Irrational pussied out on this one. It could have been a viable tactic to line up a shot from a distance and kill a Little Sister, then run away and come back for the Adam later, but because they're too afraid of potential controversy, you are forced to fight the Big Daddies if you want to get Adam from the Little Sisters. You could have even distracted the Big Daddy with those flying turret things and then harvested the Adam from the Little Sister while he wasn't looking. Not only is this the pussified way to go, they're limiting gameplay choices by pulling this shit. So much for non-linear gameplay.
I didn't necessarily want to kill the Little Sisters before, but now I'm definitely going to be harvesting every last one of them to spite Irrational for this shitty design decision.
Out of interest, where did you read that you can't harvest the adam without killing the Big Daddy.
I didn't necessarily want to kill the Little Sisters before, but now I'm definitely going to be harvesting every last one of them to spite Irrational for this shitty design decision.
Agreed 100%
Now that they've taken away my choice, they've taken away my moral impetus to do the right thing.
It would have been more interesting if they let you pick them up and use them as shields, the Big Daddy pursuing you but unable to fire back without gaining a clear shot and you unable to fire back with this squirming, screaming child in your arms. Back into an elevator though? Free ADAM.
I don't go for the whole children are so much more precious that they can't be killed in games while adults get mangled and mutilated without much thought.
just think of 'em as retarded midgets. because thats what they are...
I didn't necessarily want to kill the Little Sisters before, but now I'm definitely going to be harvesting every last one of them to spite Irrational for this shitty design decision.
I think there's a difference between wanting to be able to do something and wanting to actually do it. That is, I don't think anyone is going "man I was really looking to making a suit out of little children in Bioshock," and those that may have actually been looking forward to killing them either were looking forward to it because they thought the Little Sisters were creepy as hell and needed to die ("Look - Adam!" *stab*), or because they fully separate themselves from the game (like the person who said he doesn't take it seriously if he's looking at a television with a controller in his hand). I, for example, can't separate myself from the game. For all its binary, no moral gray situations, I could not play a dark side character. But I appreciated that the side was there. Conversely, I could play an evil character through dialogue Fallout, but only because everything was so funny and generally not taking itself seriously (still couldn't do the few things that were genuinely evil).
So I don't think it's right to call someone fucked up for wanting the option to do something. If anyone in here was actually savoring a chance to scare a realistic child model before slowly killing it with pistol wounds, you can go ahead and speak up now and tell me I'm wrong, but I think people are just concerned with playing in that setting while still being able to make any decision that was physically possible for you. Most of them may have wanted to kill the Little Sisters as well, but again, we're talking about things that go around, extract fluids and material from dead bodies with syringes, and then eat it. Even if they're like me and can't entirely separate themselves from the game, I don't think "But they look like little girls! You must be fucked up," is a totally sound argument. Maybe you wouldn't kill them solely because of how they looked, but then, that's the whole point of having the ability to choose.
Although, again, for me, I couldn't really care one way or the other. I'm looking forward to this game more for getting scared shitless by the atmosphere like in System Shock than anything else.
It's just that people are being really unreasonable here.
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
"Man this dude purchased our game and is now playing it! I'm soooo pissed!"
They'll regret it when I use FRAPS to show my wrath and all the Little Sister corpses I leave behind, upload it to YouTube, send the link to news outlets and Jack Thompson.
I don't go for the whole children are so much more precious that they can't be killed in games while adults get mangled and mutilated without much thought.
just think of 'em as retarded midgets. because thats what they are...
But think of the children that will watch other children getting shot and then go out and shoot real life children because they obviously cant think for themselves until they are 18!
I'm kind of insulted that there are people in this thread who are basically taking the stance of "Oh so you wanted to shoot children? Oh well obviously you want to rape them also?" Man, fuck you retards.
Do you at least understand this view point a little. I would be rather pissed if you couldn't kill random civilians in a GTA game. Now ask me how many random civilians I normally kill? Very few, only accidental deaths. What you can't seem to comprehend is the illusion of choice. You think that every choice that is in the game has to be actively exploited, where as others can understand that just having that choice and choosing not to do it makes for a more powerful experience.
