In no game will you ever be able to kill children.
The little sisters, while genetically modified, are children. End of fucking story. Stop continuing this argument. IT wouldnt pass any ratings board in a million years.
And dont argue that non human children are somehow exempt, such as monsters shaped as children, or genetically modified children. That is not exempt from censorship laws (hence why children NPCs in World of Warcraft were untargettable, even if they were orcs or zombies or even tauren)
Except that
a) there are games where you can kill children, and
b) the reasons you can't in this game are, as stated, not because of the child factor
So your rebuttal is pretty ineffective.
a) Not under new certification laws. Certainly not in the last, say, 5 years.
b) Didnt Levine specifically say that they changed it because killing children = AO rating = no sales. Yes, them getting gunned down in a firefight makes not for fun gameplay, but that is in no way the entire reason for this change.
So wait you are actually suggesting they'd leave the game unfun if they could get away with it?
And outside you're little island there ARE no certification laws. Just market pressure.
our little island is 15% of the worlds gaming market.
Im suggesting that they change the game so they can actually sell it. killing sisters for adam is just one facet of a much larger and more complicated game. its not everything. id prefer they changed that aspect and actually sold the game rather than tried to shoehorn an unlikely and difficult to get approved game mechanic, especially in this environment of games becoming criticised irrationally for influencing real world violence.
In no game will you ever be able to kill children.
The little sisters, while genetically modified, are children. End of fucking story. Stop continuing this argument. IT wouldnt pass any ratings board in a million years.
And dont argue that non human children are somehow exempt, such as monsters shaped as children, or genetically modified children. That is not exempt from censorship laws (hence why children NPCs in World of Warcraft were untargettable, even if they were orcs or zombies or even tauren)
Except that
a) there are games where you can kill children, and
b) the reasons you can't in this game are, as stated, not because of the child factor
So your rebuttal is pretty ineffective.
I don't see why killing these kids is such a big fucking deal to you people. They didn't take away your choices, you still have the choice to harvest them / leave them alone / "save" them. It wasn't a "big moral choice" to off one from a distance away. It was easier to do, and they just became collateral damage in an epic battle against a Big Daddy instead of being the prize they were supposed to represent. It diminished the whole reason of having the Big Daddies in the game. You can still set off traps for Big Daddies. You can still use a multitude of weapons and physics to take them down.
Because according to early interviews, there were more than just those choices, and making the girls invincible removes those choices. I'll quote what I've already written because it's the same thing as before.
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
EDIT: And I understand that it is a necessary change. It's still not a welcome change.
In no game will you ever be able to kill children.
The little sisters, while genetically modified, are children. End of fucking story. Stop continuing this argument. IT wouldnt pass any ratings board in a million years.
And dont argue that non human children are somehow exempt, such as monsters shaped as children, or genetically modified children. That is not exempt from censorship laws (hence why children NPCs in World of Warcraft were untargettable, even if they were orcs or zombies or even tauren)
Except that
a) there are games where you can kill children, and
b) the reasons you can't in this game are, as stated, not because of the child factor
So your rebuttal is pretty ineffective.
a) Not under new certification laws. Certainly not in the last, say, 5 years.
b) Didnt Levine specifically say that they changed it because killing children = AO rating = no sales. Yes, them getting gunned down in a firefight makes not for fun gameplay, but that is in no way the entire reason for this change.
So wait you are actually suggesting they'd leave the game unfun if they could get away with it?
And outside you're little island there ARE no certification laws. Just market pressure.
our little island is 15% of the worlds gaming market.
Im suggesting that they change the game so they can actually sell it. killing sisters for adam is just one facet of a much larger and more complicated game. its not everything. id prefer they changed that aspect and actually sold the game rather than tried to shoehorn an unlikely and difficult to get approved game mechanic, especially in this environment of games becoming criticised irrationally for influencing real world violence.
15% of the world's gaming market? The UK?
I really had no idea, that's surprising. Is that like by money spent on pc/console games, or what?
