First Impressions: Bioshock

Recommended Videos

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
If my first impressions review of Psychonauts has taught me anything it's that fans are a bunch of wankers who will not hesitate to stoop to personal attacks and plain old temper tantrums when you have the gall to say you found their favorite game to not be much fun. This may be especially true in the case of a cult classic when the term cult can be applied very literally. Beware the Kool-Aide. So it is with no small amount of timidity that I even attempt to review a game with any amount of popularity. Thank goodness for alcohol and good old American stupidity since it allowed me to download the demo of Bioshock.

I should probably state right up front that my experience with first person shooters is limited to Dooms one and two and my experience with computer RPGs is limited to... right. I played a few of those Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. I guess those count. So this is largely a all-new experience for me. Not completely new, obviously, but since I haven't been following developments in computer games since the Nintendo Entertainment System was still a viable platform, it will be interesting to see what the last fifteen years of or has gained.

The game starts with may character surviving a plane crash into the ocean and having to swim around flames to get to a small island, enter a submersible bathysphere and venture to the underwater utopia of Rapture. Once arrived, I watch as a man is murdered before my very eyes by some kind of mutant who then attempts to attack me in the bathysphere, but unable to get in, it runs off.

I describe all of this because I want to note that during all of this, the interactivity is negligible. While there were moments where I had to do things, such as swimming to shore, and while I maintained control of the camera, the entirety of this was essentially an opening cinematic.

As the bathysphere descended, I was reminded of the Living Seas exhibit at Disney's EPCOT Center, which is now been retooled into an exhibit with the Finding Nemo characters. But the original exhibit had the pretense of taking you to an underwater facility despite it obviously not going very deep. As play progressed, I was again reminded of amusement park fun houses. After leaving the sphere I was instructed by my radio contact, Atlas, to flush out the mutant without any weapon through dark corridors, listening to the mutant (okay, its called a "splicer") murmur creepy things about, I don't know, killing me. As one point an electric thing on the wall exploded in a shower of sparks. It was obvious this jump scare went off because I had reached an area that caused this thing to trigger.

In fact, many of these things trigger based on your position and they don't advance any if you don't move. At one point, I entered an underwater tunnel (it's all underwater, but OK) and the tail of my airliner crashed into it, causing water to rush in. An adjacent tunnel completely collapses and the airlock to that now destroyed tunnel bulges threateningly.

What I'm trying to convey with all of this description is the artificiality of it all. Play is decidedly linear as you go from one area to another and events are triggered as you move. The nearby tunnel does not collapse until you reach a certain point in your own tunnel and the airlock to the destroyed tunnel does not bulge with water spraying through the seams until you're near it.

The other thing I want to point out is that despite how artificial all of this is, it is incredibly effective. When I was helping to flush out the mutant with no weapon, I was very, very nervous. Upon reflection, I need not have worried as it was obvious that nothing was going to happen to me since I had no weapon. In the flooding tunnel, I rushed through to avoid the rising water. When I replayed it, I stopped to see if the water was actually rising. It was not. Instead of rushing through, I could leisurely strolled through all the carnage without a care as it could not actually hurt me.

It is all illusion much like a amusement park spook house, but illusions can be very effective. This has been somewhat eye-opening into the nature of storytelling in games. Having a well-defined track to follow vs. having to explore a whole city to figure out where to go and what I'm supposed to do is preferable. The linearity can be tough to ignore as it becomes obvious that it is an illusion, but the trade off is that it's not as easy to be bored with a clear goal of where to go and what to do.

Of course, this being only the demo, it is possible and probably likely that at some point I would get to some large "hub" area of Rapture with several paths branching off from it with side quests to complete and whatnot. Or at least I assume so. I could be wrong on that point. But I am seriously considering purchasing the full game to find out.
 

Blade3dge

New member
Nov 12, 2008
95
0
0
Once you get further into the game believe me it opens up A LOT. Great game, get the full thing and you wont be let down.
 

