ANYWAY. You in no way need to need to read any of Rand's stuff to enjoy Bioshock. In fact, I recommend against it.
Yeah, I'd agree. There are a few clever references you'll get, but I felt the game pretty much blew its chance at making an honest intellectual statement with its hamfisted ending. I thought that everything up until the plot twist was the first 2/3 of an utter masterpiece (well, narratively speaking), and the twist itself set things up perfectly to make a brilliant point, but then the rest of the game just took all that built-up artistic potential and completely ignored it.
ANYWAY. You in no way need to need to read any of Rand's stuff to enjoy Bioshock. In fact, I recommend against it.
Yeah, I'd agree. There are a few clever references you'll get, but I felt the game pretty much blew its chance at making an honest intellectual statement with its hamfisted ending. I thought that everything up until the plot twist was the first 2/3 of an utter masterpiece (well, narratively speaking), and the twist itself set things up perfectly to make a brilliant point, but then the rest of the game just took all that built-up artistic potential and completely ignored it.
I don't think I'd go quite that far. I mean, a point is made, it's just delivered a little sloppily.
I haven't played this. Should I get if for my 360 or PC?
FPS + Mouse and Keyboard = yes.
...if you can run it.
The demo I got via Steam played wonderfully at 1920x1200 with all the goodies on, and I can only assume there's been patches that have improved performance a bit.
My problem with the ending lies between the other 2 problems mentioned:
I was an 'average' guy in the situation. I didn't harvest ALL the girls, and I didn't save ALL the girls. I started out saving the 1st 2, then I really needed some Adam, so I harvested the 3rd. I actually felt bad when I did it. I didn't want to harvest them, but I felt like this was a fucked up place, and when I'm low on shit, and this is a sure fire way to get it, I need it. So I think overall I saved most and maybe harvested like 4 total.
And somehow that led me down a path of fucking up the entire world? They needed that middle ground ending where I dont beat the hell out of them and steal there key, but am instead sentenced to this life of them never fully trusting me, and me trying to rebuild rapture on my own to atone for what I did, and show them I'm a good person.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
My problem with the ending lies between the other 2 problems mentioned:
I was an 'average' guy in the situation. I didn't harvest ALL the girls, and I didn't save ALL the girls. I started out saving the 1st 2, then I really needed some Adam, so I harvested the 3rd. I actually felt bad when I did it. I didn't want to harvest them, but I felt like this was a fucked up place, and when I'm low on shit, and this is a sure fire way to get it, I need it. So I think overall I saved most and maybe harvested like 4 total.
And somehow that led me down a path of fucking up the entire world? They needed that middle ground ending where I dont beat the hell out of them and steal there key, but am instead sentenced to this life of them never fully trusting me, and me trying to rebuild rapture on my own to atone for what I did, and show them I'm a good person.
Okay, I enjoyed BioShock a lot. And I don't want to drag down this thread too much. Y'all should buy and enjoy the PS3 version. But...
My problem with the game is that you even have this complaint. The endings all represent how moral/immoral you are, but that's not really what the game is about. The most prominent theme in the game is autonomy vs. servitude. The game tells you early and often that "a man chooses, a slave obeys". The marketing buzz behind the game described it as a game all about choice. The big plot twist is that you thought you were choosing your fate but were actually being controlled. There certainly are questions of morality being raised, but such questions only matter when one is free to choose. One would think the ending would pertain to this question of the man/slave dichotomy, but it doesn't.
Lets go along with the fact that the ending is about being moral or immoral. You don't get to choose between 'good' and 'evil', you get to choose between which of two people you listen to, without knowing which is 'right'. However, at a certain point in the game you do know for certain. Even before then, you might feel bad for what you did (like you, mxmarks). But there is no "I reformed" ending; one would think that saying "I realized what I did was wrong, and now I'm going to change my ways" is enough to justify the good ending. But it's not.
tl;dr: when your character spends the entire game following orders, and one of the biggest points of the game is that blind obedience and independent moral choices are mutually exclusive, how can you have an ending that is reduced to "you chose to be a good person" or "you chose to be a bad person", especially one that fails to take into account that people can reform over time?