I'm not really sure wha the problem is if they can invent a plausible reason for the little sisters' invulnerability. The videos seem to do a decent job of 'blocking' them from a lot of damage. I was kind of wondering why they don't just make them really strong, so they're hard to accidentally kill (perhaps even as 'damage-resistant' as their protectors; such as, they regenerate health extremely quick or something), but if they die in combat the chance for Adam is lost...thus getting rid of the reason to just blatantly kill children while maintaining some sort of immersion of the potential to kill children for whatever reason...
Also, for the prestigious category 'children's deaths in media': Maximum Overdrive - little league team massacred by machines. The particular imdb trivia that came to mind:
While shooting the scene where the steamroller rampages across the baseball diamond, Stephen King requested that the SFX department place a bag of fake blood near the dummy of a young player who would be ran over by it. The desired effect would be that a smear of blood would appear on the steamroller and be re-smeared on the grass over and over, like a printing press. While filming the scene, however, the bag of blood exploded too soon and sprayed everywhere, making it appear as if the boy's head had also exploded. King was thrilled with the results, but censors demanded the shot be cut.
UltimaGecko on
The facehuggers want to play with you in the AvP LP. Facehuggers also want you to check out the TF2 cards here. View the in-progress RE mansion recreation for L4D here.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I'm not really sure wha the problem is if they can invent a plausible reason for the little sisters' invulnerability. The videos seem to do a decent job of 'blocking' them from a lot of damage. I was kind of wondering why they don't just make them really strong, so they're hard to accidentally kill (perhaps even as 'damage-resistant' as their protectors; such as, they regenerate health extremely quick or something), but if they die in combat the chance for Adam is lost...thus getting rid of the reason to just blatantly kill children while maintaining some sort of immersion of the potential to kill children for whatever reason...
If they made them really strong, that would take away their role as people in need of protection.
Im suggesting that they change the game so they can actually sell it. killing sisters for adam is just one facet of a much larger and more complicated game. its not everything. id prefer they changed that aspect and actually sold the game rather than tried to shoehorn an unlikely and difficult to get approved game mechanic, especially in this environment of games becoming criticised irrationally for influencing real world violence.
And Im suggesting they are saying that they changed the game because it played better.
And now we are back to the benefit of the doubt.
Hey, maybe it will be terrible. Right now I don't have cause to believe that.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
Did anyone really complain about not being able to kill Alyx in HL:Episode One? Like you could pelt her with laundry machines and wooden planks that flatten your regular enemies, but they just bounce off of her and she doesn't really care. It never really detracted from the game for me, certainly not as much as having to re-load would for all the times I accidentally smacked her with a high-velocity flying object.
I'm not really sure wha the problem is if they can invent a plausible reason for the little sisters' invulnerability. The videos seem to do a decent job of 'blocking' them from a lot of damage. I was kind of wondering why they don't just make them really strong, so they're hard to accidentally kill (perhaps even as 'damage-resistant' as their protectors; such as, they regenerate health extremely quick or something), but if they die in combat the chance for Adam is lost...thus getting rid of the reason to just blatantly kill children while maintaining some sort of immersion of the potential to kill children for whatever reason...
If they made them really strong, that would take away their role as people in need of protection.
Hasn't that kind of happened already? They made them impossible to harm. I mean, unless they can be harmed by other enemies, in which case the Big Daddy should be able to keep them safe. Actually, what about that whole "you keep them and have them harvest for you" thing? Is that still in? I mean, could be interesting, protecting something while at the same time being a horrible bastard and exploiting it.
Also, how was Prey's use of demon kids an example of tact? You blew the heads off of children. I guess it's different once you add "possesed", though. Plus, they did fight back.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
All I can think of this thread at this point is the bit in Super Paper Mario where the geek asks you if you go on internet message boards to complain about games you've not played.
We don't know how it's going to work. I personally feel optimisim is still called for.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
All I can think of this thread at this point is the bit in Super Paper Mario where the geek asks you if you go on internet message boards to complain about games you've not played.
We don't know how it's going to work. I personally feel optimisim is still called for.
I agree, but I can still think that this will be for the best.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
All I can think of this thread at this point is the bit in Super Paper Mario where the geek asks you if you go on internet message boards to complain about games you've not played.
We don't know how it's going to work. I personally feel optimisim is still called for.
I agree, but I can still think that this will be for the best.
Wait. I think the change is fine too. Why are you arguing with me?
I don't know, to me it just seems like they're just not the right people to continue the "shock" franchise. I mean, flashy graphics and fancy child killing was never what it was about. They got the setting all wrong, too. How could SHODAN possibly exist in the 60's without time travel?
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
This is a list of AO products. GTA 3:SA cannot be counted as a second patch was released for the PC giving it back the M rating. How many of those did well?
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
All I can think of this thread at this point is the bit in Super Paper Mario where the geek asks you if you go on internet message boards to complain about games you've not played.
We don't know how it's going to work. I personally feel optimisim is still called for.
I agree, but I can still think that this will be for the best.
Wait. I think the change is fine too. Why are you arguing with me?
I've only read through part of the thread, so forgive me if I repeat anything. Maybe they changed it for balance issues. Early on you're not taking a big daddy on. But you could easily put a bullet into a little sister, run away, and come back when the big daddy isn't around. Now, you have to get right up on top of them, meaning any big daddies have to be dealt with/distracted first. Stops you from harvesting little sisters early on and geting a ton of power fast.
I think a better way to handle it is to just write it so that since the little sisters have so much adam, they heal faster. Even if you headshot them they get back up in 20-30 seconds, while the big daddy stands over them or deals with you.
Did anyone really complain about not being able to kill Alyx in HL:Episode One? Like you could pelt her with laundry machines and wooden planks that flatten your regular enemies, but they just bounce off of her and she doesn't really care. It never really detracted from the game for me, certainly not as much as having to re-load would for all the times I accidentally smacked her with a high-velocity flying object.
A little, yeah. It breaks immersion. On the other hand, it would have represented a premature end to the game, much like how Freeman is terminated for "improper utilization of resources" (paraphrasing) in the original. It was a design concession, and until we start to really perfect game design, we will have to make concessions.
The original Godzilla costume was really hokey and stupid looking, probably even for the time. They didn't have CG, though, so they had to make a concession.
I would prefer that the Sisters weren't invulnerable. I don't necessarily want to play a game where we could focus our energies on their deaths. But I would like a game where they could be collateral damage. If you start lobbing grenades without any regard towards where it lands, your choice should be punished. Simple as that. But they have to concede to the reality of our restrictive culture, and, in this case, they also had to concede they didn't think collateral damage was creating a good design mechanic. It sucks, and it depresses me, but I will probably still buy the game. I just know that, sometime in the future, some other game will perfect that design mechanic, and my view of Bioshock will be lessened by it.
I think his point about it being completely emotionless if a little sister is killed in a crossfire is very valid, though. Especially since it can never be fully controlled by the AI. You, maybe, but it would be really stupid if some splicer could just walk up and wipe them out.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
I really hated the fact that you can't shoot aliens in HL2. Each time I accidentally shot one them and he didn't react I lost the connection to the game. Now it didn't happen a lot in the game and that's good but if they were an essential part of the game it would just diminish the experience.
What would justify it is if there was some real consequence in the game from killing the little things, and from the sound of it there might be. I always hate the "keep this lamer alive" missions.
I don't know, to me it just seems like they're just not the right people to continue the "shock" franchise. I mean, flashy graphics and fancy child killing was never what it was about. They got the setting all wrong, too. How could SHODAN possibly exist in the 60's without time travel?
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
I think his point about it being completely emotionless if a little sister is killed in a crossfire is very valid, though. Especially since it can never be fully controlled by the AI. You, maybe, but it would be really stupid if some splicer could just walk up and wipe them out.
See, I don't agree. Frustration is an emotion. And if your frustration is also without remorse, then it would say something about you, the player. And that, my friends, is art. At least, the best kind that interactive media can provide.
