Support NeoGAF

[eyeball_kid]

But what do we know about Big Daddies? We know that they're conditioned to love their Little Sisters. They are pair bonded. The primary emotion of Big Daddies is love, and therefore love motivates everything they do. They will risk their lives to protect their children, and by Jack's hands they will die for them. They care for nothing else but their children, who in turn care only for them. But most importantly: Big Daddies are the only creature in Rapture who will only resort to violence in self defense. Big Daddies are not the monsters of Rapture, splicers are. You are. You find Big Daddies and threaten their children, and in a love-driven act of protection they will die for their children, who weep at the sight of their dead bodies. When you save Little Sisters the conditioning is broken, so the Little Sister's grief is eased. But what of the Big Daddy? What of the single kind-hearted creature in the entire city of Rapture? They fall victim to your genocide.

And yet,

Spoiler

you are forced by the game to kill a Big Daddy in order to advance in the game.This invalidates the ethical test and choices the player/Jack has been making throughout the game. Why is the life of a Little Sister more important than that of a Big Daddy? Why was I forced to murder, as you say, the most innocent creature in Rapture, and the game continues to act as if Little Sisters are the only ethical barometer?

When that mission objective became apparent, I lost a lot of respect for both the game and the narrative.

Ultimately, I feel that BioShock is a work whose vision far exceeds the execution of that vision. You're making some very insightful comments and interpretations of BioShock, but the game itself presents these concepts in such a ham-fisted, bombastic manner that I can't take it very seriously, nor does it weave its concepts and ideas into a salient and illuminating corpus.

 

[Steel]

And yet,

Spoiler

you are forced by the game to kill a Big Daddy in order to advance in the game.This invalidates the ethical test and choices the player/Jack has been making throughout the game. Why is the life of a Little Sister more important than that of a Big Daddy? Why was I forced to murder, as you say, the most innocent creature in Rapture, and the game continues to act as if Little Sisters are the only ethical barometer?

When that mission objective became apparent, I lost a lot of respect for both the game and the narrative.

Ultimately, I feel that BioShock is a work whose vision far exceeds the execution of that vision. You're making some very insightful comments and interpretations of BioShock, but the game itself presents these concepts in such a ham-fisted, bombastic manner that I can't take it very seriously, nor does it weave its concepts and ideas into a salient and illuminating corpus.

I'd actually argue that the fact

Spoiler

you are forced to kill the Big Daddy is a message in of itself. So long as a Little Sister travels with a big Daddy, they cannot be cured, and so killing the Big Daddies is the only way to save them. It's a necessary evil for a greater good. The game doesn't ignore the fact that the Big Daddies are victims, it even goes so far as to force Jack to become one of them.

 

[poorlonelycomputer]

This thread is awesome and has inspired me to replay Bioshock. So I'm gonna go do that and maybe later I'll have something more substantive to say.

 

[GoaThief]

No, you can either kill no little sisters, which gets to the good ending, a mix between killing and not killing which gets you the bad ending, or just killing all of them which gets you the worst ending.

Killing even a single girl for profit is pretty reprehensible, so no, no room for experimentation.

You're wrong, I harvested one little sister on my first play through and still got the "good" ending. It is more than one that triggers the multiple "bad" endings. The wiki seems to back this up too;

http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Fontaine_(Level)

There is definitely room for experimenting. As it should be from both a game play perspective and narrative one, you aren't given enough information as to the condition of little sisters to make an informed choice by the first time you get your hands on one. I believe you're even told they're not little girls IIRC, and a slug creature is left behind.

I believe the argument that it's black and white, just one death means X, is incorrect. This is also evidenced by/in the game itself.

 

[GoaThief]

And yet,

Spoiler

you are forced by the game to kill a Big Daddy in order to advance in the game.This invalidates the ethical test and choices the player/Jack has been making throughout the game. Why is the life of a Little Sister more important than that of a Big Daddy? Why was I forced to murder, as you say, the most innocent creature in Rapture, and the game continues to act as if Little Sisters are the only ethical barometer?

When that mission objective became apparent, I lost a lot of respect for both the game and the narrative.

Ultimately, I feel that BioShock is a work whose vision far exceeds the execution of that vision. You're making some very insightful comments and interpretations of BioShock, but the game itself presents these concepts in such a ham-fisted, bombastic manner that I can't take it very seriously, nor does it weave its concepts and ideas into a salient and illuminating corpus.

Was also going to add something similar to this too but you've put it quite well.

I don't think that argument about murdering big daddies holds up under scrutiny either.

It's cool that these are being brought to the table however.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

And yet,

Spoiler

you are forced by the game to kill a Big Daddy in order to advance in the game.This invalidates the ethical test and choices the player/Jack has been making throughout the game. Why is the life of a Little Sister more important than that of a Big Daddy? Why was I forced to murder, as you say, the most innocent creature in Rapture, and the game continues to act as if Little Sisters are the only ethical barometer?

When that mission objective became apparent, I lost a lot of respect for both the game and the narrative.

Ultimately, I feel that BioShock is a work whose vision far exceeds the execution of that vision. You're making some very insightful comments and interpretations of BioShock, but the game itself presents these concepts in such a ham-fisted, bombastic manner that I can't take it very seriously, nor does it weave its concepts and ideas into a salient and illuminating corpus.

UNTAGGED SPOILERS IN THIS POST

The difference is that Jack is the true monster of Rapture and his transformation into savior is his arc. Jack was built by scientists to kill that was perfectly adapted to his environment. He splices constantly, loading up with far more plasmids and tonics than even the most vicious splicers he faces against. The Would You Kindly Twist is the mirror into the face of the player where you're supposed to realize this. You are the king splicer. You are a killing machine built by scientists to do their dirty work. This realization would be existential for Jack who now questions everything he thought he knew. His entire perception of himself and the world has been challenged.

