As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Bioshock - choice *is* wrong

145791024

Posts

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Clevinger wrote: »
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5yUcQIaDkE

    Seven minutes of new footage. Might contain spoilers if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.

    Maybe it's just this shitty laptop's screen, but I was really hoping the game wouldn't be so damn dark. I could hardly make out anything.

    The powers do look fantastic though.

    Suriko on
  • StollsStolls Brave Corporate Logo Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Suriko wrote: »
    Clevinger wrote: »
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5yUcQIaDkE

    Seven minutes of new footage. Might contain spoilers if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.

    Maybe it's just this shitty laptop's screen, but I was really hoping the game wouldn't be so damn dark. I could hardly make out anything.

    The powers do look fantastic though.

    Rare is the first-person game that gets lighting just right. Either we're working by night-lights or every surface in the game is obscenely reflective, including skin. All will be forgiven, or at least ignored, if they include a flashlight that lasts for more than fifteen seconds.

    The fighting looks like loads of fun. There looks to be a lot of variety in the humanoid creatures, although I'm already hearing repetitious chatter from the sisters. On the other hand,
    the one guy, who screamed "I did no harm!" when he died? That was f-ing creepy. :^:

    Stolls on
    kstolls on Twitch, streaming weekends at 9pm CST!
    Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
    Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Stolls wrote: »
    Suriko wrote: »
    Clevinger wrote: »
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5yUcQIaDkE

    Seven minutes of new footage. Might contain spoilers if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.

    Maybe it's just this shitty laptop's screen, but I was really hoping the game wouldn't be so damn dark. I could hardly make out anything.

    The powers do look fantastic though.

    Rare is the first-person game that gets lighting just right. Either we're working by night-lights or every surface in the game is obscenely reflective, including skin. All will be forgiven, or at least ignored, if they include a flashlight that lasts for more than fifteen seconds.

    The fighting looks like loads of fun. There looks to be a lot of variety in the humanoid creatures, although I'm already hearing repetitious chatter from the sisters. On the other hand,
    the one guy, who screamed "I did no harm!" when he died? That was f-ing creepy. :^:

    Perfect Dark Zero.

    Pharezon on
    jkZziGc.png
  • tyrannustyrannus i am not fat Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    That video creeped me the HELL out.

    tyrannus on
  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    So, wait...if I harvest them they die. If i don't they revert into little human children.

    Little human children who are trapped in an underwater facility full of monstrous mutations that eat flesh.

    I think you'd probably have to play the game to figure out what it is that happens to them if you save them.

    I'm just saying, unless you escort them back to a "safe zone," then these little, now human, girls are running around an inescapable underwater city that happens to be filled with monsters. The interview didn't make it sounds like you have to guide them to safety. They could do the tried and true "run out of view and somehow make it to safety but you don't know how until the end of the game" video game deus ex machina but that is retarded. I mean, seriously, if you make them human again and they jsut run off, without you helping them to a safe room (think Dead Rising) then I don't see a moral choice. Kill them and take their juice or turn them human so they can die a horrific death by some random monsters hands...you just don't have to watch.

    Accualt on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Accualt wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    So, wait...if I harvest them they die. If i don't they revert into little human children.

    Little human children who are trapped in an underwater facility full of monstrous mutations that eat flesh.

    I think you'd probably have to play the game to figure out what it is that happens to them if you save them.

    I'm just saying, unless you escort them back to a "safe zone," then these little, now human, girls are running around an inescapable underwater city that happens to be filled with monsters. The interview didn't make it sounds like you have to guide them to safety. They could do the tried and true "run out of view and somehow make it to safety but you don't know how until the end of the game" video game deus ex machina but that is retarded. I mean, seriously, if you make them human again and they jsut run off, without you helping them to a safe room (think Dead Rising) then I don't see a moral choice. Kill them and take their juice or turn them human so they can die a horrific death by some random monsters hands...you just don't have to watch.