Bofus Teefus

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,188
0
0
It is quite linear, but I've been able to play through four five a bunch of times without getting bored. I'd buy it, but don't expect side quests and/or more than one path- you pretty much follow the arrow throughout the whole game. The atmosphere makes the game for me.
 

Art Axiv

Cultural Code-Switcher
Dec 25, 2008
661
0
0
Bofus Teefus said:
It is quite linear, but I've been able to play through four five a bunch of times without getting bored. I'd buy it, but don't expect side quests and/or more than one path- you pretty much follow the arrow throughout the whole game. The atmosphere makes the game for me.
I seriously don't know what people expect from games nowadays. Linearity is never a minus in my book.
 

Bofus Teefus

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,188
0
0
raxiv said:
Bofus Teefus said:
It is quite linear, but I've been able to play through four five a bunch of times without getting bored. I'd buy it, but don't expect side quests and/or more than one path- you pretty much follow the arrow throughout the whole game. The atmosphere makes the game for me.
I seriously don't know what people expect from games nowadays. Linearity is never a minus in my book.
I guess it does kind of look like I'm knocking it. I'm not. It's one of my favorite games. Another is the non-linear Fallout 3. I'm not opposed to linearity as long as it's well done and fun to play (like, I don't know, Bioshock or Dead Space.)

Hey, while I'm posting again in this thread, why don't I comment on the review? It was arright, but when Escapists review games, they tend to have Yahtzeeisms. Here's yours-
the antithesis said:
If my first impressions review of Psychonauts has taught me anything it's that fans are a bunch of wankers who will not hesitate to stoop to personal attacks and plain old temper tantrums when you have the gall to say you found their favorite game to not be much fun. This may be especially true in the case of a cult classic when the term cult can be applied very literally. Beware the Kool-Aide. So it is with no small amount of timidity that I even attempt to review a game with any amount of popularity. Thank goodness for alcohol and good old American stupidity since it allowed me to download the demo of Bioshock.
To be fair, I'm not sure that he would have referenced Kool-Aide, but it is otherwise a Yahtzeeish pre-review rant on fans.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
I am unsurprised by that observation since the Zero Punctuation on Bioshock opened with the words "If my Psychonauts review has taught me anything." Of course, my hatred of fans is deep. But to be fair there are different kinds of fans. Some are reasonable while others are worthless. If you're unsure of which sort you are, then here's a simple test. If you had gotten offended at my blanket statements on fans and have already posted a huffy rebuttal on the matter, then you're one of the worthless sort.
 

Maet

The Altoid Duke
Jul 31, 2008
1,247
0
0
I can't tell whether you illustrate the linearity as a demerit or an observation. Same goes for the amusement park spook house comparison, since that's more or less what it is. BioShock is a completely linear game. The only way the game opens up is by not locking off previous locations. That means that once you go through and do everything you're supposed to in every level, you're still free to return if you want to (mostly. Some small bits get locked off for various reasons, but the majority remains open).
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
RAKtheUndead said:
From another review, criticism by NewClassic (who, unlike you, has been published on the Escapist - twice!):
I'm going to have to stop you right there because if you think I am going to put any more effort into these things than the half hour or so it took to bang this out or have any greater ambition than to simply mouth off on a review forum, you have the wrong guy. I have no desire to be published on the site proper and if I was ever offered the chance because some cosmic accident made something I wrote seem worthy, I would refuse.

Other than that, thank you for your criticism.
 

Conveant0

New member
Feb 4, 2009
268
0
0
I'd recommend renting it, plainly because it is a fairly short game (unless you end up going back for the tonics and audio diaries), but it is an incredibly atmospheric game. In regards though it is linear, and can eventually become repetative once you retrace your steps at one part, but overall it is one of the best games out when you take into account the story and how you're brought in.
If you've been interested by the Bioshock 2 trailers and Gameplay, then it's almost criminal not to have a look at this game and find out how Rapture came to be in it's current state, and more so what's been happening since.
Gameplay time at running through... I'd guess 10 hours possibly? That's my first timing for when I went through on an adverage difficulty. Add a few hours on for collecting items.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
the antithesis said:
I'm going to have to stop you right there because if you think I am going to put any more effort into these things than the half hour or so it took to bang this out or have any greater ambition than to simply mouth off on a review forum, you have the wrong guy. I have no desire to be published on the site proper and if I was ever offered the chance because some cosmic accident made something I wrote seem worthy, I would refuse.

