree on all of that. Adam sesslers review was really good and he stated he's never seen a game take a direction like Infinite has and he hopes games more of the future do. I've read nothing but good about it thus far and am still perfectly confident in the game. I'm not going to formulate any major thoughts on Bio till i've played it myself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    213
    Why are people so afraid of change? I mean... in a case like this, we can almost be certain it hasn't changed for the worse... Ken Levine knows damn well what setting/moral conflicts are interesting to play in and why would he change it if it was for the worse?

    The team at irrational has decided to slightly shift the focus points of the game's themes and who are we to say it was for the worse, while we haven't even seen more then 20 min of in game footage...

  11. #11
    Well I remember concerns being raised back during the development of Bioshock as well, and that turned out quite all right. Of course: this is rather different, with an already established fanbase with very high expectations, but still.

    People may have different opinions and preferences, but in the end it is up to the creators to make the game that THEY want. I am, for example, not too happy about the introduction of salts (or EVE, for all points and purposes). I thought a "charge" based system made sense as it would force the player to try different original things, something Bioshock didn't really do.. at all.

    Point is: Not everyone agree with me. Frankly most people seem to disagree, and that is fine. It is not my call.

    I have been lurking around here for a while (not bothering reviving my old account as I was a little wet behind the ears and wrote some silly things) and while Watchman seems like a man who knows what he is talking about, he also strikes me as somewhat of a pessimist. No offense intended.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    764
    Just going to say this (because i don't think anyone else has). during the 1800s-1950 or so, America was very racist. even though the civil war was a fight against slavery, the union was just as racist as the confederates, but they just didn't like the idea of slavery.
    I REALLY like where they have taken Columbia (from the looks of it in the new gameplay). Much more dark, like Bioshock should be. originally i was like "What's wrong with Columbia, apart from that a few of its citizens are wacko" but now I'm thinking "Good gosh, i gotta destroy everything in this dang city!!!! this place is insane!!!! :O"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    216
    It's not that they didn't like the idea of slavery...it was a economic reason foremost...the south was dependent of slavery for the cotton harvest, and the industrialized north needed consumers of its products, and slaves are not what you could call "ideal" consumers...

    But getting back on topic, I don't know if did change so much as you state....the very first image of the game it was a poster that merge Washington and religion pretty much(a very racist poster also). Much of the Exceptionalism concept is tied to religion, to been destined to be the shinning city on top of the hill. Every concept of destiny in itself cause feeling of superiority, that some people are the good, and others are bad or inferior. That's way so many religion wars happened throughout history. And if you remember that the founding founder had slaves(even if they were against it, the fact is they did have slaves) so for the Founder in Columbia to consider slavery a accepted concept would be natural.

    As of the amount of shots you need to defeat the enemies...the first Bioshock was just like that, but if you choose the right upgrades, you could defeat them way more easily. What you consider skill? to be able to rapidly move the mouse? I for one am more interested in managing my resources to get the upgrades that match my play style and analyzing what is best against every kind of enemy, for me this is far more interesting than a bunch of easy to kill enemies that only that my "ability" with the mouse(or gamepad).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.bubbles215 View Post
    Just going to say this (because i don't think anyone else has). during the 1800s-1950 or so, America was very racist. even though the civil war was a fight against slavery, the union was just as racist as the confederates, but they just didn't like the idea of slavery.
    I REALLY like where they have taken Columbia (from the looks of it in the new gameplay). Much more dark, like Bioshock should be. originally i was like "What's wrong with Columbia, apart from that a few of its citizens are wacko" but now I'm thinking "Good gosh, i gotta destroy everything in this dang city!!!! this place is insane!!!! :O"
    Correction, America is still racist, it is just hidden under the rug with all the dust bunnies and only discussed openly in closets and behind dead bolt locked doors.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by vsharres View Post
    It's not that they didn't like the idea of slavery...it was a economic reason foremost...the south was dependent of slavery for the cotton harvest, and the industrialized north needed consumers of its products, and slaves are not what you could call "ideal" consumers...
    Yes that's right! it was the abolitionist who were the ones against the actual idea of slavery while the north just didn't like it for economic reasons!
    And Y'know, i don't know if they've changed "a lot" per say, but something about it looks a lot darker in my opinion.... maybe we just didn't see the stuff we're seeing right now in the original game play? I mean, if you go back and watch the Beast of America trailer, there are only tiny parts that look different than in the original games and such. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they've changed it. it could just mean that it's new segments of the game that we're being introduced to. So in my opinion, story and game play wise, i don't think anything has been changed, just "upgraded" to look better in my opinion.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tejas (but I've lived all over)
    Posts
    6,668
    I believe the change in Comstock is indicative of larger shifts in the story. The Founders went from a political to a religious group. Comstock isn't so much a statesman as he is now a prophet. And Vox running around in makeshift devil costumes shows how they are playing on that same theme.