    Interesting, you're right. In that scenario, the moral choice, however hard, might well be to put them down in what you know will be a quick, painless way rather than selfishly ensure their much worse death just so you don't have to be involved. Sometimes there are no good choices, just bad and worse.

    gilrain on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited May 2007
    But they have big, burly protectors. Killing the big daddy and leaving the girl to die is pretty mean though.

    Tube on
  • JWFokkerJWFokker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Stolls wrote: »
    Suriko wrote: »
    Clevinger wrote: »
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5yUcQIaDkE

    Seven minutes of new footage. Might contain spoilers if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.

    Maybe it's just this shitty laptop's screen, but I was really hoping the game wouldn't be so damn dark. I could hardly make out anything.

    The powers do look fantastic though.

    Rare is the first-person game that gets lighting just right. Either we're working by night-lights or every surface in the game is obscenely reflective, including skin. All will be forgiven, or at least ignored, if they include a flashlight that lasts for more than fifteen seconds.

    The fighting looks like loads of fun. There looks to be a lot of variety in the humanoid creatures, although I'm already hearing repetitious chatter from the sisters. On the other hand,
    the one guy, who screamed "I did no harm!" when he died? That was f-ing creepy. :^:

    I hope they show some more types of NPCs before the game launches. It looks like there are only five or six enemies, which is pretty disappointing. You've got the nurses, the surgeon, the grenade guy, the guy who can vaporize and then rematerialize, the Big Daddy and those women who crawl on the ceiling. And of course those guys who only have a wrench or a gun and don't do anything interesting. Also, the lack of non-hostile NPCs is disappointing as well. No neutral factions or just crazy but non-aggressive NPCs, which means it's going to be a shoot everything that moves kind of game.

    JWFokker on
  • AgemAgem Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    But they have big, burly protectors. Killing the big daddy and leaving the girl to die is pretty mean though.
    But they're talking about after they turn the Little Sister into a 'normal human' (if that's what actually happens). It's impossible to do that with the big guys around - because they won't let you near her, and because the whole reason they protect her is because they can process organic material into Adam.

    Agem on
  • hambonehambone Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Alexx Key wrote:
    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'.

    That is a pathetically weak rationale(lol Irrationale).

    A spiritual successor to System Shock should reward clever players who find alternate strategies instead of placing artificial limitations like this.

    In terms of immersion, having the LS be invulnerable is way more of an exploit than outsmarting the Big Daddy. I hate it when games cheat like that to break their own rules.

    hambone on
    Just a bunch of intoxicated pigeons.
  • JWFokkerJWFokker Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    They could have had it so that once you kill a Little Sister by whatever means, the Big Daddy would stand watch over the corpse, preventing you from harvesting the Adam until you kill the Big Daddy. Bam, problem solved without destroying immersion.

    JWFokker on
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    JWFokker wrote: »
    They could have had it so that once you kill a Little Sister by whatever means, the Big Daddy would stand watch over the corpse, preventing you from harvesting the Adam until you kill the Big Daddy. Bam, problem solved without destroying immersion.
    maybe that's one of the things they tried that didn't work?

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    JWFokker wrote: »
    They could have had it so that once you kill a Little Sister by whatever means, the Big Daddy would stand watch over the corpse, preventing you from harvesting the Adam until you kill the Big Daddy. Bam, problem solved without destroying immersion.
    maybe that's one of the things they tried that didn't work?

    You can make the Big Daddy think you are the little sister so that wouldn't work. A developer has to attempt to prevent people from easily being able to use the system in ways it shouldn't be used. Take alchemy in Morrowind as an example. It was way to fucking powerful if you knew how it worked and how you could exploit it. It might require some intelligence to find out about how to exploit it, but that doesn't mean the developer should make it easy to do.

    Couscous on
  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    hambone wrote: »
    Alexx Key wrote:
    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'.

    That is a pathetically weak rationale(lol Irrationale).

