Spoiler Conflict Between Enjoyable Games and Offensive Messages in Them

[Sir Quaffler]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this thread, since while I am talking about issues in gaming this also merges with some serious mature discussion. Anyways, to give my example to kick-start it.

I was playing Bioshock Infinite and very much enjoying myself along the way. Seriously, the 1910's getup, the floating cities, the sweet steampunk weapons & gear, the awesome Vigors, Elizabeth, all of it are very engaging. However, at the same time this game reached a point where I contemplated if I wanted to play it anymore because a certain issue it kept bringing up reached a high point.

I'm talking, of course, about the Prophet Comstock. When I was playing the earlier chapters it just seemed like he was a madman out for power or a power-hungry mongrel just trying to manipulate the people of Columbia to do his dirty work, and I was fine with that. This game also tackles some other heavy-handed issues like racism and the class war, so I was fine with the game delving into people corrupting religion to control people. But, that's not it played out. [A side note: I have yet to actually beat the game yet, but I'm at the 95% mark so I doubt I'm wrong about my assertion here.]

When I finally confronted Comstock in his zeppelin I expected him to be pushed into a corner and finally come clean about his true intentions and reveal himself for the monster he was. But... even in his last moments he was completely sincere in his beliefs. Even when faced with death, he had ultimate conviction that the Ark-Angel Gabriel had given him a mission from God, and he was set on carrying that out. And... Booker drowned him for it.

I'm not ok with that. I know this is just my own personal bias talking, but still, I'm not ok with that. This game is extremely fun to play, but it ultimately offends my deep-held beliefs. So... I don't know whether to love this game or hate it.

Now for the discussion: have any of you ran across a game you absolutely loved playing but what the game was talking about was deeply offending your own beliefs? And if so, how did you respond to it? Did you keep playing in spite of the pervasive message the game was sending? Or did you stop playing despite how much fun you were having?

 

[Terminus]

Slightly awkward title, but I'll hop in here. Keep in mind I haven't had the opportunity to play the game yet, so I may be missing a detail or two.

History is dotted with cultists who think they were on some special mission from a god or other power (Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard [after he went off the deep] and David Koresh to name a few). What I assume the game was doing was referencing power-mad cultists who kill and brainwash either for a delusion of grandeur or pursuit of power.

 

[Ericzander]

I love Assassin's Creed. The whole series, starting from the first. I'm still in the middle of ACIII, so I haven't played the last one yet. But as a Christian it is hard to not get offended occasionally. Or a lot.

I basically need to shut my personal beliefs down while I play. I make sure to reassure myself that I'm playing a work of fiction that was "created by a multicultural team with various beliefs" like they tell us before every day.

For those who don't know, you basically play the role of an Assassin fighting the extreme conservative Christian (though often it's only a front) Knights Templar throughout history. In the second game,

Spoiler

you even beat the living **** out of the Pope and only let him live so that it matches up with real life

. Even though the entire game played on that man being extremely corrupt and evil (and actual history also supports that he was not a very nice guy) it felt super... awkward... for me to do it.

I haven't played GTAV but I know that there's a non-skippable scene where you need to basically torture a guy. I would probably have a moral issue with doing that as well.

But that aside, I love both series and as long as I can remind myself that it is fiction, I am fine with it.

 

[Mercedes]

I don't think you quite understand the Bioshock: Infinite ending, and upon reading your post, where you say you haven't finished it, that'll be why then. You're taking the game very literally and it's not what you think it is. Finish the game, watch the ending, think on it (it's very complex) and I think you won't be offended anymore when you understand it. You say you're sure you aren't wrong in your assertion but, and no disrespect with this, I think you are, there's a lot more to it than what you're discussing and it's pretty much all thrown at you at the end. I think you're offended because you think he was killed because of his beliefs? Which is not true at all. Nowhere close.

I won't discuss it because the ending is amazing and I'd hate to spoil it, very deep and head-scratchingly complex, and I think if you go in with an open mind you'll realize it's not at all what you think it is. Comstock had to die for what he did, but he didn't just do what you think he did. Who and what Comstock really is goes a lot deeper than just his faith, which is further explained. It really is some exceptional writing imo.

 

[A Link In Time]

Unless it's obvious the work was created to be blatantly offensive, I don't take offense if entertainment infringes upon my personal beliefs.