    The emphasis on racism may or may not be new. I do feel that they ratcheted it up a notch or two in the current version of the game.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    211
    The shift in focus for the Founders has been pretty big, but I wonder if most of the racist stuff was always there to begin with. Keep in mind, the first video we got of gameplay opened with the mural of Washington towering over all the different racist stereotypes. You could probably go back even further to the debut trailer with the poster of "Burden not Columbia with your chaff", which shows the Columbia goddess telling somebody's dark-skinned baby to talk to the hand.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by 9ice View Post
    The shift in focus for the Founders has been pretty big, but I wonder if most of the racist stuff was always there to begin with. Keep in mind, the first video we got of gameplay opened with the mural of Washington towering over all the different racist stereotypes. You could probably go back even further to the debut trailer with the poster of "Burden not Columbia with your chaff", which shows the Columbia goddess telling somebody's dark-skinned baby to talk to the hand.
    The baby also had down syndrome or some kind of birth defect, but the baby Columbia was holding was a perfect baby. The whole white is superior to all thing is vastly overdone in my opinion, I am still waiting for Vox Populi to stage a flash mob and replace union flags with the one commissioned by the Nazi party. I am also willing to bet that there are levels of 'whites' that even Columbia has no time or resources to care for.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    24
    As I recall, there were hints and details that suggested the Founders were both racist and xenophobic (which is fitting of the setting) - so a white born in Ireland would be treated poorly as well as a nonwhite individual born in the U.S./U.S. territories. I suspect anyone who isn't male, wealthy, or Protestant would get the same treatment, too. There was also that whole manifest-destiny/nationalism thing - the whole reason Columbia was supposed to be isolated in the sky and separated from the U.S. was an incident they created in China (heavily exploited at that time).


    There's far, far too little to know what the game is like (or isn't like) to properly judge - to me, at least. I'm still cautiously optimistic, with a hint of paranoia and excessive excitement, as to how this game is going to be. Considering my experience and typical nature, that's pretty normal.


    My only concern in this particular case is: if instead of discussing things like nationalism, imperialism, white-man's burden, manifest destiny, or similar issues ("etc.") of the time, they simplify the Founders into nothing but some dumbed-down idea of religiously zealous and shallowly** portrayed racists, it's rubbing out most or any historical and fictional interest, and any complication or shades of gray. Creating two purely black sides isn't a gray issue, it isn't a nasty situation of severely flawed people or groups of people, it's just an asylum of one-dimensional nuts. Ones that I can't suspend my disbelief enough to think are real or people I should care about (positively or negatively).
    Part of the reason I was looking forward to BioShock Infinite was the way it would use little details of culture or history, and (even if a bit crazy) discuss serious issues with some interesting thoughts to bring in. So if this was the case, I'd be disappointed. But that's a pretty big "if," because (as I mentioned), there's no good way to tell beyond what has been seen and what they seem to be trying to advertise to others to make them buy. And, actually, seeing a few things now (I'm catching up), this seems it will be a non-issue. Levine seems like they'll be making it a lot more interesting than that.



    **Note: In saying, "shallowly portrayed" racists, I mean people that are portrayed with no believable behavior (they're just evil cuz evil type of thing), and presented with things the majority of people recognize as automatic symbols of racism - such as segregation, now typically unacceptable slurs, lynchings, etc. This isn't to say that isn't racist, it obviously is, but racism goes deeper and acts in more subtle or less-talked of ways than that, too.

