This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

83
84

Matthewmatosis: Bioshock Infinite Critique (youtube.com)

[deleted] が 投稿

全 30 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Vagrantwalrus 22ポイント23ポイント  (6子コメント)

He mentioned it briefly at the end, but I think it should be reinforced that this is a set of criticisms, not a holistic review of the worth of the game. There are a lot of things here worthy of praise in terms of art style, world building, and the tone of the story telling (which falls short on reflection, but is quite engaging and unique when you're actually in the moment).

I also see that this video fell into the common trap of spending a large portion of its runtime pointing out plot holes and discrepancies rather than analyzing the thematic and tonal failings present in the storytelling. These are still there - pointing out that the fps roots of the gameplay serve as a poor way to reinforce the story, analyzing the player choice mechanics, etc. but they don't get as much focus as I would like. Pointing out plot holes is easy and cheap, and people tend to put a larger emphasis on them than they deserve in critical analysis because they're easy (and probably also because other analyses that have influenced the critic also used pointing out plot holes as a crutch, thus compounding the effect...).

Beyond that, this was a very well thought out and put together video. I think the key point to drive home is the utter lack of importance of the game's mechanics as they pertain to the storytelling. I recently watched ex machina and I was blown away by how every element of the movie reinforced its core themes of isolation, existentialism and what it means to be conscious - the story parallels of the main character feeling as trapped as the ai he was analyzing, the visual minimalism of the cinematography mirroring the minimalist storytelling that served to heighten the tension and uncertainty of the situation, the deliberately drawn out shots of seemingly simple imagery encouraging the viewer to read into things - I can go on, but you get the point. And in many ways, people expected bioshock infinite to bring that sort of meticulous artfulness to our medium - or, at least, it was hyped up that way before and slightly after launch. Infinite didn't do that, and maybe it's unfair to have expected it to, but I think it's definitely a good thing to talk about, and should hopefully encourage future games to do better.

[–][deleted] 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

Pointing out plot holes is easy and cheap

Not for games with a good plot. Also, I think the reason he spent so much time on it is that, as he said, people would say he didn't understand the plot if he didn't explain what exactly was wrong with it. The story is also part of what got so much praise about the game, so it's fair to spend a lot of time on it.

[–]sleepsholymountain 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not for games with a good plot.

Everything has plot holes. Plot isn't even the most important part of a movie or novel, much less a game. It's just a conveyance for delivering ideas and emotions, and in this case gameplay. It's one part of the whole. Getting hung up on plot holes is literally the most boring form of criticism imaginable.

[–]Bufus 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

He isn't pointing out plot holes for the sake of pointing out plot holes though, he is pointing them out because the "complex" and "deep" plot is the main crutch that militant fans of the game have used to defend it from any forms of criticism. He isn't arguing that each of these individual plot holes ruins the game, he is showing that the plot is not this well conceived masterpiece that people think it is, and that we shouldn't assume that a game with a complex plot is necessarily a really good one.

I agree with you that endlessly debating "plot holes" in media is usually a waste of time, but when a game's entire concept and "x-factor" (for lack of a better term) revolves around a flimsy and bloated internal logic like Bioshock Infinite's is, I think it becomes really problematic and it then becomes necessary to address those issues.

The reason it works as a point of criticism in this video is not because it is nitpicky, but rather because he is urging us not to assumed that a "complex" AAA game plot is necessarily a good one just because it tries to be more mature than other games. The use of Oddworld as a comparison is a good one here because it is often seen as a sort of crass and childish game, but it addresses many mature themes without relying on contrived plot points to add a false sense of intellectual depth.

[–]KingDragonlord 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is why he also criticizes how the plot introduces these weighty (for a game) themes like racism in America's recent past, and then the plot gets away from that to focus on time travel and universe hopping. He also points out the problems with Liz's character, the way her power and the structure of the multiverse is treated as magic with no rules which dismantles any sense of conflict. The way the gameplay doesn't mesh with the story (all the murdering should alienate Liz, Booker shouldn't be scrounging through trash cans for food, the scrounging is clearly a carry over from Bioshock 1 which doesn't fit in Infinite).

Also, while pretty much every story has plot holes, good stories don't have plot holes this bad or this fundamental. The problems surrounding the fact that drowning Booker shouldn't do what Liz thinks it will do, are fundamental. The only way it could work is if Liz had been programmed to do this and Booker was explicitly shown to be a victim of her stupidity.

[–][deleted] 17ポイント18ポイント  (18子コメント)

This is one of my favorite videos of this type, and for me, it really drove home how off-the-mark the games press sometimes is.

[–]madmalletmover 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

Same here. I never played the game but hearing so much constant praise about it at release and then watching this really made me stop and think. I love this guy's ideas - he's pretty clear-headed about the games he critiques.

