Talk:BioShock Infinite/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"not part of the storyline of previous BioShock games"

- surely this is incorrect, as Rapture makes a cameo (but nevertheless crucial) appearance late in the game? --81.152.119.223 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What would that have to do with their storylines being a part of each other? One does not influence the other. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, it's established there's multiple universes - and that at least 122 versions of the one the Luteces took Booker from. Thus, there's no reason to believe there's only one universe that Rapture exists in, so we can't make the claim it is the same Rapture from BS1. It's clearly a Rapture, but not the Rapture. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying it's part of the same universe but not the same storyline? That strikes me as splitting hairs and creating unnecessary confusion. --81.136.143.173 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, because there's "infinite universes" here. There's technically "our" universe (with the songs pulled through the tears). Obviously, technically, Irrational simply reused assets of Rapture for that scene but in terms of story, we can't tell if that specific Rapture is the Rapture Jack visits in the first game. It looks the game, has the same disrepair, but given that we're told infinite worlds exist in the nature of Infinite, we simply can't imply if that is the same Rapture of game 1. And because we can't infer that, we certainly can't infer that the events of Infinite influence the first game, or vice versa. It's better to be vague as possible with the storyline here . --MASEM (t) 13:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd hardly characterise the appearance of Rapture as "crucial". The player passes through it for all of thirty seconds, and does not interact with any characters or events from the first (or second) game. The events in Rapture could technically happen in any place and at any time - moving through it is simply a means to an end. Its inclusion is a shout out to fans of the series, not a crucial part of the story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BioShock Infinite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Well, this is a pretty exhaustive article. My concern is that it needs a serious rewrite. A lot of the article is inaccurate or out of date due to being developed and written long before the game actually came out. For most games, this isn't an issue… but for Infinite, it most definitely is.

To wit, the comments about Columbia being a dystopia, or fueled by Nazism, are almost entirely sourced to the initial announcement of the game, informed by things like trinkets given to the reporters that don't actually make it into the game. Likewise, there's nothing in the game that describes multiple factions beyond the Vox Populi and Founders. A lot of the backstory seems not to necessarily apply to the game as it shipped (for example, the assertion that Elizabeth is the reason for the civil war.) Some of the info is now flat-out wrong: for instance, the tears don't affect people as described. The Boys of Silence don't appear to be blind at all anymore, considering you can run by them loudly and are only caught if within their beam.

Along with the accuracy issues are the fact that previews and development content crops up inappropriately and borders on the irrelevant. Frankly, it doesn't matter that the Revenge of the Jedi scene was originally in a 2012 media preview event and that it changed scenarios.

Finally, tenses are plain wrong throughout the article, i.e., The player will not directly control Elizabeth, Irrational Games has considered options for a multiplayer element.

Some other things:

• Not counting the setting section, the plot and character section are 2,200 words, which seems pretty excessive. I don't think you need a full paragraph on every character to understand the plot.

• The development section is a bit long-winded, but I think that would be helped by addressing the issues above (i.e., cutting the scenarios that didn't actually wind up in the game.)

• I feel like the reception section is still a work in progress, especially regarding how a lot of what I would simply consider more negative commentary on the game is put into a "controversy" section; I think it would be better to include it with the other commentary. My gut reaction was also to suggest organizing the reception section by element rather than reviewer, although given that there are weighty chunks given over to more philosophical elements of the game, regarding the religious messages or the role of violence in the game, that might not be the best option either.

• • In terms of adding content to it, I noticed there have been a bunch of more recent articles that could add more support for the discussions about the role of violence in the game. Extra Credits[1], and Ars Technica[2] (Actually I think this is a case where the discussion about the game is far more interesting and thought-provoking than the initial hype and reviews, but unless someone quotes me on that in IGN or whatever I suppose that shouldn't matter :P)

• On the image front, I think there could be better use of non-free images than what's there. For one thing, there's no image of what gameplay actually looks like, as opposed to a lot of prerelease stuff that could probably go (I'm also not entirely sure that File:Bioshock-infinite-propaganda.jpg is actually non-free as it looks to me like a redraw of public domain work without enough changes to actually qualify for copyright. On the other hand, I'm not even sure that piece of work ended up in the final game so I think we can do without it either way.)