    This is just using commonly accepted or known aspects (cliches) that have been beaten to death to make it seem like one's making some profound point about a serious issue, when they're only touching the most shallow, superficial, or obvious parts of it. Which means it's not actually dealing with or thinking about the issue, and that's extremely frustrating in many ways.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by vsharres View Post
    It's not that they didn't like the idea of slavery...it was a economic reason foremost...the south was dependent of slavery for the cotton harvest, and the industrialized north needed consumers of its products, and slaves are not what you could call "ideal" consumers...
    Much of the South was poor (little industry and rich people with slaves and slave labor driving down wages). The South owed the Northern banks 300 million dollars (in THAT times money) and there is speculation that could have been an important incentive for the rich borrowers to want to secede. The North's industries were already (booming) building the economy and the South was largely stuck in an agrarian economy selling cash crops.

    And if you remember that the founding founder had slaves(even if they were against it, the fact is they did have slaves) so for the Founder in Columbia to consider slavery a accepted concept would be natural..
    If you remember, the ones from the North didnt - the forming of the country almost didnt happen over that issue.



    ---

    So now Infinite has morphed from the historical issues around the turn of the 20th century (immigration, labor unrest) to refighting the Civil War/Revolutionary War (slavery, religion, economic manipulation)

    The part I want to hear is the explanation for why the 'have nots' simply havent left Columbia for the rest of America (where people simply left such troubles behind and move to new areas where opportunities existed).

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    211
    I don't think any of the original issues ever left. They've pumped up an almost cult-like aspect to the Founders, and I don't think we'll be seeing any giants Lincoln heads any more, but there's still a lot of social issues there that were absolutely prevalent around the turn of the century. A lot of press releases have mentioned the crappy work conditions that workers in Columbia have to endure, as well as immigrants like the Irish being relegated to second-class, despite the fact that they are the same skin color as the Founders themselves.

    As to why the have-nots simply don't leave? For starters, I imagine that Columbia, even when it was "official", may not have allowed much exit traffic. If Columbia was really the shining example of the American possibility, then freely allowing people to leave because it actually sucked to live there would be counter-intuitive. Not to mention that it's not exactly easy to leave a city floating thousands of feet in the sky. Sure, escape is theoretically possible (steal transport, stowaway), but not easy.

    The same argument could have been made for any persecuted minority living in America at that time. Just packing your bags and leaving to go somewhere where you "might" not be discriminated for being black or Irish or Chinese isn't realistic. So many immigrants were taking a huge risk just to get to New York or Boston or San Francisco, that as soon as they found ANY kind of work that kept their ribs from meeting their spine, they took it, even with the discrimination and lousy conditions, because they were not about to risk their lives, and the lives of their families, rolling the dice again. However, after a while, when the conditions get egregious enough, the minorities start to agitate for equality, just as it seems the lower classes in Columbia seem to be doing.

  22. #22
    I would think that Columbia when it was 'official' was a 'show city' full of 'actors' (people acting out their roles to present how great America was to the heathens - like they do at every exhibition). It would be a potemkin village and not a real city -- all false fronts and facades and would not be self-sufficient. It would be funded/organized by US government and/or rich people who thought it was a 'good idea'. That there would be any large nuimber of immigrants/'the wrong sort' present initially is not overly logical.

    So then there was this 'Founding' and it would not be 'everyones cup of tea' and many people would try to leave and suddenly its not so 'America' any more. The whole city would have to be ringed with a 'Berlin Wall' to keep the dissatisfied from leaving (and who now funds and supplies a whole city) - awall with guns facing inward. Very hard to pretend its still 'America'.

    So now Columbia is a police state/theocracy with the 'haves' living in their gated/fortified compounds and the 'have nots' slaving away to provide for their 'betters'.

    Huge amounts of supplies have to flow into the city (even with a small town population) giving plenty of opportunity to 'jump ship' -- assuming someone is still clandestinely supplying the place (else they turned pirate/slavers and would have the world out to apprehend them/blow them out of the sky).

    All of this is in case its all not mass mind control (and the opposing faction just lets people out of the delusion as pawns to gain power for themselves). The stormtroopers on the side opposite the Founders sure do seem well equipped for 'poor people'/down-trodden (and now faceless to eliminate that feeling that you are wholesale slaughtering real people).

