|
yokaiy posted:Actually, could someone explain this to me? I am both not a religious person and not Christian/Catholic/etc, so a lot of the preaching about Sodom and such goes right over my head. I've sort of learned to smile and nod when religion comes up in media like this, but in this case I feel like I'm missing a little too much at this point to just let it go. Am I missing a lot here, or is smiling and nodding actually good enough? The very short version is that Sodom was a 'city of sinners,' and God blew it all to hell except for a couple of people. That's basically all you need to know for whenever it gets mentioned in modern culture! This bit was super creepy to play through - IS it actually possible to sneak through without alerting the Boys of Silence?
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Podima posted:The very short version is that Sodom was a 'city of sinners,' and God blew it all to hell except for a couple of people. That's basically all you need to know for whenever it gets mentioned in modern culture! Also to give you an idea what kind of sin Sodom was particularly well known for; it's called Sodomy for a reason.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Though despite that, it should be noted that the main sin of Sodom was that its people were unconcerned with the poor and downtrodden.Ezekiel 16:49 NIV posted:"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Which makes it very ironic for the residents of Columbia to refer to the other countries as Sodom, considering their stance on the poor and needy. And you can definitely sneak by most of the Boys of Silence, excepted for the first and last ones. Iceclaw fucked around with this message at 00:17 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Though despite that, it should be noted that the main sin of Sodom was that its people were unconcerned with the poor and downtrodden. Incidentally, guess what the residents of Columbia are very much guilty of?  e: f;b 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
my dad posted:Incidentally, guess what the residents of Columbia are very much guilty of? But isn't that always the way of it with these types, being all, "Hey man, you've got a mote* in your eye, let me help you get it out" even though they have a beam** in their own eye? *a spec of dust. **a beam like you would use to build a house with. Seriously, a big rear end piece of wood. (Matthew 7:1-5)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
The first time playing I sneaked past every Boy after having a difficult time with shooting all the President-Inmates that the first one sicked on me (I wasn't using the powers properly first time I played, which would have made it much easier) and thus saved a chunk of the ammunition of my weapons but I pretty much emptied both shooting that last Boy of Silence/jump scare.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Podima posted:The very short version is that Sodom was a 'city of sinners,' and God blew it all to hell except for a couple of people. That's basically all you need to know for whenever it gets mentioned in modern culture! Yeah. Except as said, for the first one, and the jump-scare one. The game encourages stealth play by giving you basically no ammo except for the pistol until you're past the last stealth section.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
I ran the same charge build so I barely even noticed that the game was stingy with ammo. I also never realized it was a stealth section.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Yeah. Except as said, for the first one, and the jump-scare one. The game encourages stealth play by giving you basically no ammo except for the pistol until you're past the last stealth section. A terrible way to introduce stealth is with a forced combat section utilizing the very enemies you later can sneak by.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I gather that it was old Elizabeth and not Father Comstock who made the 1983 invasion, meaning we still haven't seen who started the 1930 invasion. The game was also way too coy with the audio logs in that section; it's practically a given that cryptic and vague references are not referring to what the player (or at least Booker) 'thinks' they are. And if not, they'll just be needlessly avoiding a twist for the sake of setting it up. But I do agree the atmosphere is fantastic in that section. Iceclaw posted:Which makes it very ironic for the residents of Colombia to refer to the other countries as Sodom, considering their stance on the poor and needy. Careful with the spelling there. The South American nation has about a third of its citizens in poverty and a fairly high Gini coefficient, but has improved quite a bit over the last few decades. Kangra fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
JossiRossi posted:A terrible way to introduce stealth is with a forced combat section utilizing the very enemies you later can sneak by. Probably the idea was "Hey, those masked guys didn't attack me until the light-helmet guy saw me. And wow, that fight was tougher than I expected and I didn't get many supplies to replenish my stock after it. I should probably try to avoid getting into more fights like that". Kangra posted:I gather that it was old Elizabeth and not Father Comstock who made the 1983 invasion, meaning we still haven't seen who started the 1930 invasion.  What 1930 invasion are you talking about?
Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 00:58 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
I'm kind of curious how the 1980s invasion even seems to be working. I have to imagine that even in this timeline, America developed plenty of jet fighters and BVR missiles. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:I'm kind of curious how the 1980s invasion even seems to be working. I have to imagine that even in this timeline, America developed plenty of jet fighters and BVR missiles. Maybe Columbia is too quantum-unstable to even destroy anymore, and is just replaced by alternate reality versions every time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:
Whenever it was that Booker was first told "Bring us the girl" and he saw Columbia attacking New York. I don't think we have a specific date, other than that it's post-Chrysler Building and Empire State. Sometime in the 1930s may be a better way to put it. It seems like 1930s Booker was sent back to try and save 1912 Elizabeth to prevent her from coming to power. But presumably if he doesn't get to her after being captured, the 1983 invasion occurs; if he does get her out, maybe Comstock initiates the 1930s invasion anyway. I went back to find that scene and also noted that 1912 Comstock was aware of what Booker was told, meaning that Comstock must have had some information from that timeline. I prefer to imagine each timeline as being separate, but interlinked. That means you don't ever go through a tear back or forward on the same line, but sidewise to another one, even if the other one is located at a different point in time. Although to make the plot work it could be the case that passing information into another timeline (either by going through it or drawing on observations) causes one or the other timelines to branch.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Kangra posted:Whenever it was that Booker was first told "Bring us the girl" and he saw Columbia attacking New York. I don't think we have a specific date, other than that it's post-Chrysler Building and Empire State. Sometime in the 1930s may be a better way to put it. I may be crazy...but wasn't that scene just a dream of his?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
It's true that we don't know if it was or wasn't. I'm taking it as real, or possibly jumbled bits of something that was real. "Bring us the girl" seems to be something that was real at least, unless we go down the route of the game being half-hallucination.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Kangra posted:Whenever it was that Booker was first told "Bring us the girl" and he saw Columbia attacking New York. I don't think we have a specific date, other than that it's post-Chrysler Building and Empire State. Sometime in the 1930s may be a better way to put it. Er, I don't think that was a 1930's invasion, I think that might have been a preview of this scene in the last update. People in the thread said that the 1930's was the earliest that it could have been because of the buildings you could see, not that it could only be in the 1930's. And also yeah, it was a dream and quite possibly jumbled up nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:I'm kind of curious how the 1980s invasion even seems to be working. I have to imagine that even in this timeline, America developed plenty of jet fighters and BVR missiles. I thought what you posted was a typo so I made this whole thing but it wasn't a typo and now I don't know what it's for but here you go. Enjoy, someone, anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Booker's baptismal vision is at least different than the 1980s attack, since there was no stock ticker on the building or large billboards. Everything about his office strongly suggests a pre-1950 date, and pre-1940 makes sense just to avoid confusion with World War II. Unless the idea is that this it's part of World War II. Anyway, there are two attacks we've seen, although the reality of one is uncertain.Giggs posted:I thought what you posted was a typo so I made this whole thing but it wasn't a typo and now I don't know what it's for but here you go. Enjoy, someone, anyone. It's your creation. Is it real? (Loved the song at the end on the victrola.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:I'm kind of curious how the 1980s invasion even seems to be working. I have to imagine that even in this timeline, America developed plenty of jet fighters and BVR missiles. We argued about this a bit in the old Infinite spoilers thread in Games, and one of the points that should be made is that in this particular cosmology, as long as it's theoretically possible for Columbia to overcome New York for whatever reason, it will happen somewhere, and that's all that a multiverse-spanning Columbia really needs. It would be interesting to see that fight play out, though. I always imagined the rifts being used as a missile defense system, or an advance guard of manic shock troops hopped up on Vigors and dismantling the U.S.'s coastal defenses.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Giggs posted:I thought what you posted was a typo so I made this whole thing but it wasn't a typo and now I don't know what it's for but here you go. Enjoy, someone, anyone. You can read "1984" on one of the billboards down there, I thought. Though that would make Elizabeth almost impossibly old, so it's hard to know what to make of it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:You can read "1984" on one of the billboards down there, I thought. Though that would make Elizabeth almost impossibly old, so it's hard to know what to make of it. If she's 18 or so in the 1912 of Columbia, then she'd only be 90 in 1984. Hardly impossible?