In Defense Of Bioshock: Infinite’s Violence

STFUandPLAY's Tony Polanco writes:

"Bioshock: Infinite is one of the most engaging and absorbing games I’ve ever played. My review pretty much says it all. The game is a true work of art. As amazing as the game is, some gaming journalists seem to have a problem with the game’s violence. I agree that the game is very violent but I don’t think that is a problem. This editorial is meant as a counter argument in defense of the game’s violence."

[Romudeth]

Would they rather Bioshock: Infinite be an adventure game instead? I don't get these "professional" gaming journalists sometimes...

[grailly]

I think that's not understanding the problem properly. Peopl aren't complaining about the killing but the gore that ensues rather

[Bimkoblerutso]

I don't think that's understanding the problem either. Violence has become such a nonchalant occurrence in gaming that it means next to nothing when it is portrayed.

Violence is perfectly fine to have in video games, but when you have a game with a narrative and context, violence needs to be just as contextually relevant as everything else in that narrative, and in video games (probably more than any other medium) it almost NEVER is.

I mean...you quite literally take down an entire city's worth of people in the game. AN ENTIRE GODDAMN CITY.

[grailly]

that's the wider problem, yes. I don't think, though, that there would be so much talk about it if the violence wasn't underlined by the gratuitous gore. If you pulled out the killing completely it would be a very different game and then there would be no more argument to make. toning down the tearing off of heads would be a good start.

[CalvinKlein]

what gore? there is barely any gore at all. Bioshock 1 was more violent and demented than infinite.

Infinite kept the great gameplay from bioshock and added better characters and story onto it. I think bioshock 1 had a better atmosphere and some better aspects, but one thing is fact...Bioshock 1 was more violent and deranged than infinite. Why would anyone expect something different from this game.

People suddenly realize that video game protagonists are horrible people who kill hundreds or thousands of people on each "adventure." Well the narrative of bioshock infinite is actually meant to make the player think about that very thing. Most games dont tho. YOu know haw many people the lovable and witty Nathan Drake murdered in his last adventure while spouting off 1-liners? TONS. No one thinks about that tho. Same with most other games that dont make you actually think about the people you kill.

There is nothing in this game that is overly violent or gory. It is exactly what its supposed to be, a FPS with a great story and gameplay that takes place in a demented city. Just like bioshock 1. The game is so darn good that people actually noticed that there videogame character killed tons of people for once. DO they not get that that is exactly what they wanted? The same theme was in bioshock 1. However im doubting many of these complainers even played that game, its far too demented for their faint hearts if this game is too much for them.

And no, bioshock would suck if it wasnt a shooter. It is a shooter first, then an interesting narrative with a great atmosphere too. NOt the other way around people. Single player FPS have been my favorite games since wolf3d, we are allowed to have stuff that isnt derivative garbage too you know, that is not jsut for boring indi art fest games. I would have designed some things differently like any game, but I need the shooting and plasmids to break up the story and my HEAVY exploring of every area. Its what the game is supposed to be, go play something different or play bioshock1 so you know what to expect.

[Bimkoblerutso]

^ That's part of what I'm saying, though. It doesn't cease to be a shooter simply because there are stretches of the game that don't involve shooting. If anything, pouring more effort into context is what makes the violence more interesting and entertaining. It's what sets singleplayer gaming apart from mindless multiplayer deathmatching.

[tordavis]

Journalists or privileged panzies?

[-Gespenst-]

Oh yeah because violence is so macho and cool.

And this article is barely an argument.

"You really think fans of the series would be happy with a genre change? There is something to be said about the limitations on a narrative within the FPS framework but since the series is already established in the genre, changing it for the third entry would have been absurd."

There would have been outrage ONLY because lots are gamers are close minded and aren't used to having their expectations challenged. Bioshock would be fine without the hardcore violence. It could be first person, without being a shooter. Why does "first person" always have to mean violence and weapons? The same almost consistently seems to apply to open-world games. Why this need for vicarious violence? Well, I don't even think it's a need- it's just a value implanted in people over time. In fact, it's the developers that disturb me- sitting in front of their computers for hours on end- possibly working overtime- to animate and render a graphic depiction of violence (I'm thinking Mortal Kombat 9, Manhunt). Seems deranged to me. I'll never forget an interview I saw with one of the developers of Fallout 3 - real creep. He was really vacant and just talking about how he wanted to blur reality and make it feel like you were actually shooting people. Now, I'm not saying all developers are headcases, not at all- there's lots of intelligent people involved in games- but I am saying that there are a lot of juvenile and dare I say it irresponsible people involved in games. They provide us with these experiences, but people often don't realise how fundamentally juvenile all those experiences all are. How they contain really moronic and implicitly nihilistic conceptions of violence, not to mention sexuality and race.