I'll bite. I'll say it. I felt that the game was absolutely beautiful and had some of the best art I've ever seen in a game ever. The dialogue was wonderfully written, too... but I felt like the story (and plot twists) were obvious, the morality aspect was pointless, and the actual gameplay was nothing too special. It's well worth playing to you PS3-only folks, either way, as it's an extremely impressive game overall.
1) Cutscenes are letterboxed. Completely threw me out of the experience and ruins the semi-nonlinear feel.
2) The final boss. After creating such a realistic atmosphere, it's a shame that the final boss feels like a generic video game boss.
3)
I felt that the 'good' ending was just too 'good'. Yes, I saved the little sisters, but I did so because I knew it would benefit me later, not because I just love the little squirts. I ruthlessly beat the shit out of anyone that I passed by in Rapture, and occasionally bashed up the corpse. I am not exactly the angel that the game thinks me to be.
Still, one of the best experiences around in modern gaming. Just a couple of tweaks could have made it so much better.
So you don't think you deserved the good ending because you killed mutants that were trying to kill you? Doesn't really seem like that much of a problem.
Well, to his credit, there were moments of regret sprinkled through the game if you were looking for them. Even the GODDAM SPLOICERS could be heard muttering to themselves and sobbing over everything they'd lost.
And damn if bringing down your first Big Daddy didn't cause the same guilty feeling that Shadow of the Colossus did. It's like they told you to find a priceless artifact or an endangered species and then crush it beneath your boot heel.
And damn if bringing down your first Big Daddy didn't cause the same guilty feeling that Shadow of the Colossus did. It's like they told you to find a priceless artifact or an endangered species and then crush it beneath your boot heel.
?
The hell are you talking about? I didn't feel guilty slaying Colossi or Big Daddies.
My problem with the ending lies between the other 2 problems mentioned:
I was an 'average' guy in the situation. I didn't harvest ALL the girls, and I didn't save ALL the girls. I started out saving the 1st 2, then I really needed some Adam, so I harvested the 3rd. I actually felt bad when I did it. I didn't want to harvest them, but I felt like this was a fucked up place, and when I'm low on shit, and this is a sure fire way to get it, I need it. So I think overall I saved most and maybe harvested like 4 total.
And somehow that led me down a path of fucking up the entire world? They needed that middle ground ending where I dont beat the hell out of them and steal there key, but am instead sentenced to this life of them never fully trusting me, and me trying to rebuild rapture on my own to atone for what I did, and show them I'm a good person.
My problem with the game is that you even have this complaint. The endings all represent how moral/immoral you are, but that's not really what the game is about. The most prominent theme in the game is autonomy vs. servitude. The game tells you early and often that "a man chooses, a slave obeys". The marketing buzz behind the game described it as a game all about choice. The big plot twist is that you thought you were choosing your fate but were actually being controlled. There certainly are questions of morality being raised, but such questions only matter when one is free to choose. One would think the ending would pertain to this question of the man/slave dichotomy, but it doesn't.
Lets go along with the fact that the ending is about being moral or immoral. You don't get to choose between 'good' and 'evil', you get to choose between which of two people you listen to, without knowing which is 'right'. However, at a certain point in the game you do know for certain. Even before then, you might feel bad for what you did (like you, mxmarks). But there is no "I reformed" ending; one would think that saying "I realized what I did was wrong, and now I'm going to change my ways" is enough to justify the good ending. But it's not.
tl;dr: when your character spends the entire game following orders, and one of the biggest points of the game is that blind obedience and independent moral choices are mutually exclusive, how can you have an ending that is reduced to "you chose to be a good person" or "you chose to be a bad person", especially one that fails to take into account that people can reform over time?