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Particularly when you take Columbia's technology into account. Even if you ignore Vigors, they have a lot of stuff that's way ahead of schedule for 1912 in the main game, and they can go around stealing tech from alternate universes. 1984 Elizabeth looks good for 90, but there's no telling what she's been able to benefit from.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:You can read "1984" on one of the billboards down there, I thought. Though that would make Elizabeth almost impossibly old, so it's hard to know what to make of it. The billboard is more reliable than trusting the age of a freak that can open rifts through time and space.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:If she's 18 or so in the 1912 of Columbia, then she'd only be 90 in 1984. Hardly impossible? Did Elizabeth's model look 90 to you? I have yet to meet a 90 year old who can wear a dress like that and stand up so straight. But that might be nitpicky.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:Did Elizabeth's model look 90 to you? I have yet to meet a 90 year old who can wear a dress like that and stand up so straight. But that might be nitpicky. Never underestimate the power of interdimentional botox.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:Did Elizabeth's model look 90 to you? I have yet to meet a 90 year old who can wear a dress like that and stand up so straight. But that might be nitpicky. They're what I want to be when I grow that old  Total badasses.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I dunno if I'm being the grinch here, but that whole section just seemed so overblown 'hey, lets be spooooky here', it was funny more than anything. Trumpets for ears != scary.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Elizabeth is all "the inmates are running the asylum", but who is actually running Columbia in the future and ordering these bombardments, if not Future Elizabeth? Or is she just counting herself among the inmates?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Glazius posted:Elizabeth is all "the inmates are running the asylum", but who is actually running Columbia in the future and ordering these bombardments, if not Future Elizabeth? I figured she had fanned the flamers of fervor for so long that at this point they wouldn't listen if she tried to order them to stop.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that Elizabeth is implying many times that she basically whipped her fanatical population into a crusading frenzy, to the point they don't even need to be controled because they have so very well interiorized their enslavement that they are enforcing it themselves, and happily flying Colombia to its target.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
yokaiy posted:Actually, could someone explain this to me? I am both not a religious person and not Christian/Catholic/etc, so a lot of the preaching about Sodom and such goes right over my head. I've sort of learned to smile and nod when religion comes up in media like this, but in this case I feel like I'm missing a little too much at this point to just let it go. Am I missing a lot here, or is smiling and nodding actually good enough?  I'm glad everyone else has done the tl;dr version for you because that's pretty much it. There were these villages full of assholes and God scorched them out of existence. If you want the longer version here's a link to the wikipedia article on it and a summary: Abraham, the biggest deal in all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) was approached by God and told that the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah (and others in the regions) were completely wicked. Abraham, who had a nephew living near Sodom, pleaded with God to spare the region if the city was inhabited by ten righteous men. God agreed and sent three angels to Abraham's nephew, a man named Lot. Lot lived with his wife and two daughters and when Lot brought the three angels into his home the townspeople, upon learning Lot had these beautiful guests in his home, immediately rushed his home and demanded that Lot bring his guests out that they may know. Know is heavily implied to mean "have sex with" as Lot instead offers the people his daughters who have never :airquotes:known:airquotes: man. This offer is rejected and they begin beating down Lot's door. The angels strike them blind and then inform Lot they were sent here to judge the town and urge him to flee as God, already quite pissed, has now learned that Sodom was an entire town of rapists which was last straw. The angels advised Lot to not look back as he fled the region, but the Bible assures the reader that despite the event being unobserved God rained fire down upon the sinners of the region. Bathing the guilty burgs of Sodom and Gomorrah in fire and brimstone and cleansing them from the earth. Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt and Lot and his daughters took refuge in cave where his daughters, believing they were the last of humanity, got him drunk and seduced him. For the purposes of what's being referenced in B:I the most important part of this story, and the part that is being referenced, is the part where Righteous God judged the unclean people of Sodom and ushered out the innocent before cleansing the guilty in fire.  The bible was a big part of early American and colonial life for a long time, it was part of the teaching regiment and Christianity was very influential. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is viewed as a condemnation of homosexuality by the ultra-fundamentalists and it is why certain intimate relations are called 'sodomy.'References to Salem usually reference the Salem Witch Trials of colonial Massachusetts where over a dozen people, mostly women, were imprisoned and executed after being accused of being witches by their communities and tortured/intimidated into confession. Popular media claims they were burned at the stake, but most were actually hung. You can read more here at Wikipedia. Like Iceclaw says above, once the people of Salem got people whipped into a frenzy the momentum was hard to stop as they got drunk on the power and the fervor.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
It's also noteworthy that the "pillar of salt" thing was probably not meant to be taken literally even way back then, since it was (and I think still is?) a common figure of speech in the region that being turned into a pillar of salt just means being petrified with fear.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Jenner posted:References to Salem usually reference the Salem Witch Trials of colonial Massachusetts where over a dozen people, mostly women, were imprisoned and executed after being accused of being witches by their communities and tortured/intimidated into confession. Popular media claims they were burned at the stake, but most were actually hung. You can read more here at Wikipedia. Like Iceclaw says above, once the people of Salem got people whipped into a frenzy the momentum was hard to stop as they got drunk on the power and the fervor. As I understand it, there was some sort of spore or fungal matter or bacteria in the water that Salem used that causes paranoia and hallucinations, which may be the contributing factor to the witch trials.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:28
|
|
oh yes oh god yes form the head FORM THE HEAD unghhhh...
|
And there's also the Brad Neely version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
IronSaber posted:As I understand it, there was some sort of spore or fungal matter or bacteria in the water that Salem used that causes paranoia and hallucinations, which may be the contributing factor to the witch trials. Really? Huh. That was (part of) the explanation for all the murderous weirdness in "Higurashi."
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
IronSaber posted:As I understand it, there was some sort of spore or fungal matter or bacteria in the water that Salem used that causes paranoia and hallucinations, which may be the contributing factor to the witch trials. Quick Wiki check gives mentions a fungal cause in the form of ergot poisoning, as well as other possible causes like the disease encephalitis lethargica, Lyme disease, or even PTSD from King Philip's War or hysteria. If we're making a Salem - Columbia connection, the latter two would give a better connection to Granny Elizabeth's "inmates are running the asylum" statement. You already have Comstock-influenced religious fervor among the populace mixing with the brainwashed Elizabeth's, throw in the DeWitt's chaos, some form of the Vox Populi revolt, and whatever else might have popped up in the woodworks and at a very stable or sane populace this does not make.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:And there's also the Brad Neely version: It's criminal that it took this long for someone to give the actual explanation, instead of all the misinformation and hearsay that people were posting in the thread. But seriously, it is kind of ridiculous how badly people gently caress up understand S&G. The issue isn't so much that the dude townspeople wanted to gently caress the dude angels, it's that they wanted to rape the poo poo out of complete strangers. The reason Lot offers his daughters is because he doesn't want to be a bad host, and let his guests get raped. (Also a little bit of the fact that most ancient civilizations had really hosed-up ideas of how to treat women.) So the final straw was not so much "dick in dude's butt" as "being an inhospitable raping rear end in a top hat." Also I'd never heard the entomology of the Pillar of Salt thing, that's actually pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Onan gets just as baldy mangled - he was actually just pulling out ("spilling his seed on the ground") and not doing what is commonly imputed to him, except in an extremely broad sense of 'wasting'. In his case, there was a law that if a married man died without any children, it was actually the duty of a brother to take the widow as a wife, in order to provide her with heirs. Onan didn't like that fact that the children wouldn't be considered his (but apparently didn't seem to mind going to bed with his dead brother's wife). The 'pillar of salt' thing can also be tied to the fact that with changing water levels in the Dead Sea, there can be actual pillars of salt that form.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:30
|
|