Given that a lot of the above issues are deeply structural, I'm failing the article as it stands. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Controversy section, I think a lot of that content would find a better place in a "Themes" section, worded slightly differently. I don't believe any VG FAs have this section, to my knowledge (Spec Ops: The Line has a rather well written one, though not a FA), so you'll have to base it on sections from film and book articles (e.g. Fight Club). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Rapture" v. "an underwater city"

A small edit conflict has come up wherein a handful of users (myself included) are in disagreement over some wording in the article's plot section; specifically, there are those who favour sticking with the current "Elizabeth opens a tear, transporting the three of them to an underwater city[...]", whereas others, such as myself, prefer "Elizabeth opens a tear, transporting the three of them to Rapture[...]". The main source of the 'underwater argument' is that, since there is no confirmation that the Rapture shown in Infinite is the same one shown in the first two games, the more ambiguous wording should remain. Darkwarriorblake also gave a reason that "people do not, by default, know what Rapture is, not everyone has played the previous two games".

I must say that I fail to see how either of these provide any reason for us to remove the word Rapture from the article (especially when we're keeping the link itself). Whether the Rapture shown in Infinte is the same or not does not change the fact that a Rapture is shown,a and unless we elect to remove the link completely, hiding the name is a futile gesture. Secondly, "not everyone has played the previous two games" is likewise, not a valid excuse; are we to say "Luke Skywalker was a mystically empowered warrior" simply because somebody might not have seen Episode IV?

I am of course, open to discussion. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't question that the setting we see in the late act of BI is an underwater city named Rapture. However, because of the multi-verse theory the game puts out, it is very difficult to say it is the same Rapture that the events involving Jack and Delta take place in that the Rapture article describes. (It is the same reason we have a footnote about Booker at the ending, we have no idea if that is the Booker we have been playing for the entire game or not). It is a subtle detail but one that we don't want to create the implication that the three games all take place in the same timeline. I would be willing to call it Rapture but with the same footnote like with Booker (if not the same note) about that it is not necessarily the same Rapture as before. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A Jedi is common knowledge, you don't need to understand their philosophy, it's a character type from star wars that wooshes a light saber about, in an article explicitly about the particular subject. Dropping "Rapture" into an article that has no direct relationship to a game about Rapture is confusing for a reader where "an underwater city" creates a complete and instant understand of the area. Someone should not have to go read another article to understand one word when we can keep them here and educate them in three words. To claim that Jedi and Rapture have teh same kind of common knowledge is some acrobatic reasoning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The underwater city is very clearly Rapture and it serves to really hammer in the fact that Infinite takes place in the same "universe" as the previous two games regardless of how one understands the multi-universe ending. I don't know why one person is reverting the change when obviously multiple people feel that not censoring the information is important. Xicillin (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Censoring would be removing the link entirely. This is about avoiding misleading the reader by making it appear it is the same Rapture that appears in the timeline of the events of BS1/2. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's two users to two, not just Masem. The appearance of a Rapture is fan service not actually worth mentioning in the plot because nothing you do there ties into those games, it literally should only be described as an underwater city. The use of a link is a compromise because fanboys cannot stand that the fictional city from the game they like is not mentioned. Assuming you are the IP, you're far in violation of the WP: 3RR rule now as well. And you do not know what censoring means. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a note to reflect the multi-universe possibilities. Xicillin (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I must say, Darkwarriorblake, I do disagree with your view that Rapture's appearance is not worth mentioning at all; it is the scene of a major character death, and is vital to the ending as it serves to help explain the multiverse. There is also the fact that, whether Rapture and Columbia are in the same universe or not is besides he point, as Elizabeth is clearly capable of transcending those barriers (so whilst they may not have actually visited the same Rapture, they would certainly have been able too). I'm afraid you're also missing the point of my Jedi comment.