    The same argument could have been made for any persecuted minority living in America at that time. Just packing your bags and leaving to go somewhere where you "might" not be discriminated for being black or Irish or Chinese isn't realistic. So many immigrants were taking a huge risk just to get to New York or Boston or San Francisco, that as soon as they found ANY kind of work that kept their ribs from meeting their spine, they took it, even with the discrimination and lousy conditions, because they were not about to risk their lives, and the lives of their families, rolling the dice again. However, after a while, when the conditions get egregious enough, the minorities start to agitate for equality, just as it seems the lower classes in Columbia seem to be doing.

    Historically, large numbers of blacks DID leave the south and moved north or west to get away from the southerners attitudes.
    The Irish took the path of other immigrant groups and melted into the white population.
    Many immigrants joinerd relatives that had already been established and moved inland from the coast cities or headed for land grant farms.
    People of all kinds headed West many building completely new communities.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    211
    Of course it would have the "wrong sort" on board. Even a Potemkin village needs someone to clean the toilets. The big shots aren't going to do that themselves, and it could certainly be argued that a lot of the upper classes would be ignorant of even basic tasks of self-sufficiency. Columbia had to have a massive support staff just to maintain flight, to say nothing of maintaining mainline civic services.

    It's entirely possible that a lot of people found a way to leave Columbia, not unlike real life minorities escaping discrimination. But my point is that even when you had things like the Great Migration, there were millions of African-Americans who didn't leave the South. There were Irishmen, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, who stayed in cities like NYC or Boston, despite working the crap jobs and crappier attitudes from the WASP elite because they weren't about to take any more chances.

    If you were a Russian Jew fleeing to America from the pogroms, and the best you could do was a service job that was demeaning and beneath your intelligence, but your family was relatively safe and you could feed them, you weren't too likely to roll the dice on uprooting your family again and trying to find someplace better. A lot of people absolutely did during the Western Expansion, but a lot of people looked at the risk and said it wasn't worth it. They didn't have great lives, but they had some security in the cities, whereas moving even further into an unknown country where the chances for survival were vastly lowered on the chance of maybe having something better, especially after what a lot of immigrants had to do just to get to America, was just one leap too far.

    I would imagine for a lot of people in Columbia the thinking would have been similar. Columbia, for better or worse, is their home. Their families live there, their friends are there, why should they leave? They probably had been running from persecution their whole lives, and they weren't going to run any more, they were going to fight for a better future. And thus, the Vox probably came into being.

    Ultimately this is all academic. They might not address any of this in the game, or maybe there are characters we meet that discuss this in detail. Right now what we think is the case is just that. It's what we think. If the logic they give in the game doesn't work for you, Gamestop will gladly take it off your hands.

  24. #24
    The 'actors' in the potemkin village would be chosen for their particular look and function (to present a carefully tailored tableau to the foreigners who are to be impressed - possibly including a smattering of 'happy' token immigrant types). Exhibitions end, and the 'actors' would expect to go home, and families would be undesirable (except any 'show' families) as they would just increase the burden on population support/facilities/space/supplies(overhead) AND especially the Expense. The facilities would likely be all up to date - certainly what any 'exhibition goer' could see (and I dont think the city would be serviced by troglodytes living in the steerage basements - servicing has to go on at all hours, in plain view). Unskilled people would not be desired (with all the gadgets alot of those jobs are supposed to be shown eliminated or reduced) and everything else requires skilled workers (who would have choices 'on the surface').

    After the 'change of management', many of the 'show city' pretenses could be discarded (I still dont see how it supplies itself in any case - and the change would lose their previous supply chain). Feeding everyone would be the first priority (and I dont see the thousand of acres of good farmland needed to supply basic foodstuffs required for a small town).

    Likely with the initial 'founding' ouflow, they would have to 'restock' the 'lower class' (kidnapping people, or getting visitors who find themselves stranded) who also probably would not like their situation (otherwise where is the Island of the Oompa Loompas to get the laborers??) Its funny that the 'props' originally shown (the immigration form with the various 1900 classifications) implied they didnt want any of the 'wrong type' (making it odd there would be so many of them --- allegedly).

    --

    But then maybe now the game setting is now to be a religious schism/faction fight, and no longer a class struggle issue being the source of friction and cause for our blast-fest fun. Police states have no problem oppressing people. There is substantial firepower in evidence in Columbia --- not what you would find with a police force found in any typical American city/town at that time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •