Why Talking About BioShock Infinite’s Violence is Important

Infinite Universes of Michael Bay Films

Agree or disagree on the level of BioShock Infinite’s violence, however, it’s worth talking about, because this is a game that stands apart from many, if not most, other offerings in the medium right now. There’s a lot to talk about in terms of its political ideas, its treatment and depiction of racism and history, its ideas about choice and character — and while I’d argue that it’s an imperfect game, it is definitely an important title on the landscape of games. How a game like that chooses to portray and use violence in its world, and how it requires the player to use and feel about that violence, is arguably more important than your average game, at the least for its visibility.

And BioShock Infinite begs a larger discussion about games. Here’s a title that has a lot of really interesting ideas, at least on the surface. It seems to want to get players thinking about the conflicted, dissonant nature of American history at the start and the means by which we corrupt the narrative of our own lives to keep ourselves happy by the end. And yet to get through it all, you have to explode heads in a shower of blood. That middle requirement really has the capability of muddling things.

My colleague Phil Owen recently described the heavy prevalence of violence in games by way of a cinematic analogy: Imagine all the movies in existence were in the style of Michael Bay. That’s what video games are like right now — almost universally violent, seemingly for the sake of violence. The tools being used by developers to create interactive experiences are mired in gory combat, and even a game that purports to be About Something, like BioShock Infinite is, uses those same tools — and only those tools.

Again, that’s not to judge Infinite’s use of those tools, but the discussion of whether those are the right tools for the job, or the only tools for the job, is a good one. If we start to think about the fact that even the games that seem to have a lot to say to us, such as Far Cry 3 and Spec Ops: The Line, do so with a gun glued to our hands, we can’t help but wonder why these games need to use violence to make those points — or if they could still make them in any other way, or as well. Or if they make them at all.

So whether BioShock Infinite could be non-violent and still be fundamentally itself, or whether it would be better served to be less violent, are questions worth asking and worth discussing. The greater discussion about the place of violence in games is also worth discussing, and that Infinite works to be broader and deeper than your average game makes it a good place to start the discussion.

I’m not sure Infinite could be what it is without violence. I’m also not sure its violence effectively allows it to convey what it wants to be. Feel free to weigh in — that’s the point.

Read more of Phil Hornshaw’s work here, and follow him and Game Front on Twitter: @philhornshaw and @gamefrontcom.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

15 Comments on Why Talking About BioShock Infinite’s Violence is Important


On April 16, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Ok, I’m a huge fan of the Bioshock games and I can’t figure out what people are making a fuss about. Its like no one remembers the first fames obvious and subtle violence. In the first game you are given the choice to become a child murdering drug fiend or a savior. You actually are given the coice to rip a parasite from the body of a small child or to help her. You can slend the game beating people to death with a wrench and hearing the noise that is akin to the sound of smashing a pumpkin or a mellon every time you hit a person or their corpse. There is a man who puts live people inside of plaster, another who is mutilating and murdering people in the name of symmetry, and what do you think happened to all the children in Rapture? Do people think the splicers were sitting down for a tea party and scones when they captured a little sister? Hell no, they were killing those poor children and their lobotomized guard dog for their next fix. The Bioshock games started out with violence, you see a man murdered in front of you before you actually set foot in Rapture, hell if you want to get into it you MURDER a plane full of innocents in the opening cut scene.

The discussion of violence and its place in videogames is a different topic all together but I feel like asking if Bioshock was to violent is like asking if a Friday the 13th movie is going to be violent. Of corse it is, that’s part of what it is. This isn’t a disney adventure no matter what Elizabeth looks like.


On April 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm

So, I didn’t see the spelling errors in that post, sue me it was typed on a cell phone. :P


On April 16, 2013 at 6:06 pm

Let me ask this. Does the violence in this game go beyond the masterpiece that was Soldier of Fortune 2? If not, then people shouldn’t be crying about the violence.

Few have came close to what SOF2 was able to accomplish as far as violence goes.

Phil Hornshaw

On April 16, 2013 at 6:06 pm


Well, as I mentioned, it’s about the quality of the violence. Bioshock is a horror setting, in a darkened, ruined city, with insane people running around all over. Even the worst of its violence is intense and personal — when you find ruined bodies or people encased in plaster, it manages to be creepy all the way through.

In Infinite, the gore is ratcheted up even more almost, less of the violence and suffering is implied or imagined, and a lot less of it feels like you’re forced to do it as you skulk around, literally fighting for your life all the damn time and just barely surviving like in Bioshock. It feels like it’s more of the “wouldn’t it be cool if” variety of gore. It doesn’t add anything to the scene in Infinite. In Bioshock, the gore adds something to the horror setting and atmosphere. That’s how I feel about it, at least, and the question of “why is this here” is harder to answer in Infinite, which is what makes it important to start.


On April 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Mmmmm, I actually think the amount of blood shooting from the headless bodies was quite in keeping with actual arterial spray. Plus it was always nice to hear how disgusted Elizabeth was whenever Booker did something like that. She was an innocent, and Booker was the destroyer of her naive worldview, blood and violence all.


On April 16, 2013 at 7:26 pm

I guess I just went into the game expecting violence and gore. I actually felt like the violence was toned down a bit until you enter the Vox revolution world. Sitting here discussing it with friends a point was brought up that someone saw the gore as a stark contrast to the city surrounding you. It got me thinking that perhaps it was included to reinforce the false sheppard idea. Someone who is brutal and murderous compared to the average Columbian and the idealic scene that was the backdrop of the city. The common folk of Columbia may have been bigots but you didn’t see dead people in the steets till either Booker killed them or inspired others to kill them. I might be grasping at straws but I also expected a bit more gore and violence from the game. After seeing plaster maniquins bleed when I hit them in the first game I expected this game to ratch it up a bit more.

I guess the question I have is why did anyone not expect it to be full of gore and violence? I’ll throw another comparisin out there, would you go into a Die Hard movie expecting violence or Unicorns with rainbows coming from their butts? Me, I expect violence, gore and at least one yippie ki yi yeah, not unicorns. It wouldn’t matter the setting of the Die Hard movie, they could hop into the way back machine and I would still expect some gore and violence no matter the era.

I also never thought of the first Bioshock as a horror setting, I may have to look at it like that next time I play. I always kind of looked at it as a reflection of what happens when the worst of humanity is brought out in people. Maybe by you seeing the first as horror andseeing this as something else you were more taken aback by the violence and gore.


On April 16, 2013 at 7:38 pm

This is the most non-commital drivel I’ve ever read. Grow a spine guys, have an opinion. It’s almost breathtaking how desperately you strive not to offend the hideous psychopaths of the world. It’s okay to have a soul. It’s okay to actually want to get along, at any level, with anyone. It’s APPROPRIATE to call the game’s makers out on the sheer soulless horror in Bioshock Infinite. It’s disgusting- at least to any decent, sane, self-controlled person. Remember how everyone suddenly liked MASS MURDER AND CANNIBALISM in Prototype? That’s where kowtowing to that demonic sh!t goes. It’s pretty clear we’ve just crossed a line with Bioshock Infinite. We’d better f|_|cking stop before we lose it completely. Well, you all. I’ve simply not bought the game.


On April 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm

I wouldn’t say prototype was demonic. God of war is much worse and i wouldn’t pin the label on it either. In both of them the violence fits the setting and tone of the game for the most part. God of war might have gone overboard but that’s another debate.
I expected violence in Infinite and got violence. I think they could have included something else besides the throwing people several yards away in a seemingly weightless fashion. I’d rather have more emphasis on the tears.

Also if your looking for something resembling cannibalism look at stubbs or l4d, and those don’t even count.


On April 17, 2013 at 12:06 am

I don’t think that Bioshock’s Infinite violence was excessive.

Columbia is NOT a peaceful and serene place. There are ugly things under the surface, tension, rage, hatred. Every character you meet, even “sweet innocent” Elizabeth, have issues: Comstock, Slate, Booker, Fink, Fitzroy. Each of them is violent and deable at heart (well, ok, not Elizabeth….).

I see Columbia as a shiny veneer, a beautiful surface under which ugly things are bred. I don’t think Columbia, on the whole, was less terrifying than Rapture, on the contrary. It was not a destroyed place where monsters roamed, the monsters here were eating ice creams while dancing and sunbathing. The whole place is a setting for the player to admire and, at the very beginning of the game, hate. Playing as Booker, the only thing I really wanted was to leave that place. The “skyhook in the face” at the beginning of the game, for me, was only the visualization of the violence that was demanded of me when I was given the 77 ball.

I don’t think that Bioshock would work as anything else than an fps.

Sloppy Head

On April 17, 2013 at 2:45 am

The foundation of this article is part of a much wider problem in gaming. For one of the best summaries you can every wish to see on the effects of gratuitous violence as a crutch for videogame developers, I encourage you to watch this video by MrBTongue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZM2jXyvGOc


On April 17, 2013 at 2:56 am

I felt the same about Fallout 3 and New Vegas. These two games are offering very realistic severing of various limbs in slow motion or you could see spine snapping, when the enemy´s head is flying away after succesful shot. And I asked – why for the f**k´s sake?!
It is just another thing, that destroys the atmosphere of Fallout 1 and 2. Yes, the first two games seemed violent too, but it was unrealistic, over the top violence, when your opponent was cut in half by laser or just evaporated etc. But F3 showes it much more “in flesh and blood”, more closely and needlessly slow, so you could admire your work.


On April 17, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Interesting point about Fallout 3. Probably important to point out that the most popular overhaul mod for the game (FWE) contains the ability to easily modify gore level and kill physics. Everybody I know who’s running FWE has both dialed way down to improve realism. I really prefer it myself compared to vanilla, much less immersion breaking to have a raider I sniper just drop instead of flying backward several meters. There’s a difference between violence appropriate for the game setting and violence that’s so over the top that it detracts from the game.


On April 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm

That’s really not the question anyone should ask, if there is a question to be asked at all. There are tons of games with similar themes and tons of games or even entire genres (like adventures) without violence. And yet those games usually are a niche. Why is that? We are supposed to wonder now, why games are made like this one, if this is what sells the most copies? I feel like people are joking. It’s so obvious it hardly warrants any discussion.

But personally, I perceive it from a whole other angle anyway. First person shooters once used to be about nothing but… shooting. Probably beginning with games like HL1 this changed. Suddenly they also offered a, often interesting, story. So, for me, the big picture is, that games like BioShock LOWERED the level of violence in such shooters, simply for adding so many other elements to them that have nothing to do with violence. No one picks up Half Life because he wants to see artificial blood. Frankly I can’t imagine anyone doing that. I didn’t. Do they still discuss why there is violence in action movies like “Die Hard” and the like? No?

I also don’t worry about peoples opinion who came in contact with BioShock Infinite only because it had such good marketing, that made people buy it, who don’t normally play (such) games. Their media competence is just horrible, if not even non-existent. These people can’t be a measure of judging things, otherwise we would return to the dark ages. Laugh a bit about them, if you have to, roll your eyes, whatever and move on. If you show this game to grandma, of course she’ll be shocked.


On April 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm

BioShock was a deconstruction of the FPS genre. It made gamers question “who is my character really, and why is he doing these things?” That’s one of the greatest things about it. I remember playing Dead Space after it and thinking “Why I am I doing all this suicidal crap while everyone else I meet hides in a room? You want your satellite dishes fixed, you do it.”

BioShock Infinite does something similar. It creates a parallel earth which contains actual parallels to our world. It presents our inherent brutality and our poor justifications and it does so in a way that is meant to disgust us. Here we have slaughter over politics, race, class or just interpersonal conflict, and it all goes too far. Meanwhile, we are shown the whole time that the outcomes are predestined and the whole thing is just a cycle of violence repeating indefinitely. The game even ends by setting up the paradox which will contain the events which transpired, creating the cycle and thereby closing it off so that the rest of “all possible universes” can be free of it. But every time you start the game, the cycle of violence is renewed.

So, in my opinion, it is a game that wants you to be repulsed by its violence. It wants you to chose not to play it anymore. It’s trying to tell you to stop feeding the bloody animal in you with ridiculous wish-fulfillment/power-fantasies so that we can all face the future instead of just trying to forget the past.

@phil I remember you described the atmosphere of Columbia as Disney, and I think that had to be intentional. Besides the whole “Elizabeth is a Disney princess trapped in a tower” thing, the whole setting was a theme park ride. Every store is a little generic snack/gift shop. No place really feels like people would live there. It’s almost entirely just places to walk through, waste time in, or move goods to feed the perpetual tourists. I don’t think that this was unintentional. In a game where they took an extra year just to add polish, I don’t think much is unintentional, even the “ugh, another shooting gallery” feeling of the gameplay. I actually do believe that Infinite wasn’t just a game, but a cry for help.


On July 14, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Criticism about bioshock infinite violence is really annoying. You always assume that the violence in the game is pointless, that it’s some kind of accident in development and that it can’t be justified by the artists behind the games. But it can actually because of the very nature of the game. What kind of universe is bioshick set in? a realistic universe? Absolutely not. Bioshock infinite is a cartoon gone wrong and in a cartoon everything is too bright, too big, too beautiful (just like the beginning of the game) but when a cartoon gets darker, it would make no sense for it to becomes more realistic and less graphic. The violence here is used as a conter-point. The brighter Colombia is, the bloodier the violence must be in order to keep making bioshock infinite looks like a cartoon. It’s sad that people keep blaming the game for an artistic choice that completely makes sense.