Support NeoGAF

[Baron Von Beans]

All my praise for this game been said already, but still, the setting, story, and characters are truly magnificient in the Bioshock 1. While I enjoyed the other games too, they can't hold a candle to the original. I've only beat it maybe twice, but that journey will not be forgotten. I greatly look forward to reading more here!

 

[clockworkinyou]

When properly upgraded the wrench is the most powerful weapon in the game - another detail that only deepens the metaphor.

I love any and all Bioshock, but shit, it's been awhile; I didn't think you could upgrade the wrench like the other weapons??

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Don't you think that (the Burial at Sea 2 ending) devalues Infinite's story/lore/worldbuilding/characters

Yes it does. The events of Burial at Sea are merely a vehicle for witnessing pre-fall Rapture, an experience I think is valuable and was very enjoyable, but there is no reason for this experience to be based on Infinite's characters. This is why I believe both BioShock and Infinite are best viewed as separate texts. The combination of the two benefits neither and hurts both.

Also, a question: Is there anything you want to share on the subject of the golf thing with Andrew Ryan?

This is a big one I will eventually make into its own thread:

Spoiler

The power of this scene is because it calls out the player. Games are about the illusion of choice and supposed control, but by playing a game and indulging in its instructions you are actually letting a game control you. If the game says run, you run. If the game says kill, you kill. You don't question is because that's what you're supposed to do. That's what you're told, and you do what you're told, and that makes you a slave.

What is incredible about that scene is that the game takes control away from you. You don't have a choice to kill Andrew Ryan, but the game calls you out and says you would have done it anyway because you do whatever you're told.

Then Atlas tells you to put the genetic key into the machine. And even with what you were just told, and even with what was just demonstrated to you, what do you do as a player? Even when you KNOW that performing the action condemns you, what do you do?

You obey. You are a slave.

How/why did you become so interested in BioShock in the first place?

I don't play BioShock for the first time until 2011. Until that point I was strictly a Nintendo gamer and didn't have interest in mature games or shooters. Then I played Portal and really wanted to see what else was out there, so I went from Portal to BioShock. It like losing my virginity. It awoken me to something I had never experienced before.

I have played BioShock over so many times my cumulative save files are over 100 hours. I have 54 hours on my Steam copy alone. BioShock mesmerized me because there was so much to think about. I felt like the game engaged me, and so I answered the call.

I love any and all Bioshock, but shit, it's been awhile; I didn't think you could upgrade the wrench like the other weapons??

You do it with Gene Tonics.

 

[Toa TAK]

After reading this, strangely enough, I have to ask:

Even after the events of the Burial at Sea DLC, what do you make of Infinite's after-credits ending?

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Cool descriptions OP

I wonder whats next for this franchise

 

[Finale Fireworker]

After reading this, strangely enough, I have to ask:

Even after the events of the Burial at Sea DLC, what do you make of Infinite's after-credits ending?

According to Ken Levine, that scene is a lead in to the DLC.

Spoiler

It's the same Booker present in Burial at Sea.

I personally hate this because Elizabeth says in Infinite that she thinks she's creating the universes she tears into, evidenced further by BaS Pt 1's opening. Without Burial at Sea, I prefer to interpret that scene as

Spoiler

Elizabeth creating a universe where Booker and Anna can be a normal father and daughter.

 

[Serpens007]

This is a big one I will eventually make into its own thread:

Spoiler

The power of this scene is because it calls out the player. Games are about the illusion of choice and supposed control, but by playing a game and indulging in its instructions you are actually letting a game control you. If the game says run, you run. If the game says kill, you kill. You don't question is because that's what you're supposed to do. That's what you're told, and you do what you're told, and that makes you a slave.

What is incredible about that scene is that the game takes control away from you. You don't have a choice to kill Andrew Ryan, but the game calls you out and says you would have done it anyway because you do whatever you're told.

Then Atlas tells you to put the genetic key into the machine. And even with what you were just told, and even with what was just demonstrated to you, what do you do as a player? Even when you KNOW that performing the action condemns you, what do you do?

You obey. You are a slave.

Yes, it is very powerful. I think it is even in Infinite, there is illusion of choice, and lots of gamers were upset that choices didn't matter in the game. That's because it never does.

More into the scene, is there any interpretation to why you have to

Spoiler

kill Andrew with a golf club

?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Yes, it is very powerful. I think it is even in Infinite, there is illusion of choice, and lots of gamers were upset that choices didn't matter in the game. That's because it never does.

