Five BioShock sequels

[Chris]

You could argue that the whole story of Star Wars from Episode I to Episode VI is about the internal conflict of Darth Vader, but I've been talking about Star Wars on the internet for so long I don't even want to get into it anymore.

Regardless, just because it's an internal conflict doesn't mean it isn't good vs. evil. I didn't see a lot of moral ambiguity in BioShock, there's a right thing to do with regards to the Little Sisters, and a wrong thing to do. This is pretty much obvious right from the word go. And besides, the reveal that you were basically a puppet the entire time without any free will makes the character's whole moral dilemma kind of moot, anyway.

But the game isn't "about" the little sisters in the same way that Star Wars is "about" good and evil. Good and evil is the entire overarching theme of Star Wars. Little sisters and the dilemma surrounding them is one aspect of BioShock. Also, yes, your spoiler is accurate, but that doesn't mean the game is about "good vs. evil," it means it's about what you describe.

[Horticulture Tycoon]

I think we're arguing about two different things. I'm not saying that's all BioShock was about, obviously there was a lot more going on in that game than that. And it's silly to try to reduce the game to those terms -- especially for the president of 2K. However, when the game does get into issues of morality, I don't think it's as sophisticated as people make it out to be. You can either do a good thing or a bad thing, but there's never any doubt as to which is which.

[gdf]

I think we're arguing about two different things. I'm not saying that's all BioShock was about, obviously there was a lot more going on in that game than that. And it's silly to try to reduce the game to those terms -- especially for the president of 2K. However, when the game does get into issues of morality, I don't think it's as sophisticated as people make it out to be. You can either do a good thing or a bad thing, but there's never any doubt as to which is which.

This is what I've been getting at for over a year. It was very obviously a black and white choice, so much so that I wondered why it was so vaunted a feature before release. There was absolutely no grey area, and I think to downplay its prominence in the context of the experience as a whole would be fallacious.

Shadow of the Colossus had no choices; progression was based around destroying the monsters and there was a massive sense of moral doubt in that game even though the back-of-box bullet points didn't contain the phrases "Moral decisions" and "Multiple endings". Although it was an inescapably directed path by the designed constraints of the game, it is let on in BioShock that the player's actions were also dictated, rendering the effects of a Video game that was meant to be all about the player questioning their choices moot in my eyes.

Anecdotal sensory experience perhaps makes me biased. In short, Shadow of the Colossus made me cry, BioShock did not, despite the fact it plainly made an effort to. It may have just been the ending, I honestly felt as though Levine and his team just said "fuck it" when they created the final encounter and half-baked cinematics. Had there been a few more outcomes that reflected the overall course of action taken in the game and did not just tally up and compare Little Sisters harvested vs Little Sisters saved it may have elevated itself to the status of memorable, rather than merely an enjoyable one-time fling (wouldn't have hurt replay value either).

Maybe that's my outlook on games as a whole though. I see the Half-Life series as overrated because the actual game parts are no more than well thought out and moderately engaging.

[toblix]

I see the Half-Life series as overrated because th--

No you didn't.

[gdf]

No you didn't.

Always. This. Reaction.

Do you need me to explain, or have I already been reported?

[toblix]

Hey, I know those hands!

Anyway, what? I was just being hilarious, I think it's awesome that some people don't like Half-Life. Whenever someone says Half-Life is overrated, I make a wish.

It's not like you have to defend your view or anything, it's just so exotic.

[Horticulture Tycoon]

Here's the part where I distance myself from gdf because we're both new guys who are ambivalent about BioShock, and if I don't want any misunderstandings in the future. Consider this my official statement: I love Half-Life. That is all.

[Thyroid]

No I totally agree, I refuse to watch Lost for the same reason. If, when the series is over, people say it was awesome from start to end then that's cool but I'm not going to invest my time or emotions on something that I suspect will turn to shit by the end.

Or something that won't end.

But it does! So, good! Woohoo!