Many adults in my family are subscribers to the belief that videogames deliberately try to influence peoples' notions in a negative way, especially in their so-called "embracing" of anti - religious themes. My response is consistently the same: Everyone tries to shove their bias into their creations even I'd subconsciously. It's not a big deal if this is noted and the game is played for its intended purpose, enjoyment.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Yeah like said above, you need to finish Infinite and mull over the ending to truly grasp what is happening. I'm not going to spoil anything as a lot of this game's excellence comes from its ending and looking back in hindsight, so I'll just let you reflect back for yourself. Hopefully you'll see the bigger picture.

---

Anyway on topic of OP, it's pretty hard to offend me plus I'm not really a sensitive person when it comes to my beliefs and morals. So in all, I actually can't think of any game that has offended me.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I enjoy games that tackle controversial mediums and advance the medium. I never shut my own (and very pronounced) personal beliefs out. I use these gaming experiences, like those in Bioshock Infinite, to reflect on and think about my beliefs. A true philosopher or theologian never stops learning, so I look at games that delve deeply into such issues to be enjoyable both for the good of the medium and my own understanding of the world.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

Slightly awkward title, but I'll hop in here. Keep in mind I haven't had the opportunity to play the game yet, so I may be missing a detail or two.

History is dotted with cultists who think they were on some special mission from a god or other power (Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard [after he went off the deep] and David Koresh to name a few). What I assume the game was doing was referencing power-mad cultists who kill and brainwash either for a delusion of grandeur or pursuit of power.

Hmm, ok. Looking into the series it seems this is its schtick. The first Bioshock was based on and ultimately debunked Objectivism, and System Shock had something to do with the perils of artificial intelligence. It seems Infinite decided to take on the perils of cultists. Only... it really doesn't seem like they did it right, if that's what they were going for.

[Again, I haven't actually finished the game yet, and apparently the ending just completely changes the entire game so I may be WAY off-base on this. But still, these are my thoughts at the moment. I'll probably come back after I eventually finish and then scrap all of it, lol.]

Anyways, if Comstock simply had delusions of grandeur, it really didn't come through in his interactions. Throughout all those phonographs of Comstock and about Comstock he really did seem like a godly man just trying to carry out the mission set out from him by God (albeit in a really messed-up way), rather than a power-hungry or delusional maniac. Now, with everyone ELSE that can be said to be true. All his followers really were racist maniacs who'd do anything in the name of Comstock and really did just use their religion as a cover-up for their racist and classist tendencies. That aspect of cultism was shown perfectly in-game and I applaud the game for showing that. I had no issue with blasting the crap outta the goons, they were all jerkwads anyway. But with Comstock, there isn't really anything I've seen that proves him WRONG per se (aside from the obvious "white man is the chosen man" bit), just really misguided. He doesn't come across as delusional to me, he comes across as an earnest man on a mission from God, and that's my problem.

 

[Garo]

BioShock Infinite is about a lot of things - the ending is responsible for a lot of its thematic content, so I can't well list them here without spoiling some of the big twists - but the Comstock character is, above all else, an examination into why people follow religious leaders. What exactly compels people to listen to this man? What about him is so captivating that they will drop everything, move to a city in the sky, and abandon all of their previously held moral and religious precepts in order to follow his new ideas, his new revelations? The game doesn't offer a solid answer, but it certainly teases the idea around quite a bit and offers a couple of possibilities. I really like the redemption angle - people follow him because of the tremendous empathy that his purported dark past provides him. They have deep-seated guilts that prey at their mind, and here comes Comstock, a man with great darkness in his past who is offering them redemption with the powerfully compelling line, "If grace is in the grasp of one such as [me], how can anyone else not see it in themselves?"

That, I think, is a huge part of Comstock's apparent genuineness with regard to his religious message. And his refusal to recant and reveal some seditious reasoning in the end is honestly critical to that entire thematic thread. Had he revealed himself a scam artist, a crook, some kind of lunatic, then that theme would basically have been null and void, because the answer to why people follow a religious man wouldn't be anything more than "he's a con artist and people will always be duped by them." The fact that he was a truly devoted religious convert is absolutely necessary to being able to consider the question of why people follow religious figures.

Now, with regard to the question of the drowning: play the ending, there's more to it than you likely imagine. But, to be vague, Booker had a great many reasons to drown Comstock beyond his religious zeal. Comstock's city is guilty of a great many human rights violations and a lot of his citizens lack basic human decency (see: throwing a baseball at an interracial couple being hailed as a prize). He more or less brainwashed his daughter and experimented upon her. When a lot of those things were done in the name of his religious faith, then it sure seems like Booker was drowning him for that reason.

And that's a huge part of the point Ken Levine was making with the game. Levine is an atheist, as he has said several times throughout the years, and while I don't think this game was a full on assault against religion, I DO think that it was an attack on religious zealotry and the ostensible propensity of religious fundamentalists to commit foul acts of bigotry and moral degradation. Yes, Ken Levine doesn't really much care for religion - but he's giving it an interesting look all around in Infinite. Why do people follow religion? Why do they overlook the awful things they are doing in the name of religion? Does genuine religious faith justify those awful things, or at the least absolve the perpetrator of any guilt for having committed them?

I don't think these questions are meant to have particularly comfortable answers. In fact, I would say they are meant to have uncomfortable, potentially offensive answers. It has been said numerous times that art's purpose is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted. I think your objection to Comstock's drowning is actually a very good response, and that you should (first finish the game, but then) evaluate that response and consider Booker's reasons for drowning Comstock. You've stumbled upon an awesome example of the disconnect between the player and the avatar during a critical moment where agency was denied the player. A similar moment occurred at the baptism at the beginning of the game (which a lot of people have raised objections to for being offensive to their religious beliefs), but this is certainly a more extreme one. Use this reaction for good! Try to tackle these questions and see what answers you might have for them, and whether you are comfortable with those answers.

This thread, this moment? THIS is why I love gaming. It's an art, folks. This is what it's all about.

EDIT: Oh, I guess I should answer the topic itself, huh?

I honestly believe that games with "messages" contrary to our own personal beliefs are all the more important to play and experience, just as all art with conflicting ideals and values are. That's how we grow as people, to see opposing views. A game that forces you to commit acts that you are morally opposed to? Oh man, that's wonderful. It's discomforting. It forces you consider things in a new way, forces you to reevaluate your moral ideas. Sure, you may just find those ideas reinforced - but games provide a playground where you can experiment and experience things you never should in the real world. Art as a whole lets us do these things and grow from them in a safe environment, and that's incredibly valuable.

 

[Terminus]

He doesn't come across as delusional to me, he comes across as an earnest man on a mission from God, and that's my problem.

Many cultists don't necessarily appear delusional and foaming at the mouth. Many sociopaths seemed calmly rational and charismatic. Hitler, for example, was a charismatic and ingenious leader. Sociopathic and twisted? Sure. Anyone that twisted who believes that they're right will act perfectly normal and "noble."

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I just now finished Bioshock Infinite (took forever defending Comstock's zeppelin), and now for my thoughts on the ending:

I'm even more pissed off now than before.

Nothing in the ending actually refuted any of my earlier claims, it just changed who the people involved were. And it wasn't as head-scratchingly complex as people are making it out to be. Due to Elizabeth's (or should I say Anna's) special ability she is effectively a multi-dimensional being, able to see all possibilities and all alternate universes. The lighthouses all act as connecting points to all these alternate universes, and Anna can selectively open up portals to any of these universes. Due to the wonky nature of time travel and of those two scientists' shenanigans Booker Dewitt and Zachary Hale Comstock are in fact the same person.

That all said, it changes NOTHING about my objections to Comstock's drowning. So what, later on life Booker has a revelation from Gabriel about his mission from God and takes on the moniker of Comstock? That still doesn't make it right he was drowned for trying to carry out his mission. He should have been taken to a legal court and tried for the crimes he committed while doing so, yes, but not outright killed for it (without a judicial sentence).

And the very ending... that makes me even more furious. The only way they could think to put an end to the continuous cycle of events... is to drown Booker himself? And in a perversion of a baptism, no less? SCREW YOU, BIOSHOCK INFINITE.

It's official now. I hate Bioshock Infinite.

 

[Garo]

Alright, so now that we can talk about the ending...

Let's first note that the drowning of Booker at the end doesn't actually do anything except kill that specific Booker. Unless Elizabeth/Anna goes throughout every single possible universe (an infinite number, so it's theoretically impossible) and drowns every single possible Booker, there will always be Comstocks and there will always be Bookers. There will always be a Booker DeWitt undergoing the baptism to become Zachary Hale Comstock and there will always be a Booker DeWitt refusing the baptism. So the drowning isn't some cosmic end to the entire events of the game; it's the end to the Booker whose life you have been playing through, and only that Booker.

This then raises a question: why are we drowning that Booker, exactly?

To answer this question, we need to look at every possible Booker. All the Bookers that are pertinent to our discussion were involved in the Battle at Wounded Knee and were scarred by the event. A subset of those Bookers accepted the baptism, and a subset of them rejected it. That first subset became Comstock, and the latter remained Booker DeWitt. The Comstocks all experienced a religious rebirth, finding themselves awed at the forgiveness shown to them and being moved to share that grace with others. This new outlook on religion eventually led to Columbia, and a working relationship with one of the Lutece twins (who appear to be similarly multi-dimensional beings by the time the game starts) that leads to a lot of scientific advancement, but at the cost of Comstock's virility. Sterile, Comstock needs a child. He turns to alternate versions of himself - namely, the Bookers, who have married and have an infant child. These Bookers are down on their luck and in heavy debt, and are in a dark enough space to be willing to turn over his daughter in exchange for a clean slate. Of course, he gets cold feet, but Comstocks take the children anyway.

And here we enter the game.

So we've got two potential Bookers, really. Each one is going to have subtle personality traits, but in terms of general progression the two most common and pertinent Bookers are those who have stolen Anna as Comstock, and those who traded Anna to Comstock. Both have the past of Wounded Knee behind them, which left them scarred. But among them, only the Comstocks, the ones who accepted the baptism, are not constantly haunted by it. Booker clearly carries that trauma on his sleeve throughout the game, but Comstock, a godly man, does not. Why?

Because Comstock accepted the baptism. Because grace was offered him, and he reached out and took it. And that religious revival transformed him. Not necessarily in a positive way - he gained a lot of pretty abhorrent traits in his bigotry and willingness to abduct children - but certainly in a healthy way that allowed him to cope with the grievous sins of his past. Meanwhile, Booker DeWitt is still haunted by those sins, and turns to alcohol to cope. By the time he's in Columbia in an attempt to wipe away debt, he's so calloused with regard to his past that he appears to be a stoic misanthrope. Elizabeth frequently talks to him about how he is able to cope with such horrible things in his past, and his answers are less than satisfactory - because he isn't coping with them. But as he talks to Elizabeth throughout the game, he begins to develop coping mechanisms. He opens up a bit, he talks about his past... he's slowly but surely working through that trauma by interacting with the girl that we eventually know to be his daughter.

But then, at the end of it all, Booker comes face to face with Comstock. A man who so readily learned to cope with his sins, and was offering Booker that same grace, constantly throughout the game. But Booker had already rejected it and suffered through a long period of trying and failing to deal with his past. Here, standing before him, was a man who took what Booker perceived to be a shortcut. He hadn't earned that redemption and that salvation in Booker's eyes. The constant offers were just patronization, taunting. So Booker, in a rage, killed the man whose very existence was a mockery of all the years Booker spent in penance for his moral misdeeds. He didn't kill Comstock for his religious faith. He killed him because Comstock represented what Booker never had: forgiveness.

The murder of Comstock was not a calculated act, but one of rage and self-hatred. Booker could never forgive himself for what he had done at Wounded Knee, so seeing Comstock so easily having done so was a cosmic prank of sorts.

That murder? That wasn't a good thing. That was a morally bad thing. Murder committed out of envy. That's pretty universally agreed upon to be a bad thing. Sure, Comstock's death could be argued to have some karmic resonance, and Comstock definitely had done some bad things in his time as Comstock, so killing him might not have been the worst thing to ever happen. His death meant a lot of bad that was potentially going to happen wouldn't come to pass. But that wasn't why Booker killed Comstock. The reasons behind that murder were morally deplorable.

And it comes down to this: Booker may not have been a wholly bad man. But he wasn't a good one. He had done terrible thing after terrible thing, committed atrocity after atrocity and engaged in horrendous violence time and time again. Throughout that, he rejected grace and forgiveness offered to him numerous times, and struggled to deal with the heavy weight that his wrongdoings had placed on his soul. And in the end? He killed a man who was offering him forgiveness because he refused it himself, and was more or less jealous that Comstock was able to sleep soundly at night.

So Booker was drowned, in a perversion of the baptism that he rejected, for the sins that he was never able to cope with, by the girl who had been helping him learn to cope. The ritual that would have turned him into a new man, invigorated by the forgiveness extended to him by God, is instead what killed him because he refused to ever accept it.

I'm sorry, but I am getting some serious chills over here. That's powerful thematic resonance right there. Booker post-Wounded Knee is a wonderful dichotomy of the religious man and the secular man. Comstock, the religious man, accepts grace and forgives himself readily. Booker, the secular man, rejects grace and is forced to deal with his sins on his own. Neither path made Booker a better man. Neither path was better than the other. Both paths came attendant with their own evils. Both paths came attendant with their own positives. But neither one ultimately brought Booker the peace he was seeking.

That, in my eyes, is what BioShock Infinite is ultimately about. Sure, there's a lot of metaphysical, nature-of-storytelling stuff in there too. But the core character story is about the division between men of faith and men without it. About how those two men, though they may come from the same background, are fundamentally different. Comstock is an examination into why people follow religious leaders, and why religion is such an attractive thing. Booker is an examination into those who do not follow religion, into those who struggle on their own terms. Neither man is cast as a demon. Neither man is cast as an angel. They are both so essentially human that I would argue that Infinite is one of the most charitable looks at the division between faith and secularism in pop culture today.

I love this game.

 

[Ganondork]

Garo has most of this thread by the balls, so I'll just pick at parts not really covered.

It seems Infinite decided to take on the perils of cultists.

Not really. Levine stated early on that he was tackling Jingoism above all else. Comstock managed to put Church back into the State, and created a hybrid of god-fearing patriots that Fox News gets a hard on for during their dirtiest of dreams. It was more of a statement against blind patriotism than anything else.

Also, it's not a series shtick to tackle topics; it's Levine's shtick. He had nothing to do with Bioshock 2, and, lo and behold, it didn't tackle a new topic.

I love Assassin's Creed. The whole series, starting from the first. I'm still in the middle of ACIII, so I haven't played the last one yet. But as a Christian it is hard to not get offended occasionally. Or a lot.

I basically need to shut my personal beliefs down while I play. I make sure to reassure myself that I'm playing a work of fiction that was "created by a multicultural team with various beliefs" like they tell us before every day.

For those who don't know, you basically play the role of an Assassin fighting the extreme conservative Christian (though often it's only a front) Knights Templar throughout history. In the second game,

Spoiler

you even beat the living **** out of the Pope and only let him live so that it matches up with real life

. Even though the entire game played on that man being extremely corrupt and evil (and actual history also supports that he was not a very nice guy) it felt super... awkward... for me to do it.

I haven't played GTAV but I know that there's a non-skippable scene where you need to basically torture a guy. I would probably have a moral issue with doing that as well.

But that aside, I love both series and as long as I can remind myself that it is fiction, I am fine with it.

I thought you were going to talk about the fact that Templars are actually atheists and use the Church to further their cause. I suppose your point is valid as well, but you should also take into account that the Assassins are based on the Nizari Ishmailis, who are a Shiite group that served the purpose that the Knights Templar did, just for the Muslim side.* This is evidenced by a few things. The first is that the original game takes place in Masyaf, which is part of the Levant. This would have been a key Muslim area at the time. They also feature Al-Mualim, better known as Hasan-i-Sabah, or the Old Man of the Mountain.*

The initial game was actually a story of the Muslims and Christians' militia fighting their own battles while their religious groups duked it out. Despite their religious affiliation, both groups are atheist. Altair refers to religion as, "The greatest lie ever told," during the latter parts of his life. Though this belief seems to be held among the people who experience Pieces of Eden. Abbas, a fellow Assassin, says on his death bed,

I hope there is a life after this one, so I may find my father, and know the truth of his final days.

So he either is a believer, or he is simply hoping for there to be an afterlife. As for the Templars:

Sibrand: Please, don't do this
Altaïr: You're afraid?
Sibrand: Of course I am afraid
Altaïr: But you'll be safe now, held in the arms of your god
Sibrand: Have my brothers taught you nothing? I know what waits for me. For all of us
Altaïr: If not your god, then what?
Sibrand: Nothing. Nothing waits. And that is what I fear.
Altaïr: You don't believe?
Sibrand: How could I given what I know? What I've seen? Our treasure was the proof
Altaïr: Proof of what?
Sibrand: That this life is all we have
Altaïr: Linger a while longer then, and tell me of the part you were to play
Sibrand: A blockade by sea, to stop the fool kings and queens from sending reinforcements once we... once we...
Altaïr: Conquered the Holy Land?
Sibrand: Freed it, you fool. From the tyranny of faith...
Altaïr: Freedom? You worked to overthrow cities, control men's minds, murdered any who spoke against you
Sibrand: I followed my orders, believing in my cause... Same as you...

Assassin's Creed actually has far more atheist propaganda than any attacks against a single belief. You see many beliefs be thrown aside in the conflict, whether it's the corrupted Pope, Rodrigo Borgia, or the power-hungry has-been Sultan, Ahmet.

Not really justifying kicking an old man in the groin, but I see it as a general anti-religion game. That may actually offend more people, though.

*Source: The Templars and the Assassins: The Militia of Heaven by James Wasserman.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

Alright, so now that we can talk about the ending...

Let's first note that the drowning of Booker at the end doesn't actually do anything except kill that specific Booker. Unless Elizabeth/Anna goes throughout every single possible universe (an infinite number, so it's theoretically impossible) and drowns every single possible Booker, there will always be Comstocks and there will always be Bookers. There will always be a Booker DeWitt undergoing the baptism to become Zachary Hale Comstock and there will always be a Booker DeWitt refusing the baptism. So the drowning isn't some cosmic end to the entire events of the game; it's the end to the Booker whose life you have been playing through, and only that Booker.

This then raises a question: why are we drowning that Booker, exactly?

To answer this question, we need to look at every possible Booker. All the Bookers that are pertinent to our discussion were involved in the Battle at Wounded Knee and were scarred by the event. A subset of those Bookers accepted the baptism, and a subset of them rejected it. That first subset became Comstock, and the latter remained Booker DeWitt. The Comstocks all experienced a religious rebirth, finding themselves awed at the forgiveness shown to them and being moved to share that grace with others. This new outlook on religion eventually led to Columbia, and a working relationship with one of the Lutece twins (who appear to be similarly multi-dimensional beings by the time the game starts) that leads to a lot of scientific advancement, but at the cost of Comstock's virility. Sterile, Comstock needs a child. He turns to alternate versions of himself - namely, the Bookers, who have married and have an infant child. These Bookers are down on their luck and in heavy debt, and are in a dark enough space to be willing to turn over his daughter in exchange for a clean slate. Of course, he gets cold feet, but Comstocks take the children anyway.

And here we enter the game.

So we've got two potential Bookers, really. Each one is going to have subtle personality traits, but in terms of general progression the two most common and pertinent Bookers are those who have stolen Anna as Comstock, and those who traded Anna to Comstock. Both have the past of Wounded Knee behind them, which left them scarred. But among them, only the Comstocks, the ones who accepted the baptism, are not constantly haunted by it. Booker clearly carries that trauma on his sleeve throughout the game, but Comstock, a godly man, does not. Why?

Because Comstock accepted the baptism. Because grace was offered him, and he reached out and took it. And that religious revival transformed him. Not necessarily in a positive way - he gained a lot of pretty abhorrent traits in his bigotry and willingness to abduct children - but certainly in a healthy way that allowed him to cope with the grievous sins of his past. Meanwhile, Booker DeWitt is still haunted by those sins, and turns to alcohol to cope. By the time he's in Columbia in an attempt to wipe away debt, he's so calloused with regard to his past that he appears to be a stoic misanthrope. Elizabeth frequently talks to him about how he is able to cope with such horrible things in his past, and his answers are less than satisfactory - because he isn't coping with them. But as he talks to Elizabeth throughout the game, he begins to develop coping mechanisms. He opens up a bit, he talks about his past... he's slowly but surely working through that trauma by interacting with the girl that we eventually know to be his daughter.