[–]Crazycrossing 29ポイント30ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you didn't play it, how can you judge the merits of the game and story? He gives you a very narrow view of it. I'm sorry, just because mainstream press loves a game doesn't mean that it doesn't have valid merits.

[–]mrwoo6 12ポイント13ポイント  (12子コメント)

I don't know he seems more aggressive in this one.

Lines like, the developers think you're too stupid to throw a ball, don't come across as clear-headed.

[–]Roundy210 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

He's pretty straightforward about it in the videos opening. The video isn't a comprehensive look at the game. It's just an outline of all the grievances he has with it. He also seems a bit aggravated by what he sees as undue praise from the mainstream gaming media.

[–]mrwoo6 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

No I get that. He just seems a little mean-spirited towards the developers of this game, and for something they have no control over.

I'd like to believe the developers are more aware of their games flaws than anyone.

A lot of his critique in this is great, but a few parts of it seem not very thoroughly thought out and fuelled by bitterness towards its then current overwhelming popularity.

[–]Crazycrossing 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't find most of his critique great, like showing lynchings would have been better than showing a more surface level of racism? Allowing players to throw the ball instead of setting up a specific scene they wanted? The whole choice thing was a conscious part of the design and theme. Then he went on to speak about how set pieces are overdone yet there's still plenty of games with traditional cutscenes, take for instance most recently GTA 5 and Witcher 3 and I felt a lot of Bioshock's set pieces were Half-Life 2 worthy if not surpassing some of them. The opening was fantastic and felt so much like the opening to HL2 in the amount of detail you get to see as you step into the world. I thought he was way off the mark with everything except for ghost boss fight and some gameplay elements were a bit underwhelming.

[–]mrwoo6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I don't really care if I personally agree with his opinions, it's more about how well he presents his arguments.

Overall I think he gave reasonable cases for each his points. For the most part I understand why and how he came to think the way he does about certain aspects of the game, Even If I didn't feel the same way while playing it.

Personally I thought the whole 'choice thing' was neat but I understand why he thought they weren't impactful, and he laid it out clearly enough how he came to that conclusion.

I thought Infinite was solid, enjoyable and probably not something I'll ever play again. Matthew clearly didn't like the game as much as I did but his critique seemed at least well reasoned apart from those odd blips of aggression where he fills in the blanks of why he feels a particular way with the 'developers don't like you'.

[–]MrLucky7s 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

But isn't that the exact way you would feel? I remember that moment in Infinite very well, it felt so out of place and character that for a second I thought my mouse stopped working before realizing that it's a button prompt. That decision makes no sense, it's not like they didn't program a "lobbed projectile" or something so we could write this off as developer laziness. The game literally doesn't trust you to throw a ball in a scene where choice is inconsequential.

[–]mrwoo6 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, it wasn't how I felt at all. I wasn't surprised by the pop up and didn't think much of the scene.

Looking back at it, it seems like it was just set-up for the choices theme. Something Matthew even brings up later on in the video with the bird-in-the-cage choice. I think they simply chose the button prompt simply to make you acutely aware of the whole choice thing and emphasis it, not that they simply didn't trust you to throw a ball.

Matthew goes on to explain he doesn't like the choice in games theme because he thought it was played out, among other reasons and I thought those complaints where far more agreeable.

I'm not sure how that decision makes no sense compared to the others, none of the choices where really consequential at all. The game also doesn't allow you you to aim at the broach of your choosing, but I don't think the game thinks i'm too dumb to point.

[–]MrLucky7s 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

The problem with emphasizing choices in Infinite is that they are ultimately inconsequential since they all lead to the same result. Giving the player a binary choice at that point ruins the immersion and makes for less of an experience. If they would've allowed the player to control his actions that choice, while still inconsequential, at least wouldn't have been binary. The player could've decided to throw the ball at the couple or the announcer, but he/she could've also chosen to just throw the ball somewhere else not aiming for anyone or opted not to throw it at all. The end result would've been the same, but the immersion would've been kept in tact. If anything, that scene was a sign of what's to come and what (little) can be expected from the rest of the game.

The broach scene is far less jarring in that it doesn't restrict the player from using a core gameplay mechanic (Throwing/shooting projectiles) to complete a task. It is however equally pointless and could've been designed in such a way that Booker has to look around the area, speak to several people and pick a "present" for Elizabeth from multiple choices (As in more than two). Of course this way would change the original scene quite a bit, but since it's outcome is irrelevant, I don't see a problem with it and it would've kept the immersion in tact.