    A spiritual successor to System Shock should reward clever players who find alternate strategies instead of placing artificial limitations like this.

    In terms of immersion, having the LS be invulnerable is way more of an exploit than outsmarting the Big Daddy. I hate it when games cheat like that to break their own rules.

    That's like saying it's ok to cheat your way through a game and avoid all the boss fights if you can pull it off.

    Really what I want to know is are there any advantages of not killing the Little Sisters? Also why would you spend all that time trying to kill a BD is you were just going to "save" the LS anyway.

    I'm sorry but unless there's any advantage to it (save acheivment points) I'm going to be stick my needle into their fragile little bodies and suck them dry.

    Blake T on
  • METAzraeLMETAzraeL Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Accualt wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    So, wait...if I harvest them they die. If i don't they revert into little human children.

    Little human children who are trapped in an underwater facility full of monstrous mutations that eat flesh.

    I think you'd probably have to play the game to figure out what it is that happens to them if you save them.

    I'm just saying, unless you escort them back to a "safe zone," then these little, now human, girls are running around an inescapable underwater city that happens to be filled with monsters. The interview didn't make it sounds like you have to guide them to safety. They could do the tried and true "run out of view and somehow make it to safety but you don't know how until the end of the game" video game deus ex machina but that is retarded. I mean, seriously, if you make them human again and they jsut run off, without you helping them to a safe room (think Dead Rising) then I don't see a moral choice. Kill them and take their juice or turn them human so they can die a horrific death by some random monsters hands...you just don't have to watch.
    Good ol killing vs letting die. All the weak-minded players save the girls, cus they don't want to feel responsible :P

    That video was cool, but way too dark. I'll be turning the brightness levels way up if it stays like that.

    METAzraeL on

    dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
    sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I've got to say, my favorite part of that video was when the underwater tube got smashed and water flooded in -- very nice fluid dynamics, and excellent overall atmosphere, there. For some reason, it reminded me of the final moments in Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Man, I want a 360 sequel to that game.

    gilrain on
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    hambone wrote: »
    Alexx Key wrote:
    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'.

    That is a pathetically weak rationale(lol Irrationale).

    A spiritual successor to System Shock should reward clever players who find alternate strategies instead of placing artificial limitations like this.

    In terms of immersion, having the LS be invulnerable is way more of an exploit than outsmarting the Big Daddy. I hate it when games cheat like that to break their own rules.

    I really must say this is a retarded criticism. They planned a specific sort of event to occur in the game, and while they TRIED to keep from using old-skool magic tricks they found it testing it really didn't work out well. So they tweaked this one little detail to preserve a cornerstone of whatever narrative they were trying to tell. ONE THING.

    The only way it could be the way you want is if it's the god damned holodeck with the capacity to radically alter the plot if you are extra clever in the one lynchpin spot.

    Now hey, maybe this is a warning sign that they don't "get" emergent gameplay and immersive decision making. This could be a warning shot.

    But right now they deserve the benefit of SOME doubt because everything else we know is awesome.

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • endlosnullendlosnull Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    METAzraeL wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    So, wait...if I harvest them they die. If i don't they revert into little human children.

    Little human children who are trapped in an underwater facility full of monstrous mutations that eat flesh.

    I think you'd probably have to play the game to figure out what it is that happens to them if you save them.

    I'm just saying, unless you escort them back to a "safe zone," then these little, now human, girls are running around an inescapable underwater city that happens to be filled with monsters. The interview didn't make it sounds like you have to guide them to safety. They could do the tried and true "run out of view and somehow make it to safety but you don't know how until the end of the game" video game deus ex machina but that is retarded. I mean, seriously, if you make them human again and they jsut run off, without you helping them to a safe room (think Dead Rising) then I don't see a moral choice. Kill them and take their juice or turn them human so they can die a horrific death by some random monsters hands...you just don't have to watch.
    Good ol killing vs letting die. All the weak-minded players save the girls, cus they don't want to feel responsible :P

    That video was cool, but way too dark. I'll be turning the brightness levels way up if it stays like that.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9X3TKFHL
    HD video of it. It's dark, but I don't think it's too dark. The you tube video doesn't do it justice.

    endlosnull on
    sig02.jpg
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    I really must say this is a retarded criticism. They planned a specific sort of event to occur in the game, and while they TRIED to keep from using old-skool magic tricks they found it testing it really didn't work out well. So they tweaked this one little detail to preserve a cornerstone of whatever narrative they were trying to tell. ONE THING.