But then, at the end of it all, Booker comes face to face with Comstock. A man who so readily learned to cope with his sins, and was offering Booker that same grace, constantly throughout the game. But Booker had already rejected it and suffered through a long period of trying and failing to deal with his past. Here, standing before him, was a man who took what Booker perceived to be a shortcut. He hadn't earned that redemption and that salvation in Booker's eyes. The constant offers were just patronization, taunting. So Booker, in a rage, killed the man whose very existence was a mockery of all the years Booker spent in penance for his moral misdeeds. He didn't kill Comstock for his religious faith. He killed him because Comstock represented what Booker never had: forgiveness.

The murder of Comstock was not a calculated act, but one of rage and self-hatred. Booker could never forgive himself for what he had done at Wounded Knee, so seeing Comstock so easily having done so was a cosmic prank of sorts.

That murder? That wasn't a good thing. That was a morally bad thing. Murder committed out of envy. That's pretty universally agreed upon to be a bad thing. Sure, Comstock's death could be argued to have some karmic resonance, and Comstock definitely had done some bad things in his time as Comstock, so killing him might not have been the worst thing to ever happen. His death meant a lot of bad that was potentially going to happen wouldn't come to pass. But that wasn't why Booker killed Comstock. The reasons behind that murder were morally deplorable.

And it comes down to this: Booker may not have been a wholly bad man. But he wasn't a good one. He had done terrible thing after terrible thing, committed atrocity after atrocity and engaged in horrendous violence time and time again. Throughout that, he rejected grace and forgiveness offered to him numerous times, and struggled to deal with the heavy weight that his wrongdoings had placed on his soul. And in the end? He killed a man who was offering him forgiveness because he refused it himself, and was more or less jealous that Comstock was able to sleep soundly at night.

So Booker was drowned, in a perversion of the baptism that he rejected, for the sins that he was never able to cope with, by the girl who had been helping him learn to cope. The ritual that would have turned him into a new man, invigorated by the forgiveness extended to him by God, is instead what killed him because he refused to ever accept it.

I'm sorry, but I am getting some serious chills over here. That's powerful thematic resonance right there. Booker post-Wounded Knee is a wonderful dichotomy of the religious man and the secular man. Comstock, the religious man, accepts grace and forgives himself readily. Booker, the secular man, rejects grace and is forced to deal with his sins on his own. Neither path made Booker a better man. Neither path was better than the other. Both paths came attendant with their own evils. Both paths came attendant with their own positives. But neither one ultimately brought Booker the peace he was seeking.

That, in my eyes, is what BioShock Infinite is ultimately about. Sure, there's a lot of metaphysical, nature-of-storytelling stuff in there too. But the core character story is about the division between men of faith and men without it. About how those two men, though they may come from the same background, are fundamentally different. Comstock is an examination into why people follow religious leaders, and why religion is such an attractive thing. Booker is an examination into those who do not follow religion, into those who struggle on their own terms. Neither man is cast as a demon. Neither man is cast as an angel. They are both so essentially human that I would argue that Infinite is one of the most charitable looks at the division between faith and secularism in pop culture today.

I love this game.

And that's why I hate this game. The assertion that, in the end, the faith in God made Dewitt no better a man than without that faith. The assertion that faith is inherently a corrupting force, the assertion that faith inherently causes people to develop abhorrent traits within themselves, THAT's why I hate it. Being a man of faith myself I can attest that faith in and of itself is a beneficial force. It gives you peace beyond understanding and assurance beyond reason (not WITHOUT reason as so many people would proclaim; it goes beyond what reason can determine on its own and allows us to trust in God in matters we cannot possibly know on our own).

If the game made more of a point about the misuses of faith, I would be better with that. But it does not. It concludes that faith in and of itself is not a worthwhile goal, and that's why I hate it.

 

[Turo602]

Are people seriously getting offended by works of fiction? I'm not religious or believe in any sort of entity, yet such beliefs and figures play part in many fictitious works. Some that I deeply enjoy. Whether it's for personal reasons or just as an idea, it doesn't matter. The purpose of the product doesn't suddenly become to brainwash or promote a certain belief and if it is... well I'm not easily susceptible. I'm open-minded enough to appreciate a differing view or opinion and not get offended by them, especially those expressed by fictional characters. As long as I'm having fun and the narrative makes sense, I'm good. It's not like the story is personally attacking me.