More into the scene, is there any interpretation to why you have to

Spoiler

kill Andrew with a golf club

?

Spoiler

Andrew Ryan sticks to his ideals until the very end, choosing to be killed rather than surrender himself and his city. Having made the choice, and being a man who values his choices above all else, he is at peace with his fate. When Jack arrives and he is leisurely playing golf, we see a view of an ordinary Andrew Ryan who is uncompromising even in the face of death. He is still in the utmost control of himself and his future. He is a man who is free.

It's not so much important that it's a golf club so much as it's RYAN'S golf club. By handing you one of his possessions to use an an instrument of his murder, then ordering you to kill him, Andrew Ryan is not being killed.

He's dying by his own hand and committing suicide. Because a man chooses.

 

[show me your skeleton]

hello ken!

 

[Toa TAK]

According to Ken Levine, that scene is a lead in to the DLC.

Spoiler

It's the same Booker present in Burial at Sea.

I personally hate this because Elizabeth says in Infinite that she thinks she's creating the universes she tears into, evidenced further by BaS Pt 1's opening. Without Burial at Sea, I prefer to interpret that scene as

Spoiler

Elizabeth creating a universe where Booker and Anna can be a normal father and daughter.

Gah, I must've missed that, was this answered in an article or one of his barrage of twitter answers?

Spoiler

As for the interpretation, I feel the same way. Having that ending being a lead-in into BaS makes it a bummer.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Gah, I must've missed that, was this answered in an article or one of his barrage of twitter answers?

Spoiler

As for the interpretation, I feel the same way. Having that ending being a lead-in into BaS makes it a bummer.

I am pretty sure it was in one of the press releases or interviews leading up to the launch of the DLC. I'm mobile but I would like to locate that article for reference.

I actually need to start recompiling that kind of stuff for proper citation.

Edit: Found it: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-12-ken-levine-discusses-bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea-episode-1-ending

 

[Sober]

Okay, since no one else has asked:

Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock. It was labeled so by Clint Hocking but you say there isn't any. Is his labeling of that just because of surface level interpretations or is there something more to it for you to say it doesn't actually exist?

 

[Serpens007]

Spoiler

Andrew Ryan sticks to his ideals until the very end, choosing to be killed rather than surrender himself and his city. Having made the choice, and being a man who values his choices above all else, he is at peace with his fate. When Jack arrives and he is leisurely playing golf, we see a view of an ordinary Andrew Ryan who is uncompromising even in the face of death. He is still in the utmost control of himself and his future. He is a man who is free.

It's not so much important that it's a golf club so much as it's RYAN'S golf club. By handing you one of his possessions to use an an instrument of his murder, then ordering you to kill him, Andrew Ryan is not being killed.

He's dying by his own hand and committing suicide. Because a man chooses.

Superb! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[DoubleTake]

We know its you, Ken!

Anyway amazing thread I dont have any answers but I will definitely be keeping track of this thread. Bioshock right up there in my top 10 games.

 

[Plasmids]

As you will notice by my name I absolutely love Bioshock I think it could even be my favourite game of all time.

Please please please give me a remaster on ps4.

Very interesting thread and I love your insight into this game please keep it up.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Okay, since no one else has asked:

Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock. It was labeled so by Clint Hocking but you say there isn't any. Is his labeling of that just because of surface level interpretations or is there something more to it for you to say it doesn't actually exist?

To put it briefly because I'm at work: Clint Hocking claims that BioShock tells the player that self-serving interests are wrong and condemns the selfish ambitions of BioShock's inhabitants. He then says this disagrees with the structure of the game because the player is encouraged to seize every available upgrade and benefit possible to serve their individual interest.

What Hocking is neglecting is that the only choice Jack can freely make is to save the Little Sisters and that Jack HAS no independent interest whatsoever. Jack's entire mission is initially strictly the bidding of another and later is 100% in the altruistic interest in benefiting other people (the Little Sisters).

I would like to answer this in more detail when I have the time and a keyboard.

 

[Sportbilly]

Excellent thread.

Just out of interest- any insight into how the plane was actually brought down? And how could Jack be 'guaranteed' to survive, unlike presumably everyone else on board?