I agree to an extent, but good and evil isn't totally irrelevant. The game is about free will, but more specifically it's about the morality of free will. The game seems to suggest that the unchecked ability to choose whatever one wants is a bad thing. Complete freedom was the principle upon which Rapture was founded, but it was also the reason that Fontaine was able to rise to power and which led to the slaughter of so many. You observe their conflict from outside of the bubble initially, as Jack is without free will to begin with and therefore it's an irrelevant discussion to him. After being freed from Fontaine, Jack possesses the freedom to choose, but instead of doing whatever he wants, he chooses to limit his actions by following his conscious, which is personified in Tenenbaum. Fontaine suggests that Jack is still a slave, just to a different master, but what he doesn't comprehend is that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
That said, the Little Sister system is still pretty hackneyed. You either shouldn't have been held responsible for what you did to them prior to the twist, or choosing to keep them alive should've made the game much more difficult, forcing the player to seriously consider whether he or she is willing to commit an immoral act just for their own convenience.
And damn if bringing down your first Big Daddy didn't cause the same guilty feeling that Shadow of the Colossus did. It's like they told you to find a priceless artifact or an endangered species and then crush it beneath your boot heel.
?
The hell are you talking about? I didn't feel guilty slaying Colossi or Big Daddies.
I didn't feel guilty about the Big Daddies, but in SotC, a game which by design gives you lots of time in-game to reflect on your actions, it generally occurs to most people that they're intruding into the Colossi's territory and mercilessly murdering them for your own selfish reasons. The Colossi are doing nothing but defending themselves from an aggressive invader.
And damn if bringing down your first Big Daddy didn't cause the same guilty feeling that Shadow of the Colossus did. It's like they told you to find a priceless artifact or an endangered species and then crush it beneath your boot heel.
?
The hell are you talking about? I didn't feel guilty slaying Colossi or Big Daddies.
I didn't feel guilty about the Big Daddies, but in SotC, a game which by design gives you lots of time in-game to reflect on your actions, it generally occurs to most people that they're intruding into the Colossi's territory and mercilessly murdering them for your own selfish reasons. The Colossi are doing nothing but defending themselves from an aggressive invader.
Yeah, pretty much this. It was mostly the fact that they were like the "gentle giants" of the game that made me feel that way.
I dunno, maybe I'm the only one that thought of the Big Daddies as like...whales or something. It must be the hippie in me.
I agree with DeathPrawn about the ending. Still a cracking game though.
Major Spoiler
The bit where you become a big daddy is fucking epic.
Look, I loved Bioshock, but that was the definition of anti-climactic.
MAJOR SPOILERS
It didn't change anything about you. Just an obscured point of view. Would have been nice to have super strength, a drill-arm, etc. Instead I felt like I was wearing a Halloween costume.
I agree with DeathPrawn about the ending. Still a cracking game though.
Major Spoiler
The bit where you become a big daddy is fucking epic.
Look, I loved Bioshock, but that was the definition of anti-climactic.
MAJOR SPOILERS
It didn't change anything about you. Just an obscured point of view. Would have been nice to have super strength, a drill-arm, etc. Instead I felt like I was wearing a Halloween costume.
It changed the sound and how you moved as well. Drill arm would have been cool I guess. I just meant from a narrative standpoint I loved it. You had spent the whole game seeing Big Daddies as an obstacle between you and the Little sisters, and now, you were seeing things from their perspective. It humanised them, for me anyway.
I hadn't heard much about this game before it came out for the 360 and upon seeing that it leaned to the scarier side of gaming (a side that causes me to shit myself) I decided I wouldn't get it, but that the story looked cool. So I read an entire wiki about the game and I now deeply regret doing so, looking back on the whole affair. Still probably won't really play it though. I tried it and it didn't really grab me if only because of the creepy factor.
Hate I've missed out on the discussion so far, been gone since I made the topic.
The game certainly without flaws, there are a lot of things I wish had been changed. Hopefully several of the common complaints will be looked at with the supposed sequel.