Though I do agree that, if splicers are trying to harvest them as well, the AI needs to be near perfect to represent the struggle between the harvesters and the protectors. And if they can't do that perfectly, then yes, the concession needs to be made.
It's still a concession, though, and I wish it didn't have to be. I won't vilify Levine for it, though.
Regarding the Alyx issue, yes, people complained, and I'd certainly agree, having just played Ep 1 a little the other day.
There's few things to break immersion like being torn apart and killed by antlions one second, and then discovering that if you just get out of the way and let them swarm Alyx, they can tear at her for as long as you like while she tries to kill them, with nothing bad happening to her.
It doesn't make any goddamn sense, and it pulls you right out of the game...and I expect, unless the little sisters are damn good at running and hiding during firefights, that I'm going to feel the same way in Bioshock when shells/fireballs/explosions going off right next to a fragile little girl do *NOTHING* to her.
I don't know, to me it just seems like they're just not the right people to continue the "shock" franchise. I mean, flashy graphics and fancy child killing was never what it was about. They got the setting all wrong, too. How could SHODAN possibly exist in the 60's without time travel?
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
This is a joke right?
Right?
Right?
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I don't know, to me it just seems like they're just not the right people to continue the "shock" franchise. I mean, flashy graphics and fancy child killing was never what it was about. They got the setting all wrong, too. How could SHODAN possibly exist in the 60's without time travel?
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
This is a joke right?
Right?
Right?
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I don't know, to me it just seems like they're just not the right people to continue the "shock" franchise. I mean, flashy graphics and fancy child killing was never what it was about. They got the setting all wrong, too. How could SHODAN possibly exist in the 60's without time travel?
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
This is a joke right?
Right?
Right?
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I'm pretty sure he was joking. You can't make statements like that and not be joking.
Regarding the Alyx issue, yes, people complained, and I'd certainly agree, having just played Ep 1 a little the other day.
There's few things to break immersion like being torn apart and killed by antlions one second, and then discovering that if you just get out of the way and let them swarm Alyx, they can tear at her for as long as you like while she tries to kill them, with nothing bad happening to her.
It doesn't make any goddamn sense, and it pulls you right out of the game...and I expect, unless the little sisters are damn good at running and hiding during firefights, that I'm going to feel the same way in Bioshock when shells/fireballs/explosions going off right next to a fragile little girl do *NOTHING* to her.
I'm willing to bet though, if Alyx was as mortal as Gordon. HL2:E1 would have been not half as good as it was. I'm not entirely sure if they mention this, but in the directors commentary they spend a lot of time emphasizing how they wanted Alyx to be a boon to the player, not a burden. And honestly, I think they did just about the best job they possibly could. (Apparently, she could actually die if she took too much damage, she just had an insane health regen rate.)
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I am tempted to search for the source post, but I really don't want to No Mutants Allowed. Please tell me I got the joke so I don't have to do that. Please.
Regarding the Alyx issue, yes, people complained, and I'd certainly agree, having just played Ep 1 a little the other day.
There's few things to break immersion like being torn apart and killed by antlions one second, and then discovering that if you just get out of the way and let them swarm Alyx, they can tear at her for as long as you like while she tries to kill them, with nothing bad happening to her.
It doesn't make any goddamn sense, and it pulls you right out of the game...and I expect, unless the little sisters are damn good at running and hiding during firefights, that I'm going to feel the same way in Bioshock when shells/fireballs/explosions going off right next to a fragile little girl do *NOTHING* to her.
I'm willing to bet though, if Alyx was as mortal as Gordon. HL2:E1 would have been not half as good as it was. I'm not entirely sure if they mention this, but in the directors commentary they spend a lot of time emphasizing how they wanted Alyx to be a boon to the player, not a burden. And honestly, I think they did just about the best job they possibly could. (Apparently, she could actually die if she took too much damage, she just had an insane health regen rate.)
