*SPOILER ALERT*
Slate's review of Bioshock Infinite is compelling. It's a great example of a modernist critique of a postmodern viewpoint (modernists believe that scientific and social advances can save humanity, while postmoderns are disillusioned with progress and champion individual autonomy).
This article clarified what I did and didn't like about the game. I really liked Ken Levine's decision not to have Dewitt side with either the Founders or the Vox because neither was worthy of his allegiance. The Slate reviewer really seemed to want him to join the Vox Populi and complained that they weren't more sympathetic. This complaint is based on the premise that rebels are rarely as bloodthirsty as their oppressors--a statement that is immediately contradicted with historic examples of revolutions that clearly made things worse. Levine's decision to have everyone turn on Dewitt is called heavy-handed, but so is asking that he change a major theme just to suit one's personal politics.
On the other hand, the review pinpointed what's been bugging me about the ending. The Founders/Vox conflict follows the classic thesis/antithesis structure. Levine forgot that for this model to work, you need to supply a third option: the synthesis. He disdains exploring a middle way in favor of skipping straight to nihilism. This tactic contradicts the stated "Extreme ideologies aren't worthy of belief" theme because nihilism is as extreme as it gets.
I'm generally opposed to critiquing the game I wish they'd made instead of the game we got, but by way of friendly advice I'd suggest that Levine could resolve the paradox he walks into by subjecting his own systematic doubt to a little healthy critical thought. If he'd paused to examine the content of each ethos instead of judging them based solely on the sins of their fallible human adherents, he might have found room for a second, noble resistance movement like Gandhi's--or because FPS's do need a modicum of physical conflict--one modeled on the American Revolution which was fought with comparatively restricted continental warfare.
Or, to invoke my own background, he could've avoided treating religion like a monolith and answered Elizabeth's question thusly: "You're right. We don't deserve to be saved. No one does. Salvation is totally gratuitous." If your conflict hinges on the Christian economy of grace, you should take the time to understand it thoroughly. "Redeem" comes from the Latin red + emptus: "buy back". In this context it alludes to POWs or slaves being ransomed by their king, who buys their freedom not because they earned it, but out of sheer generosity. It's difficult to see how Booker never stumbled across this basic teaching. Elizabeth's ignorance is even more jarring since her theological credentials are solidly established. Thus the characters' frequent brooding over redemption strikes a sour note.
But because Levine's one criterion for a movement's validity (Thou shalt not kill.) is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, his story manages to illustrate a strongly Christian point. Money can't save us. Technology can't save us. Charismatic leaders can't save us. We can't save ourselves, and what's more, we don't deserve to be saved. Upon making these conclusions, the characters despair; thus committing the only sin that is truly unforgivable because it rejects all hope of mercy. The biblical metaphor that the hopeless would be better off drowned is then applied literally.
Thus Bioshock Infinite remains a masterpiece, albeit unintentionally.
Posts
6 comments:
Quality game its my game of the year
Check out my blog that is dedicated to FPS games
http://fpsdomination1.blogspot.ca/
It might be a bit early to declare a game of the year, but I'm not seeing much on the horizon to dethrone Bioshock Infinite.
The antithesis to the vox and the founders conflict was Booker's love for Elizabth. Also this idea that Infinite is a masterpiece by accident is absurd. You either think it is our it isn't.
Bryan:
Thanks for commenting. I may not have been clear enough in laying out my thesis/synthesis/antithesis critique. The way I saw it (confirmed in interviews by Ken Levine), is that the Founders and the Vox are antithetical to each other (hence their conflict).
I pointed out that the game lacks a synthesis or middle ground between both extremes. Since Levine defines extremism as killing for a cause, Booker and Elizabeth's relationship can't be the synthesis because they do in fact kill for each other.
I do consider Bioshock Infinite a masterpiece. I also maintain that it achieves that status by unintentionally making a point contrary to its actual intent. These statements don't contradict each other since they answer different questions ("what" and "how").
I feel much the same way about the original Star Wars (for proof, watch the first version that Lucas edited himself).
Thanks again.
Thanks for your response.
I feel like Levine meant to show that when factions like the vox and the founders fight, you are either with them or you aren't. So like most people once you realize that all of these political parties are really just seeking control and are two sides of the same coin, you don't go out and form an opposing faction, you invest in your self, in your family and in the people you love.
You never fight for a 'just cause' because one of the most important points of both Bioshock's is to show that the very concept is a fallacy.
And you're right about how as your playing you kill for Elizabeth but that's the point of the ending. Booker's sins infect everything, a clean slate for both him and Elizabeth is the only way for them to truly be happy.
The need to be happy and content of course, is what the vox and the founders are fighting for (what we are all living for). The point is that we will never achieve utopia through ideologies, but by simply loving and caring for one another (which yes is in of its self an ideology but with out it Infinite could be viewed just as nihilistic navel gazing)
Well said, sir.
Post a Comment