 

[Toxi]

Spoiler

Andrew Ryan sticks to his ideals until the very end, choosing to be killed rather than surrender himself and his city. Having made the choice, and being a man who values his choices above all else, he is at peace with his fate. When Jack arrives and he is leisurely playing golf, we see a view of an ordinary Andrew Ryan who is uncompromising even in the face of death. He is still in the utmost control of himself and his future. He is a man who is free.

It's not so much important that it's a golf club so much as it's RYAN'S golf club. By handing you one of his possessions to use an an instrument of his murder, then ordering you to kill him, Andrew Ryan is not being killed.

He's dying by his own hand and committing suicide. Because a man chooses.

Didn't

Spoiler

Andrew Ryan compromise his ideals in this log?

Spoiler

"Doctor Suchong, frankly, I'm shocked by your proposal. If we were to modify the structure of our commercial Plasmid line as you propose, to have them make the user vulnerable to mental suggestion through pheromones, would we not be able to effectively control the actions of the citizens of Rapture? Free will is the cornerstone of this city. The thought of sacrificing it is abhorrent. However... we are indeed in a time of war. If Atlas and his bandits have their way, will they not turn us into slaves? And what will become of free will then? Desperate times call for desperate measures."

 

[Plasmids]

All my praise for this game been said already, but still, the setting, story, and characters are truly magnificient in the Bioshock 1. While I enjoyed the other games too, they can't hold a candle to the original. I've only beat it maybe twice, but that journey will not be forgotten. I greatly look forward to reading more here!

Agree with this 100% the second and third games were good but the first one is untouchable for storytelling and atmosphere.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Ones of the most interesting threads in recent memory. Did you made the connections yoursewlf or read them anywhere else? Not in a million years i would dream to discover those methaphors hidden in the game.

Before Naughty Dog and The Last of Us broke new grounds on interactive storytelling, we had Irrational Games and BioShock.

What new grounds did ND broke for interactive story telling with the Last oif Us?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Excellent thread.

Just out of interest- any insight into how the plane was actually brought down? And how could Jack be 'guaranteed' to survive, unlike presumably everyone else on board?

Jack is, as we heard in one of Suchong's diaries,

Spoiler

somewhat super-human. His genetic abnormalities were chosen to make him a killing machine.

This is really the only evidence we have as to what could have guaranteed his survival. But there may not have been a guarantee at all. It was a last-ditch effort Plan Z.

Didn't

Spoiler

Andrew Ryan compromise his ideals in this log?

Spoiler

"Doctor Suchong, frankly, I'm shocked by your proposal. If we were to modify the structure of our commercial Plasmid line as you propose, to have them make the user vulnerable to mental suggestion through pheromones, would we not be able to effectively control the actions of the citizens of Rapture? Free will is the cornerstone of this city. The thought of sacrificing it is abhorrent. However... we are indeed in a time of war. If Atlas and his bandits have their way, will they not turn us into slaves? And what will become of free will then? Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Yes, but the purpose of this audio diary is to demonstrate how Andrew Ryan was able to delude himself into believing that this violation of the ideals he lives

Spoiler

and dies

by the only way to protect them. To the flawed Andrew Ryan, there was no other choice to ensure the survival of what he stood for.

 

[Toa TAK]

I am pretty sure it was in one of the press releases or interviews leading up to the launch of the DLC. I'm mobile but I would like to locate that article for reference.

I actually need to start recompiling that kind of stuff for proper citation.

Edit: Found it: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-12-ken-levine-discusses-bioshock-infinite-burial-at-sea-episode-1-ending

Was baby Anna in the crib at the end of BioShock Infinite? Levine has previously refused to give a definitive answer.

"The question is," he begins, "what would Heisenberg say? Things exist in every conceivable state until they're observed. There is no answer that can be definitive because until they collapse (getting very scientific, or as scientific as a drama student can) until a singularity there is no answer."

Levine has admitted to having a personal answer to the question, however. Would care to share now?

"No. [Laughs] I don't believe authorial intent matters very much. I believe your experience of the game and interpretation of events is just as valid as mine. Because I'll be dead one day, and if someone is still playing this game after I die then what does it matter what I say? It matters what people experience. It's hard to give any interpretation of that because I don't want to ruin it for people."

She totally was.

Bam. Looks like I'm not the only one who wants to believe.

Thanks for the link, great article to read through.
.

 

[Brakke]

Is there a single person in this thread not clicking the "spoilers"?

 

[Sober]

Is there a single person in this thread not clicking the "spoilers"?

There are some Infinite/Burial at Sea spoilers so probably?