Yeah, if you completely ignored her she could get killed if she was swamped by enemies, on the hardest difficulty you have to fight pretty hard to stop her from dying during that "zombies in the dark" sequence.
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I am tempted to search for the source post, but I really don't want to No Mutants Allowed. Please tell me I got the joke so I don't have to do that. Please.
Meh, I'm still going to play with game and judge it when it comes out. It probably won't be as well designed as SS2 but it still might be good in it's own right.
Look, fuck fanboyish bullshit. This isn't like NMA where we'd be pissed that the hookers aren't retro 50's enough.
I was excited by Bioshock because I thought it was going to be something special. The thing that sets games apart from movies is interactivity (aka choice). Unfortunately, the choices we tend to make in games tend to lack any kind of deep meaning. Usually games are content to let the player choose what route to take or what tool to use to accomplish some goal. Rarely do games ever force the player to ask themselves why they make the choices they make.
Making the Little Sister invulnerable takes away the very thing that gives her dilemma weight: her vulnerability. If she were just a crate full of ADAM, she'd be wrench fodder in a heartbeat. But since she's (ostensibly) a defenseless little girl, there's a moral struggle to overcome.
A lot of people don't get it. They think "you want to kill little girls, sicko?" No. Well, maybe depending on the circumstances. But as long as they're invulnerable except for when you obtain their power-up, the dilemma is put on the backburner.
The fact that this change was made because play-testers felt bad about accidentally killing the Little Sisters they were trying to protect hammers home how effective this game was going to be at eliciting a strong emotional response- through the gameplay itself, not narrative.
And what about the Big Daddy? His whole purpose is to protect this fragile creature, which is now apparently un-harmable. Why does he even exist at all now? Oh, that's right, he exists because the developers wanted to make sure you have to fight these big stupid divesuit monsters.
Without the moral struggle, Bioshock just becomes another fancy FPS. It's gone from a must-buy to a wait-and-see.
Look, fuck fanboyish bullshit. This isn't like NMA where we'd be pissed that the hookers aren't retro 50's enough.
I was excited by Bioshock because I thought it was going to be something special. The thing that sets games apart from movies is interactivity (aka choice). Unfortunately, the choices we tend to make in games tend to lack any kind of deep meaning. Usually games are content to let the player choose what route to take or what tool to use to accomplish some goal. Rarely do games ever force the player to ask themselves why they make the choices they make.
Making the Little Sister invulnerable takes away the very thing that gives her dilemma weight: her vulnerability. If she were just a crate full of ADAM, she'd be wrench fodder in a heartbeat. But since she's (ostensibly) a defenseless little girl, there's a moral struggle to overcome.
A lot of people don't get it. They think "you want to kill little girls, sicko?" No. Well, maybe depending on the circumstances. But as long as they're invulnerable except for when you obtain their power-up, the dilemma is put on the backburner.
The fact that this change was made because play-testers felt bad about accidentally killing the Little Sisters they were trying to protect hammers home how effective this game was going to be at eliciting a strong emotional response- through the gameplay itself, not narrative.
And what about the Big Daddy? His whole purpose is to protect this fragile creature, which is now apparently un-harmable. Why does he even exist at all now? Oh, that's right, he exists because the developers wanted to make sure you have to fight these big stupid divesuit monsters.
Without the moral struggle, Bioshock just becomes another fancy FPS. It's gone from a must-buy to a wait-and-see.
Actually the change was made becuase the head dev didn't feel anything for them when they accidently died. Regardless no one in this thread has any idea what effect, if any this change will have on the overall game. This is likely only one of many choices the player will have to make to decide the outcome.
Look, fuck fanboyish bullshit. This isn't like NMA where we'd be pissed that the hookers aren't retro 50's enough.
I was excited by Bioshock because I thought it was going to be something special. The thing that sets games apart from movies is interactivity (aka choice). Unfortunately, the choices we tend to make in games tend to lack any kind of deep meaning. Usually games are content to let the player choose what route to take or what tool to use to accomplish some goal. Rarely do games ever force the player to ask themselves why they make the choices they make.