    The only way it could be the way you want is if it's the god damned holodeck with the capacity to radically alter the plot if you are extra clever in the one lynchpin spot.

    Now hey, maybe this is a warning sign that they don't "get" emergent gameplay and immersive decision making. This could be a warning shot.

    But right now they deserve the benefit of SOME doubt because everything else we know is awesome.

    Yeah, but this does seem like it's a design issue in itself.

    "We'll include quasi-neutral NPCs that look and act like human children. This will force the player to engage emotionally."
    "Hey, that's a great idea. But you know, we've been testing it out, and it turns out little girls are ridiculously easy to kill."
    "Hmm. Well, we can work around that. I've got it! INVINCIBLE little girls! That'll tug on the ol' heartstrings!"

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    I really must say this is a retarded criticism. They planned a specific sort of event to occur in the game, and while they TRIED to keep from using old-skool magic tricks they found it testing it really didn't work out well. So they tweaked this one little detail to preserve a cornerstone of whatever narrative they were trying to tell. ONE THING.

    The only way it could be the way you want is if it's the god damned holodeck with the capacity to radically alter the plot if you are extra clever in the one lynchpin spot.

    Now hey, maybe this is a warning sign that they don't "get" emergent gameplay and immersive decision making. This could be a warning shot.

    But right now they deserve the benefit of SOME doubt because everything else we know is awesome.

    Yeah, but this does seem like it's a design issue in itself.

    "We'll include quasi-neutral NPCs that look and act like human children. This will force the player to engage emotionally."
    "Hey, that's a great idea. But you know, we've been testing it out, and it turns out little girls are ridiculously easy to kill."
    "Hmm. Well, we can work around that. I've got it! INVINCIBLE little girls! That'll tug on the ol' heartstrings!"
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    hambone wrote: »
    Alexx Key wrote:
    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'.

    That is a pathetically weak rationale(lol Irrationale).

    A spiritual successor to System Shock should reward clever players who find alternate strategies instead of placing artificial limitations like this.

    In terms of immersion, having the LS be invulnerable is way more of an exploit than outsmarting the Big Daddy. I hate it when games cheat like that to break their own rules.

    I really must say this is a retarded criticism

    I disagree. The entire premise of the game was player choice and having the player dictate how they interact with the environment. Hence all the physics, the ability to have splicers attack targets for you, reprogramming bots and such forth. This decision feels entirely arbitary, makes little sense (why do invincible little sisters need protection?) and restricts how players interact with their environment.

    I hope this is a limited situation and is only confined to this one aspect of the game. I am excited about this game because it [supposedly] provides me [the player] with the ability to decide how I approach problems [not the developers].

    The problem seems to have been that picking a fight around a little sister means that they could get killed. Therefore players who want to save them are penalised (or some such). I don't buy this at all however, because surely someone should weigh up using explosives or picking a large fight around a little sister to begin with. Now they are immune to all manner of flesh eating hornets, grenades, flaming teddy bears, bullets and such forth, yet again I have to point out, require big daddies to protect them? Also, if little sisters are made of some sort of completely invincible material why aren't Big Daddies?

    Edit: and regardless of the posted 'justifications', I'm more than certain this was done for ratings puposes and to avoid potential controversy.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aegeri wrote: »
    The problem seems to have been that picking a fight around a little sister means that they could get killed. Therefore players who want to save them are penalised (or some such). I don't buy this at all however, because surely someone should weigh up using explosives or picking a large fight around a little sister to begin with. Now they are immune to all manner of flesh eating hornets, grenades, flaming teddy bears, bullets and such forth, yet again I have to point out, require big daddies to protect them? Also, if little sisters are made of some sort of completely invincible material why aren't Big Daddies?