 

[Shogun1337]

The best weapon ever. There's nothing better than to beat up people with this Wrench in Bioshock. I love it

Yeah hah. Especially when they cry for mercy, the wrench really is the best tool for the job.

We're still talking about Bioshock right?

 

[QuantumBro]

Is there a single person in this thread not clicking the "spoilers"?

I'm just avoiding the Burial at Sea spoilers, the rest of it is absolutely fascinating. Thanks Finale Fireworker!

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Ones of the most interesting threads in recent memory. Did you made the connections yoursewlf or read them anywhere else? Not in a million years i would dream to discover those methaphors hidden in the game.

What new grounds did ND broke for interactive story telling with the Last oif Us?

This is all my own research and are all my own conclusions and interpretations. As for Last of Us, that's a whole other thread topic. The short answer is their characterization and successful character arcs that are very rarely featured in games, the emotional impact of the story on its players as well as the quality of that story, but also the format through which they were able to tell the story in an interactive medium. BioShock, for example, still uses the audio diary method pioneered in System Shock 2 and has not really advanced.

Last of Us masters showing over telling and uses dialog in a way other games have struggled.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Okay, since no one else has asked:

Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock. It was labeled so by Clint Hocking but you say there isn't any. Is his labeling of that just because of surface level interpretations or is there something more to it for you to say it doesn't actually exist?

Pardon my intrusion since i don't have much grasp of the subject. But if you look at the blog where the term was coined, you'll notice that it was formed from a wrong and pretty superficial asumption of Rand's philosophy. Even in the blog someone pointed this out to Hoking and he seemed to flee the disscussion.

Amussing that a term that is been pushed so hard in videogame disscussion was born from a misinterpretation.

This is all my own research and are all my own conclusions and interpretations. As for Last of Us, that's a whole other thread topic. The short answer is their characterization and successful character arcs that are very rarely featured in games, the emotional impact of the story on its players as well as the quality of that story, but also the format through which they were able to tell the story in an interactive medium. BioShock, for example, still uses the audio diary method pioneered in System Shock 2 and has not really advanced.

Last of Us masters showing over telling and uses dialog in a way other games have struggled.

In that case my congratulations for such creative thinking.

In regards to TLoU and going by your answer it seems it has to do more with the quality and execution, not because some never before seen way of interactive story telling. But i'll refrain from continue this arch of the disscussion since it's off topic.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Pardon my intrusion since i don't have much grasp of the subject. But if you look at the blog where the term was coined, you'll notice that it was formed from a wrong and pretty superficial asumption of Rand's philosophy. Even in the blog someone pointed this out to Hoking and he seemed to flee the disscussion.

Amussing that a term that is been pushed so hard in videogame disscussion was born from a misinterpretation.

Agreed. Almost nobody takes Hocking seriously anymore. But his damage is done. People throw the term around still without really understanding its source article or the material it is often misapplied to.

Edit responding to edit: I hope that when I make a Last of Us thread, which will not be as broad as this one, you will take part in the discussion. I have many things say about the structure and execution I consider template-smashing, but we'll save that for a LoU geared analysis.

 

[Neiteio]

Great OP! Might've already been mentioned, but I just wanted to add, in regards to the wrench, it's quite fitting in an underwater world consisting of pipes...

 

[playXray]

BioShock is one of my favourite games ever, so I was really pleased to find this great thread.

As much as I love almost every aspect of BioShock, the one thing I found disappointing was the morality of the kill/spare little sisters system. Basically, you can kill them and get a dose of Adam on the spot, or spare them and get a dose of Adam a bit later. For me, this weakens the impact of the choice you are making. What would have been more profound is to make it a much more difficult decision: kill the girl and get the good, or spare her and get nothing. Even though it's just a computer game, I would almost certainly have felt guilty about killing the girls and taken the harder (but morally correct) option of sparing them.

What did you think of this system?

 

[Refreshment.01]

Was gonna say that Finale should made more threads, then clicked on the avatar to see what else his published. Seems this is your first thread, in which case:

"YOU SHOULD MAKE MORE THREADS." XD

My god i just can't get over the wrench, what kind of minds are behind games such as this. Would be really interested to hear some thoughts from key team members from Irrational.

 

[Neiteio]

I'm really digging the symbolism in the sweater.

 

[Steel]

What do you make of the hacking in BIoshock? It seemed like Jack was pretty handy at just about everything, including hacking technology that didn't exist elsewhere, which is odd in hindsight.