Making the Little Sister invulnerable takes away the very thing that gives her dilemma weight: her vulnerability. If she were just a crate full of ADAM, she'd be wrench fodder in a heartbeat. But since she's (ostensibly) a defenseless little girl, there's a moral struggle to overcome.
A lot of people don't get it. They think "you want to kill little girls, sicko?" No. Well, maybe depending on the circumstances. But as long as they're invulnerable except for when you obtain their power-up, the dilemma is put on the backburner.
The fact that this change was made because play-testers felt bad about accidentally killing the Little Sisters they were trying to protect hammers home how effective this game was going to be at eliciting a strong emotional response- through the gameplay itself, not narrative.
And what about the Big Daddy? His whole purpose is to protect this fragile creature, which is now apparently un-harmable. Why does he even exist at all now? Oh, that's right, he exists because the developers wanted to make sure you have to fight these big stupid divesuit monsters.
Without the moral struggle, Bioshock just becomes another fancy FPS. It's gone from a must-buy to a wait-and-see.
I'm glad to see that you think that being able to beat a child would be the only defining quality of the game.
I was excited by Bioshock because I thought it was going to be something special. The thing that sets games apart from movies is interactivity (aka choice). Unfortunately, the choices we tend to make in games tend to lack any kind of deep meaning. Usually games are content to let the player choose what route to take or what tool to use to accomplish some goal. Rarely do games ever force the player to ask themselves why they make the choices they make
Making the Little Sister invulnerable takes away the very thing that gives her dilemma weight: her vulnerability. If she were just a crate full of ADAM, she'd be wrench fodder in a heartbeat. But since she's (ostensibly) a defenseless little girl, there's a moral struggle to overcome.
Why? You've still got that choice of, do you get the adam, do you save that guys family. Do you leave the little sisters to the person that created them. That choice is still there. And it's going to be a choice rather than a bad grenade bounce. She's still very vulnerable, when the big daddy goes down, it's just you and her.
The fact that this change was made because play-testers felt bad about accidentally killing the Little Sisters they were trying to protect hammers home how effective this game was going to be at eliciting a strong emotional response- through the gameplay itself, not narrative.
No, they felt pissed off cause they couldn't use any of their cool weapons because they kept accidentally splattering the little ones all the god damn time. Quick Save-Quick Load never is, and never will be a fun game mechanic.
And what about the Big Daddy? His whole purpose is to protect this fragile creature, which is now apparently un-harmable. Why does he even exist at all now? Oh, that's right, he exists because the developers wanted to make sure you have to fight these big stupid divesuit monsters.
Except that entire bit where you can harm little sisters? Maybe it's got something to do with that?
Without the moral struggle, Bioshock just becomes another fancy FPS. It's gone from a must-buy to a wait-and-see.
I don't see how a great moral struggle is asking people to play through the game in suck mode.
I'm glad to see that you think that being able to beat a child would be the only defining quality of the game.
Oh, stop that. You could have phrased that without making him out to seem a sicko. He said he felt Bioshock's uniqueness sprung from interactive choice. Having one of those lessened (though not removed) diminishes the uniqueness for him.
Posts
our little island is 15% of the worlds gaming market.
Im suggesting that they change the game so they can actually sell it. killing sisters for adam is just one facet of a much larger and more complicated game. its not everything. id prefer they changed that aspect and actually sold the game rather than tried to shoehorn an unlikely and difficult to get approved game mechanic, especially in this environment of games becoming criticised irrationally for influencing real world violence.
Because according to early interviews, there were more than just those choices, and making the girls invincible removes those choices. I'll quote what I've already written because it's the same thing as before.
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
EDIT: And I understand that it is a necessary change. It's still not a welcome change.
15% of the world's gaming market? The UK?
I really had no idea, that's surprising. Is that like by money spent on pc/console games, or what?
Also, for the prestigious category 'children's deaths in media': Maximum Overdrive - little league team massacred by machines. The particular imdb trivia that came to mind:
Look. You changed the subject.
