Why are people acting as though killing little sisters is all you do in this game.
afaik they only promoted it less of a 'hey look at this integral game mechanic' then more of a 'this is the kind of world you inhabit and the kind of morals it will invoke'
I mean, Ill bet on my first playthrough I could complete this game without even shooting one bullet at a big daddy, and completely avoid the sisters entirely.
Why are people acting as though killing little sisters is all you do in this game.
afaik they only promoted it less of a 'hey look at this integral game mechanic' then more of a 'this is the kind of world you inhabit and the kind of morals it will invoke'
I mean, Ill bet on my first playthrough I could complete this game without even shooting one bullet at a big daddy, and completely avoid the sisters entirely.
That'll have an affect on the ending / major game event, though.
I wish we had more info on the what the rest of the game's moral choices are likely to revolve around, because I bet that'd quell some of the bitching. As of now, the *ONLY* moral issue I've seen/heard of in regards to the game is the LS/BD stuff. Hell, I still don't understand what the driving force is other than "I'm trapped underwater and there's things trying to kill me". I guess I just wish they'd expand and speak more about the game as a whole, rather than focusing on the LS/BD stuff, if that's really not a *huge* part of the gameplay/morality stuff (and right now, it certainly seems to be the most prominent feature of the game)
I think that's part of the game, where you have to figure out what happened exactly, the lore behind the place, and if you have any allies aboard the station. And if you do, do you decide to help them or be more self serving?
As far as I know the whole game is a series of rooms that have Big Daddies and Little Sisters in them.
You go through these encounters one at a time with increasingly powerful weapons and make yes/no decisions about whether they live or die.
They really haven't shown us anything.
Oh and you can squeeze a sponge and it looks neato.
As far as I know the whole game is a series of rooms that have Big Daddies and Little Sisters in them.
You go through these encounters one at a time with increasingly powerful weapons and make yes/no decisions about whether they live or die.
They really haven't shown us anything.
Oh and you can squeeze a sponge and it looks neato.
I'm just saying it's seem funny to bitch about people acting like this is a huge part of the game, when as far as almost all the promo material thus far, it *IS* a huge part of the game.
Couldn't they have made it so that the big daddy was some kind of shield generator for the little sister? Then the little sister could be invulnerable until the big daddy dies, at which point wrench bashing is a go.
i will say though, that the removal of the perceived gruesome little girl demises has actually improved my eagerness for this game. I was very wary of purchasing a game with that kind of mechanic in it as I have children, who will eventually dust off Dad's old games and go "hey, BIoshock, what's this?"
I just can't get over how sensitive people are about the 'possibility' of child death in a game about shooting guns at people. When in fact, they play many games that involve putting holes in human bodies by firing shards of metal at them.
Somehow, being older than 15 years makes your death acceptable.
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
Because it's a fucking stupid point to get all up in arms about. You can't kill them in the way you want, but you can still kill them. There's still moral choices to be made in game concerning them. You still have that choice but you're going to be doing it more directly. This was a way to protect the decisions of the player from an otherwise frustrating game experience when, say, you accidentally off one of the little suckers. They end up being more important than just ammo for you.
I was very wary of purchasing a game with that kind of mechanic in it as I have children, who will eventually dust off Dad's old games and go "hey, BIoshock, what's this?"
Your response should be "It's what'll happen if you ever disobey."
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
i think he was responding to stigma, pointing out how killing kids who are 'innocent' and no threat to you is different from killing military troops/monsters/mobsters who have guns and are more than happy to kill you back.
the psychological difference is both enormous and perfectly understandable.
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
You seem awfully pissed off, Vincent. Have fun with that. :pats on head:
I was simply responding to Stigma's question -- pointing out a distinction you obviously missed while foaming at the mouth that the big bad devs took away your freedom of choice in the manner you may desire to kill your computer kids...
I was very wary of purchasing a game with that kind of mechanic in it as I have children, who will eventually dust off Dad's old games and go "hey, BIoshock, what's this?"
Your response should be "It's what'll happen if you ever disobey."