So, on the PS3 wishlist: BioShock, Brutal Legend and whatever Team ICO is doing.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Kroms

[ThunderPeel2001]

Well that kills any point in getting the first one. No way in hell am I getting involved in another endless series.

It's completely stand-alone. It was never set-up to be "part one in a sexology", so if the sequels blow, don't play em! (Right?)

[ThunderPeel2001]

Harvesting children = evil; not harvesting children = good. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Yeah, but the black and white is on BOTH sides... hence the grey. If there was a Luke Skywalker (goodie) versus Darth Vader (baddie) then you'd have a point. With Bioshock you have Luke Skywalker who also occasionally harvests children...

[Horticulture Tycoon]

Black and white side-by-side does not make gray (I mean grey... Sorry, Europeans!). I mean look, the proof is in the endings: You either become the greatest, most noble human being ever to walk the Earth, or you are the biggest child's-arm-twisting bastard in history. The game has no in-betweens. There is absolutely zero nuance whatsoever.

It's not only BioShock, it's a lot of games. It's just a pet peeve of mine, these games that treat morality as a simple binary system or good and bad, light side and dark side, positive karma and negative karma, whatever. It's just not interesting to me. Gdf brought up Shadow of the Colossus, which is a nice comparison: That game offers no player choice, you're totally on rails from beginning to end. And yet it still makes you question whether or not you're doing the right thing. After all, you always know what the right thing to do is, making decisions is mind-numbingly easy. It's not knowing the right thing to do that's far more dramatic.

[syntheticgerbil]

Why did everyone start arguing about semantics that everyone is correct about to a certain degree? This will take forever.

When can I hear the stories of Ken Levine rampaging through the office breaking furniture?

[SignorSuperdouche]

It's completely stand-alone. It was never set-up to be "part one in a sexology"

Sweet, for some reason I'd got it into my head that there was some bullshit cliff hanger ending with no closure. No idea why I thought that.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The game has no in-betweens. There is absolutely zero nuance whatsoever.

It's not only BioShock, it's a lot of games. It's just a pet peeve of mine, these games that treat morality as a simple binary system or good and bad, light side and dark side, positive karma and negative karma, whatever. It's just not interesting to me. Gdf brought up Shadow of the Colossus, which is a nice comparison: That game offers no player choice, you're totally on rails from beginning to end. And yet it still makes you question whether or not you're doing the right thing. After all, you always know what the right thing to do is, making decisions is mind-numbingly easy. It's not knowing the right thing to do that's far more dramatic.

I absolutely agree, but that's not what I was talking about.

[Chris]

Black and white side-by-side does not make gray (I mean grey... Sorry, Europeans!). I mean look, the proof is in the endings: You either become the greatest, most noble human being ever to walk the Earth, or you are the biggest child's-arm-twisting bastard in history. The game has no in-betweens. There is absolutely zero nuance whatsoever.

It's not only BioShock, it's a lot of games. It's just a pet peeve of mine, these games that treat morality as a simple binary system or good and bad, light side and dark side, positive karma and negative karma, whatever. It's just not interesting to me. Gdf brought up Shadow of the Colossus, which is a nice comparison: That game offers no player choice, you're totally on rails from beginning to end. And yet it still makes you question whether or not you're doing the right thing. After all, you always know what the right thing to do is, making decisions is mind-numbingly easy. It's not knowing the right thing to do that's far more dramatic.

You're arguing a completely different thing here. I don't even think anyone is disagreeing with what you're saying, it's just not the topic. BioShock still isn't a "good vs. evil" thing, in the sense Star Wars is. By your own definition, you can choose to be the evilest evildoer ever--fine, so then the game is "evil vs. evil," if you're evil and the "bad guy" is also evil, and then the game isn't "good vs. evil." You could maybe call it "good or evil vs. evil" but that's still a different thing.

[Horticulture Tycoon]

Yeah but it's still good vs. evil either way. All you're doing is choosing which side you're on.