As pointed out (Prey), if done tactfully the general idea at work here does not earn you an AO rating.
猿も木から落ちる
If they made them really strong, that would take away their role as people in need of protection.
And Im suggesting they are saying that they changed the game because it played better.
And now we are back to the benefit of the doubt.
Hey, maybe it will be terrible. Right now I don't have cause to believe that.
猿も木から落ちる
I think this is done pretty well. Maybe you just lower you weapons when you hover over the Little Sister when the Big Daddy is dead, and it goes to harvest tools. Could you beat the children in Prey with wrenches?
Hasn't that kind of happened already? They made them impossible to harm. I mean, unless they can be harmed by other enemies, in which case the Big Daddy should be able to keep them safe. Actually, what about that whole "you keep them and have them harvest for you" thing? Is that still in? I mean, could be interesting, protecting something while at the same time being a horrible bastard and exploiting it.
Also, how was Prey's use of demon kids an example of tact? You blew the heads off of children. I guess it's different once you add "possesed", though. Plus, they did fight back.
All I can think of this thread at this point is the bit in Super Paper Mario where the geek asks you if you go on internet message boards to complain about games you've not played.
We don't know how it's going to work. I personally feel optimisim is still called for.
猿も木から落ちる
I agree, but I can still think that this will be for the best.
Wait. I think the change is fine too. Why are you arguing with me?
猿も木から落ちる
Idiots. I can't wait to see this fail and burn and then play through SS2 again.
I thought you were saying something that, since other games have done it, this game should try and find a way to do it as well.
I think a better way to handle it is to just write it so that since the little sisters have so much adam, they heal faster. Even if you headshot them they get back up in 20-30 seconds, while the big daddy stands over them or deals with you.
A little, yeah. It breaks immersion. On the other hand, it would have represented a premature end to the game, much like how Freeman is terminated for "improper utilization of resources" (paraphrasing) in the original. It was a design concession, and until we start to really perfect game design, we will have to make concessions.
The original Godzilla costume was really hokey and stupid looking, probably even for the time. They didn't have CG, though, so they had to make a concession.
I would prefer that the Sisters weren't invulnerable. I don't necessarily want to play a game where we could focus our energies on their deaths. But I would like a game where they could be collateral damage. If you start lobbing grenades without any regard towards where it lands, your choice should be punished. Simple as that. But they have to concede to the reality of our restrictive culture, and, in this case, they also had to concede they didn't think collateral damage was creating a good design mechanic. It sucks, and it depresses me, but I will probably still buy the game. I just know that, sometime in the future, some other game will perfect that design mechanic, and my view of Bioshock will be lessened by it.
What would justify it is if there was some real consequence in the game from killing the little things, and from the sound of it there might be. I always hate the "keep this lamer alive" missions.
This is a joke right?
Right?
See, I don't agree. Frustration is an emotion. And if your frustration is also without remorse, then it would say something about you, the player. And that, my friends, is art. At least, the best kind that interactive media can provide.
Though I do agree that, if splicers are trying to harvest them as well, the AI needs to be near perfect to represent the struggle between the harvesters and the protectors. And if they can't do that perfectly, then yes, the concession needs to be made.
It's still a concession, though, and I wish it didn't have to be. I won't vilify Levine for it, though.
There's few things to break immersion like being torn apart and killed by antlions one second, and then discovering that if you just get out of the way and let them swarm Alyx, they can tear at her for as long as you like while she tries to kill them, with nothing bad happening to her.
It doesn't make any goddamn sense, and it pulls you right out of the game...and I expect, unless the little sisters are damn good at running and hiding during firefights, that I'm going to feel the same way in Bioshock when shells/fireballs/explosions going off right next to a fragile little girl do *NOTHING* to her.
I don't care whether or not *you* will enjoy it, I care that you are trying to shove your subjective definition of what constitutes a shock game down our throats. We, on the other hand, have an *objective definition* of what the basic tenets of shock's design are, and hence what the basic tenets of any spiritual successor should be.
