BioShock Infinite Review

Storytelling that reaches for the sky

Columbia, the vibrant city in the sky

I loved the original BioShock. It was the first first-person shooter that demanded I play it despite the fact that I didn't play those types of games. There was just something about it that I wanted to experience as soon as it came out. It was given to me as a present, and I ended up buying a $250 video card for my computer so that it would run correctly. I don't regret any of that because my curiosity turned into adoration and excitement as I played through the dark, sunken halls of Rapture. BioShock was a creepy experience that questioned the idea of free will through a unique combat system and deliberate visual design.

Starting BioShock Infinite was a wholly opposite experience. In contrast to the scary, confined spaces of Rapture filled with suspense about what's around the next corner, Columbia, the city in the sky, is an open, bright environment, and it's loud. The game wastes little time into throwing you into a world that you are pressed to comprehend as it's all being thrown at you. You play as Booker DeWitt, a former Pinkerton agent tasked with getting a girl out of Columbia and bringing her to those who have indebted you. As soon as you land, you are confronted with all of what makes the city tick.

Booker walks through a city in celebration of itself with a long trail through confetti and parades and carnival games. There are no shootouts or worries as you travel down the path to the first narrative impetus, and surprising as that may be, it is not the first time Columbia lets you take the world in. These moments were some of my favorite and most treasured. Although I will try not to spend an entire article contrasting BioShock Infinite with its predecessor, I will note that the times I was able to walk freely around and explore helped me believe in Columbia more than Rapture, where once you were done with one task, you had little else to do but head to the next. Columbia is also alive – you get to experience quite a handful of scenarios that place Booker with actual living people, who are not maddened nor are they turning on him at first sight. Once the violence of the game actually does start, walking freely among the living creates a different kind of suspense, where you spend every minute wondering when everything will just go wrong again. You know you aren't safe forever, and you find yourself wanting to lap up every drop of calm you can.

Riding the sky lines like a boss.

Of course, BioShock Infinite doesn't offer a lot of calm, and Booker is forced to defend himself against hordes of foes who try to take him down. To aid, the game offers a slew of guns, whose variety grows insanely larger as you make progress. Booker is also aided by vigors, solutions that offer inhuman abilities once imbibed. Initially, you gain the ability to coerce machines into attacking your foes instead of yourself, but soon after, you are able to throw fiery grenades that aids with concentrated groups. There are eight abilities in all, and each one can be upgraded twice with money found off bodies, in chests and boxes, and on the street. In fact, possessing a vending machine nets you a handful of money. Like ammo to guns, your ability to fire off your vigors is limited by available salts, and each vigor uses a different amount of your salts with use. Although salts can be easy to find both during and after firefights, it becomes imperative to consider which ones you want to use at a given time just in case you'll be taken by surprise before reviving.

The most unique battle aid of all comes after you meet and rescue Elizabeth, the aforementioned girl, who is actually a mysterious young lady imprisoned by the zealous and xenophobic Comstock, leader of this flying marvel of a city. Elizabeth possesses the ability to open "tears" within the environment, which can yield replenishing items, different weapons, or even navigation options. It is this ability that makes her special and wanted by Comstock, but the origins of how that relationship came to be is thoughtfully explained throughout the narrative until the finale.

Although Booker is tasked with bringing Elizabeth out of Columbia, he is thankfully not required to protect her. Unlike Yorda in Ico, Elizabeth is not helpless; she is more like Elena in Uncharted 2 in both positive and negative ways. On one hand, Elizabeth effectively navigates battle arenas without being harmed, and she will often throw ammo, health, and salts that she finds to you as you need them. On the other, she is nigh invincible in a disbelief-suspending way. I watched as she ran right through one of my exploding grenades to take cover, gracefully remaining unfettered as four men melted to ash right next to her. She also has her creepy moments, such as when I watched her take off running down an alley only to pop up right next to me when I ask her to unlock a door, another ability she brings to the table. Since she is not able to unlock doors during battle, I'd be willing to wait the extra ten seconds or so for her to believably walk back to me to help.

Sometimes, the game tries to be creepy like its predecessor.

Very early on, Booker (and eventually, Elizabeth) is granted with a skyhook, a device that allows him to ride rails that connect the various floating islands that make up Columbia and also to bludgeon foes with. The mechanic is certainly new to me, and it can be fun to make your own roller coaster fly-through the expansive environments. However, they also serve a strategic purpose during battle, allowing Booker to fly off to higher ground or cover or to attack foes while he rides. They were such a fun installation that I was a little disappointed about how deliberately they were entered into environments. They always either served a narrative or combat-related purpose and very rarely aided in exploration or finding secrets except in some earlier areas.