I suppose, however, that another note should be sufficient. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A character dying there who is unrelated to that place does not negate my initial comment, that people do not know what the f* Rapture is and shouldn't be expected to go to another article to find out. Please explain to me why "an underwater city" does not suffice to explain where said major character dies but "Rapture" does? Please explain why a reader whose only experience is Infinite should be expected to go AWAY from the article we WANT THEM TO READ to find out what the hell "Rapture" is when we have the option of literally describing it as "an underwater city". Now instead we have about 5 times as much text, both visible and hidden, explaining it is A Rapture still without explaining what Rapture is. These articles are not meant for people who played Bioshock 1 or 2, they're meant to be accessible to everybody. I think I got the point of your Jedi comment exactly, it just didn't work as you had originally thought it would. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire point of the Wiki is to explain and provide information for the reader. If somebody doesn't know what Rapture is, they will follow the link; saying something along the lines of 'if they don't know what Rapture is, they shouldn't be given the option to follow the link to an article telling them what Rapture is' kind of defeats said point. I suppose you'll be wanting to remove the links to that massacre and the Chinese troubles next, since an individual might not know what they are and subsequently shouldn't be allowed to find out. Also, re my Jedi comment: no, you didn't get it exactly; you say that, the fact that the concept of a Jedi is more well known does not negate the fact that there are individuals out there who will not know what they are (i.e. people who may not have seen the films). As you yourself said, our articles are meant to be accessible to everybody; so restricting them only to those individuals who have played that particular game / watched that particular movie / heard that particular song is self-defeating.

Finally, I had hoped this would be a civil discussion, so there is no need to capitalise and shout, or swear at me. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"'if they don't know what Rapture is, they shouldn't be given the option to follow the link to an article telling them what Rapture is' " Is that really going to be your argument when it was already a link to Rapture, just under the words "an underwater city"? Your argument is flawed at best, the link was there, it was just descriptive instead of fanboy obtuse. There is not a person alive in the western hemisphere who does not have a loose understanding of what a Jedi is, there is a RELIGION around them, to compare them to a background setting in a modest selling game is insane. The capitalization is to get the point across because you were clearly not getting it and kept on throwing out strawjedi arguments.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that is your argument, it seems. I don't see why I need to provide one myself, given that all I am proposing is we change the wording to match what it actually is; you, on the other hand, still haven't provided a reason as to why, exactly, use of the term "an underwater city" is better than use of the city's name, especially since the link remains... Once again, you fail to understand the point of my example; I could have used any term for my argument and the point would stand, there will always be people out there who have heard absolutely nothing about a particular concept. That said, I salute the effort you went to to confirm with every single individual in the Western world that they held at least a loose understanding of the Jedi concept. Now, what about our readers from Japan? (Unless they're now part of the Western world as well.) --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, now this changes everything... --MASEM (t) 13:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So it seems. Masem, does the article give a planned release date? (I'm at work and so cannot view that webpage.) --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't (Levine tosses "done when its done" and mentions the next gen console release dates as hoping not to be that long. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on pre-release award table

I'm a little wary of that table in there now, since while its factual and verifyable, it's a bit overemphasizing E3 awards (that translates to hype but not necessarily sales). Granted, there's reasonable expectation as end of the year awards come out that BI will get numerous nominations, and depending on how many, it may make sense to create a separate article for the awards list (bigger films due this too). Personally, when it comes to these awards, if the game's racked up numerous ones, I just tend to focus on the biggest ones from each of the major publishers or organizations even if there are numerous awards from "lower" categories too (eg if a game had Game of the Year, along with voice acting, technical excellence, etc. I'd just focus on GOTY, and here, if the acting is critically praised, identify those too). But that's just my opinion. I don't think we need to remove the table now, but should re-evaluate when the actual end of year awards are listed to see where BI stacks up (suspecting that Last of Us and GTAV will be stealing some of its thunder...) --MASEM (t) 14:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say like other issues with the article since it was so well-formed before release, is that it does indeed overemphasize stuff that isn't as important in a long view--namely the prerelease awards. I think your thinking is correct, although I'm not a fan of separate "accolades" articles, because they really start feeling like promo fluff to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Worth an "in popular culture" section?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/12/16/tea-party-group-unironically-utilizes-bioshock-infinite-propaganda/

It is now officially impossible to parody American politics. Hcobb (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really for just that. If there were a lot more things to go along with it yes, but one entry isn't really significant to add. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-free review

The usage on non-free content on this article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting this...