    Edit: and regardless of the posted 'justifications', I'm more than certain this was done for ratings puposes and to avoid potential controversy.
    I'm not sure why you're looking for a story-related reason for their invincibility when the devs have already told us it's a gameplay-related reason. anything they came up with would be an empty excuse for something that happened because of a gameplay issue.

    so, i mean, you can pretty much make up whatever story reason you want, because it'll be just as valid as anything they say.

    And your edit is kind of...well, people are 'more than certain' theyve been visited by aliens, but it doesn't really mean much in the end. there's no reason to doubt the gameplay reason they gave, in my mind.

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    The problem seems to have been that picking a fight around a little sister means that they could get killed. Therefore players who want to save them are penalised (or some such). I don't buy this at all however, because surely someone should weigh up using explosives or picking a large fight around a little sister to begin with. Now they are immune to all manner of flesh eating hornets, grenades, flaming teddy bears, bullets and such forth, yet again I have to point out, require big daddies to protect them? Also, if little sisters are made of some sort of completely invincible material why aren't Big Daddies?
    I'm not sure why you're looking for a story-related reason for their invincibility

    One word: Verisimilitude.
    when the devs have already told us it's a gameplay-related reason. anything they came up with would be an empty excuse for something that happened because of a gameplay issue.

    I am well aware of this. It doesn't make it seem any less ridiculous to me.

    Again, why are Little Sisters made of a completely invincible material and Big Daddies aren't?

    In the end though, it's a minor point anyway and I'm almost certain I won't care. I just hope they don't suddenly decide to apply this sort of logic throughout the game and continue with their original design ethos of having the player make their own choices as to how to approach a problem.

    Not have the developer do it for us.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    I said they deserved the benefit of the doubt. They have nearly flat out stated there WILL be a reason in game for the invincibility, there WILL be a story driver attached to this and the implications to the Big Daddies, and it WILL be integrated into the game.

    You're spinning wild fantasies about how it would suck if they didn't do the things they say they are trying. What, should the game accommodate the players moral choice to lay down arms and instead provide lemonade and butter cookies to the characters of the world with a little easy bake oven, a sack of fruit, and some sugar?

    Everyone, developers included, is aware of all the things you said.

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    The problem seems to have been that picking a fight around a little sister means that they could get killed. Therefore players who want to save them are penalised (or some such). I don't buy this at all however, because surely someone should weigh up using explosives or picking a large fight around a little sister to begin with. Now they are immune to all manner of flesh eating hornets, grenades, flaming teddy bears, bullets and such forth, yet again I have to point out, require big daddies to protect them? Also, if little sisters are made of some sort of completely invincible material why aren't Big Daddies?
    I'm not sure why you're looking for a story-related reason for their invincibility

    One word: Verisimilitude.
    when the devs have already told us it's a gameplay-related reason. anything they came up with would be an empty excuse for something that happened because of a gameplay issue.

    I am well aware of this. It doesn't make it seem any less ridiculous to me.

    Again, why are Little Sisters made of a completely invincible material and Big Daddies aren't?

    In the end though, it's a minor point anyway and I'm almost certain I won't care. I just hope they don't suddenly decide to apply this sort of logic throughout the game and continue with their original design ethos of having the player make their own choices as to how to approach a problem.

    Not have the developer do it for us.

    Their unique gentic makeup combined with the Adam makes them impervious to everything bar my long hard rod that I stick into six year old girls.

    The Big Daddies are there to stop me from doing this. The girls aren't very strong and as such can't weild weapons.

    Do you want me to write some Big Daddy Little Sister slash fan fiction next?