The whole point of this is that making something an interactive cutscene instead of part of the gameplay is generally a bad choice and should be avoided if possible, especially when it doesn't come at the cost of the story (All choices are irrelevant) but does come at the cost of immersion. (Taking away gameplay)

However, I do see your point and I can perfectly understand that a lot of players won't mind this at all, ultimately those choices are so few and far between that complaining about them can be best described as nitpicking. I will still stand by my point that the developers don't trust you with throwing a ball and that is a thing that keeps happening more often in general. Parts of games that could've been gameplay segments are turned into cutscenes at worst and interactive-cutscenes at best for no apparent reason.

EDIT: I originally wrote that the Broach scene itself is pointless while actually only the outcome of the scene is, so I edited that part out.

[–]mrwoo6 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

As Matthew talks about in the video, the designers intentionally emphasis choice in infinite to show they're ultimately inconsequential as a theme, they achieve this through the binary design and overt prompts. They made it like that to drive home the theme of choice in games. Matthew doesn't like that theme.

Making the experience of choosing more immersive and abstracted deludes that intention. If your problem is with the theme itself and you think that intention is dumb that's fine, but then allowing the player to throw ball wont really give you want you want either, removing the theme of choice would.

That is removing the choices altogether or making them consequential.

If your boss tells you to ensure that the player fully is aware they are making a choice in a game then abstracting it through the throwing mechanic doesn't achieve that.

It seems to me that the developers decided to use the prompt to achieve that goal, rather than use the prompt to achieve the goal of not trusting the players with throwing a ball.

If you think design that does not prioritize immersion or core gameplay is bad then sure what they did is never going to be enjoyable for you, but personally I think that's very limiting for games.

For example, if you've got a story where you want to make the player aware they're playing a game, then immersion is never going to mix with that intention.

[–]MrLucky7s 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you read my response again you will probably notice that I do not advocate design that prioritizes gameplay IF it comes at the cost of the story (Or any other equally important segment of a game). This is not the case in the particular scenes however and allowing the player to make the choice through actual gameplay wouldn't affect the story, the scenes themselves or the themes in any significant way. This also would not delude the theme of "choices in games" but would rather reinforce it since you're doing it through gameplay, which is what video games are primarily about. Not to mention that the theme of choices is being driven home by pretty much all late game cutscens.

As for immersion, personally I don't really care for it nor need I be immersed in a good game to enjoy it, nor do I believe all "good games" have to be immersive. The reason I mention immersion so much is because Infinite IS all about immersion. From the city's detailed history, through audio logs, Elizabeth's in depth characterization and character building segments all the way to NPCs and the (in my opinion not so well executed) choice options, everything severs the purpose of immersing the player into the game's world and make Columbia feel alive. Matthew even mention towards the end of the video that this game didn't necessarily have to be an FPS, the reason for the genre was because it's one of the most immersive ones. As I mentioned, the "choices" obviously serve the purpose of immersing the player into the game, yet the way they are executed breaks immersion. This contradiction in it's function is what makes me believe that their execution is flawed.

If your boss tells you to ensure that the player fully is aware they are making a choice in a game then abstracting it through the throwing mechanic doesn't achieve that.

The entire point of Infinite is that it doesn't want to make you aware you re making a choice in a game but rather in a well fleshed out world. By breaking the immersion (Which the entire game tries to build up so heavily) they achieve the opposite.

With that being said, this has derailed into design philosophy while originally we were discussing whether the devs trust you with throwing a ball or not. Ultimately I have to agree with Matthew and say that they do not, probably because they believe you wouldn't realize you're making a choice. In the end our opinions on that specific part differ and we will probably have to agree to disagree.

[–]mrwoo6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry, I misinterpreted or misread your feelings on the priority of immersion and gameplay in design.

You're right, this got derailed a bit too far. I suppose we don't and will never know the actual intentions of the developers and we could probably speculate forever, so I'll agree to disagree on that particular point.

[–]_shenanigans__ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You use the word pointless to describe the Broach scene. When to me I see all those scenes as reinforcement of the themes of the game. They wrote that CAGE is the series of notes for songbird's control and thematically reinforce that the cage is the key to Elizabeth's Freedom and the bird is the symbol of her incarceration.

Sometimes things have points that may not have gameplay implications but they matter in other ways.

[–]MrLucky7s 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are absolutely right, the scene itself isn't pointless at all and is indeed used as reinforcement of the game's themes. I wasn't picking my words carefully, thank you for pointing it out.

[–]Crazycrossing 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why? How is the "game press" off the mark?

I have Bioshock Infinite up there with Half-Life 2 and now the Witcher 3 with my all time favorite games. As I wrote elsewhere here I felt some of his critiques were way off the mark if not at ends with itself.

[–][deleted] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because it's truly 'meh', in "meh"'s truest form.

It's not bad by any means. It's not good.