I have two little girls, but I can't say that deters me in any way from appreciating the opportunity play Bioshock.
edit: Hmm, you know, a bet a Little Sister halloween costume would be easy to make. If only I knew someone with an old timey divesuit.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
yeah i tried saying that a couple times last night, but it didn't really go anywhere then, either.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
Don't be silly, apotheos! That's clearly just a flimsy excuse!
Despite the fact that there's pretty much nothing to support this being one at all.
I'd join you, but around here the tradition calls for ginger beer.
And for that, I shall mock you!
...anyway. I'm really not sure what the big deal is. Either from the gameplay or the moral standpoint.
Because I'm a coldhearted bastard, for example, I find it very hard to emphasise with shallow representations. If it was a child character with a past and various involved backstories, I'd probably manage it. But in a game where she's a potential source of power that just happens to exploit human nature by assuming human form? I'd soon be proving that my ingame avatar is a complete bastard...
...and then find out that she's actually a real kid...
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
i think he was responding to stigma, pointing out how killing kids who are 'innocent' and no threat to you is different from killing military troops/monsters/mobsters who have guns and are more than happy to kill you back.
the psychological difference is both enormous and perfectly understandable.
So you've never played Oblivion, GTA, Postal, Godfather, Saints Row, Half Life... or any other number of games where innocents can be killed by stray shots...
I see where you get your perspective.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
Keep telling yourself that. It was a copout to get an M rating instead of AO and a bunch of unwanted media attention.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
Keep telling yourself that. It was a copout to get an M rating instead of AO and a bunch of unwanted media attention.
Put some tin foil on your head while you're at it.
What, someone just sent them a memo reminding them the ESRB existed or something?
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
I still confused as to why them dying as collateral damage wasn't affecting the players, though. That sounds more like they're not doing a good enough job invoking empathy from the Little Sisters. Which actually is a problem.
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
i think he was responding to stigma, pointing out how killing kids who are 'innocent' and no threat to you is different from killing military troops/monsters/mobsters who have guns and are more than happy to kill you back.
the psychological difference is both enormous and perfectly understandable.
So you've never played Oblivion, GTA, Postal, Godfather, Saints Row, Half Life... or any other number of games where innocents can be killed by stray shots...
I see where you get your perspective.
i have no idea what that has to do with what im talking about. it's not 'my perspective'. there is, for a fact, a psychological difference between killing/watching someone kill someone who 'deserves it' and someone who doesn't. this is true in games, books, movies, whatever. the degree to which it affects players varies, of course, but it's stupid for someone to say 'you should feel exactly the same about killing innocent young children as killing violent enemies'.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
Keep telling yourself that. It was a copout to get an M rating instead of AO and a bunch of unwanted media attention.
Put some tin foil on your head while you're at it.
What, someone just sent them a memo reminding them the ESRB existed or something?
There's certainly games in the past where last minute changes have been made involving children. The first that comes to mind is Temple of Elemental Evil, where they were forced to pull kids out fairly close to release because Hasbro or someone else high up made the decision that the game couldn't have kids in it since you could attack anyone. So, we ended up with entire questlines that made no goddamn sense and couldn't be finished because they left the quests in, and dialogue where people would mention their kids.
Shit, IIRC, there were still ambient sounds of children at play, but not a kid in sight.
I love how there is all this talk about moral issues when it's been made pretty clear this was a game design decision due to the game not working the other way around.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
That's why I'm talking about goatse or Big Daddy/Little Sister slash fanfiction, it's all a step up from the retarded shit that's constantly being spewed here.
"TEHY TUK AWAY MY RITE 2 KILL TEH KIDDIZ IF I WANTED 2!!"
I was very wary of purchasing a game with that kind of mechanic in it as I have children, who will eventually dust off Dad's old games and go "hey, BIoshock, what's this?"
Your response should be "It's what'll happen if you ever disobey."
I have two little girls, but I can't say that deters me in any way from appreciating the opportunity play Bioshock.
edit: Hmm, you know, a bet a Little Sister halloween costume would be easy to make. If only I knew someone with an old timey divesuit.
My father told me I'd be sold into slavery.
Then he brought me to an antique ship display at the local waterfront, and said he'd "see me in seven years".
He got annoyed that I wouldn't stop crying and get on.
You don't often see children being killed in cinema either.
In the original assault on precinct 13 by john carpenter, a little girl gets shot in the head while ordering ice cream, if I remember correctly.