    Blake T on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Again, why are Little Sisters made of a completely invincible material and Big Daddies aren't?
    Because the developers found that players found ways to work around the danger of the Big Daddies and exploit the game system in a way the developers didn't want.

    I mean, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to shoot a rocket at a glass wall and watch as the wall explodes, allowing millions of gallons of seawater to come pouring into the room. It would make for more verisimilitude if I could, but i'm not gonna get pissy if the devs think that, hey, maybe that won't work out so well.

    I've always thought the idea of 'total freedom' in a game was ridiculous and unachievable. It's obvious the devs wanted the players to have more choice in this matter, but when given the choice, it became a game-breaking element. And just like i'm not gonna demand an explanation for the invincible wall, i'm not gonna get upset over an invincible girl, if it's going to make the overall experience better. as horrendous as it is, sometimes we have to make a few conceits in the gaming world.

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.
    they, uh...they figured it out during testing. they gave it a shot, tried to make it work, and it didn't. im not sure what more you could ask for. just not try it at all?

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    I said they deserved the benefit of the doubt. They have nearly flat out stated there WILL be a reason in game for the invincibility, there WILL be a story driver attached to this and the implications to the Big Daddies, and it WILL be integrated into the game.

    I will reserve final judgement until I hear it, but my initial impression is that it's a deus ex machina like mechanic and doesn't really fit with how the rest of the game is [supposedly] designed at all.
    You're spinning wild fantasies about how it would suck if they didn't do the things they say they are trying.

    Uh no. Who are you responding to?
    What, should the game accommodate the players moral choice to lay down arms and instead provide lemonade and butter cookies to the characters of the world with a little easy bake oven, a sack of fruit, and some sugar?

    I don't even think a sarcastic golf clap is really required, but considering that Irrational have already stated you can go through the game without harming anyone and that you can even go through the game *not using plasmids* perhaps you should re-read what I meant by 'choice'. The game is made much more difficult by choosing not to attack enemies directly or to not use plasmids. This is why it's a 'choice' and the game is set up in such a way, that while it is immensely difficult, that this is possible is commendable and makes the game infinitely more interesting.

    If the game didn't let me choose not to use plasmids and avoid combat would it probably still be a good game? Yes. If the game DOES let me NOT use plasmids and DOES let me NOT have to kill things is it a better game? Unquestionably yes.

    These are seperate issues, but they demonstrate what exactly I like about Bioshock, what makes it different to every other FPS game and other games in its 'genre' like Deus Ex and System Shock 2. This design decision seems contrary to how the rest of the game is designed, nothing more and nothing less.
    Houk wrote:
    Because the developers found that players found ways to work around the danger of the Big Daddies and exploit the game system in a way the developers didn't want.

    You've missed the entire point. Please re-read the statement but think "If little sisters can be invincible what stops Big Daddies from being similarly completely invincible as well for possibly even the same reason".
    I mean, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to shoot a rocket at a glass wall and watch as the wall explodes, allowing millions of gallons of seawater to come pouring into the room. It would make for more verisimilitude if I could, but i'm not gonna get pissy if the devs think that, hey, maybe that won't work out so well.

    I wouldn't mind this at all actually, though I believe the result would be the immediate drowning of the player. It also depends on what kind of glass it is, what kind of weaponry you have available (is there even a rocket launcher?) and such forth.

    You seem to have completely and utterly missed my actual objection to this.

    Invincible walls are a problem when the game breaks its own verisimilutde, IE: It is not consistent. If I can't break the glass with a shotgun, fine. If the enemy AI runs up to a wall and puts a knife through it and floods the room, then that is verisimilitude breaking. A small little girl, who takes any amount of firepower and doesn't die is verisimilitude breaking. Considering that everything else, also similarly high on plasmids and such, doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bullet proof. Pure and simple.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.

    You can still kill them though, you just need to be up close and personal with specialized equipment, you can't do it from a distance. Hence you need a big daddy to protect them from you getting up close and personal with you.