"The world of Bioshock: Infinite is beautiful but it rests upon a lot of ugliness with all of the racism and class warfare going on. The violence serves as a means of conveying just how brutal this city really is."

There's a difference between violence portraying "ugliness" and violence that's supposed to be cool and choreographed (using some sort of weird steampunk contraption no less). It's the fetishism of it too- all the unique ways of killing people in the game. Violence is paradoxically made into something rewarding and enjoyable. If the violence in Bioshock was truly disturbing it would be representing violence correctly and it would probably gel better with the overall artistic vision. Instead, we get arcadey fetishized ultraviolence that distances itelf a lot from the artistic side of the game, and feeds into cultural expectations of videogames.

People need to stop being so in awe of these things and hone their critical faculties.

[grailly]

weird how people on your side of the fence are generally smarter and know how to make an argument, while people arguing against you are just like"if you don't want violence, go outside"

[Megaplaynate]

Well, imagine there's no violence in fallout or bioshock, then what would you do in the game?, would you rather all games be stealth games or interactive adventures?, or is it ok if the violence is presented in a non violent way?, like killing in a merciful way or only when necessary.
Violence is not always needed but in the world of bioshock is the only thing that keeps the main character alive, so how is it wrong for the game to have violence in it?

[Romudeth]

They're mad that they can't show the game to their girlfriends or wives because it has violence. There are plenty of non violent games out there for them to show to their significant others. Bioshock as a franchise has a lot of violence. That's just how it is. It seems like these journalists wanted Bioshock: Infinite to be something it was never meant to be.

Let's hope that this doesn't turn out like the Adam Sessler vs God Of War thing and Bioshock: Infinite gets patched to have less violence. The artistic vision of Irrational games shouldn't be dictated by some, as you call them, "privileged" journalists.

I really fear for the future of this industry with all of these people who don't seem to understand what an M rating means.

[-Gespenst-]

"It seems like these journalists wanted Bioshock: Infinite to be something it was never meant to be."

Well said, but on the other hand, do you not see how the game itself plays against what it wants to be? It tries to be artsy, but just jettisons all that during gunfights and violence. The game CLEARLY wants to be taken seriously and CLEARLY wants to create a believable and powerful world. The crazy violence is just incongruous and detracts from the experience. It's a trend in a lot of games: Expectations of what a videogame should be interfering with the vision itself.

This is why I'm looking forward to The Witness. It's a first person game, but with no violence in sight- it redefines what first person is about. The game encourages exploration, mystery and problem solving, and it's going to be awesome. I'm not saying games shouldn't have violence mind you- that would be shying away from a reality of our current world and of our history- but I think such a thing should be dealt with in a more sensitive and sophisticated way- as opposed to distortion for purposes of entertainment and reward.

[MilkMan]

The violence was on debate?!?

[Romudeth]

Yes. People are debating whether this game needed to be violent or not. It's a weird argument to make. The other two Bioshock games were also violent, why wouldn't the 3rd one be as well?

[OOG]

Can't wait to play this f ing game when I have time! lol... I'll swim in the gore just like in Ninja Gaiden and Tomb Raider Oo

[kostchtchie_]

there was not that much gore, just typical shooter with an average story

[Morgue]

Is the human race going backwards?

I've worked in the adult retail business for 12 years. I have also seen a lot of weird and crazy things happen and I could tell you stories that would make your stomach turn.

I've also played a lot of games and while violence in them is sometimes over the top and glorified its a part of the business. I remember the stink that arose about the realistic deaths in Soldier of Fortune back the day.

Violence takes the back seat when I play games but there are individuals who play them just for the violence alone, then there is an issue and you have a person that obviously has issues and can't differentiate fantasy from reality.