How can I explain Bioshock to a parent?

[TheDist]

The reason why your mother was too concerned with BioShock letting you abuse and murder little-children is because she hailed from an era before video-games, where all she had to pass the time with were novels (or something, I don't know). It's like that with almost every parent in the world, as there's a generation-gap separating parents from their own children.

This may well indeed be part of it. Though as a counter example, my mother is old enough to be most people here's granny i'd wager. It was around 1999 I think, I found her sat playing some of my games and one of those games was Kingpin: life of crime. When asked what she thought of it, she outright said it was silly to her, but she could still see the fun in it.

What she did was tell me she knew I was aware of the diffrence between reality and a game, thus was totaly fine with any violence there may be in the games I play (and in the ones she bought me as a child). Also that whith this she could see the other parts of the games such as story, art, music are a big part of their draw and often more important and then times when it is just violence, that such can be seen as a cathartic release, as long as the people playing really do understand the diffrence between real and fake violence.

So one way to approach it would be to go on a parents "parenting" as it were. Explain that they have raised you well enough that you understand the diffrence between all forms of fantasy and reality. In this framework you can then point to apspects of a game that are what you wish to convay, be it artistic, political or issues of morality etc.

Sorry for the rambling post, might be worth a try though.

 

[Jumplion]

Ok, but some movies are hailed as classics, while 50% of the time is spent on a battlefield, with death and guns, but its still culture because its a movie. So why can't games be the same?

Because the violence is related in some way to the story and is normally pivotal to it, it shows people changing under the pressures of war and how courageous people are under such stress.

Bioshock could have worked just as well with maybe a dozen Splicers in the game, maybe three dozen if you want to spice things up a bit. Nothing about the combat helped shape the story or show the background at all, but they put it in because at heart it's an FPS and it needs over nine thousand corpses. I forget who said it, someone on Cracked, but they pointed out that if a film had five minutes of philosophy and 85 minutes of shooting and explosions it would be classed as a dumb action film. Bioshock is reasonably fun but don't go thinking it's massively sophisticated.

Only, you know, through the combat and gameplay of the game we learn more and more about the underwater dystopia of Rapture and as we continue on we become a part of the system of Rapture and it's objectivist philosophy. Though the choice of the Little Sisters could have been handled better, the basic principle it was trying to put out is the same.

And then, through the culmination of your gameplay, blindly following orders from Fontaine/Atlas/Ryan/Whoever, the whole question of willpower and choice comes in conflict with the simple phrase "Would you kindly...?", something that challenges the player to rethink everything they've been doing. It's a brilliant aspect of gameplay, I think. Players almost always just blindly do the quest, they pick up the quest item without thinking twice, just so they can get that extra XP. The "would you kindly" twist at the end basically makes the player question their actions, because through all of this most players probably didn't think twice about going here and doing that, effectively making Rapture even worse.

Okay, that may have all sounded pretentious, and I will admit that I could very well be reading too deeply into it (though I would argue I don't seeing as how everything I've said is more or less in the game itself, you just have to look at it a certain way) but I do not get your point at all. From what I'm getting from you, it seems that the game only "explores" the philosophy through specific scripted moments and not through the gameplay itself. But Bioshock explores this kind of stuff everywhere in its gameplay, environment, what have you. You've got the audiobooks giving out backstory, the environments show a time before all of this, the splicers, even after all hell has broken loose, are still greedy in their pursuit of ADAM, all sorts of stuff. I won't say that Bioshock addresses its themes in a completely thoughtful way, of course there are some aspects it could have expanded on, but I don't think you're giving it enough credit and just seeing it as "a game".

A movie with 5 minutes philosophy and 85 minutes of shooting and explosions could easily be considered a classic. You know how? By still exploring the philosophy during those action scenes. Saving Private Ryan gave us the whole "war is hell" thing through it's action scenes as well as it's slower moments. A Clockwork Orange was batshit nuts, and it gave us these themes of "who is really batshit nuts in this world?" Whether or not you liked those movies is irrelevant, they had some sort of influence on the world with those themes. Bioshock, I think, easily does this, with the player gradually becoming more a part of the Rapture system and resorting to desperate measures to gain ADAM.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Do you have to explain it?
Meh. I happened to talk about it to my mother, but more as part of an overarching political conversation. Still, she seemed to find it thematically interesting

 

[CRRPGMykael]

Wait,what?!That's fucking absurd!It's like the protagonists of The Ring killed that creepy little ***** and then everybody thought it was 'prepostorous' that the main characters are killing a child.

 

[Neonit]

Tell her the tale of little red riding hood. In the version i read, they have ripped a wolf open to fill him with stones. you know, to slow him down....

You cant really expect to be able to explain this, i dunno, 20 hours game in a few minutes? You could always try to point out the psychological aspects of the game, and say that those little girls are a representation of choice between innocence and survival and could as well be something else, like puppies..... or some bs like that (puppies hardly make that better i know...), but.... i dunno, its YOUR mother, YOU should know her....

