As one of the most celebrated games of year, BioShock Infinite was praised for its engaging story. However, did the frequent and brutal violence take away from the narrative? Adam discusses the topic.
The correlation Sessler makes between Shakespeare and the Colosseum-style blood-baths that were enjoyed by one-in-same audience who enjoyed the same sophisticated plays/drama's, was a good way of describing the complexities of people. Just because one engages in sophisticated forms of art, does not do away with the fact that many people (not all) can still relate to the brutality of real-life. Of course, maybe Bioshock Infinite (and those subsequent violent live animal cruelty "shows" that the patrons of the arts during Shakespeare's time enjoyed) took violence to unnecessary heights, but to assume that sophistication can only exist in the absence of violence, is absurd. Critics of violence in games need only look outside, read a newspaper, visit a prison, drive through impoverished first-world ghetto's, etc in order to see a sub-world of extreme violence that exists in our so-called sophisticated, intellectually "superior" western world. So the reason we see this mix of meaningful, thought-provoking art, combined with violence, is to bridge between these two extremes. Whether the AMOUNT of violence in the game was necessary or not, is quite debatable. But games have grown into having a niche where there is always going to be adverity, and the player must react through force against adversaries (of course some games don't have violence or even adversaries (Tetris)). But if you combine the fact that Bioshock Infinite is the 3rd in a series of games already known for having violence, then of course it would have been too big of a shock for the 3rd game in the series not to have a similar amount of violence/adversarial pursuits.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.