I'm a little hesitant to do this, but I'm considering splitting this article to put everything under "Development" and "Marketing" to a new article, leaving short summary sections in there, calling the article "Development of Bioshock Infinite', equivalent to Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Even if we moved the awards stuff to a separate list article (Which is reasonable) this article is really pushing SIZE issues. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't really see what size has to do with it on a digital webpage, I would certainly support moving those sections to a seperate article. At the very least, it will help streamline the article and improve readability. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. WP:SIZE has to do with user readability as you said, as well as for people with poor internet speeds. It also makes it harder to edit because you have to search through so many walls of text. This split will also allow us to add even more content(if needed) when it would have been excessive if still merged. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as Blake says, we do consider about 50 k of prose size the ideal range for both readability and accessability and 100k to be too much; we're at 131k. Fortunately, this is a reasonable natural split so one to definitely consider. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The article could probably do with a prune elsewhere as well. I'm seeing the odd bits and pieces of legacy text from before it's release, so I think a general overhaul would probably be in order, along with the split. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone (I forget who ) has already done a good job at pruning the gameplay for the actual game release, though I'm sure some legacy still remains. But even a scrub of legacy issues will probably only drop about 10% of the current text at most, so yes, a split is still warranted. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone mention that despite being beautiful bioshock infinite is incredibly boring and longwinded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.38.82 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully support splitting these sections off to Development of BioShock Infinite with summaries in this article. In fact, I was going to open up a discussion about it back in late October (even copying the contents of the development section to my sandbox, to see how big it was) but never got around to it. The page is simply too long to navigate comfortably given the extraordinarily long Development section. In fact, Masem, your GA Review back in June failed mainly on the back of problems the reviewer found with the Development section's sourcing. If you had two separate articles, this one would be much easier to bring to GA Class. Fuchs even admitted the article was very exhaustive in his review. CR4ZE (t) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have completed the split. I'm going to let the bot that rescue references figure that out itself so give that a day for the bot to trigger. However, if people could check both the summaries on this page (for Deve and Marketing), and on the main page, that would be good. One possibility that when I did this was to keep the DLC on this page though under "Development", since its more related to the plot and game, but it's 6 of one/half-dozen of the other where it works best. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

new text to main page

Why was this taken out of the text? "The city became, as described by Nick Cowen of The Guardian, "a kind of roaming boogieman moving from place to place and imposing its will on people below". Columbia has been compared to a cross between steampunk and the Star Wars planet Bespin's Cloud City,[11] as well as the airships from various Final Fantasy games, though Irrational's Ken Levine considers the weaponized city similar to the Death Star." Doing a website archieve of this page this was on the main page for over a year. Why was it taken out? I think it's a cool quote and should have stayed.

Also, I thought this was interesting and should of been added somewhere on the main page: Ken Levine has described Columbia as "The American Exceptionalism, theocracy-based power structure has been around the edges of American culture for a long time. BioShock Infinite gives it its full day in court." source: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bioshock-infinite-ken-levine-interview-beasts-america-401270

Would like thoughts and opinions on this. Sorry for not asking this earlier on the talk page before doing so. Thanks for your time guys. JamesHedgesKick (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the lines; I'm sure they were in good faith. Hope this answers your question:

• The "Setting" section should provide a clear, concise, and straightforward description of the game's setting; it should simply be described as it is depicted in-game. Take for example BioShock's, Final Fantasy XIII's, and Dishonored's setting sections. They simply describe the games' settings with respect to the story and characters.
• Also, the section is already too big. The given information is already adequate enough to give a basic description of Columbia.
• Moreover, a year ago, this entire article was filled with information that is now out of date. Wrath X ( talk ) 11:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I can see the angle your coming at for the setting, but do you not think Ken Levine, who was the creative director for the games, quote about Columbia shouldn't at least be added somewhere? "The American Exceptionalism, theocracy-based power structure has been around the edges of American culture for a long time. BioShock Infinite gives it its full day in court." I think that's an spot on quote about Columbia. I'd like to see that added somewhere on the page. If you decide it should be, I'm fine with you adding it where you see it would fit the best within the main page. I think it's a great quote. JamesHedgesKick (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Death Star quote from Ken Levine, I think, should be added in an article about Columbia and its development/conception. Problem is there is no article for Columbia (yet?).