One of the most obvious perceptions the player and Jack makes is that Big Daddies are monsters. There are audio diaries on how they are monsters, the supporting characters call them monsters, and they definitely look and behave to meet your expectations as monsters. But with the exception of the rogue Big Daddy, what makes the Big Daddies monsters? Your judgment, and the judgment of others, when you listening to the testimony of others.

Killing Big Daddies is supposed to be sad, not immoral like it is Little Sisters. You have to kill them to save Little Sisters and to save yourself, but killing them is killing the only selfless beast in a city of individual extremism. By becoming one you are inverting your character roll in the game. You go from a splicer on a mission to kill to a Big Daddy on a rescue mission.

My third BioShock thread, which I will post soon, is all about Big Daddies and the post-game twist. I hope to see many of you there.

 

[eyeball_kid]

UNTAGGED SPOILERS IN THIS POST

The difference is that Jack is the true monster of Rapture and his transformation into savior is his arc. Jack was built by scientists to kill that was perfectly adapted to his environment. He splices constantly, loading up with far more plasmids and tonics than even the most vicious splicers he faces against. The Would You Kindly Twist is the mirror into the face of the player where you're supposed to realize this. You are the king splicer. You are a killing machine built by scientists to do their dirty work.

I don't think I really agree with this thesis. Someone is not a monster because of their environment and how they were molded. Someone becomes a monster or an angel because of the choices he or she makes when left to their own free will. (see: Frankenstein) Jack/player is dropped into a world with a very strict set of rules – kill or be killed. It's Lord of the Flies.

The choices that make one a monster in that world are simple – kill the weak and the innocent. But Irrational doesn't seem to care much about the innocent, actually. The weak (Little Sisters), yes. Protect them or be branded a Monster. But the innocent Big Daddies? Irrational says, these are expendable creatures.

And that's the central problem – you have no choice. It's an illusion. Oh yes, the Little Sisters, yes. Kill them or don't. But in the case of the Big Daddies, the game ceases to narrate based on player agency and instead becomes a linear interactive fiction. Once Irrational says, "No, forget about your choices, we're going to tell you what to think and how to act!" because they're too focused on funneling you through to the end of their moralistic tale, then it ceases to be a game. And even more damning, it ceases to be provocative.

One of the most obvious perceptions the player and Jack makes is that Big Daddies are monsters. There are audio diaries on how they are monsters, the supporting characters call them monsters, and they definitely look and behave to meet your expectations as monsters.

I never had that perception. I quickly realized that Big Daddies were one of the few characters in the game who wasn't a monster. They never went out of their way to attack me. They protected the weak. Which is why I never wanted to kill one, and found it painful to do so and made me angry at the game for forcing a decision out-of-step with the established morality system of protecting Little Sisters. Sure, many of the citizens of Rapture felt the BDs were monsters, but the real monster was the unchecked libertarianism of the society. But they couldn't even see they themselves were also monsters, since they participated and profited from the system which created the BDs.

Killing Big Daddies is supposed to be sad, not immoral like it is Little Sisters. You have to kill them to save Little Sisters and to save yourself, but killing them is killing the only selfless beast in a city of individual extremism. By becoming one you are inverting your character roll in the game. You go from a splicer on a mission to kill to a Big Daddy on a rescue mission.

Supposed to be sad, not immoral? That attitude is equivalently "the end justifies the means" as the rampant gene experimentation which destroyed Rapture. Killing one Big Daddy to save yourself and the Little Sisters may be the blessed moral decree of the game, but it is flawed logic. If killing a Little Sister is evil because they are weak and innocent, then killing an innocent Big Daddy should be equally evil because they are also innocent. It's no different than saying, "we had to bomb someone else's civilians to save our own civilians." Taking a life is still taking a life.

At the very least, the game should have presented this as a weighty choice and allowed an alternate path, and not simply a mandatory checkbox on a mission screen. Or, if Irrational didn't really care to discuss what makes a wo/man into a monster and free will, then there should have been no consequence for killing a Little Sister. The problem is Irrational tried to dabble in both free will and societal responsibilities, but ended up with a bit of a narrative and thematic mess.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Moral relativity is a weak argument in any moral debate, and doubly so here since it is irrelevent to what Bioshock is saying. Bioshock is about objectivism. About how what is good for others does not matter in the face of what is good for yourself. The game changes based on what you do as far as economics go and fire worker said it best here.

This is getting a bit out of the original context of my reply in terms of how the a playthrough is impacted by the player's choice. Let me refresh your memory, you said this in terms of making the harvesting choice and its consequences:

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. .

Which is not the case since it's quite easy to figure the mechanic out early in the game on first playthrough. That was it... nothing more, nothing less. The thing about this been a moral test and what implies or how it labels the user are not much of my interests. At least not for now.

The other part of my reply is that it is more effective for a game to affect the player through actual gameplay and just not limit to do it through non interactive means alone, since it uses the most important trait of this medium, interactivity. In the case of Harvesting in Bioshock it could probably leave a most lasting impression in the player's mind if it affected the mechanics, since this would be reflect in a larger portion of the playthrough instead of the last minutes of the non interactive closure.

 

[speculawyer]

Bioshock was one of my favorite games last generation. Sander Cohen was a GREAT character.

 

[Vitor711]

Great thread, great replies. Sums up a lot of what I thought while introducing new elements I hadn't considered before. Well done. Eagerly going to the Bioshock Infintie one now (although, that's mainly because I think it handled it's themes poorly, particularly in its use of racism as a set-dressing and little else). Curious to see if you'll argue otherwise.