On March 11, 2008, Take Two Interactive officially announced that the sequel to BioShock is being developed by 2K Marin, and is expected to be released before the 2009 holiday season.[74] In an August 2008 interview, Ken Levine mentioned that 2K Boston was not involved in the game's sequel because they wanted to "swing for the fences" and try to come up with something "very, very different".[75]
BioShock 3 has also been announced, with its release likely to coincide with the Bioshock film.[76]
Don't know how I feel about a different studio doing it, even though Marin is the studio that is doing the PS3 version of the game. Hopefully the writing and presentation will be just as strong in the next one. I'd love it to be a prequel to the first game's story, what with the uprising and all that jazz. But so much of the backstory was told, in great detail, in the first game that I think it might be pointless.
I'd hate for the setting of Rapture to be abandoned though. So I hope that doesn't happen.
Oh yeah, everyone should check out this game "Purity", being made Jean-Paul LeBreton, who worked on Bioshock.
It's looks neat, in a vaguely portal-esque way.
I found a pre-release build via google too. Not sure if it is supposed to be publicly available, but heck, I found it pretty easily, so it can't be too well hidden. It's going to be freeware anyway.
Bought day 1 along with LBP. And then a week later, it's Fallout 3. And then two weeks after that it's Mirror's Edge >.< Glorious.
If your wallet needs some help, you can probably beat Bioshock in a rental's worth of time, and buy it later if you really really like it.
I loved it up until the last act.
I dunno... I was so pumped for this game, when I heard it was coming to PS3 I went out and bought a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. And I read it. 1168 pages of heavy-handed objectivist philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed most of it - aside from the 70-page monologue which took me about a week and a half of bathroom breaks to muddle through - but the point is this:
I am so dedicated to buying and enjoying Bioshock, I went out and read fucking Atlas Shrugged because a reviewer said something akin to "you get more enjoyment out of Bioshock if you're familiar with Atlas Shrugged."
My wallet does need help. I'd love to get my hands on Dead Space, and I'm having trouble deciding between Fallout 3 and Mirror's Egde... but I'll be buyin' Bioshock. Have no doubt of that!
I must thank you, because what you wrote about Atlas Shrugged prompted me to do a little browsing on Wikipedia, where I found the following gem:
"Published in 2003, Knickers contains a total of 14,156,074 characters (including spaces). Its claim to the title is somewhat dubious, however—although the work totals 2078 pages and 17 chapters, Chapter 14 ("Leap of Faith") consists of almost nothing but the word "thanks" repeated between pages 52 and 2069.
"Published in 2003, Knickers contains a total of 14,156,074 characters (including spaces). Its claim to the title is somewhat dubious, however—although the work totals 2078 pages and 17 chapters, Chapter 14 ("Leap of Faith") consists of almost nothing but the word "thanks" repeated between pages 52 and 2069.
Oh my god.
I hope they actually tried to give a reason for that beside blatant page filling.
It's not generic, but it does kind of get repetitive, especially after the narrative drops out, ie entire the final third
Spoit on
0
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Spoilers for ending type stuff:
My major complaint about the rash of morality choice laden games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect/KOTOR, is that the only true alteration of the narrative occurs at the end of the game. Bioshock, for example could have continued with the you in Big Daddy portion just fine. But for the evil side, why not go after Tennenbaum or something unique to the Evil side of things? A different 30 second cutscene at the end does not reward the player enough for their choice.
I do adore Bioshock, but the above is what has been irking me since my first run through.
My major complaint about the rash of morality choice laden games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect/KOTOR, is that the only true alteration of the narrative occurs at the end of the game. Bioshock, for example could have continued with the you in Big Daddy portion just fine. But for the evil side, why not go after Tennenbaum or something unique to the Evil side of things? A different 30 second cutscene at the end does not reward the player enough for their choice.
I do adore Bioshock, but the above is what has been irking me since my first run through.
I'm really just quoting Shawn Elliott, Jonathan Blow and a few others here, but I agree with you:
It's a bit silly that you spend the entire game blowing away everything that moves and then every now and then you're given the option to be "good" or "bad", and somehow if you've chosen "good" enough times then you see an ending where you're a total paragon. It's as if killing hundreds of people just didn't matter.
Obviously there's the fact that it's a first-person shooter, where people just assume they're going to blow away hundreds of people on the way through the game, so this is kind of a weird complaint. Players enter into the game with a set of expectations, and killing over and over and over again is just par for the course.