Also, I read the source for "The American Exceptionalism, theocracy-based power..." quote, and it's not really about Columbia, it's just Ken Levine talking about the game and the political theme it explores. --- Wrath X ( talk ) 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On that post-credits line

Hi guys,

Having finally played the game (thank you PlayStation Plus!) I just recently read through the article. It's in great shape, so congratulations and thanks to @Masem: and @Wrath X:. One thing that bugs me though, is the bit on the post-credits scene. It reads as follows: "In a post-credits scene, a Booker awakens in his apartment on October 8, 1893. He calls out for Anna and opens the door to her room before the screen cuts to black.". First, does Booker actually wake up? Here's the scene on YouTube. The player gets control over Booker again, and he whispers "Anna...?" softly, then louder "Anna?" and while opening the door "Anna, is that you?". There are no sounds or moans that would be suggest he's waking up, or Booker acknowledging that he was sleeping. Waking up has different connotations: it could mean waking up from a slumber or waking up from a dream, or to finally be awake or to have something awoken. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to "Booker is back in his apartment" and leave it at that?

Second, the note that reads "The game does not clarify if this is the same version of Booker that the player has played as, or a Booker from a different alternate reality". The previous paragraph says Booker allowed himself to be drowned, so shouldn't we leave it up to the reader to decide what the scene means? I'm all for having "a Booker" and not "Booker", but I think that this note takes it too far. Just by pointing it out that it could be another Booker, the article leans to one of the two options. What also comes to mind is that the coinflip by the Luteces suggest the current Booker is in a line of 120 something previous Bookers who have tried and failed, but that realization only comes after the conclusion. Also, when dying without Elizabeth, Booker is back at his appartment, which could mean that everytime Booker dies, another Booker takes his place. This isn't a constant for every playthrough however and has no place in the plot section of course. --Soetermans. T / C 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Gains consciousness" is fine - we just know we're at that scene, how or why we don't know.

On the second point, the note was necessary (in addition to a hidden comment) because people kept removing the "a" from "a Booker" (we've established there have been many). If the note can be improved, that's fine, we just need to be clear that the Booker the player played as for the game is (ETA) not necessary same one that is in the tease, especially as we saw him drowned. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem so I've really got nothing to add. --- Wrath X ( talk ) 15:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, "gains consciousness" could imply he wasn't conscious before the scene. What do you think of my suggestion? "Booker is back at his appartment"? I see why the note and the hidden note were necessary. I'll try to think of a way to rephrase the note. --Soetermans. T / C 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Use English properly

As with many other Wikipedia articles, this one contained a sentence which made absolutely no sense whatsoever to a native speaker. I'd remind non-native speakers that if you're going to edit articles in something other than your mother tongue, it'd be in everyone's best interest if a) you're fluent in the language, and b) you don't get overly creative concerning word usage. Just because it seems to Google translate properly doesn't mean that it's anything other than complete gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.0.86 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bioshock Infinite as criticism of Mormonism?

I don't think Bioshock Infinite is about religion in general. It seems to be about Mormonism in particular! Zachary Comstock...

1. Is called "The Prophet"
2. Founds a new American religion
3. Physically resembles Brigham Young,
4. Exhibits mannerisms and tones of voice consistent with portrayals of Young and Joseph Smith in Mormon films
5. Publishes a book "The Word of the Prophet" that is clearly the Book of Mormon
6. Leads a group of mostly white people away from mainstream American society to a new land to set up his own government. Columbia is Salt Lake City.
7. Demands that all new adherents be baptized or re-baptized by immersion
8. Believes in American exceptionalism and attaches religious significance to the founding of the United States (as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants do in fact teach)
9. Is a racist. (Although way more extreme than Brigham Young)

There was no historical alliance between the Mormons and the Confederates such as the game suggests, but the game does seem to clearly be meant as a critique of Mormonism. They even have the bees, which are clearly a reference to Deseret (Book of Mormon). This seems like it would be extremely obvious to anyone familiar with Mormon history but I'm having difficulty finding sources that point this out. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be original research for us to make that connection. We'd need a secondary reliable source to make that claim. I do note this [3] that has Levine noting that there is some Joseph Smith in the Comstock personality, but that the game is much less conservative compared to the actual Young figure. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"the game is much less conservative compared to the actual Young figure" -- where does it say that? I'm only seeing a comparison of "sinisterness" not "conservative." Do you think these two terms are somehow synonymous? --BenMcLean (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant in that Levine states that he presents a much less conservative (in this case, more sinister) version of the Mormons than reality. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In the voxophone recording "Born in the River", Comstock's biographer Ed Gaines says, "They'll call me a plagiarist, but I'm going to spend the first 30 pages regurgitating scripture." This is a common criticism of the Book of Mormon raised by skeptics. It gets called "plagiarism" because it quotes extended passages (with attribution) from the Bible, especially Isaiah. --BenMcLean (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of accolades received by BioShock Infinite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