    Blake T on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.
    they, uh...they figured it out during testing. they gave it a shot, tried to make it work, and it didn't. im not sure what more you could ask for. just not try it at all?

    Maybe it's hindsight. It seems obvious to me, that's all.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Again, why are Little Sisters made of a completely invincible material and Big Daddies aren't?
    Because the developers found that players found ways to work around the danger of the Big Daddies and exploit the game system in a way the developers didn't want.

    I mean, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to shoot a rocket at a glass wall and watch as the wall explodes, allowing millions of gallons of seawater to come pouring into the room. It would make for more verisimilitude if I could, but i'm not gonna get pissy if the devs think that, hey, maybe that won't work out so well.

    I've always thought the idea of 'total freedom' in a game was ridiculous and unachievable. It's obvious the devs wanted the players to have more choice in this matter, but when given the choice, it became a game-breaking element. And just like i'm not gonna demand an explanation for the invincible wall, i'm not gonna get upset over an invincible girl, if it's going to make the overall experience better. as horrendous as it is, sometimes we have to make a few conceits in the gaming world.
    First off, a glass wall wouldn't work as far under water where Bioshock takes place, as the pressure from outside would cause the place to be crushed. Second, they could easily place a broken-ish TV in one of the starting areas that had a woman talking about how the place was designed and how strong the "glass" walls are and such. It could easily be worked into the game.

    TehSpectre on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2007
    Little sisters are smaller. They probably could afford to make them invulnerable blah blah blah.

    There, there's a reason.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Blaket wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.

    You can still kill them though, you just need to be up close and personal with specialized equipment, you can't do it from a distance. Hence you need a big daddy to protect them from you getting up close and personal with you.

    Which is a fine gameplay mechanic incidentally. It's just entirely inconsistent with everything I've read and seen Kevin say about the game up to this point. That's really my objection and not to the actual mechanic itself.
    TehSpectre wrote:
    First off, a glass wall wouldn't work as far under water where Bioshock takes place, as the pressure from outside would cause the place to be crushed.

    It's probably several feet thick or made out of some other material than glass.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    TehSpectre wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Again, why are Little Sisters made of a completely invincible material and Big Daddies aren't?
    Because the developers found that players found ways to work around the danger of the Big Daddies and exploit the game system in a way the developers didn't want.

    I mean, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to shoot a rocket at a glass wall and watch as the wall explodes, allowing millions of gallons of seawater to come pouring into the room. It would make for more verisimilitude if I could, but i'm not gonna get pissy if the devs think that, hey, maybe that won't work out so well.

    I've always thought the idea of 'total freedom' in a game was ridiculous and unachievable. It's obvious the devs wanted the players to have more choice in this matter, but when given the choice, it became a game-breaking element. And just like i'm not gonna demand an explanation for the invincible wall, i'm not gonna get upset over an invincible girl, if it's going to make the overall experience better. as horrendous as it is, sometimes we have to make a few conceits in the gaming world.
    First off, a glass wall wouldn't work as far under water where Bioshock takes place, as the pressure from outside would cause the place to be crushed. Second, they could easily place a broken-ish TV in one of the starting areas that had a woman talking about how the place was designed and how strong the "glass" walls are and such. It could easily be worked into the game.
    first, good job taking the example literally to totally avoid the underlying point. second, if they did have some chick saying that, it would be immediately obvious that it's an empty excuse to justify a gameplay decision and wouldn't create any verisimilitude for me whatsoever. and third, they can just as easily say the same about the girls. because im as likely to believe it about a soul-sucking mutant girl as a glass wall.
    adrien wrote:
    Maybe it's hindsight. It seems obvious to me, that's all.
    so your beef is that they tried it at all. got it.

    just so we're clear, their original goal wasn't that it would be hard to kill the girls, but that to kill them meant pissing off the daddies, which would be hard to kill. then, through testing, they discovered that players found ways to kill the girls without any great risk to themselves from the big daddies. they decided this was unacceptable and so found a workaround that, while obviously not ideal, was better (to them) than the alternative. and people are angry because...?