Syntheticgerbil is completely right that this is an argument about semantics and not about the game. It just seems like you're trying to create distinctions that aren't there, by saying that BioShock was a game (at least in part) about good and evil, but not about good vs. evil. It seems like hair-splitting to me. But if you see a distinction there where I don't, then really we just have to agree to disagree.

[gdf]

I can see where the argument for being a game about good and evil rather than good vs evil arises. Even if this is the case, however, I still feel that it comes across so one dimensionally that it was just cack handed design.

I don't want to discredit the team, BioShock has a great atmosphere and tried some new things, I just feel it didn't push them far enough.

[brkl]

I'd say it's about control, at least that's what the most memorable moment in the game was about.

[Aon]

Yeah, but control all leads back into choice. The control element of the game is juxtaposed against the binary nature of the games 'moral choice' so it is disingenuous to completely discard the good vs evil dichotomy when describing what the game is really 'all about'

That moment in the game, while I agree it was the most powerful would not have been so much so without the little sister dillemma you were forced to deal with.

[Chris]

Yeah but it's still good vs. evil either way. All you're doing is choosing which side you're on.

Syntheticgerbil is completely right that this is an argument about semantics and not about the game. It just seems like you're trying to create distinctions that aren't there, by saying that BioShock was a game (at least in part) about good and evil, but not about good vs. evil. It seems like hair-splitting to me. But if you see a distinction there where I don't, then really we just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know why this is as complicated as it has become. I'm just saying, in Star Wars, there is one side that is good, and one side that is evil, and they are juxtaposed against each other. In BioShock, there is one guy who is potentially a bastard or potentially relatively altruistic but in reality just a pawn and devoid of free choice to begin with, and another side that is essentially full of bastards.

The player never makes any significant, meaningful, moral choice, I just think the overall dichotomy between the two things is totally different. There's no "good" in BioShock. I mean, "not killing little girls" doesn't make you "good" it just makes you "not as murderous as you would have been." Nothing in that game is uplifting or bright in the sense that the Light Side is in Star Wars.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Yeah but it's still good vs. evil either way. All you're doing is choosing which side you're on.

Syntheticgerbil is completely right that this is an argument about semantics and not about the game. It just seems like you're trying to create distinctions that aren't there, by saying that BioShock was a game (at least in part) about good and evil, but not about good vs. evil. It seems like hair-splitting to me. But if you see a distinction there where I don't, then really we just have to agree to disagree.

Weird. This is insanely simple, but for some reason you keep missing the point. In BioShock, if you choose to harvest children, you're "bad". But that doesn't automatically make Rapture's creator "good". So the battle is "bad" vs "bad". In Star Wars these areas of "grey" (if you will) are NOT explored. Despite the fact that the Rebel Alliance are, in fact, terrorists going around killing the people they don't like (how many people where on the Death Star?? Luke Skywalker is a mass murderer!) -- it's ALWAYS a very simple "good" vs "evil".

Star Wars (and Indiana Jones, etc.) skates round these issues by just keeping a very clear boundary: Anyone killed by the goodies deserved to die, period (in self-defence, because they're irredeemable evil clones, whatever). In BioShock, you simply cannot ever justify killing a little girl -- your character is just treated as "evil" after that.

Rapture's creator is also always evil, regardless of what you do.

So to strip it back to the black and white morality of Star Wars again: In BioShock there isn't necessarily any "goodies" to fight the good fight, only shades of evil: An insane megalomaniac with no regard for humanity vs a bastard wandering around killing children.

Edited January 16, 2009 by ThunderPeel2001

[DanJW]

Can we just agree that "Bioshock is not like Star Wars"? Anything beyond that doesn't matter in regards to the original quote.

[Jake]

But that well-spoken 2K relationsman at the start said it was like Star Wars. I'm so conused.

[DanJW]

[LetterT]

Interesting arguments. I guess it's time to pick up BioShock for PC and see what all the stink is about.

And does it really surprise anyone that the game industry is going to take a game that may or may not have been setup for sequels, and string it out to milk every last dollar from it?

Doesn't surprise me at all.