No Gods, No Kings. . . No Men? The Player Character in BioShock
- Thread starter Phifty
- Start date
I don't know. I could excuse the silent protagnist if you had a little human interaction. Other then Ryan yelling at you and Atlas telling you what to do, everyone you talk either leaves after 6 seconds or is killed. I know it has been said before but at least some human interaction was necessary.
I may be the only one thinking this way but I don't mind Face-less Characters except when they try to make that character have psuedo-conversations to advance the plot. Half-life 2(I haven't played Half-life) was fun But didn't make me feel like the main character, it made me feel as if the Developers were being condescending towards me and i half-expected them to make the characters pause after they ask you something so you can relpy to what the other character askeed then have them give a general response to what ever you yelled at the T.V. like you're Three years old. Being mute as Gordon Freeman din't really make me feel his role. He's supposed to be this Genious scientist but I feel more like a Retard seeing as all of the complex tasks were performed by NPCs and I was useful for What? Throwing a few levers? Plugging in a few things? And the characters treat you like a retard too. Door not opening? I'll stand here being Generic person 12 and all I'm too valuble to rick Crawling in those decreoit ducts.Hey! Lets send that Retar-Er Theoretical Physicist Gordon in!But to get on-topic I felt that The Face-less protagonist thing worked well for Bioshock because at first You were just an Unfortunate Witness to Rapture's downfall as atlas and Andrew were battling but got pulled into the middle of it and introduced to a third party. This continued to work if you played as a good person and didn't harvest little sisters but if you did harvest them It had the Fable Effect where it doesn't mater who you brutally murder the story will continue. Aside from issues with being a little sister harvester the Choice didn't carry any weight the gifts more than compensated for not getting maximal Adam. Being good should have made the game get gradually harder but i've found that its easier being good in Bioshock! and thats why it seems a bit off to me at least. Still incredibly fun though.
I kind of agree with the OP but only in the types of games such as CoD4 where you are given a character in which you play, Soap MacTavish and Paul Jackson, but then they say nothing whatsoever. The character whos eyes you see the world through should already have personality, emotions, opinions etc. therefore they should have development on these things. Instead they stand there gargling a concotion of Cpt. Prices' mayonaise and bullets
However I couldn't give a shit if WE'RE supposed to be the character, then that means I can be as emotionless and heartless as I want. I can call my character "Dicklips" if I want to (and I did on Pokémon) because i'm supposed to be him.
However I couldn't give a shit if WE'RE supposed to be the character, then that means I can be as emotionless and heartless as I want. I can call my character "Dicklips" if I want to (and I did on Pokémon) because i'm supposed to be him.
I completely agree. You should get less ADAM for doing the right thing, making it more of a temptation to fall to the dark side. I also agree that the binary choice of good and evil is a bit ridiculous. I'm not saying that the game should have 700 endings (off-topic: someone in Bethesda recently claimed fallout 3 was going to have that many endings... sounds sucky to me...), rather that the game should take a more balanced view of your activities in deciding whether you are good or evil. If you kill one little sister and then work for the rest of the game to save them to absolve yourself of guilt (or merely to get the good ending... which sucked), surely your character is not one of pure evil?JakubK666 said:
Anyway, my point is that the binary choice was a bit silly and I hope that it's fixed for the sequel. Same with the vita chambers, lack of effective offensive plasmids and super-intelligent evil AI with a God complex...
Yes, but when you find out that you do get more ADAM by saving the little sisters (as I did, I didn't kill all the sisters), you instantly switch to the more advantageous point, which is what an evil character would do. So ironically the best way to advance yourself through the game is to play as a good character, no matter the alignment the player wishes to choose. It would give the game more integrity and noble players a greater sense of self righteousness when they managed to beat the game despite having less ADAM to play with.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In addition, the noble player would also retain more of his humanity due to the lack of genetic manipulation, further developing the dominant themes of lost humanity, nature versus science etc.
It really did annoy me that they took the soft option in a game that otherwise pulls very hard punches. System Shock 2 was far better at this sort of thing, but that's probably best saved for another thread...
Strafe Mcgee said:
I've got a little daughter(sans glowing eyes) so there was no way I could bring myself to "harvesting" the little sisters. I must admit it was a very nice surprise when the little sisters dropped off the teddy bear with 200 Adam. I was expecting to pay a certain price for saving all of the little sisters but in the end it didn't seem to matter. A touch disappointing.
I must be a big softy; the "good" ending made me cry. First game that has ever elicited that response (apart from a few others that have reduced me to tears with absolute frustration).
It seems that you're not "a sociopath with a conscience" but rather "a sociopath who fears the personal consequences for criminal behaviour". There is a parable by a Greek philosopher that fits you perfectly but I can't recall it's name. Someone's Ring is all I remember.Darth Mobius said:
"Not only was the main player character shallower then most puddles, but his choices were one-dimensional and the supporting cast seemed to have developed at some point, but when the game starts, they pretty much stay glued into place on their character arcs."
BioShock's problem was that it tried to give a twist to something that had no basis; it's essentially the only piece of actual plot in the entire game. I couldn't give a shit if the character is the son of Andrew Ryan, because he's been built as a non-character.
I'm very much for silent protagonists where appropriate (and I disagree with your decision to call him shallow given the point of a silent protagonist), but it seems they've then tried to make him a stand-out character, when really he should just be a stand-in for you.
The reason such a thing works between Gordon Freeman and Alyx is that most players do care about Alyx, so it reflects that in how she interacts with you and how events unfold. I couldn't care less if I were the son of an octopus and a crystal dildo in BioShock, let alone Andrew Ryan.
BioShock's problem was that it tried to give a twist to something that had no basis; it's essentially the only piece of actual plot in the entire game. I couldn't give a shit if the character is the son of Andrew Ryan, because he's been built as a non-character.
I'm very much for silent protagonists where appropriate (and I disagree with your decision to call him shallow given the point of a silent protagonist), but it seems they've then tried to make him a stand-out character, when really he should just be a stand-in for you.
The reason such a thing works between Gordon Freeman and Alyx is that most players do care about Alyx, so it reflects that in how she interacts with you and how events unfold. I couldn't care less if I were the son of an octopus and a crystal dildo in BioShock, let alone Andrew Ryan.