 

[MCtalkfunny]

This thread is great! I love the bioshock, my game of the generation. Try and play it at least once a year.

Here is something that I thought about last time I played the game. Who was on the sub that Ryan blew up? Atlas says his wife Mira and son Patrick are on it but they are not real.

Also could you explain your thoughts on infinte and gun control?

 

[Sportbilly]

Jack is, as we heard in one of Suchong's diaries,

Spoiler

somewhat super-human. His genetic abnormalities were chosen to make him a killing machine.

This is really the only evidence we have as to what could have guaranteed his survival. But there may not have been a guarantee at all. It was a last-ditch effort Plan Z.

Fair enough- a shit or bust punt. If it hadn't have worked, Obviously there wouldn't be a game to play in the first place.

What about how the plane was taken down? It's been a while, but I'm sure one of the flight attendants shouts for Jack (presumably) to sit down. Did he do it, or was it done from within Rapture itself?

 

[danwarb]

Bioshock is the best game. Well done Bioshock.

I played it again recently. Still the best story telling and atmosphere.

 

[Alec]

Excellent read so far. Looking forward to more, and the eventual LoU thread. Wish I had a question to contribute!

 

[show me your skeleton]

would you kindly make more threads?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

BioShock is one of my favourite games ever, so I was really pleased to find this great thread.

As much as I love almost every aspect of BioShock, the one thing I found disappointing was the morality of the kill/spare little sisters system. Basically, you can kill them and get a dose of Adam on the spot, or spare them and get a dose of Adam a bit later. For me, this weakens the impact of the choice you are making. What would have been more profound is to make it a much more difficult decision: kill the girl and get the good, or spare her and get nothing. Even though it's just a computer game, I would almost certainly have felt guilty about killing the girls and taken the harder (but morally correct) option of sparing them.

What did you think of this system?

This is part of what I want to get into in my second thread (part of my ScholarShock series). But I will answer this quickly as I have answered others.

If you kill a Little Sister you fail BioShock. You failed the ethics test that positions you in a sociopolitical conundrum that is the most central theme of the whole game: capitalism.

You have two choices: Take every resource for yourself at the direct expense of others or only take what you need and respect the needs of others. This is why killing even one Little Sister gives you the bad ending. Because by doing so you do not heed the loudest message BioShock is trying to deliver to you.

Imagine instead the Little Sisters are the rainforest. The rainforest is full of resources that everybody needs to survive. You, as a powerful force interested in his perpetuation, have the choice of safely and responsibility cultivating the land for its resources or simply destroy it all as quickly as possible for your immediate benefit at the detriment of others. You have also destroyed the rainforest forever and have taken everything it produced for yourself.

Ken Levine specifically made the necessary resource children because he couldn't believe a player would murder a little girl for money. Which is exactly what you're doing. Adam is a resource everyone wants and everyone needs. You have a choice between enough to survive comfortably and not hurt anybody or, again, murder a child so you can have more than you need for no reason.

By looking out for others and only taking what you need you not only don't hurt anybody to advance yourself but you also gain more Adam than you would have just killing them all because society gives back to you.

The question is to you, as a person. The question is whether or not you understand the dangers of unregulated capitalism and libertarian extremism.

And how would you justify killing a child for money? It's just a game so it's okay to be detached from your actions? Ever heard the phrase "it's just business?"

 

[Finale Fireworker]

What do you make of the hacking in BIoshock? It seemed like Jack was pretty handy at just about everything, including hacking technology that didn't exist elsewhere, which is odd in hindsight.

Jack was

Spoiler

genetically engineered to perfectly navigate Rapture. It could very well be a result of his conditioning. We know he was designed with technology in Rapture specifically in mind, as explained by Fontaine.

 

[Rubixcuba]

This is part of what I want to get into in my second thread (part of my ScholarShock series).

I just want to tell you that calling a series of research ScholarShock is possibly the greatest thing I have ever read. Much congrats on the thread, do you have any general thoughts on Bioshock 2?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I just want to tell you that calling a series of research ScholarShock is possibly the greatest thing I have ever read. Much congrats on the thread, do you have any general thoughts on Bioshock 2?

BioShock 2 has better gameplay. Hands down. But as a piece of literature it's just a very shallow inverse of the BioShock text and doesn't really warrant any analysis other than to supplement BioShock 1. I often describe BioShock 2 as a "footnote."