Discussing Bioshock in particular (but all games in general) Shawn Elliott said something like "This is a marginal step toward moral complexity in games, and I feel like that's a good thing."
Jonathon Blow responded with something like, "Why does it have to be marginal steps? Why can't somebody just make a game with moral complexity right now?"
I can see both sides of the coin. There's nothing stopping anybody from making a game that's laden with moral complexity... except money. Putting out a AAA game that challenges you from start to finish on a moral level would be a big risk. If it doesn't catch on, you're out millions of dollars.
Of course, if it does catch on, you've created something that will shine like a beacon in the pantheon of gaming history. But it's going to take a development team--and more importantly, a publisher--willing to put their balls on the chopping block before we really see anything of that nature.
My major complaint about the rash of morality choice laden games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect/KOTOR, is that the only true alteration of the narrative occurs at the end of the game. Bioshock, for example could have continued with the you in Big Daddy portion just fine. But for the evil side, why not go after Tennenbaum or something unique to the Evil side of things? A different 30 second cutscene at the end does not reward the player enough for their choice.
I do adore Bioshock, but the above is what has been irking me since my first run through.
I'm really just quoting Shawn Elliott, Jonathan Blow and a few others here, but I agree with you:
It's a bit silly that you spend the entire game blowing away everything that moves and then every now and then you're given the option to be "good" or "bad", and somehow if you've chosen "good" enough times then you see an ending where you're a total paragon. It's as if killing hundreds of people just didn't matter.
Obviously there's the fact that it's a first-person shooter, where people just assume they're going to blow away hundreds of people on the way through the game, so this is kind of a weird complaint. Players enter into the game with a set of expectations, and killing over and over and over again is just par for the course.
Discussing Bioshock in particular (but all games in general) Shawn Elliott said something like "This is a marginal step toward moral complexity in games, and I feel like that's a good thing."
Jonathon Blow responded with something like, "Why does it have to be marginal steps? Why can't somebody just make a game with moral complexity right now?"
I can see both sides of the coin. There's nothing stopping anybody from making a game that's laden with moral complexity... except money. Putting out a AAA game that challenges you from start to finish on a moral level would be a big risk. If it doesn't catch on, you're out millions of dollars.
Of course, if it does catch on, you've created something that will shine like a beacon in the pantheon of gaming history. But it's going to take a development team--and more importantly, a publisher--willing to put their balls on the chopping block before we really see anything of that nature.
The one thing that really annoyed me (and Shawn Elliot encountered the same situation) is that the ending didn't reflect the way I had played the game. I harvested every little sister up until the reveal with Ryan and the part where they help you escape. At that point I had a turn of heart and saved every sister after that but the game didn't recognise this redemption whatsoever. Which was really dissapointing. The ending became even more disconnected from the game than it was already.
well, I mean, aren't you really just complaining about the fact that the narrative is what's paramount and that most games really only offer the illusion of choice anyway? I can't imagine a game with complete moral ambiguity holding my interest for more then ten minutes... GTA is probably as close as I've seen and that A) barely counts and is barely entertaining.
It seems like my ability to walk into a game a kill off anyone I choose would make it completely impossible to tell any kind of interesting story.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
My major complaint about the rash of morality choice laden games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect/KOTOR, is that the only true alteration of the narrative occurs at the end of the game. Bioshock, for example could have continued with the you in Big Daddy portion just fine. But for the evil side, why not go after Tennenbaum or something unique to the Evil side of things? A different 30 second cutscene at the end does not reward the player enough for their choice.
I do adore Bioshock, but the above is what has been irking me since my first run through.
I'm really just quoting Shawn Elliott, Jonathan Blow and a few others here, but I agree with you:
It's a bit silly that you spend the entire game blowing away everything that moves and then every now and then you're given the option to be "good" or "bad", and somehow if you've chosen "good" enough times then you see an ending where you're a total paragon. It's as if killing hundreds of people just didn't matter.