I never had this problem, my parents were very understanding, thing is, i never hid anything from them so they trusted me. Sure, they were shocked the first time i fell into lava in quake 2 (my speakers broke at the very same f time so the sound looped oO) but, "its just a game." its not like im going to say "whoa, thats cool! im going to jump into lava the first time i see some!"

 

[Jumplion]

snip

Oh I know what it's trying to do and yeah, all those aspects are kind of in there but imagine you were presented with the plot and told to make a film/game/book about it. Don't you think that Bioshock is basically the dumbest summer-blockbuster one you could've made? I mean, the OP wants to explain Bioshock to a parent and I'd go with 'the golden ratio as explained by Forrest Gump', a clever idea shown to you in an incredibly shallow, cursory and stupid way.

Underdeveloped? Yeah, I can see how some would think that, there are some aspects where it trips as many works do. Dumb blockbuster, shallow, and cursory? Now that, I think, is being unnecessarily harsh.

While I hate using this argument, Bioshock's story and development were much better than most video games. I hate using "good for a video game" because it should stand among itself with other mediums, but then again it also did so much better than most movies/books would do either, so, whatever.

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

Snip

Yes it is completely unfair to compare video games to movies and the fact that video games can be a storytelling medium doesn't change that one bit. If I made a movie that was 15 hours long and 95 percent dialogue it would be pretty heavily crisized as well but that doesn't change the fact that lord of the rings is a terrific work of art.

Length is one of two factors that differentiate games and movies (the other obviously being interactivity) and I don't think it gets stressed enough. When you put these two things together, you get aspects of a story that simply aren't told in film.

Taking the argument away from Bioshock for a second, there's an example that I feel makes the point more clearly. Rocky. Rocky has the classic "training montage" in which he performs a series of repetitive actions to gradually increase his skills. In order for this vital part of the story to fit with the conventions of filmmaking, it had to become a montage sequence, quickly cut together shots with a soundtrack in order to keep viewers entertained while effectively just watching someone exercise.

This is because films don't have the luxury to portray in real time scenes of repetition, especially if it's a scene that fills three hours of the movie's timeline. Videogames, however, do have this luxury and as such feature more repetition in their storytelling than films do. If Rocky was designed as a game, the training montage wouldn't exist. You would have a long series of tutorial stages, which could accurately show Rocky's improvement due to two things. Firstly, your skill as a player would improve as you got used to the controls, learned how to react. Secondly, the challenges themselves would become easier, your stamina bar or whatever wouldn't decrease as fast etc.

Interactivity makes repetitive actions more engaging, which allows them to take more length. Combine the two, and games feature more repetition. Which in Bioshock's case would be Jack fending off Splicers in Rapture on his way to Andrew Ryan. Bioshock as a film wouldn't feature 90% shooting because quite simply film as a storytelling medium doesn't allow that part of the story to be told in that way. Film is a poor medium for telling that part of a story, and would instead feature a couple of cuts, a few choice action scenes and maybe a voice over saying "As I fought my way through Rapture... [fade to black - new location]"

Games aren't a poor storytelling medium because they feature more of the core actions than film, games are the only medium in which this is possible.

 

[Jumplion]

Interactivity makes repetitive actions more engaging, which allows them to take more length. Combine the two, and games feature more repetition. Which in Bioshock's case would be Jack fending off Splicers in Rapture on his way to Andrew Ryan. Bioshock as a film wouldn't feature 90% shooting because quite simply film as a storytelling medium doesn't allow that part of the story to be told in that way. Film is a poor medium for telling that part of a story, and would instead feature a couple of cuts, a few choice action scenes and maybe a voice over saying "As I fought my way through Rapture... [fade to black - new location]"

Games aren't a poor storytelling medium because they feature more of the core actions than film, games are the only medium in which this is possible.

One only needs to look at "Shadow of the Collosus" to see the power of repetition.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

An interesting insight into the human condition, delving into topics such as morality, science and ethics.

Plus it's fucking awsome.
Seriously, massive diver men with drills!

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

One only needs to look at "Shadow of the Collosus" to see the power of repetition.

That makes my point even better than Rocky. Whole argument can be summed up with the phrase "Shadow of the Colossus: The Movie". Doesn't work.

 

[Fbuh]

Synonyms are you're friend. There is a subtle art to telling teh truth about something that could make it sound completely different, but still fall within the confines of its actual definition. I am quite good at doing this.

I believe the correct terminology is "bullshitting". It's quite fun.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Explanation is simple, Bioshock is rated M for mature, should be considered the same as any mature movie.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Video games are like movies in which you can decide the ending.

In the year 1960, Jack is riding on an airplane that suddenly crashes in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean; swimming to a nearby lighthouse, Jack finds the remnants of a massive underground city. Jack must use hit wits and cunning to survive the city's crazed inhabitants, but at what cost to his humanity?

 

[Jumplion]

Underdeveloped? Yeah, I can see how some would think that, there are some aspects where it trips as many works do. Dumb blockbuster, shallow, and cursory? Now that, I think, is being unnecessarily harsh.