And I'll try this one more time, building on the hostage scenario. We have player A and player B. Both players understand that the next room over has a little sister in it. Player A doesn't give a fuck, he's hell bent on killing each and every one of them. So he busts out his biggest weapons and goes into the room spraying, hell he even throws a few explosives into the room before hand to weaken things a bit. Player B doesn't want to harm little sisters, so he takes a more cautious approach, scouting the area and using weapons that do not have splash damage, a more accurate approach. Now with the change, Player B can do the exact same thing as Player A, the only difference is whether they choose option x or option z when they walk up to the girl at the end of the battle.
In other words, normally to be good you have to make certain limitations, self sacrifice. Every super hero knows that he can't use his biggest power in the middle of a city or he will kill more people than help. But if all the civilians are invulnerable who gives a fuck and whats the difference between the villain and the hero.
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
I think this might be somewhat irrelevant to the discussion we're having, but from a broader perspective, that's a very good point.
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
I think this might be somewhat irrelevant to the discussion we're having, but from a broader perspective, that's a very good point.
I think it's relevant in the sense that it's easy to see that Irrational just did not want to bring that level of a shitstorm down on themselves and the hobby as a whole. It's not a matter of "pussing out", it's a matter of balancing the story they want to tell and the gameplay with what won't bring about a repeat of Lieberman in the 90's except a few hundred times worse.
I don't go for the whole children are so much more precious that they can't be killed in games while adults get mangled and mutilated without much thought.
just think of 'em as retarded midgets. because thats what they are...
But think of the children that will watch other children getting shot and then go out and shoot real life children because they obviously cant think for themselves until they are 18!
But think of the children that will watch other children getting shot without being harmed and then go out shoot real life children because they obviously believe everything they see in a video game until they are 18!
You know what's funny? This is the same sequence of posts we had before this news.
I don't know, it is pretty silly to be arguing for the ability to do something I find distasteful. But still, the consensus seems to be that if you argue for it, you love raping/killing young children, and that if it is included, the millions of secret pedophiles just waiting for a Warren Spector game will have too much fun.
I know, the game has this issue more centrally located than any other example, but seriously, you can play Fallout as a wife-murdering slaver pornstar who kills children with dynamite. Does it really have that much of an impact on anyone that those options exist, beyond better role-playing? Should we take Chaotic Evil off the alignment list?
In this case, they haven't really removed much of anything, so I can't complain very much. But it means I can't accidentally do something I regret later, every interaction with them will have a big blinking "Are you really this much of a bastard?" sign. It just seems to me like it becomes a much more binary system. The fact that a potential creep can't get off on it means nothing to me.
I can see how it would mean something to the creator, of course, so I can't blame them. There's nothing fun about considering that a creative work you put love and care into could become something very sick. But as a consumer, I'm a bit dissapointed that they artifically restricted interactions.
I don't go for the whole children are so much more precious that they can't be killed in games while adults get mangled and mutilated without much thought.
just think of 'em as retarded midgets. because thats what they are...
But think of the children that will watch other children getting shot and then go out and shoot real life children because they obviously cant think for themselves until they are 18!
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
I think this might be somewhat irrelevant to the discussion we're having, but from a broader perspective, that's a very good point.
I think it's relevant in the sense that it's easy to see that Irrational just did not want to bring that level of a shitstorm down on themselves and the hobby as a whole. It's not a matter of "pussing out", it's a matter of balancing the story they want to tell and the gameplay with what won't bring about a repeat of Lieberman in the 90's except a few hundred times worse.
What you are describing is cowardice, where a vocal minority can supress artistic expression and emotional connection to morality.
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
I think this might be somewhat irrelevant to the discussion we're having, but from a broader perspective, that's a very good point.
I think it's relevant in the sense that it's easy to see that Irrational just did not want to bring that level of a shitstorm down on themselves and the hobby as a whole. It's not a matter of "pussing out", it's a matter of balancing the story they want to tell and the gameplay with what won't bring about a repeat of Lieberman in the 90's except a few hundred times worse.
What you are describing is cowardice, where a vocal minority can supress artistic expression and emotional connection to morality.
That concerns me greatly.
Yeah, causing massive controversy with a minor gameplay element just to appease a small minority of people is absolutely fucking courageous.
For me, it's more about internal consistency than morality. Unless the character in question is critical to the progression of the game, I don't see a compelling reason, in development terms, for making them invulnerable. Of course, in practical terms it's another story, and again I can see the case for just sidestepping the likely headaches down the road by cutting this element, but I think a better option would simply to have replaced them with something less problematic. If they're acting preemptively to mute criticism down the road, then they had to have known what putting the sisters in would have caused in the first place.
This is still way, way down on the list of things that I'm concerned about. I'm more interested in seeing if they can get the game to work on something other than a pristine, cutting-edge computer.
Killing children in Fallout wasn't serious. The whole game wasn't serious. The children were annoying pastiches, and slaughtering them was akin to the impaling of Cubert Farnsworth on Futurama.
There is nothing comical about Bioshock (well, there might be, but certainly not in anything we've seen), and taking it a step further by allowing you to crack open the heads or put a bullet in little girls that are infinitely more lifelike and realistic than the ones in Fallout... it's not the same thing at all.
And we don't know how it will be done until we see it in motion, anyway. So far the only argument against the way they're doing it that holds any merit is the whole "caught in the crossfire" thing. But other than that, you're just going graphic for the sake of being graphic. You don't need to blow their brains out, you can still kill them, and there will still be consequences.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Yeah, causing massive controversy with a minor gameplay element just to appease a small minority of people is absolutely fucking courageous.
The way Take 2 and Levine have been talking about it in every single preview and interview about the game ever, you would be mistaken for thinking that perhaps it was supposed to be important.
Now they're probably not human.
That you can't hurt.
I'm well-trained to kill mutants/aliens/non-human-lifeforms. The whole point of the "REALLY BIG QUESTION THAT BIOSHOCK WILL ASK YOU" diminishes when you duck out of it because you're worried people will take it the wrong way.
Games need to grow up, and I am disappointed that someone, somewhere, didn't have the balls to follow this through.
I just don't like characters that break rules set in the game. I'll get over but it will be something thats going to eat away at me while I play through the game. Even if I had no intention of killing them.
Depending on the level of technology in the game, they could have just given them a personal shield that is powered remotely by the big daddy. At least then there'd be an excuse for invincibility that wouldn't break immersion.
Yeah, causing massive controversy with a minor gameplay element just to appease a small minority of people is absolutely fucking courageous.
The way Take 2 and Levine have been talking about it in every single preview and interview about the game ever, you would be mistaken for thinking that perhaps it was supposed to be important.
Now they're probably not human.
That you can't hurt.
I'm well-trained to kill mutants/aliens/non-human-lifeforms. The whole point of the "REALLY BIG QUESTION THAT BIOSHOCK WILL ASK YOU" diminishes when you duck out of it because you're worried people will take it the wrong way.
Games need to grow up, and I am disappointed that someone, somewhere, didn't have the balls to follow this through.
Right. So the fact that they could still be human, (Ken deliberately states they might be human - part of the story is finding out about them). And the fact that you can kill them, obviously means the choice to kill them has been removed from the game.
i've been thinking about your discussion about immersion in the game, and i wanted to give you my two cents. the Little Sister is a comprehensive character and has lived in rapture long enough to know the darkness of the place. she is scared of you. she isn't just out in the open for anyone to take a shot at. and the Big Daddy is her father-figure, and protector. he will do his damnedest to not let you touch a hair on her head. often, when i encounter her, he is a hulking beast of metal blocking my way, and doing harm to her, without going through him first, would be a very difficult chore to pull off.
another point, as a realist. in today's society, if you had been allowed to shoot Little Sisters in the game, it would have CERTAINLY been rated AO. then there would have been no BioShock, and nothing to play.
however, that point is moot, since harming the Little Sisters by torture, fire, gun, or otherwise was never the point of their role in BioShock in the first place.
So some thoughts on the situation. First of all, this approach was entirely directed by me, not by any corporate marketing department or the ESRB. I’m going to use the word “I” in this post a lot, instead of “We” not because I did the wonderful Little Sister animation (that was Shawn Roberston and team) or I implemented their AI (that was John Abercrombie and team). I just want to be clear that I called the shots on this, and if people have issues with this, they should direct their issues at me and not marketing or members of the team. 2k has stood by us on this morally challenging and very, very intense game.
My goal has always been to make the game impactful and disturbing but not exploitative. BioShock is the thematically darkest game I’ve ever made. It might be the thematically darkest game I’ve ever played. (SOME SIGNIFICANT SPOILERS IN THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH) Insurgents hang from street lamps. Entire families are found in obscene, undying portraits, a bottle of poison sitting on their coffee table. The streets of Rapture are filled with a thousand individual scenes, of lives and dreams obliterated in a brutal civil war at the bottom of the ocean. Even the woman advising you not to harm the Little Sister in the game is a scientist, a survivor of the the concentration camps who once experimented on her own people.