To me that says "I don't want to try and fail;, so I'll do half a rushed job and if people dislike it I can say I didn't try...

...and just what is the point in posting these if your not going to try and improve?
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
D_987 said:
...and just what is the point in posting these if your not going to try and improve?
Because I've been "published" before and I found no joy in it. I shouldn't even bother write reviews, but I'm often bored and always narcissistic. So this forum is as far as I go. Getting better would be a waste of time. Hundreds of others post reviews and they sink to the bottom without much notice. I figured, what's one more?
 

pigeon_of_doom

Vice-Captain Hammer
Feb 9, 2008
1,171
0
0
the antithesis said:
I have no desire to be published on the site proper and if I was ever offered the chance because some cosmic accident made something I wrote seem worthy, I would refuse.

Other than that, thank you for your criticism.
It's simply a high standard (to the majority of us forum-dwellers) which some may aspire to meet.

D_987 said:
...and just what is the point in posting these if your not going to try and improve?
And yeah, that. It hardly serves your self-admitted narcissism to refuse to make a real effort at improvement and thus keep inviting the same criticisms of your work, either losing whatever audience you may have had, or having to keep them occupied with increasingly provocative views. It works for Yahtzee, but you don't pull it off with the same wit and panache. It looks like if you put more effort into it (try finishing the full game perhaps?), tightened your writing and found your own voice you could come up with some decent reviews. Then your narcissism will know no bounds. Just look up some of Gigantor's reviews on this site, then imagine the same (possibly deserved) praise directed at yourself. If that doesn't boost your E-steem then nothing on the web will.
 

Screens

New member
Oct 31, 2008
101
0
0
I liked this. I find your ability to take the first, I don't know, five minutes of a game and write so much about it very well done. I'm not going to mention Yahtzee, because it isn't my problem whether or not you decide to take his style.

And get the game. While the linearity is as blatant in most areas as you pointed out, the game ranks high in my best ever list because of other reasons, mainly the story and the amount of fun to be had with plasmids.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
pigeon_of_doom said:
[ Just look up some of Gigantor's reviews on this site, then imagine the same (possibly deserved) praise directed at yourself. If that doesn't boost your E-steem then nothing on the web will.
No. Praise does not work on me.
 

ProfessorLayton

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
7,452
0
41
Well while this was a good first impressions review, you need to get the full game. I've played it and beaten it, and trust me it gets SO much better.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,484
0
0
Man, the amount of "establishing credibility" this thread throws around is outlandish. What happened to the day when comments were about helping the author, instead of whose advice is the most valid?

the antithesis said:
If my first impressions review of Psychonauts has taught me anything, it's that fans are a bunch of wankers who will not hesitate to stoop to personal attacks and plain old temper tantrums when you have the gall to say you found their favorite game to not be much fun. (So you don't like this game, check.) This may be especially true in the case of a cult classic when the term cult can be applied very literally. (You're wordy as hell, be wary.) Beware the Kool-Aide. So it is with no small amount of timidity that I even attempt to review a game with any amount of popularity. Thank goodness for alcohol and good old American stupidity, since it allowed me to download the demo of Bioshock. (Are you taking pot-shots at your audience already? Be careful with that, you're treading an awful line of self-importance that will end your writing in the 'rubbish bin' long before it's actually followed as a valid review.)