But don't get me wrong, BioShock 2 is a really great game. It's just not art.

 

[playXray]

This is part of what I want to get into in my second thread (part of my ScholarShock series). But I will answer this quickly as I have answered others.

If you kill a Little Sister you fail BioShock. You failed the ethics test that positions you in a sociopolitical conundrum that is the most central theme of the whole game: capitalism.

You have two choices: Take every resource for yourself at the direct expense of others or only take what you need and respect the needs of others. This is why killing even one Little Sister gives you the bad ending. Because by doing so you do not heed the loudest message BioShock is trying to deliver to you.

Imagine instead the Little Sisters are the rainforest. The rainforest is full of resources that everybody needs to survive. You, as a powerful force interested in his perpetuation, have the choice of safely and responsibility cultivating the land for its resources or simply destroy it all as quickly as possible for your immediate benefit at the detriment of others. You have also destroyed the rainforest forever and have taken everything it produced for yourself.

Ken Levine specifically made the necessary resource children because he couldn't believe a player would murder a little girl for money. Which is exactly what you're doing. Adam is a resource everyone wants and everyone needs. You have a choice between enough to survive comfortably and not hurt anybody or, again, murder a child so you can have more than you need for no reason.

By looking out for others and only taking what you need you not only don't hurt anybody to advance yourself but you also gain more Adam than you would have just killing them all because society gives back to you.

The question is to you, as a person. The question is whether or not you understand the dangers of unregulated capitalism and libertarian extremism.

And how would you justify killing a child for money? It's just a game? Ever heard the phrase "it's just business?"

Yes, I totally see this, and thank you for your detailed reply. However, I don't think I made my point very well. As it happens, there is virtually no real benefit to killing the little sisters, as you get given the Adam later on as a gift of you spare them. What seems like a much more interesting approach is to make it a real benefit to kill the little sisters - this would then force people to make the choice that you explain. However, the way the game works is that there really is little incentive to kill them, so you may as well let them live, and therefore many people escape the choice that Ken describes.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Yes, I totally see this, and thank you for your detailed reply. However, I don't think I made my point very well. As it happens, there is virtually no real benefit to killing the little sisters, as you get given the Adam later on as a gift of you spare them. What seems like a much more interesting approach is to make it a real benefit to kill the little sisters - this would then force people to make the choice that you explain. However, the way the game works is that there really is little incentive to kill them, so you may as well let them live, and therefore many people escape the choice that Ken describes.

Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean now. My apologies.

I think that, because it's a test of character, it doesn't detract from the decision making process because your choice should never be to kill a child. No amount of incentive should ever cause you to consider such a violent action. I think the statement is actually louder because people still kill Little Sisters when the reward is so small. Because that means the "reward" wasn't what made harvest the Little Sister, it was something inside them. They justified their behavior independently.

 

[playXray]

I think the statement is actually louder because people still kill Little Sisters when the reward is so small.

That's an interesting way of looking at it that I'd not considered before

 

[Veelk]

Yes, I totally see this, and thank you for your detailed reply. However, I don't think I made my point very well. As it happens, there is virtually no real benefit to killing the little sisters, as you get given the Adam later on as a gift of you spare them. What seems like a much more interesting approach is to make it a real benefit to kill the little sisters - this would then force people to make the choice that you explain. However, the way the game works is that there really is little incentive to kill them, so you may as well let them live, and therefore many people escape the choice that Ken describes.

Do you see what I mean?

This requires foreknowledge of events happening in the future that you have no way of knowing except from external sources (you saw it online, or maybe you just play through the game before). This is what allows you to turn it into an easily calculable choice, since you have all the numbers given to you beforehand.

Take the situation as a organic encounter instead of a calculable choice that benefits of hindsight, and the point he makes still stands. Though if you're only performing the action based on what nets you the most gains (whether it's the good choice or not), then the point of the moral exersize is defunct anyway. It doesn't matter whether you get more, less or the same amount of money for murdering little girls. The capital is irrelevent because there is no capitalistic gain that can justfy the murder of a little girl is the point.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

That's an interesting way of looking at it that I'd not considered before

And that's exactly what I hoped to hear from making this thread.

 

[Professor Chaos]

But don't get me wrong, BioShock 2 is a really great game. It's just not art.

Great thread OP. Does your opinion of this also extend to Minerva's Den?

 

[Sande]

Subbed this thread so hard. Bioshock is one of the best games I've played and I find this sort of stuff very fascinating.