no need for 2 articles, especially as only the prizes, not the nomination are appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I only created the awards article to reduce the main article's huge size. I really wouldn't mind merging them as long as the development and maybe marketing sections were split. Wrath X ( talk ) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps moving the accolades to be for the entire franchise? --MASEM (t) 06:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Having separate accolade articles is fairly typical for articles that have won or been nominated for a lot of stuff. With a little work, this could very easily be a Featured List. See, for example: List of accolades received by My Week with Marilyn or List of accolades received by Mr. Nobody which is significantly shorter that Infinite's list. There are currently no FLs for List of accolades received by (Any Video Games) but this could definitely be the first. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I see no problem with this accolades article. --SubSeven (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So has the matter been settled? --Wrath X (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 17:01 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears so. For what it's worth, I would have opposed the merge on grounds that the article is large enough as is. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The nature of Booker's debt

Concerning this revert, which has removed a clarifying detail that the character Booker's financial debts were gambling debts, Jasca Ducato supplies as ground for the revert the following: "Given the way the story turns, it would be false to state it was a gambling debt, no matter what the character in-game believes". If we were to follow this rationale then, we must remove all mention of the "mounting debt" since it never existed. But we can't strike the comment altogether because it is essential to describing the character's motivations at that point in the story without immediately getting caught up in a convoluted discussion about later revelations which are not yet germane to the synopsis. It is common practice in a synopsis of a story concerning a character who has confused notions about the past to present information about what the audience knows about said character, in the order which the audience is let in on these details. So, for example, in our article on The Sixth Sense, we don't note that the main protagonist isn't actually having a conversation with his wife when he thinks he is, because he is in fact dead; in our article on the film Moon we don't note that the protagonist is never actually sending messages to his wife and daughter because he is in fact a clone of the man he thinks he is and was never meant to communicate with them; in our article on the film Shutter Island we don't note that the main protagonist is not in fact pursuing a criminal investigation because he is in fact a patient in the very mental facility he is investigating; in our article on Planet of the Apes, we don't note that the protagonists have landed on a future Earth at the beginning of the synopsis because at that point they believe they are on a different planet entirely; we don't note that Darth Vader is Luke's father until it is revealed in our The Empire Strikes Back article; we don't note early on that Paul Atreides is the Kwisatz Haderach come a generation early in our Dune article. Oh, and, as if this could be any more on the nose, we don't note the truth about the main protagonist from the original Bioshock who sports a near-identical confusion about his origins and role to the other characters as Booker does; in the beginning of the synopsis for that game's plot, we say that said protagonist, Jack, was on a plane that crashes (passive as to his role) into the Atlantic - we don't note that he actually hijacked and crashed it himself until the point in the synopsis where he himself is aware of those actions. Nor do we describe the "Would you kindly" twist at the point where the phrase is first used, but rather only later, when it is revealed to be a conditioned trigger and this a plot point.

I could go on like this for days. As far as I've ever noticed in my long involvement in this project, in not one case of a synopsis anywhere on Wikipedia do we present the facts, as we know them at the end of the story, as the reality presented to audience at the beginning of the synopsis. This is because the twist element in any speculative fiction is context in itself and to understand the content of a story via synopsis, it is preferable, if not necessary, to present the story in as close a fashion to how it is originally presented to the audience, built-in lies and all. I daresay that this issue may never have been explicitly covered in an RfC, but it's clearly an element of innate consensus by which editors have been working with regard to all articles concerning fiction. Please do not revert again unless you can provide a compelling argument as to why this should be the exception, trivial though the addition may be. Snow talk 22:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we can surmise some of his debt is due to gambling (the race sheets on his desk), but the "debt" that would be washed away could include other financial debt in addition to the moralistic debt that he owns himself. To limit it to just "gambling" debt is wrong. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Masem. Actually, Booker does specifically note the debts as gambling debts early on in the game and further, in interviews concerning the game, before and after the game's release, Ken Levine described the debts as gambling debts when describing the character and his reasons for being in Columbia. Snow talk 01:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise,

Per WP:BRD, we have to discuss reverted edits first, before adding them back in and not the other way around. WP:BURDEN says it's up to you to show that what you want to add is factual, those who disagree with you do not need to disprove your claim.