At the end of the day, you are indeed choosing to either rescue or take the life of one of these little sisters. However, given the nature of the subject matter and the gameplay impacts of this choice, we took a very particular course of action regarding the Little Sisters for the following reasons:
1) Intention.
As another member posted, Little Sisters and the Adam they carry are indeed a limited commodity in the game. In our original testing, we found people were unintentionally having violent interactions with the little sisters all the time. This really pissed off players who were intent on rescuing them.
Well, you might say, how could this happen? BioShock is a game with a huge amount of player expression and, well, controlled and uncontrolled chaos. Setting a trip wire trap for a Big Daddy and having a Little Sister stumble frankly sucked from a gameplay perspective. A gunshot goes wild, fire spreads throughout the world and ignites passersby, a grenade takes a bad bounce…
For the player really pushing down the character growth path of Little Sister rescuing, the insults of potentially dozens of unintentional attacks on Little Sisters
2) Impact. Remember the original E3 demo video? There was a bug there and a Little Sister got caught in the crossfire. From where I’m sitting. It wasn’t impactful. It wasn’t shocking. It wasn’t anything. The action was unintentional, at a distance, and made an emotional impression of zero. (on me at least, I can’t speak for others out there). In contrast, the sequences now where you save or harvest the little sister is pretty intense. When you’re fighting the Big Daddy, she’s pretty vocal:
“UNZIP HIM MR B!”
She shouts, referring to Mr. Bubbles, the nickname she has for the Big Daddy.
"TEAR HIM INTO LITTLE BITS!"
-she cries, until the Big Daddy goes down. After you kill a big daddy, the little sister is found literally mourning over the corpse of her former protector. She’s crying, and you can hear her lamentations over the loss of her friend. It’s kind of awful.
“…what am I going to do now…” she cries, or pathetically intones “Muh-muh-muh Mr. Bub-bub-bles…”
And there she is, defenseless. And you’re left with a choice. And this isn’t a choice you make at a distance. It isn’t a choice you make when her protector is breathing down your throat, that you can later make excuses for. This is a choice you have to make when she’s standing right in front of you, weeping because the closest thing she knows as a parent is lying dead in front of her.
But don’t get me wrong. I’m not making a game that has anything to do with the joy of hunting down a childlike creature with a gun. My goal was to distill the choice down to what it’s really about. There’s something that may or may not be a child in front of you. If you want to survive, if you want to save the wife and family of the man who’s been helping you survive Rapture, you must harvest the Adam from these Little Sisters.
The Little Sister is defenseless in front of you. Gone are the tools of the first person shooter, the tools that you use so often and after years of gaming, without thinking. What you now have in your hand are the almost surgical tools of Adam extraction.
Rescue or Harvest. Rescue or Harvest.
It’s up to you.
(note: for those worried about the fictional justification for the Little Sisters resistance to damage from sources other than the Adam extraction tools, they are indeed in the game. If people want to know more about this, I can post on the topic.)
I think the things that allayed my fears the most were, paraphrased: "we tried that already, it didn't work"
Did we *ever*. LSs became invulnerable as part of a gradual process, that had as much to do with gameplay as any other factor. As long as they had *any* vulnerabilities left, we kept finding ways for clever players to get their ADAM without having to deal with the Big Daddy, thus negating one of our core gameplay elements. We tried tons of different solutions, before settling on what we finally did. As Ken said, emotion and intention had a lot to do with it -- but there was also a healthy dose of 'exploit avoidance'.
Right. So the fact that they could still be human, (Ken deliberately states they might be human - part of the story is finding out about them). And the fact that you can kill them, obviously means the choice to kill them has been removed from the game.
Who said anything about killing them? Now you can only "harvest" from them. I wouldn't be surprised if they can now get up and walk away.
Ninja edit:
Those posts are interesting... I wonder if Levine knew that he'd stir the pot somewhat with his misleading vague answers...
Right. So the fact that they could still be human, (Ken deliberately states they might be human - part of the story is finding out about them). And the fact that you can kill them, obviously means the choice to kill them has been removed from the game.