It is, in the truest sense, 5/10. Yet it was hailed as the savior of gaming. Games press heralded it as a fine work of art, ignoring the fact that the gameplay(the most important thing about the medium) sucked, and the story made no sense when you thought about it(exactly what fanboys tell you to do when you object to its shittiness).

It had good characters, graphics and voice acting. That's what gives it the 5.

[–]_shenanigans__ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The story does make sense though. Unless you try to apply rules of time travel from other stories.

Bioshock Infinite is entirely consistent with it's own internal logic and rules.

[–]Sloshy42 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I had the exact same bullet sponge criticism he mentions at the very end with the Space Invaders comparison, though in regards to the first two Bioshock games. I haven't played Infinite yet and if I did I'd probably just feel the same way that Matthew did here, but this is a very important reason why I couldn't stand Bioshock much after the first half. I realized that almost every single battle in the game involved standing around and shooting at other enemies that also were standing around and shooting. Right now I'm playing Wolfenstein: TNO and I am absolutely floored at how many options the game gives me in each scenario, all of which feel equally valid and never overpowered by allowing me the ability to run, slide, sneak, and tactically eliminate enemies with ease. The levels feel designed around combat in the first place, whereas in the Bioshock games they feel just like pretty, wide-open areas with little dynamics besides things you can hack to cheese your way through.

[–]bookerdewittt -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"but this is a very important reason why I couldn't stand Bioshock much after the first half. I realized that almost every single battle in the game involved standing around and shooting at other enemies that also were standing around and shooting. "

Its almost if the game was a first person shooter or something, But seriously? The whole series has a great story with tons of lore. The environment makes the shooting more interesting but you can buy perks and upgrade your guns and stuff. Plasmids or vigors give you some cool options to fight back many would agree that infinite had less options for combat but it fit the story. Also infinite had skylines which were pretty awesome. So I would disagree with bioshock just being a game about shooting people and getting shot at

[–]Sloshy42 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I love shooters of all kinds, as long as they make me think. In Bioshock, thinking felt less like something that was provoked by the level design and more like something I was "expected to do" on my own without the game providing many good opportunities to do so. The levels were only rarely designed around the combat mechanics the game presented and I often just shot at enemies in large, wide-open areas with little strategic value. In something like Wolfenstein or the original Far Cry, for example, the levels were all designed with strategic opportunities in mind. Having options like Bioshock does doesn't make it satisfyingly strategic. It's giving you opportunities to fully utilize said abilities. Otherwise, it feels like they just threw a bunch of ideas in the game without really putting them through their paces. Wolfenstein is a game designed around every single weapon you have and while it has less combat options than Bioshock, it takes them to heart. Bioshock, in comparison, threw me to the wolves and just told me to figure out whatever works. My success in combat relied less on manipulating the environment to my benefit or careful planning (because that was nigh impossible by design) and more on brute force.

[–]sleepsholymountain 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

The comments on this video on Youtube are so immature and stupid it's painful. It points to something about video game reviewing/criticism that I really hate: people become fanboys of Yahtzee, Jontron, this guy, etc. and just parrot their opinions without (a) thinking about them critically or (b) understanding that their opinions aren't objective truth and that other perspectives are valid. There are highly upvoted comments under this video basically saying "now that you've seen that this game has some plot holes, if you still like it you're an idiot." That's just unbelievably silly, and you know these people are specifically reacting to the parts of this video where the guy talks about the developers "thinking you're stupid" or whatever.

EDIT: And while I'm at it, I'm loving all of the walls of text (both on Youtube and in here) by people who don't seem to understand that the lack of real choice in all of the binary decisions is completely intentional and a major part of the game's story and themes. (also edited for grammar)

[–]FenrisianFang84 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm happy that this video exists because I honestly felt like I was the only one who didn't like this game. Well thought out, well researched and well argued.

[–]sasstrophysics 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with most of what was said about the gameplay and the way it did (or didn't) tie in to other aspects of the game. Most of the analysis of the story misses the mark though, I feel.

Regarding the way the game handles certain major plot points, it seems like he is judging them based partly on his own understanding of many worlds theory. For example he states that certain things being constant runs counter to the idea of parallel worlds. He doesn't understand the theory though... because nobody does. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Trying to judge whether the game presents speculative concepts like parallel worlds "realistically" is meaningless. What matters is whether the game is internally consistent, which it is. The idea that some things are constant is alluded to throughout the game, such as with the coin toss. This idea might seem "counter-intuitive and nonsensical", but there are plenty of such things in QM which have been proven true.

That's not to say there aren't plot holes - there pretty much always will be in a story involving time travel and parallel universes. But in my opinion the game does a good job at getting across the way in which its reality works.