I realize that my complaints seem geared towards exploring Columbia despite BioShock Infinite being a first-person shooter. To me, the ability to experience a real, living city in the middle of a first-person shooter was what really shined in this game whereas many games in the genre impress such immediacy that the player is not permitted to bask in the work the designers have created. As a shooter, the game succeeds ably – weapons and abilities work, and there is good variety in both of those and in enemies. But I feel like the game failed to actually make me feel powerful by the end. Surely, I upgraded my weapons and vigors and would pull off crazy stunts like forcing five enemies to float in the air while I attacked them with electric crows followed by a shotgun blast. Those moments, by all means, are integral parts of BioShock's character and appeal.

The problem is that doing all that and then watching the enemies land on the floor and continue attacking you is disheartening. I played on Medium difficulty (recall that I'm the Easy mode guy), and instead of the enemies acting more strategically, they were just bullet sponges, a problem I also had with Uncharted way back when. The worst offenders were the Patriots, robotic effigies of Washington and Lincoln, who were plain immovable, only able to be stunned by the Shock Jockey vigor or similar environmental hazards. Compared to fighting Big Daddies in the original BioShock, these lacked humanity. I was literally fighting statues with mounted chain guns.

If it isn't caucasian, Columbia doesn't like it.

No, the Big Daddies of this game seem to be the Handymen, created from citizens extending their lives with oversized, artificial husks with exposed heart containers. But unlike BioShock, Handymen join the cavalcades of enemies that rain upon you, adding to what becomes an overwhelming insanity circling Booker and Elizabeth. I eventually grew tired of the overpowered combinations of foes the game would throw at me before the final battle sequence, which is mostly an irritating survival mode where Booker must slay round after round of enemies until the game finally gives you the ending you waited for.

Oh, but what an ending it is. The story of Booker trying to take Elizabeth out of Columbia and away from Comstock ends up being a twisting tale of choice, redemption, and freedom. It all culminates in one of the very best finales I have ever witnessed, where a single moment made me feel every emotion my body could handle at once. I was left with my mouth agape as I tried to process what I had just witnessed, and I still had about five more minutes of the ending to play through. It was brilliant and certainly another one of Ken Levine's ouevres that is a must to experience, particularly after one has played through BioShock. Though Booker's own character arc and Elizabeth's rival the predecessor's protagonist quite headily.

Barring the amazing main story and character arcs, the remainder of the writing is great at leaving a fantastic first impression even if much of it is ultimately not resolved. Columbia is a city with a lot of character, not just colored by its scientific innovations and religious overtones but also its political influences. An early sequence in the game perfectly demonstrates just how racist and xenophobic these people are, and Comstock directs them all to a fault.

Religion plays a large part in this game.

Taking place in 1912, black and foreign people take their historically given place at the end of the line in BioShock Infinite. Making no qualms about confronting the very real bigotry that took place in the early 20th century in the United States, people of color and different creed are all in subservient roles, and their portrayal in illustrations and advertisements is villainous and revolting. The downtrodden find their hope through the Vox Populi, a rebel group headed by Daisy Fitzroy, a former servant. When Booker begins his journey, they are mentioned in passing, but eventually the story confronts you with their soldiers and their mantra quite often. The path that storyline takes becomes an excuse for events to occur as opposed to an important driving force behind them, which is a bummer.

There is also the story of Songbird, Elizabeth's jailor and protector before Booker arrives. He is a destructive character that Elizabeth is tied to in an emotional relationship similar to Stockholm syndrome. As the story progresses, Booker is threatened and knocked around as Songbird chases the two partners around Columbia, but it was not as oppressive and continuous as I was expecting. I had hoped for scenarios where I was authentically trying to evade him, either by hiding in shadows or running between safepoints. None of this came to pass, and his arc ends with a surprising moment dulled by his lack of real presence or character development.

A lot of effort was put into conveying a detailed and believable city.

All these elements are honestly fascinating. You find yourself wanting to know more about them, and the characters involved obviously have depth. When you are playing the game and experiencing events with them, your attention is arrested by them. It is more the lasting feeling that leaves you wanting more. Whereas the finale stays in your mind and your heart like a parasite, these other elements are passed like a stone when the game is done. It is a shame because they have such presence, and the Vox Populi storyline is very relevant to race relations today.