Who said anything about killing them? Now you can only "harvest" from them. I wouldn't be surprised if they can now get up and walk away.
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
-she cries, until the Big Daddy goes down. After you kill a big daddy, the little sister is found literally mourning over the corpse of her former protector. She’s crying, and you can hear her lamentations over the loss of her friend. It’s kind of awful.
“…what am I going to do now…†she cries, or pathetically intones “Muh-muh-muh Mr. Bub-bub-bles…â€
And there she is, defenseless. And you’re left with a choice. And this isn’t a choice you make at a distance. It isn’t a choice you make when her protector is breathing down your throat, that you can later make excuses for. This is a choice you have to make when she’s standing right in front of you, weeping because the closest thing she knows as a parent is lying dead in front of her.
Wow up until this point I didn't think much of killing the little sisters. But what he just described was amazing. I now have second thoughts on the little sister.
The thing is, you don't know how it'll feel or how it's presented until you play the game or we see a video of it in action. There's little point in going on and on about how they're pussying out or whatever the fuck else you have to complain about, because we just don't know.
The fact is that nothing has changed on paper. You can still kill them, and there will now be a reason why they are invulnerable to conventional weaponry. Advancing on them with Adam extracting tools seems to be a lot more personal than just gunning them down, which is probably what they are going for - and it fits the atmosphere of the game better. It's about emotion, not violence.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
On taking a closer look I am left with the impression that fantasy scenarios involving Little Sisters sitting happy as can be in giant firefights will not be realized. I suspect there is some elegance behind the implementation of this game feature.
Note that this is a design decision, not some half assed ploy to placate the media shoved in at the last minute.
I think the feeling of creating deep immersive moral choices is completely doable while retaining some tact in electing how you can handle this one specific game element.
Posts
Out of interest, where did you read that you can't harvest the adam without killing the Big Daddy.
Agreed 100%
Now that they've taken away my choice, they've taken away my moral impetus to do the right thing.
It's no longer life and death: they may as well be crates full of first aid kits.
just think of 'em as retarded midgets. because thats what they are...
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Stick it to The Man! Anarchy!
So I don't think it's right to call someone fucked up for wanting the option to do something. If anyone in here was actually savoring a chance to scare a realistic child model before slowly killing it with pistol wounds, you can go ahead and speak up now and tell me I'm wrong, but I think people are just concerned with playing in that setting while still being able to make any decision that was physically possible for you. Most of them may have wanted to kill the Little Sisters as well, but again, we're talking about things that go around, extract fluids and material from dead bodies with syringes, and then eat it. Even if they're like me and can't entirely separate themselves from the game, I don't think "But they look like little girls! You must be fucked up," is a totally sound argument. Maybe you wouldn't kill them solely because of how they looked, but then, that's the whole point of having the ability to choose.
Although, again, for me, I couldn't really care one way or the other. I'm looking forward to this game more for getting scared shitless by the atmosphere like in System Shock than anything else.
Does the video game world really need the kind of trouble a game where you can go around chasing little girls who are utterly terrified of you with a wrench and beating their heads open? Especially this close to an election year?
They'll regret it when I use FRAPS to show my wrath and all the Little Sister corpses I leave behind, upload it to YouTube, send the link to news outlets and Jack Thompson.
Do you at least understand this view point a little. I would be rather pissed if you couldn't kill random civilians in a GTA game. Now ask me how many random civilians I normally kill? Very few, only accidental deaths. What you can't seem to comprehend is the illusion of choice. You think that every choice that is in the game has to be actively exploited, where as others can understand that just having that choice and choosing not to do it makes for a more powerful experience.
And I'll try this one more time, building on the hostage scenario. We have player A and player B. Both players understand that the next room over has a little sister in it. Player A doesn't give a fuck, he's hell bent on killing each and every one of them. So he busts out his biggest weapons and goes into the room spraying, hell he even throws a few explosives into the room before hand to weaken things a bit. Player B doesn't want to harm little sisters, so he takes a more cautious approach, scouting the area and using weapons that do not have splash damage, a more accurate approach. Now with the change, Player B can do the exact same thing as Player A, the only difference is whether they choose option x or option z when they walk up to the girl at the end of the battle.
In other words, normally to be good you have to make certain limitations, self sacrifice. Every super hero knows that he can't use his biggest power in the middle of a city or he will kill more people than help. But if all the civilians are invulnerable who gives a fuck and whats the difference between the villain and the hero.
