Bioshock Infinite: A Theory *spoilers*

At the end of the game we find out that the game deals with parallel worlds that are built off of the decisions you did not make.  Specifically, Comstock is a result of Dewitt choosing to get baptised at a pivotal point in his life, thus, providing us with reasoning for him being "gung-ho" about God and Government.  Another thing is that in these "other worlds" your appearance can be drastically different from how it is now.  After some thought, I started to piece together my own universe, one that directly connects all three of the games.  My theories are as follows:

-Andrew Ryan is Dewitt,  mostly Comstock.  I believe that Ryan was created when Comstock decided to embrace God and religion.  By embracing those things, a parallel world was created where he chose to reject them, which is what Andrew Ryan does.  Essentially they both come from Dewitt, but, more evidence of relation can be found in Comstock; after all, the game only gives you enough background to understand where Comstock came from, to try and figure out where Ryan came from we would have to make stuff up or "grab at straws."

-Sophia Lamb is Daisy Fitzgerald.  I believe this mostly because she was the rival of Comstock, well, the most prevalent one.

-Delta is the guy who became the Songbird.  The whole idea of "protection" that surrounds the character leads me to believe this.  Also, the fact that he was a man turned into a machine.  Though there is little evidence to back this up, what is there, though, is solid enough.

-Anna is the protagonist from the first game.  It makes sense seeing that its an offspring going against its parent.  If the Letuce's other self is a male, then why can Anna not be a male in a different world?

-Tenenbaum is Letuce.  This is based off the fact that both characters created the "big science things" in the games.

-Rapture, and its history, is erased at the end of the game when Comstock is destroyed.

Catering to the "Bro" Gamer

Has this logic taken gaming off the path of righteousness?  After reading an article from Kotaku, I have found myself questioning the world of gaming as it stands now.  I remember when I was younger that each system had tons of games spanning different genres.  Variety, to me, is what makes video games so great, in that you are given access to a different kind of interaction with creativity that one could not find in simply reading a book or watching a movie.  I can look back at my youth, which started with hand me down Ataris and ending with the Playstation 2 and Xbox, and find myself lost in all of the different games that I played.  Now when I think of video games, the primary genre that pops into my mind is "first-person shooter."

Since the dawning of Halo, the gaming market has dedicated most of its time to the FPS genre.  After all, it does make sense to, seeing that Halo is one of the biggest names in the game with a whopping fifty million units sold (information found through google).  Halo, in it itself, is a simple game that has everthing a guy (or girl) loves: combat vehicles, combat weapons, grenades, and stuff to use the aforementioned things on.  With all of that being said, the reality of the matter is that the "simplicity" of the game helped gaming reach a whole new crowd: the casuals.  Halo does not require much in terms of gameplay, in that you can jump in and out whenever you please and not have to feel overwhelmed with terminology, skills, and control schemes.  You jump, shoot, crouch, run, and repeat.  I guess a good comparison of Halo to other games is a simple game of throwing a football back and forth in comparison to a whole game of football.  A game of catch is something fun that everyone can do where as an actual game of football is something that is only for certain people, for it is much more demanding.  Everyone plays catch, in some form or another, but, when it comes to actually playing football, the rules and physical and mental aspects can be seen as overwhelming.  Halo introduced this simple version of video games to the population, in that it showed everyone that a video game does not have to be complicated, that you can just play a game without dedicating yourself to it as if you are learning something in school.  The funny thing is that there are other games that fit this description of mine that came out way before Halo, but, they did not (obviously) capture people's minds as Halo did.  I am getting too much into this, anyways, one cannot blame game companies for trying to make money, but, they are (even if indirectly) at fault for the decline of creativity and the death of certain genres.  The biggest threat to these two things comes in the form of Call of Duty, the next step in the evolution of FPS that Halo started.  Halo may have been simple, but, Electronic Arts figured out a way to make a game much simpler.

As far as being at fault for the decline of creativity, it is quite obvious that the "something evil attacks and we must use our military something to stop them" storyline has been overplayed. I guess this can be said for many games in different genres, but, the whole "government" backdrop has been really played with this generation.   No longer do we see oddball games like Toe Jam and Earl, Sonic, Earthworm Jim, Bubsy, and Battletoads.  To keep up with the "money game," third person games have started incorporating this "cookie cutter" storyline, games such as Vanquish, Gears of War, and Army of Two are a few examples.  This storyline does prove to provide and interesting "read," but, the fact that this has turned into what sells makes developers wary of trying something different.  You can clearly see this in games like Syndicate, James Bond, and Resistance 2, all of which turned from being their own things to simplified "Call of Duty" clones.
The biggest problem with this is that there are a handful of games that do stand well on their own without copying the norm, like Uncharted, who's multiplayer gets flack for having "perks" like Call of Duty.  A simple similarity causes those tired of the norm to dismiss a great aspect of a game.  Who can blame them, though?  If something reminds you of something you dislike, you tend to stay away from it.

My Quick Two-Cents on the New Riddick Movie

Most of the reviews that I have read pertaining to Riddick are definitely full of critiques.  One of the common critiques is that the movie adds elements to the world of Riddick that contradicts the character all in an attempt to make the movie feel "edgy."  Specifically, most of the complaints stem from vulgar humor (rape jokes) and the overall violence displayed in the movie.  

You see, the "rape" comments and grittiness does not surprise me. They have hinted that the world these characters operate in is filthy and criminal infested. This is not only hinted at in the movies, but it is also hinted at in the two games (more so in the latter). I don't think that it is wrong for them to flesh out this idea a little more. Sure they may have failed in execution (some people think so, some do not), but hey it is what it is. These kinds of things will always be a part of movies because, as time goes on, we will try to mimic as much of reality we can in movies; it comes along with the art. With that being said, violence is and always will be a part of this world, in any form in may occasionally take. 

You can tell that when they made the first movie they saw that they had something with potential. Riddick is a series that I think will never be perfect, because each movie seems like they are figuring out more things that they can do with the world and the character. It may be perfect in a few movies or so, who knows. Now that I think about it, this may be why I like these movies so much. It is an ever-evolving ride that leaves enough for the imagination to run wild