I should probably state right up front that my experience with first person shooters is limited to Doom one and two, and my experience with computer RPGs is limited to... right. (Is limited to... right? Does that even make sense?) I played a few of those Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. I guess those count. So this is largely a all-new experience for me. Not completely new, obviously, but since I haven't been following developments in computer games since the Nintendo Entertainment System was still a viable platform, it will be interesting to see what the last fifteen years of or has gained. (This is actually an interesting point to take this review from, but you're already putting a lot of weight on this game impressing you. That means any opinion you will have is subject to either subject to extremity in honor of pissing off the cult fans, or you've hyped yourself up so much that it can either be just average if it's stellar, or a crushing disappointment if it's "just good.")

The game starts with the main character surviving a plane crash into the ocean, and having to swim around flames to get to a small island. He then enters a submersible bathysphere and venture to the underwater utopia of Rapture. Once arrived, I watch as a man is murdered before my very eyes by some kind of mutant who then attempts to attack me in the bathysphere, but unable to get in, it runs off.

I describe all of this because I want to note that during all of this, the interactivity is negligible. While there were moments where I had to do things, such as swimming to shore, and while I maintained control of the camera, the entirety of this was essentially an opening cinematic.

As the bathysphere descended, I was reminded of the Living Seas exhibit at Disney's EPCOT Center, which is now been retooled into an exhibit with the Finding Nemo characters. But the original exhibit had the pretense of taking you to an underwater facility despite it obviously not going very deep. As play progressed, I was again reminded of amusement park fun houses. After leaving the sphere I was instructed by my radio contact, Atlas, to flush out the mutant without any weapon through dark corridors, listening to the mutant (okay, its called a "splicer") murmur creepy things about, I don't know, killing me. (This sentence is choppy as hell. You really need to clean up your sentence length and layout.) At one point an electric thing on the wall exploded in a shower of sparks. It was obvious this jump scare went off because I had reached an area that caused this thing to trigger. (So, you can notice the effects of a developer's choice for a title. How does it affect the narrative?)

In fact, many of these things trigger based on your position and they don't advance any if you don't move. At one point, I entered an underwater tunnel (it's all underwater, but OK) and the tail of my airliner crashed into it, causing water to rush in. An adjacent tunnel completely collapses and the airlock to that now destroyed tunnel bulges threateningly.

What I'm trying to convey with all of this description is the artificiality of it all. Play is decidedly linear as you go from one area to another and events are triggered as you move. The nearby tunnel does not collapse until you reach a certain point in your own tunnel and the airlock to the destroyed tunnel does not bulge with water spraying through the seams until you're near it.

The other thing I want to point out is that despite how artificial all of this is, it is incredibly effective. When I was helping to flush out the mutant with no weapon, I was very, very nervous. Upon reflection, I need not have worried as it was obvious that nothing was going to happen to me since I had no weapon. In the flooding tunnel, I rushed through to avoid the rising water. When I replayed it, I stopped to see if the water was actually rising. It was not. Instead of rushing through, I could leisurely strolled through all the carnage without a care as it could not actually hurt me.

It is all illusion much like a amusement park spook house, but illusions can be very effective. This has been somewhat eye-opening into the nature of storytelling in games. Having a well-defined track to follow versus having to explore a whole city to figure out where to go and what I'm supposed to do is preferable. The linearity can be tough to ignore as it becomes obvious that it is an illusion, but the trade off is that it's not as easy to be bored with a clear goal of where to go and what to do.

Of course, this being only the demo, it is possible and probably likely that at some point I would get to some large "hub" area of Rapture with several paths branching off from it with side quests to complete and whatnot. Or at least I assume so. I could be wrong on that point. But I am seriously considering purchasing the full game to find out.
As a review, this hardly even reaches as far as a "First Impression". You mention the narrative, and little else. You don't speak on how the controls feel, if the music fits, or if the atmosphere is functional. You don't touch on graphics, or hardware slowdown, or anything. You just mention the narrative. This makes for an almost teaser-trailer at an actual review.