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    They like to kill little girls while people watch

    Blake T on
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hey guys, I stopped reading this thread at page 4, and I don't know much of Bioshock other than 'Systemshock 3 for realz', but are the girls going to have their own personailities and behaviors? Is there more to it than just choosing whether to eat girl's adams, but rather, to eat the nice girl's adam versus the honest girl's adam?

    I guess I'll see when I play it.

    piL on
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    yeah, it is a design issue. the designers themselves said as much. it's a case of damage control - at this stage, they obviously can't remove the girls without completely redesigning the game. they felt they couldn't leave things as they were, since players could bypass the intended function and ruin what the designers were going for. this is a stop-gap compromise that i'm sure the designers are sad they had to make in the first place.

    Sure, I get all that. I'm just wondering that no one thought earlier that a giant robot really can't protect a little girl as such.

    You can still kill them though, you just need to be up close and personal with specialized equipment, you can't do it from a distance. Hence you need a big daddy to protect them from you getting up close and personal with you.

    Which is a fine gameplay mechanic incidentally. It's just entirely inconsistent with everything I've read and seen Kevin say about the game up to this point. That's really my objection and not to the actual mechanic itself.
    TehSpectre wrote:
    First off, a glass wall wouldn't work as far under water where Bioshock takes place, as the pressure from outside would cause the place to be crushed.

    It's probably several feet thick or made out of some other material than glass.
    I understand this fact, I was point out that it probably wasn't glass and that they could work out a reason for everything you do in the game.

    Edit: @ Houk - I was pointing out that your reasoning was somewhat flawed and they didn't have to have the lady coming on saying that "If one were to use a rocket launcher on our windows, they wouldn't break because of...etc...etc". They coulkd go over technical aspects, such as a tour guide would if you were at some underground/underwater facility.

    I don't see how that isn't believable.

    TehSpectre on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    piL wrote: »
    Hey guys, I stopped reading this thread at page 4, and I don't know much of Bioshock other than 'Systemshock 3 for realz', but are the girls going to have their own personailities and behaviors? Is there more to it than just choosing whether to eat girl's adams, but rather, to eat the nice girl's adam versus the honest girl's adam?

    I guess I'll see when I play it.

    No. It's just a binary choice now. You dispatch the big daddy and then either suck out their adam in some process that invariably kills them, or you somehow (unknown) 'save' their humanity.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I don't like this change. Before the change we have a huge number of choices:
    -kill big daddy, save little sister while minimizing colateral damage
    -kill big daddy, harvest little sister
    -don't interact with big daddy/little sister
    -distract big daddy, assassinate and harvest little sister
    -kill big daddy, assume its role as a protector and use her to harvest bodies for adam
    -kill little sister, assume her role and use big daddy as your protector


    With the change, we have a significantly limited number of choices:
    -kill big daddy, save little sister
    -kill big daddy, harvest little sister
    -don't interact with big daddy/little sister


    This change has removed gameplay options and removed fun. If you listened to early developer talk, they mentioned that you could ambush/kill one and use powers to impersonate it, while the surviving big daddy/little sister helped you. With these changes, it's completely out of the question. There's no gameplay point to acting as a protector to a unit that's invincible. And there's no way to to kill and take the place of a little sister when you can't kill them.

    Anothing thing is that you lose the ability to scheme and ambush a little sister while her protector is away. I'd like to remind everyone that the first gameplay video released had the player doing exactly that, and now it isn't even an option. This also speaks nothing of the fact that you can throw down colateral damage whilly nilly while killing big daddy in order to save the little sister. If you setup a tripmine in the way of a big daddy/little sister pair, it should kill the little sister. And you should have a grieving and angry behemoth hunting you down the corriders until he tracks you down and gets revenge.

    zerg rush on
Sign In or Register to comment.