Obviously there's the fact that it's a first-person shooter, where people just assume they're going to blow away hundreds of people on the way through the game, so this is kind of a weird complaint. Players enter into the game with a set of expectations, and killing over and over and over again is just par for the course.
Discussing Bioshock in particular (but all games in general) Shawn Elliott said something like "This is a marginal step toward moral complexity in games, and I feel like that's a good thing."
Jonathon Blow responded with something like, "Why does it have to be marginal steps? Why can't somebody just make a game with moral complexity right now?"
I can see both sides of the coin. There's nothing stopping anybody from making a game that's laden with moral complexity... except money. Putting out a AAA game that challenges you from start to finish on a moral level would be a big risk. If it doesn't catch on, you're out millions of dollars.
Of course, if it does catch on, you've created something that will shine like a beacon in the pantheon of gaming history. But it's going to take a development team--and more importantly, a publisher--willing to put their balls on the chopping block before we really see anything of that nature.
The one thing that really annoyed me (and Shawn Elliot encountered the same situation) is that the ending didn't reflect the way I had played the game. I harvested every little sister up until the reveal with Ryan and the part where they help you escape. At that point I had a turn of heart and saved every sister after that but the game didn't recognise this redemption whatsoever. Which was really dissapointing. The ending became even more disconnected from the game than it was already.
Yeah, it leaves a lot to be desired, but I still think the game is stronger for having attempted to include some moral choices and consequences.
Passage is a brilliant example of how to do morality and consequences in games.
It is also the perfect explanation of why big budget AAA titles are just not going to achieve that kind of thing easily, not in the current industry climate, and probably not for a long, long time.
Posts
Yeah, I'd agree. There are a few clever references you'll get, but I felt the game pretty much blew its chance at making an honest intellectual statement with its hamfisted ending. I thought that everything up until the plot twist was the first 2/3 of an utter masterpiece (well, narratively speaking), and the twist itself set things up perfectly to make a brilliant point, but then the rest of the game just took all that built-up artistic potential and completely ignored it.
I don't think I'd go quite that far. I mean, a point is made, it's just delivered a little sloppily.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
The demo I got via Steam played wonderfully at 1920x1200 with all the goodies on, and I can only assume there's been patches that have improved performance a bit.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
boring tripe.
And somehow that led me down a path of fucking up the entire world? They needed that middle ground ending where I dont beat the hell out of them and steal there key, but am instead sentenced to this life of them never fully trusting me, and me trying to rebuild rapture on my own to atone for what I did, and show them I'm a good person.
I submit that it is you who is boring tripe
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Fuck the complaints about the last act. It was a worthy denouement.
I've played it so many times I now have the level maps memorized.
This game is a monument to all my cocks.
I'm even listening to Bobby Darin RIGHT NOW.
Hey, I have a blog! (Actually being updated again!)
3DS: 0860-3240-2604
Okay, I enjoyed BioShock a lot. And I don't want to drag down this thread too much. Y'all should buy and enjoy the PS3 version. But...
Lets go along with the fact that the ending is about being moral or immoral. You don't get to choose between 'good' and 'evil', you get to choose between which of two people you listen to, without knowing which is 'right'. However, at a certain point in the game you do know for certain. Even before then, you might feel bad for what you did (like you, mxmarks). But there is no "I reformed" ending; one would think that saying "I realized what I did was wrong, and now I'm going to change my ways" is enough to justify the good ending. But it's not.
tl;dr: when your character spends the entire game following orders, and one of the biggest points of the game is that blind obedience and independent moral choices are mutually exclusive, how can you have an ending that is reduced to "you chose to be a good person" or "you chose to be a bad person", especially one that fails to take into account that people can reform over time?
EDIT: Fucking horrific pagetopper. Ah well.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
Well, to his credit, there were moments of regret sprinkled through the game if you were looking for them. Even the GODDAM SPLOICERS could be heard muttering to themselves and sobbing over everything they'd lost.
And damn if bringing down your first Big Daddy didn't cause the same guilty feeling that Shadow of the Colossus did. It's like they told you to find a priceless artifact or an endangered species and then crush it beneath your boot heel.
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
?