When you offset that with your lengthy preamble against fans of series and American readers, you've taken a bite out of your potential audience. Couple that with a First Impressions of an older game, and a review that was already primarily unfulfilling. Because I sat down and waded through your belligerent attitude at the beginning, I come out feeling as if I'd been cheapened out of a positive result. An appropriate analogy would be to work out for five hours, becoming sore the next morning, but actually being muscularly weaker for the effort.

Be more aware and considerate to your audience, and don't forget that a review is more than "my experience with a game." There needs to be some more depth to it.

That said, the narrative analysis is pretty solid. Also, while you structured the "this looks fake" paragraphs too long before the "but it works" reveal, the point is still made. Just be careful of how you lay out your review in the future. You're putting a larger toll on the reader than is necessary, and makes your fairly solid writing hard to read.

As well as that, be careful of spoken colloquialisms in written work. While "So, anyway, I was like totally..." could easily fit in the first part of a spoken story, it does not translate as smoothly in writing. The very "let's have a chat" style of the writing ended up making the short piece feel slower, and I felt like the first several paragraphs were dragging their feet.

Hope this has helped, and I encourage any questions.

Warmest regards,
Nuke
 

caelover

New member
Apr 8, 2009
11
0
0
Do you really judge games by demos? That's my first question. I believe your review, though lengthy, is a bit empty. Sounds like a zero punctutaion rip off (you're American, correct? The use of the term wanker cements this point in my eyes), and the complaints are pretty linear themselves. No comments on the plot? difficulty? historical accuracy? the atmosphere? Oh wait, I know why... BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED THE GAME. But maybe my own complaints are unjustified; this is your first impression, and you're entitled. But a linear demo? whoda thunk it? thats kinda the point; you want to do more, buy the game. Just the way it works. And, by all means, do! I really enjoyed it ( I tend to care less about gameplay and more about plots, interaction, logic, music and the like). I didn't really want to read past the first paragraph; you came off as a major douche. Maybe if you put that at the end, I may have been more "well that was a bit jerkish, but the review is what I need to focus on", or even smirked!

Though seriously. Play the game. It gets better. WAY better.
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
the antithesis said:
What I'm trying to convey with all of this description is the artificiality of it all. Play is decidedly linear as you go from one area to another and events are triggered as you move.

The other thing I want to point out is that despite how artificial all of this is, it is incredibly effective. When I was helping to flush out the mutant with no weapon, I was very, very nervous. Upon reflection, I need not have worried as it was obvious that nothing was going to happen to me since I had no weapon. In the flooding tunnel, I rushed through to avoid the rising water. When I replayed it, I stopped to see if the water was actually rising. It was not. Instead of rushing through, I could leisurely strolled through all the carnage without a care as it could not actually hurt me.

It is all illusion much like a amusement park spook house, but illusions can be very effective. This has been somewhat eye-opening into the nature of storytelling in games.
First off, great review. I'd comment on it, but I only really wanted to make a couple quick points:

1. As a level designer for Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and Quake, I'm just gonna tell you right now - It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to appreciate things like this. The whole time I'm not even really in the experience, I'm sort of laughing at thinking about what the level designer was thinking. The challenges he's setting, the experience he's trying to create. On maps that feel like they're nonlinear, I realize it all really is, because having 4 places to go doesn't matter if I have to go get the fire ability to melt the ice to get the telekinesis ability to move the stuff in the way of my objective to get to my objective.

2: Most games nowadays are designed so they're difficult to fail. The water doesn't come up because it would be frustrating if it did. The splicer can't get into your bathysphere because if he did, the game would be even more difficult. They wouldn't put an enemy against you when you had no weapon, at least not with an obvious alternative (leading him into a trap or something). This kind of thinking has taken me from a potentially frightening situation and turned it into a joke, especially with a quicksave/reload system in place, or even a "die respawn" system that I turned off when I played so I didn't feel like a total tool.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Valiance said:
1. As a level designer for Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and Quake, I'm just gonna tell you right now - It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to appreciate things like this. The whole time I'm not even really in the experience, I'm sort of laughing at thinking about what the level designer was thinking. The challenges he's setting, the experience he's trying to create. On maps that feel like they're nonlinear, I realize it all really is, because having 4 places to go doesn't matter if I have to go get the fire ability to melt the ice to get the telekinesis ability to move the stuff in the way of my objective to get to my objective.