I remember being pissed when I saw The Relic, because the two idiot kids who get killed early on the in the museum (in the book) come out unscathed in the movie. I'm not bloodthirsty for some child death, but it can be done to great effect (and of course can be totally just for shock value).
Hell, the first zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake is a little girl missing half her face that you saw all alive and happy 5 minutes earlier.
It's not just that they're kids. It's that they're defenseless kids that beg for their lives, mourn the loss of their companions, and otherwise just leave you alone. In any other FPS, you're shooting at fuckers who want to kill you and attempt to do so to the best of its AI's ability.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
i think he was responding to stigma, pointing out how killing kids who are 'innocent' and no threat to you is different from killing military troops/monsters/mobsters who have guns and are more than happy to kill you back.
the psychological difference is both enormous and perfectly understandable.
So you've never played Oblivion, GTA, Postal, Godfather, Saints Row, Half Life... or any other number of games where innocents can be killed by stray shots...
I see where you get your perspective.
i have no idea what that has to do with what im talking about. it's not 'my perspective'. there is, for a fact, a psychological difference between killing/watching someone kill someone who 'deserves it' and someone who doesn't. this is true in games, books, movies, whatever. the degree to which it affects players varies, of course, but it's stupid for someone to say 'you should feel exactly the same about killing innocent young children as killing violent enemies'.
No, see, I'm citing situations where innocents die in games. It happens alot, and in alot of cases you don't 'want' them to. Half Life and Oblivion for example.
Their accidental deaths are there for emotional weight on the player. Consequence to decisions.
What I'm saying is that we all (for the most part) play games that involve people who "don't deserve it" dying because we fucked up. The only difference here is the age of the victim and that somehow makes their life more valuable to people, which offends me.
Im not sure I would be entirely comfortable killing little girls anyway.
The CG trailer really made me sad when hes standing over her with the wrench. It wasnt pleasing.
I wouldnt consider killing little girls fun anyway, which is the sole aim of a game. The moral choice impact is important but I can imagine some people making horrible youtube montages of all the various ways to kill these kids and that would be wrong.
Im not sure I would be entirely comfortable killing little girls anyway.
The CG trailer really made me sad when hes standing over her with the wrench. It wasnt pleasing.
I wouldnt consider killing little girls fun anyway, which is the sole aim of a game. The moral choice impact is important but I can imagine some people making horrible youtube montages of all the various ways to kill these kids and that would be wrong.
Please enlighten me. How would that be "wrong" in any definition of the word?
You might feel it's inappropriate, or kinda fucked up...but wrong? No.
Posts
afaik they only promoted it less of a 'hey look at this integral game mechanic' then more of a 'this is the kind of world you inhabit and the kind of morals it will invoke'
I mean, Ill bet on my first playthrough I could complete this game without even shooting one bullet at a big daddy, and completely avoid the sisters entirely.
That'll have an affect on the ending / major game event, though.
Priorities guys, come on.
You go through these encounters one at a time with increasingly powerful weapons and make yes/no decisions about whether they live or die.
They really haven't shown us anything.
Oh and you can squeeze a sponge and it looks neato.
I'm just saying it's seem funny to bitch about people acting like this is a huge part of the game, when as far as almost all the promo material thus far, it *IS* a huge part of the game.
Genetic tentacle mod by SushiX v0.69
I just can't get over how sensitive people are about the 'possibility' of child death in a game about shooting guns at people. When in fact, they play many games that involve putting holes in human bodies by firing shards of metal at them.
Somehow, being older than 15 years makes your death acceptable.
What's your fucking point? The idea that perhaps we're confronted with the moral issue of "do we kill these kids?" is an important one to the game. Assuming you feel the way your post suggests, you are free to not kill the little girls, whereas others are free to do so if they wish. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that.
Your response should be "It's what'll happen if you ever disobey."
the psychological difference is both enormous and perfectly understandable.
You seem awfully pissed off, Vincent. Have fun with that. :pats on head:
I was simply responding to Stigma's question -- pointing out a distinction you obviously missed while foaming at the mouth that the big bad devs took away your freedom of choice in the manner you may desire to kill your computer kids...