I think it's relevant in the sense that it's easy to see that Irrational just did not want to bring that level of a shitstorm down on themselves and the hobby as a whole. It's not a matter of "pussing out", it's a matter of balancing the story they want to tell and the gameplay with what won't bring about a repeat of Lieberman in the 90's except a few hundred times worse.
But think of the children that will watch other children getting shot without being harmed and then go out shoot real life children because they obviously believe everything they see in a video game until they are 18!
I don't know, it is pretty silly to be arguing for the ability to do something I find distasteful. But still, the consensus seems to be that if you argue for it, you love raping/killing young children, and that if it is included, the millions of secret pedophiles just waiting for a Warren Spector game will have too much fun.
I know, the game has this issue more centrally located than any other example, but seriously, you can play Fallout as a wife-murdering slaver pornstar who kills children with dynamite. Does it really have that much of an impact on anyone that those options exist, beyond better role-playing? Should we take Chaotic Evil off the alignment list?
In this case, they haven't really removed much of anything, so I can't complain very much. But it means I can't accidentally do something I regret later, every interaction with them will have a big blinking "Are you really this much of a bastard?" sign. It just seems to me like it becomes a much more binary system. The fact that a potential creep can't get off on it means nothing to me.
I can see how it would mean something to the creator, of course, so I can't blame them. There's nothing fun about considering that a creative work you put love and care into could become something very sick. But as a consumer, I'm a bit dissapointed that they artifically restricted interactions.
humanity is doomed!
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
What you are describing is cowardice, where a vocal minority can supress artistic expression and emotional connection to morality.
That concerns me greatly.
Yeah, causing massive controversy with a minor gameplay element just to appease a small minority of people is absolutely fucking courageous.
This is still way, way down on the list of things that I'm concerned about. I'm more interested in seeing if they can get the game to work on something other than a pristine, cutting-edge computer.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
There is nothing comical about Bioshock (well, there might be, but certainly not in anything we've seen), and taking it a step further by allowing you to crack open the heads or put a bullet in little girls that are infinitely more lifelike and realistic than the ones in Fallout... it's not the same thing at all.
And we don't know how it will be done until we see it in motion, anyway. So far the only argument against the way they're doing it that holds any merit is the whole "caught in the crossfire" thing. But other than that, you're just going graphic for the sake of being graphic. You don't need to blow their brains out, you can still kill them, and there will still be consequences.
The way Take 2 and Levine have been talking about it in every single preview and interview about the game ever, you would be mistaken for thinking that perhaps it was supposed to be important.
Now they're probably not human.
That you can't hurt.
I'm well-trained to kill mutants/aliens/non-human-lifeforms. The whole point of the "REALLY BIG QUESTION THAT BIOSHOCK WILL ASK YOU" diminishes when you duck out of it because you're worried people will take it the wrong way.
Games need to grow up, and I am disappointed that someone, somewhere, didn't have the balls to follow this through.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Right. So the fact that they could still be human, (Ken deliberately states they might be human - part of the story is finding out about them). And the fact that you can kill them, obviously means the choice to kill them has been removed from the game.
Who said anything about killing them? Now you can only "harvest" from them. I wouldn't be surprised if they can now get up and walk away.
Ninja edit:
Those posts are interesting... I wonder if Levine knew that he'd stir the pot somewhat with his misleading vague answers...
All this talk of Little Sisters, Big Daddys, and Adam is pretty ridiculous.
猿も木から落ちる
edit:
I'll see your ninja edit, and raise you.
Wow up until this point I didn't think much of killing the little sisters. But what he just described was amazing. I now have second thoughts on the little sister.
hahaha
When the interviews begin to mention Eve and Bros and MC F'rizzle and Bustas... then you'll be confused.
...I'm going to regret saying that aren't I.
The fact is that nothing has changed on paper. You can still kill them, and there will now be a reason why they are invulnerable to conventional weaponry. Advancing on them with Adam extracting tools seems to be a lot more personal than just gunning them down, which is probably what they are going for - and it fits the atmosphere of the game better. It's about emotion, not violence.
Note that this is a design decision, not some half assed ploy to placate the media shoved in at the last minute.
I think the feeling of creating deep immersive moral choices is completely doable while retaining some tact in electing how you can handle this one specific game element.
猿も木から落ちる