Now, concerning the 'gambling' bit, 'debts' cover 'gambling debts', whether it is hinted at or stated clearly. Adding 'gambling' however makes it too narrow for other kinds of debts, monetary or otherwise.

Maybe you can be more specific, at what part in the game does Booker say something about gambling? And concerning interviews, even if they're with the developer, those are outside of the game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Precision is good but this I think is a case that being less precision specifically because the story isn't is better; it's still some type of debt, and we're clear that Booker entered a period of drinking and living dangerously after the battle, so implicitly it is the gambling financial debt but that is the minor plot point compared to the moral debt that he wears after the battle, even if that is not stated. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not across-the-board opposed to discussing the implied secondary meaning of the debt, but I do believe, as a matter of policy, we must limit discussion of the debt to refer to his gambling debts within the narrow context of his motivations as they are stated to be at this point in the events covered by the synopsis. For that narrow purpose we can use the story itself as a primary source; any other metaphorical extensions that we may interpret in the plot, though I grant you that they are obvious, are nonetheless original research as no one in the story ever directly makes that correlation. Mind you, I'm not going to oppose such interpretations if they are added (in the later paragraphs of the synopsis covering the events where the double meaning becomes obvious) -- because, come on, we all see it -- but any such references are technically OR.

By comparison, Booker, within the first two minutes of the plot, states all of the information contained in the following paraphrase: "I owe debts [shortly specified as gambling debts] to the type of people you don't want to owe money too; that's why I'm here." That's therefore a sourced comment (sourced in that policy allows a work of fiction to be cited itself for it's own synopsis, but only if we don't make interpretive/evaluative claims), that can be reflected. Anything further meanings would need to likewise quotable if we were to give them equal standing, such as Booker saying outright: "Oh, I get it now - I thought the debt was related to my gambling, but actually it's about my obligation to you." Which of course, he never does, because that would be awkward and silly and banging the audience over the head with the meaning of a double-entendre that is easy enough to assume as is. We can still include it, if we're all comfortable with it, but I see no reason to let this abstraction supplant the meaning that is directly relayed by the plot, especially long before that extracted secondary meaning is even revealed, at the very end of the story, especially in a section that is not about interpretation and metaphor, but about presenting the story precisely as it is conveyed, without editorial interpretation.

Bear in mind -- and this is something I've not seen widely reported as a take-away from the plot, though it seemed to be implied to me -- I don't think Booker sold Anna/Elizabeth to pay gambling debts even in the past; likely he did have a dangerous gambling habit, since he pulled a lot of reality into his false memories, but there's a moment were it is strongly suggested, to my interpretation, that he gave up Anna in exchange for absolution from Comstock of his sins regarding his war crimes. Why he desired that after turning his back on faith in the baptism is rather confusing, but hardly the only confusing element of the plot, and I do feel it's implied. Of course I would never try to add that, since it's complete interpretation/OR, just as is moral debt to Elizabeth is, only more-so. But I mention it just to underscore my reasoning that we are presenting the debt as a purely financial/gambling one at the beginning of the synopsis because that is the only meaning the audience is supplied by that point in the story, not because it is the only possibly meaning. Even if we knew conclusively, by the end of the game, that no such financial debt ever existed in reality ever we still need to present it in the manner in which it is presented to the audience, as per the principles discussed above.

@Soetermans, fair question: there are many points at which the debt is alluded to be of the gambling variety, but the one time that Booker explicitly specifies that they were of this nature is during a conversation with Elizabeth in one of their interludes while exploring Columbia early into their relationship. Vague, I know; I'll find the exact location in the plot so you can confirm for yourself if you are so-inclined.