Give me a fucking break. We're fans of the original gamedesign and its gameplay, a game where you can't kill children could never, ever be a true shock because it doesn't stick to its design. And that's what we want.
The abandoning by Irrational of previous Bioshock ideals, atmosphere, gameplay and perhaps even canon. As a Bioshock fan this is what upsets me the most. If they're not going to follow the established route then they shouldn't call the game Bioshock
That's not the point. Bioschock was never made for people who didn't want to shoot children, Doom was made for those people. Half-Life for people who wanted a story with that. Games like Arena for people who wanted role-playing elements in that.
I'm pretty sure he was joking. You can't make statements like that and not be joking.
I'm willing to bet though, if Alyx was as mortal as Gordon. HL2:E1 would have been not half as good as it was. I'm not entirely sure if they mention this, but in the directors commentary they spend a lot of time emphasizing how they wanted Alyx to be a boon to the player, not a burden. And honestly, I think they did just about the best job they possibly could. (Apparently, she could actually die if she took too much damage, she just had an insane health regen rate.)
I am tempted to search for the source post, but I really don't want to No Mutants Allowed. Please tell me I got the joke so I don't have to do that. Please.
Yeah, if you completely ignored her she could get killed if she was swamped by enemies, on the hardest difficulty you have to fight pretty hard to stop her from dying during that "zombies in the dark" sequence.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=21405&page=25 And yeah, you got it
edit: and I did realise the original poster was joking.
Agreed. It was just written in such a way that I doubted my sarcasm detector, y'know?
猿も木から落ちる
I was excited by Bioshock because I thought it was going to be something special. The thing that sets games apart from movies is interactivity (aka choice). Unfortunately, the choices we tend to make in games tend to lack any kind of deep meaning. Usually games are content to let the player choose what route to take or what tool to use to accomplish some goal. Rarely do games ever force the player to ask themselves why they make the choices they make.
Making the Little Sister invulnerable takes away the very thing that gives her dilemma weight: her vulnerability. If she were just a crate full of ADAM, she'd be wrench fodder in a heartbeat. But since she's (ostensibly) a defenseless little girl, there's a moral struggle to overcome.
A lot of people don't get it. They think "you want to kill little girls, sicko?" No. Well, maybe depending on the circumstances. But as long as they're invulnerable except for when you obtain their power-up, the dilemma is put on the backburner.
The fact that this change was made because play-testers felt bad about accidentally killing the Little Sisters they were trying to protect hammers home how effective this game was going to be at eliciting a strong emotional response- through the gameplay itself, not narrative.
And what about the Big Daddy? His whole purpose is to protect this fragile creature, which is now apparently un-harmable. Why does he even exist at all now? Oh, that's right, he exists because the developers wanted to make sure you have to fight these big stupid divesuit monsters.
Without the moral struggle, Bioshock just becomes another fancy FPS. It's gone from a must-buy to a wait-and-see.
Actually the change was made becuase the head dev didn't feel anything for them when they accidently died. Regardless no one in this thread has any idea what effect, if any this change will have on the overall game. This is likely only one of many choices the player will have to make to decide the outcome.
I'm glad to see that you think that being able to beat a child would be the only defining quality of the game.
Why? You've still got that choice of, do you get the adam, do you save that guys family. Do you leave the little sisters to the person that created them. That choice is still there. And it's going to be a choice rather than a bad grenade bounce. She's still very vulnerable, when the big daddy goes down, it's just you and her.
No, they felt pissed off cause they couldn't use any of their cool weapons because they kept accidentally splattering the little ones all the god damn time. Quick Save-Quick Load never is, and never will be a fun game mechanic.
Except that entire bit where you can harm little sisters? Maybe it's got something to do with that?
I don't see how a great moral struggle is asking people to play through the game in suck mode.
Oh, stop that. You could have phrased that without making him out to seem a sicko. He said he felt Bioshock's uniqueness sprung from interactive choice. Having one of those lessened (though not removed) diminishes the uniqueness for him.