Everything I have described is all portrayed through absolutely breathtaking environments and beautiful music. The soundtrack, aside from featuring a compelling score, also features odd covers of songs from later decades in our history, such as "God Only Knows" sung by a barbershop quartet or "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" played on a calliope. Columbia features varying though narrative-driven weather and times of day. Atmospheric effects and excellent color choices make every element of the city pop regardless of the weather. Textures also looked really good up close, with some very weird exceptions like flowers and bushels of apples, but neither of these detract from the awe-inspiring vistas. Character models are overused, though.

One of the moments I was delighted to witness admist all the craziness.

BioShock Infinite is a wild experience. The city of Columbia demands attention, and the story takes the player through some unforgettable sequences while also giving the player ample time to take it all in, a gift from the developer. And it all culminates in a final act worth talking about until Ken Levine's next brainchild comes out. But my major gripes with the combat scenarios and some narrative letdowns prevent this from being the perfect experience I hoped it would be. I love the gift the game has given me despite these things. It's hard to describe without spoiling it, but trust me when I say you must play this story. Just play it on Easy if you're anything like me.

All screenshots taken through Steam.

On BioShock Infinite and Roger Ebert (and Art)

A man once said something contentious. That man is dead. Is there meaning in it?

Roger Ebert after losing his jaw but not his spirit.

This week, famed movie critic, Roger Ebert died. Subsequently, some people took time out of their days to reiterate their vitriol towards the man. The man once claimed that video games are not art and could never become art, so some awful people saw fit to trounce upon his death as if his cancer was related. I feel the hate was unnecessary for reasons beyond the idea of taking delight in a man's death.

Reveling in someone's death or saying that person deserved it is vile. When I learned of Roger Ebert's comments on video games, I said, "He can go fuck himself," which is a common feeling one can have when someone criticizes something he finds important but is not available for debate. But I did not wish him cancer or to lose his lower jaw. Can you imagine how horrific it would be to have any of that happen, to know you were bound to die or be disfigured? If you think that is tantamount to hearing that a well-known movie critic thinks video games aren't art, well, you should reevaluate your life up to this point. (You may leave.)

Ebert had no direct effect on my life. When I was younger, and Siskel was alive, I would occasionally try to catch their show on FOX whenever the station randomly decided to air it. It was a fun show and a justification for staying up late like I did then. I didn't await their reviews, and I never consulted critics before going to watch a movie. Fast forward to present day, and my only interaction with him in the last few years was clicking on links to a few of his essays, which were all intelligent and well-written. He was a smart, cultured man, and I had every reason to believe he was good-natured, as well. Although I'm not bummed about his death, I'm not elated about it either. Everyone deserves better.

Much to my surprise, his death started to draw links to the recent AAA blockbuster, BioShock Infinite, in that some believe it is the realization of video games as art. It even brought the notorious Cliffy B to the fold:

Something eerie about the timing of the loss of Roger Ebert and the release of a true game as art in Bioshock Infinite.
— Cliff Bleszinski (@therealcliffyb) April 4, 2013

While, compared to some others, I found absolutely nothing offensive about this tweet, I was surprised that people thought this was the game that was going to win over someone who derided video games so long ago. To this I say, "Who are you kidding?" Although Ebert was a noted consumer of culture, video games were not among them. He certainly was not going to spend his last days valuing his life sinking hours into a violent video game or any video game for that matter as if all of a sudden, the industry finally created the holy grail. I'm happy to contend that there were plenty of good and better examples before it, all easily dismissed by such a critic.

I recently finished BioShock Infinite, and like many others, I was blown away by the ending. It made me feel a lot of emotions all at once, and my body's reaction was to send a few tears to my eyes. It was not the same feeling as the special moment in To the Moon, but it was an intense moment. BioShock Infinite features some really impressive writing and direction, but it also features a significant amount of gameplay that makes consuming these triumphs intimidating to a lot of people, including gamers.

I can see why some don't see the art I see in this image.

The fact is that first-person shooters can be tough to get into and tough to play from there. You may not agree; you may be the biggest FPS fan in history. Despite the number of FPS or FPS-like games I've reviewed here, I am not a fan of them in particular. For me, it's about wanting to check out a great story regardless of gameplay mechanics or wanting to check out why everyone loves a game even if it doesn't seem to be my style. The original BioShock was the first FPS that sparked an intense desire within me to overcome my reservations about the genre in order to experience what the game offered, and to this day, I do not regret wanting to play that game as badly as I did.

For other people, it's just not worth it. I suck at some types of games, and I most notably suck at first-person shooters if there is no stealth involved. Well, I suck at shooters in general – don't let me mislead you. But just because I'm willing to trudge through the threat of sucking doesn't mean everyone is. And there are also a lot of people who don't play video games because they (think they) suck at them, regardless of genre. Alongside those people are some who don't believe it's worth the time when they enjoy so many other cultural offerings available; they don't even evaluate their skills at video games because video games are a non-entity to them.