2: Most games nowadays are designed so they're difficult to fail. The water doesn't come up because it would be frustrating if it did. The splicer can't get into your bathysphere because if he did, the game would be even more difficult. They wouldn't put an enemy against you when you had no weapon, at least not with an obvious alternative (leading him into a trap or something). This kind of thinking has taken me from a potentially frightening situation and turned it into a joke, especially with a quicksave/reload system in place, or even a "die respawn" system that I turned off when I played so I didn't feel like a total tool.
Interesting viewpoint. I would have thought that being a level designer would have deepened your appreciation for what the designer was trying to do. I don't know. It sounds like you did but at the same time you were unable to experience the game as viscerally as I did.

Playing that opening when I was trying to draw out the splicer with no weapon, I was saying "ohshitphshitohshitshitshit..." the entire time because I was tense thanks to the atmosphere. Afterwords I laughed at myself because having no weapon was a tangible reason to have not felt any fear. It was obvious, but like all illusions, if you look at them the right way, they do not hold up.

I did a little googling and the industry term is dark ride [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ride]. These games do similar things except they allow the player to decide where to go and how quickly. I guess the way I look at it is that during scenes like the tunnel filling with water, the special effects could have their intended effect on you and you react as if this situation were real despite the situation not being as dire as it appears or if you're down with what professional wrestlers call kayfabe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe], you could appreciate the craft of the illusion. Or not if it was poorly done. A way to look at it is that these scenes are like cinematics where you get to control the camera, what it looks at and where it goes.

This is getting deeper than I have any right to be particularly when replying to an industry professional, but the whole issue of linearity vs non-linearity is an odd topic to my mind.

My own, admittedly limited, experience with non-linear play is that it gets pretty damned boring after a while so you wind up doing story missions just to relieve the tedium. Worse than that, it's frustrating. The problem with a large, open world where you can go wherever you want and do whatever you want to do is that you can often find yourself with no idea of where you're supposed to go or what you're supposed to do. I got frustrated like this in the Medical Pavilion in Bioshock as I was hunting around for where I was supposed to go next. Just hunting around and looking at the map to see where I haven't gone yet. But even in "sandbox" style games, the play is still linear. It's just that you have to find/activate activate the story missions to get to it. Maybe I haven't seen the better examples, but I find so-called non-linear games to be just as linear, only with that linearity hidden somewhat.

It all comes down to story structure, I suppose and how that works as far as linearity goes. I once read a book on storytelling which said that the only meaningful decision James Bond ever makes is whether or not to take the case. If he refuses, he would have to resign from HMSS and all that, so naturally he takes the case, but he never makes a single meaningful decision after that. Everything he does is just the natural progression of that initial meaningful decision. (This book was published before the Daniel Craig movies, so they might not fit this generalization)

This same observation could be made of other genres and properties. Batman learns that the Joker is stealing billboards that look like giant versions of giant objects. He can either decide to stop the Joker, or just let him have his fun. Watch "Law & Order" sometime and the same meaningful decision is here, too. The cops are assigned the case, so they really don't have much choice unless they wish to resign. But occasionally, particularly on "Law & Order SVU," there'll be a scene where the investigating officer is approached by the captain because "this one is hitting too close to home" and offers to take them off the case. Why? So the officer can insist on staying on the case and seeing it through to the end. It's so they can make a meaningful decision, even if it is a hollow illusion.

What meaningful decisions are made in Bioshock? How you gather Adam? Oh, please. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the game or the story with two exceptions: 1) depending on whether or not you kill the Little Sisters, you get either the good or bad ending and 2) choosing the "bad" action just gives you a slight in-game advantage of gaining more Adam. Everything else that happens in the game is exactly the same.