I have two little girls, but I can't say that deters me in any way from appreciating the opportunity play Bioshock.
edit: Hmm, you know, a bet a Little Sister halloween costume would be easy to make. If only I knew someone with an old timey divesuit.
You guys just keep yelling at each other. Enjoy it. I'm getting a root beer.
猿も木から落ちる
Don't be silly, apotheos! That's clearly just a flimsy excuse!
Despite the fact that there's pretty much nothing to support this being one at all.
And for that, I shall mock you!
...anyway. I'm really not sure what the big deal is. Either from the gameplay or the moral standpoint.
Because I'm a coldhearted bastard, for example, I find it very hard to emphasise with shallow representations. If it was a child character with a past and various involved backstories, I'd probably manage it. But in a game where she's a potential source of power that just happens to exploit human nature by assuming human form? I'd soon be proving that my ingame avatar is a complete bastard...
...and then find out that she's actually a real kid...
So you've never played Oblivion, GTA, Postal, Godfather, Saints Row, Half Life... or any other number of games where innocents can be killed by stray shots...
I see where you get your perspective.
Keep telling yourself that. It was a copout to get an M rating instead of AO and a bunch of unwanted media attention.
Put some tin foil on your head while you're at it.
What, someone just sent them a memo reminding them the ESRB existed or something?
猿も木から落ちる
I still confused as to why them dying as collateral damage wasn't affecting the players, though. That sounds more like they're not doing a good enough job invoking empathy from the Little Sisters. Which actually is a problem.
"Guys, we've just spent years working on 3D Rape Simulator, but-"
"Oh, a but. I knew there'd be a but."
"But there's this whole 'consumer rating' body... thing. It applies to the countries we want to circulate the product in-"
"Out with it, Gabe."
"So I vote we scrap the project and spend a year making it into some kind of shooter with aliens."
There's certainly games in the past where last minute changes have been made involving children. The first that comes to mind is Temple of Elemental Evil, where they were forced to pull kids out fairly close to release because Hasbro or someone else high up made the decision that the game couldn't have kids in it since you could attack anyone. So, we ended up with entire questlines that made no goddamn sense and couldn't be finished because they left the quests in, and dialogue where people would mention their kids.
Shit, IIRC, there were still ambient sounds of children at play, but not a kid in sight.
That's why I'm talking about goatse or Big Daddy/Little Sister slash fanfiction, it's all a step up from the retarded shit that's constantly being spewed here.
"TEHY TUK AWAY MY RITE 2 KILL TEH KIDDIZ IF I WANTED 2!!"
"NUH UH, U STILL CAN JUS NOT WIF BULLETZ"
"FUCK YUO, TEHY'RE LIMITNG MY OPTSHUNZ!"
etc.
In the original assault on precinct 13 by john carpenter, a little girl gets shot in the head while ordering ice cream, if I remember correctly.
BRAWL CODE: 3866-7685-8500
My father told me I'd be sold into slavery.
Then he brought me to an antique ship display at the local waterfront, and said he'd "see me in seven years".
He got annoyed that I wouldn't stop crying and get on.
I remember being pissed when I saw The Relic, because the two idiot kids who get killed early on the in the museum (in the book) come out unscathed in the movie. I'm not bloodthirsty for some child death, but it can be done to great effect (and of course can be totally just for shock value).
Hell, the first zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake is a little girl missing half her face that you saw all alive and happy 5 minutes earlier.
No, see, I'm citing situations where innocents die in games. It happens alot, and in alot of cases you don't 'want' them to. Half Life and Oblivion for example.
Their accidental deaths are there for emotional weight on the player. Consequence to decisions.
What I'm saying is that we all (for the most part) play games that involve people who "don't deserve it" dying because we fucked up. The only difference here is the age of the victim and that somehow makes their life more valuable to people, which offends me.
The CG trailer really made me sad when hes standing over her with the wrench. It wasnt pleasing.
I wouldnt consider killing little girls fun anyway, which is the sole aim of a game. The moral choice impact is important but I can imagine some people making horrible youtube montages of all the various ways to kill these kids and that would be wrong.
Please enlighten me. How would that be "wrong" in any definition of the word?
You might feel it's inappropriate, or kinda fucked up...but wrong? No.