The hell are you talking about? I didn't feel guilty slaying Colossi or Big Daddies.
That said, the Little Sister system is still pretty hackneyed. You either shouldn't have been held responsible for what you did to them prior to the twist, or choosing to keep them alive should've made the game much more difficult, forcing the player to seriously consider whether he or she is willing to commit an immoral act just for their own convenience.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I didn't feel guilty about the Big Daddies, but in SotC, a game which by design gives you lots of time in-game to reflect on your actions, it generally occurs to most people that they're intruding into the Colossi's territory and mercilessly murdering them for your own selfish reasons. The Colossi are doing nothing but defending themselves from an aggressive invader.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
It would be like someone telling me "Hey, we can cure your girlfriend's cancer if you slaughter these ten cows."
Yeah, pretty much this. It was mostly the fact that they were like the "gentle giants" of the game that made me feel that way.
I dunno, maybe I'm the only one that thought of the Big Daddies as like...whales or something. It must be the hippie in me.
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Well, yeah, but what was he doing like 20 seconds prior? Or rather, what was he prevented from doing?
I mean this is kinda what the game was about, so...
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
Major Spoiler
Look, I loved Bioshock, but that was the definition of anti-climactic.
MAJOR SPOILERS
The game certainly without flaws, there are a lot of things I wish had been changed. Hopefully several of the common complaints will be looked at with the supposed sequel.
Don't know how I feel about a different studio doing it, even though Marin is the studio that is doing the PS3 version of the game. Hopefully the writing and presentation will be just as strong in the next one. I'd love it to be a prequel to the first game's story, what with the uprising and all that jazz. But so much of the backstory was told, in great detail, in the first game that I think it might be pointless.
I'd hate for the setting of Rapture to be abandoned though. So I hope that doesn't happen.
like, I'm not an objectivist or anything, but to baldfaced make that equivalence seems to me to be at least a little disingenuous (a lot disingenuous)
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
It's looks neat, in a vaguely portal-esque way.
I found a pre-release build via google too. Not sure if it is supposed to be publicly available, but heck, I found it pretty easily, so it can't be too well hidden. It's going to be freeware anyway.
So awesome.
Anything with "Papa Loves Mambo" gets a 9/10 instantly in terms of soundtrack.
I must thank you, because what you wrote about Atlas Shrugged prompted me to do a little browsing on Wikipedia, where I found the following gem:
Oh my god.
I hope they actually tried to give a reason for that beside blatant page filling.
But who the fuck cares. Game is boring generic trash to play.
Who knew.
Says the guy with the Team Fortress 2 sig. I could say the very same thing about it, and I will: Team Fortress 2 is boring generic trash to play.
What's that? Opinions?
I do adore Bioshock, but the above is what has been irking me since my first run through.
I'm really just quoting Shawn Elliott, Jonathan Blow and a few others here, but I agree with you:
Obviously there's the fact that it's a first-person shooter, where people just assume they're going to blow away hundreds of people on the way through the game, so this is kind of a weird complaint. Players enter into the game with a set of expectations, and killing over and over and over again is just par for the course.
Discussing Bioshock in particular (but all games in general) Shawn Elliott said something like "This is a marginal step toward moral complexity in games, and I feel like that's a good thing."
Jonathon Blow responded with something like, "Why does it have to be marginal steps? Why can't somebody just make a game with moral complexity right now?"
I can see both sides of the coin. There's nothing stopping anybody from making a game that's laden with moral complexity... except money. Putting out a AAA game that challenges you from start to finish on a moral level would be a big risk. If it doesn't catch on, you're out millions of dollars.
Of course, if it does catch on, you've created something that will shine like a beacon in the pantheon of gaming history. But it's going to take a development team--and more importantly, a publisher--willing to put their balls on the chopping block before we really see anything of that nature.
It seems like my ability to walk into a game a kill off anyone I choose would make it completely impossible to tell any kind of interesting story.
It is also the perfect explanation of why big budget AAA titles are just not going to achieve that kind of thing easily, not in the current industry climate, and probably not for a long, long time.