I was thinking about this the other day. Who is the main character? Why did he get into the bathysphere and go to Rapture? Was he heading to Rapture and the plane crashed? (I don't know if this is revealed later as I am avoiding spoilers at the moment) If he wasn't going to Rapture in the first place, why would he go into the bathysphere? Wouldn't it make more sense to stay on the surface and await rescue and try to help other survivors? It would but Sitting Around Like Possum Giblets On the Highway Waiting For Rescue just is not all that exciting a game. The only real meaningful decision the player ever makes is to play the game in the first place. That's it. Not going into the bathysphere means not playing the game. Not doing what Atlas tells you means not playing the game. To be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Linearity is always going to be there no matter what. Even if Bioshock have been a large, decrepit, underwater sandbox where you could bump into ordinary citizens and either chat amicably with them about their day or murder them in cold blood and loot the bodies and story missions that would allow you to either work for Atlas and the resistance or Ryan and maintain the status quo, there would still be a linear progression to it. It's because life is linear. What seems to be considered non-linear gaming these days is not really non-linear so much as just mucking around in an environment until that gets boring and you follow the linear story missions anyway.

I suppose a game where real meaningful decisions is possible, but it is likely to come on twenty DVD-ROMs and require a 4 TB hard drive just to contain all the data, and that's just if it's done in text adventure style with no graphics. (although, if someone knows of such a game that even comes close to offering meaningful decisions, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I understand Fallout 1 and 2 fit this bill somewhat)

I'm starting to meander a bit. My thoughts are organized like a pile of dirty socks. But I want to touch on your second point before I regret posting all of this.

Frankly, I'm finding the game to be fucking impossible at this point. I'm up to where I get to collect some Adam and I find battling the Big Daddies an unwelcomed chore. Actually, I find the combat in general to be an unwelcomed chore. I could go into specifics but basically I find the first person shooter genre to be needlessly difficult for a number of reasons that do not have to be.

My and many other's favorite weapon in the first two Doom games was the shotgun because it was one of the more effective weapons in the game. I never used the pistol because it was ridiculously ineffective. It never managed to take down even a basic zombie without requiring several hits which gave them plenty of time to shoot back a couple times. The shotgun could take down a couple zombies in a single blast if you lined them up properly. It was less effective against higher monsters, but that's what the rocket launcher and plasma guns were for. Where I'm going with this is that I have yet to find a shotgun in Bioshock. By this I mean not the shotgun proper but a weapon that I find effective against the low-level crunchies. I find my entire arsenal ridiculously ineffective.

Part of this is my ham-handed aiming abilities. If they ever make a game where the object is to shoot a wall right next to the bad guys, I will be KING! This is made worse by everyone dodging like acrobatic monkeys. Maybe expecting the zombies to sit still while I draw a bead on them is unreasonable, but being completely unable to get them in my crosshairs because they move too fucking fast compared to how I'm able to manipulate the controls is also unreasonable.

Part of this is my difficulty in navigating my currently small arsenal quickly using the interface. Having to choose between ammo types is a bit of a pain in the ass. I find the wheel mouse to be way to touchy to use effectively. I'll need to switch to the number keys or shift button to see if that's any better.

What this all boils down to is that Doom was probably the last first person shooter I enjoyed and that was partially because it was primitive compared to the modern shooters where you look up and down as well as side to side. It's like my complaints about 3D platformers. The extra dimension doesn't just add a single additional variable but multiplies the number of variables to a degree that I find play unmanageable.

It would be easy to dismiss my complaints as just an old fart complaining about games he's just no good at playing, but I can't help but wonder if some of the gameplay design decisions are not there just to make things more difficult arbitrarily. Because I would like to like Bioshock just as i would like to like Psychonauts and, hell, even games like Halo. But when I find myself getting frustrated more than I'm having fun. Those glowy green phone booth things you go to after you die are no comfort to a mediocre skilled player like myself. They don't make things easier. It just means I have to go all the way back to where I was only now I have a lot less ammo and med kits, so it's going to be even harder now.