The skills required to progress through a game represent a barrier of entry for that particular art form. When it comes to the video-games-as-art discussion, I am not sure many people consider breaking down the video games into what they think is the art versus what they consider to be the game. The fact is that the game might be worthless or threatening to those who don't play. This, in turn, makes the art easy to be dismissed, and I don't blame them. It doesn't apply to every game, of course. Some games feature gameplay that is very much tied to its artistic expression, such as Journey or The Unfinished Swan, where divorcing the two is hard to comprehend.

Journey, where everything is beautiful, but is it art?

Before I write further on that subject, I do want to explain that I consider many video games to be art. I think art is based on emotional response. "Do I emotionally respond to what I am experiencing?" If the answer to that question is "yes," then I am willing to entertain its consideration as art. Maybe that is too broad, but I am not the judge, and there isn't any real jury. I just find it hard to believe that people can play a game, one with either a great story or a great experience, and feel joy, fear, heartbreak, or otherwise and not consider it art. Like Ebert, though, I'd agree that some games contain art but may not be pieces of art in their entirety. I think that's a fair assessment and one that is fair to debate.

On the other hand, I don't think that people who deride video games as something other than art consider the barrier of entry involved in other forms of art. Movies, music, and books are easier to consume, yes – there is nothing other than technical malfunction that can really prevent you from navigating them from beginning to end – but some of the most appreciated or most debated of these actually do require more than watching, listening, or reading to fully appreciate beyond a superficial level. I've had the experience where I've enjoyed a movie but spoke to a person who started talking about themes or metaphors that I completely missed. The end result is usually a modicum of disappointment from the other. We clearly did not enjoy the same art. It's possible I did not see art where others did.

A good recent example from pop culture would be Psy's dance hit, "Gangnam Style." People went nuts for the song. (I was not among them, but I think the song is fun and well-produced.) DJs everywhere started playing it at clubs and parties, and it's reached a saturation point where you will involuntarily hear it several times a week. It's even been incorporated into Dance Central 3, so those gamers can dance to it and score points doing so. But how many people listening to and enjoying the song are aware of its existence as political and social satire? From conversations I've had with people, the answer is not many. The clear reason why is that you'd need to speak Korean, have an understanding of South Korean culture and economy, and know that Psy has a history of being politically vociferous.

In The Path, you have to go to Grandmother's house down the road, but the forest is calling to you, too.

Although "Gangnam Style" is appreciable as musical art, it has a barrier of entry to be understood as art with commentary and crticism. Compared to a video game, the barrier of entry is less apparent, almost hidden. I'd compare it to Tale of Tales' The Path, where it is easy to complete the game six times in under thirty minutes by just walking in a straight line from start to end, but the core of the game actually requires the player to step off the titular path before trying to return to it. In other words, it's impossible to appreciate what the game has to offer or what the developers wanted to express without doing the extra work required to do so. Admittedly, unlike a song, The Path is not very enjoyable if you take the easy route, but one can consume and opine about it that way, and the artist is left to feel like that person is doing it wrong.

It is these barriers of entry that actually separate art appreciators, where the "snobs" come from, so to speak, though it's not fair to pass judgement on those who devote their time to understanding an artistic medium fully. With respect to video games, the barriers prevent gamers from playing what I would consider pieces of art, and other barriers, such as historical knowledge, prevent gamers from understanding what the art is trying to tell them beyond what they are experiencing. I reluctantly bring up the fact that a handful of people who played BioShock Infinite thought Wounded Knee references were bro shoutouts to Skyrim's "arrow to the knee" meme instead of a serious, horrific moment in American history. (By the way, it's OK to pause a game to Google a reference if it'll help you appreciate it more.) The truth is that many people will finish BioShock Infinite without being able to wrap their heads around the ending, or they might love the first-person shooter gameplay and think the story is trash altogether. Who am I to judge them? Nobody, even though I lament it.

This brings me back to Roger Ebert and his opinions. That's all they were. To their credit, he wrote them thoughtfully and carefully, which is more than I can say for many who wished him death, threatened him in life, or resorted to homophobic slurs to drive their indignation home. Regardless, Ebert was just a man albeit a famous one. He did not and does not have the ability to determine what is art for you or what you should think is art. If you feel passionately that he is wrong, then video games are art. It's really as simple as that, and many people will disagree with me. That is also OK.

Instead of hating the man, we should thank him for bring us closer than ever before to the medium we love – video games.