BTW, and I don't mean to nitpick, because you are clearly just trying to promote the collaborative principle, but it's a point worth remembering for these circumstances, anyway - BRD is an essay, not a policy; we don't exactly "have" to be consistent with it. As essays go, it's broadly respected as a good rule-of-thumb, but does not reflect community consensus in the way policy does and there are circumstances where it is not exactly applicable. The closest thing we have to it in terms of absolute policy is WP:3RR, which, for the record, I would never violate, least of all on a trivial matter such as this. Honestly this is more an exercise in policy and keeping our approach to the synopsis consistent over the project than it is something earth-shattering to the article itself. And yes, I fully appreciate that you were likely just meaning to stress the need for consensus and I fully agree on that point.  :) And in any event, WP:BURDEN is relevant, and as such, I will try to get Booker's exact comments regarding the gambling distinction and supply it here as soon as possible, the game's damnable lack of a manual save not withstanding! Snow talk 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

System requirements

I attempted to add the system requirements to the article only to have them almost immediately removed. How are the system requirements not relevant to the article?? Bioshock 2 has the system requirements in the article, so why shouldn't Bioshock Infinite?MisterZed (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bioshock 2 shouldn't have them either and they have been removed from there. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide some justification? Why shouldn't they be in the article? While you're at it, you may as well remove them from the Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 articles as well.MisterZed (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We're writing game article for the general public, and found that system requirements are generally a hodge-podge of terms and abbreviations that only make sense to the gamer, so it was decided to remove them unless the requirements are the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Page layout

Hello. I've recently completed this game, so naturally I've been looking at the article quite a bit. It's all in good shape–in fact, I'm really impressed by how good it is–but I'd just like to inquire about the page layout. Almost every video game article lists the main four sections as Gameplay, Plot, Development, Reception. However, BioShock Infinite lists it as Plot, Gameplay, Development, Reception. Of course, there is no specific guideline stating the order of these (even the guidelines itself lists them as a "suggestion"), and it doesn't really bother me much anyway, but I just thought I'd bring it up. Is there any reason that they're in a different order than most articles? Thanks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 12:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is much easier to describe the gameplay and some of the concepts once you've established what the plot and setting are (eg who Elizabeth is and how she interacts with tears, etc.) Most other games are straightforward in this area so gameplay before plot does make sense there. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this for me so quickly! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

SAVE GAME system needs to be at least mentioned!

The miserable save game system (checkpoint saves only, like console games) needs to be at least mentioned. I consider it a huge liability, and in fact never completed the game because of it's failure.

I'm also surprised at the glowing positive review here in Wiki, when I know the price for the game on Steam dropped dramatically fast - which indicates poor sales to me

ps I paid ~ #13 for the game 6 months ago 98.255.42.182 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

System requirements (PC) SHOULD be included!

Masem's logic for removing them from an encyclopedia article blows my mind - talk about dumbing down an article - do you think gamers never read wiki or what?

98.255.42.182 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupy Movement

Levine is specifically stated having used the Occupy Movement to adjust the story "As we developed these opposing groups, the Founders versus the Vox Populi, it was interesting to see this play out in real time, so that the fictional movements we’re creating that are set in this heightened past are almost being duplicated in reality." per the WA Post article [4]. There is zero reason to remove this. --MASEM (t) 07:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this removal again. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Strawman Religion

Some comment should be added mentioning that : what is being portrayed as 'Christianity' (as the primary American religion attached to the alleged history basis of the game's setting) is nothing of the sort, with no mention of Jesus or Christ -- which is the foundation of that real religion. Instead you see strange idolotry and symbolisms which would have been found abhorant to the majority of Christian sects in America (then and now).

The period social issues which are supposed to be being highlighted is done through a fraudulent presentation which works against acceptance of it being anything 'real' (and thus relevant) - not just for religion, but through faulty societal history and very poor fantasy science. So much of the promotional materials (interviews and such) implied they did a lot of research to try to present Turn of the Century America with some realism. Unfortunately they really only contrived a very poor version of anything realistic at all -- easily compared unfavorably to the real thing. 75.36.141.193 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be original research for us to make that distinction; we need a source that says that the "christinity" is not really that. I think we do allude to sourced discussion of it being a cult of personality in how the Founding Fathers were revered as religious figures, however. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)