I'd say that I was being harsh but I don't think that being realistic about it's complexity when put in perspective is really unnecessarily so, especially when people think their parents are too limited to understand it. It'd be like saying someone doesn't understand Jurassic Park, in fact that's roughly where I'd peg Bioshock as far as complexity goes (and that's not a stab at either, I love that film). It's got some great ideas and some alright characters but it's not exactly difficult to grasp.

See, I get your criticism, I'm not trying to say that Bioshock is extremely clever/thoughtful without fault, it has it's weaknesses for sure.

But, at the same time, I think you are looking at bit too close between the lines when looking at Bioshock. One could easily claim that [name of movie]'s attempt at [whatever it's attempting] is shallow because it doesn't do this, this, or that. You can look too deeply into a piece in either extremes of praise or scorn.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

Tell them it'll turn their kids into psychotic sploicers, making them run around looking for little girls to rip open for magic ketchup, stick themselves with colorful syringes, wear big diving suits, and shoot bees out their hands. Might save some time.

Seriously, though, I'd call it something like "Objectivism featuring magic sea slugs gone horribly wrong," or "Undersea Philosphy Adventures."

 

[coolkirb]

sigh why must teenagers try to explain things to their parents, dont bother trying, sure they might understand but its like your parents explaining rock and role to their parents, its a generational thing that will just continue on forever as you will not understand why your kids enjoy certain things.

On a side note a video game is different from a movie or book in that it is not passive, you are the protagenist in a game and thus you do not just read or hear about the little sister dieing you have to be involved a actually make the decission yourself that she dies so it is differnt from a book in that a mental part of you must say I want this to happen.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Give her that book that everyone but me seems to know.

Other than that - Tell her that the game teaches you more about morality and stuff like that than school ever will.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The killing kids thing really is probably just in poor taste.

However, you could make a definite case it's part of their slam of Objectivism, which among its many other flaws doesn't provide any sort of special classification for children. The fact that splicers tend to dehumanize little sisters ("they only look like little girls") also demonstrates how human nature > human philosophies, which appears to be a big theme of Bioshock.

 

[Jumplion]

One only needs to look at "Shadow of the Collosus" to see the power of repetition.

That makes my point even better than Rocky. Whole argument can be summed up with the phrase "Shadow of the Colossus: The Movie". Doesn't work.

Just because I love the sound of typing keyboards, and I love to run my mouth on about Shadow of the Collosus, I'll expand on that for anyone who doesn't understand.

WARNING: Pretty big spoilers for the game. Seriously, if you can, get the collection that's coming out;

Spoiler

Basically, in Shadow of the Collosus, you play as Wander, a, well, wanderer who goes to a forbidden land to bring a loved one back to death. Throughout the game, you have to kill 16 collosi by climbing onto them and attacking their weak points.

The entire game constantly drills into your head "Grab on for dear life!" You constantly have to hold R1 to grab on to things, only letting go momentarily to restore your grip meter. You climb the collosi, constantly holding R1, climbing for dear life, knowing that if you let go you will have to start over, or in the worst case die. You cannot let go otherwise you will have let Mono, the dead girl, down and you will never bring her back.

Finally, after the player has slain the last collosi, a group presumably from Wander's tribe come and try to destroy him. The priest of the group makes some sort of portal vortex thing in the fountain of the shrine Wander is in. And this is where everything you have been taught is thrown out the window.

In this last playable section of the game, you cannot win. Mono, your ultimate goal, lies on the altar at the end of the hallway while the vortex sucks you in on the other side. You still control Wander in this section, you can grab nearby cracks and ledges and slowly make your way to Mono. You can even make it to the bottom of the altar. But you can never reach her. You will simply stumble back, trying to reach her. You could theoretically stay in the hallway indefinitely, but it's futile.

You have to let go.

So, when all hope is lost, Wander (and subsequently, the player) lets go. Throughout the entire game, Wander could not let go. The theme of "letting go" could be interpreted as Wander refusing to let go of his grief for Mono, and at the final moments he learns that he just has to let go of it all. The player's desire to "get the princess" and have the happy ending, after slaying every obstacle in his way, is completely subverted when you can never get her.

It's fuckin' deep, yo.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Ok, but some movies are hailed as classics, while 50% of the time is spent on a battlefield, with death and guns, but its still culture because its a movie. So why can't games be the same?

Because the violence is related in some way to the story and is normally pivotal to it, it shows people changing under the pressures of war and how courageous people are under such stress.

Oh you mean exactly like in BioShock? BioShock shows what lies beneath the thin veneer of culture and class, what even the most civilized person can degenerate to. What even the top of society, because that's what Rapture is supposed to represent, can fall into. The insane violence of the Splicer is a testimony to that.

BioShock's narrative is good and deep because it utilises the strengths of the videogame medium. It doesn't try to copy movies (*cough*Metalgear*cough*) or books, instead it utilises gameplay and world building to tell a large part it's story, to convey it's message.

It's got some great ideas and some alright characters but it's not exactly difficult to grasp.

Isn't that an extremely good thing? That it can still convey a relatively deep message yet at the same time is presented in such a way that it's not very difficult to grasp?