Treblaine said:
Alright gruesome, now that I'm not on a schedule, you better sit down on something comfy and keep a tasty beverage handy, because I am become Text, the destroyer of words. Yours, specifically. Let's vivisect your post, and see if we can't figure out where we went wrong, shall we?
First, your reply in its entirety for the benefit of those who care what you say, and spoiler'd for the benefit of those who don't:
Treblaine said:
6_Qubed said:
No, Bioshock was not the great ethics-examining masterpiece it was hyped up to be.
Name me some games that does a better job at the political, social, moral and historical themes than Bioshock? (that isn't a de-facto movie like MGS4's TV-series length of cutscenes)
I can't stand it when people ONLY think of the little Sisters harvesting thing in purely resource terms, it is reductionist, simplistic and fundamentally Dishonest. When you make the decision to harvest or save the first Little Sister you have no idea what rewards you will get for saving if any or for how long. And the most important thing is you are making the decision of the lives of children, I am puzzled at how many people just ignore the moral aspect of that.
Taking the good path, means you need the virtues of trust and patience without greed. Greed for as much Adam as you can get, rather than just as much as you need. It is a hard-headed assumption that the "good path" must come with terrible forfeits, as this isn't particularly relevant to the way things work. People are rewarded for doing good things, evil is NOT the ONLY path to riches, though it is a sure-way.
And actually stop and think of a second, if you only got half ADAM with rescuing, you would be so pitifully underpowered that the players would be bitter at doing the right thing that most would not stick with it. The haters would instead be saying "huuh, it gave a moral choice but punished you so much for the right one you know harvesting the little sisters is the only way"
PS: Only idiots get caught up in the hype. And you shouldn't let relativism with idiotic-hype detract from what the game actually is on its own.
Treblaine said:
6_Qubed said:
No, Bioshock was not the great ethics-examining masterpiece it was hyped up to be.
Name me some games that does a better job at the political, social, moral and historical themes than Bioshock? (that isn't a de-facto movie like MGS4's TV-series length of cutscenes)
For starters, way to take an off-hand comment, quote it out of context and blow it way out of proportion. That's nice work, and you have a bright future in either law or politics. So bright, in fact, that I gotta wear shades.
Speaking of old 80's songs about nuclear holocaust, the first two games I can list for you are Missile Command (OLD SKOOL) and Fallout. Now, the Extra Credits guys talked about Missile Command better than I ever could already, but suffice it to say that it safely hits "moral" and "political", while Fallout's backstory as a series examines the whole 50's zeitgeist, from McCarthyism to the "nuclear family" and then examines what would happen if We The People had taken a nuclear war to its logical conclusion, and
then it explores what happens after the ashes have settled.
Treblaine said:
I can't stand it when people ONLY think of the little Sisters harvesting thing in purely resource terms, it is reductionist, simplistic and fundamentally Dishonest. When you make the decision to harvest or save the first Little Sister you have no idea what rewards you will get for saving if any or for how long. And the most important thing is you are making the decision of the lives of children, I am puzzled at how many people just ignore the moral aspect of that.
Taking the good path, means you need the virtues of trust and patience without greed. Greed for as much Adam as you can get, rather than just as much as you need. It is a hard-headed assumption that the "good path" must come with terrible forfeits, as this isn't particularly relevant to the way things work. People are rewarded for doing good things, evil is NOT the ONLY path to riches, though it is a sure-way.
Well for starters, it's called a difference of opinion. You've heard of opinions, right? They're like assholes; everybody has one, and nobody wants to hear about anyone else's. No, you can't know for certain what the upside is of saving that first little mutant, but if you've played any
other game that bandies around the term "moral choices", you can certainly
guess. Most times, the "bad" choice gets you more resources but cuts you off from some other advantage, while the "good" choice gives you the advantage, which ends up making the resources obsolete anyway.
Treblaine said:
And actually stop and think of a second, if you only got half ADAM with rescuing, you would be so pitifully underpowered that the players would be bitter at doing the right thing that most would not stick with it. The haters would instead be saying "huuh, it gave a moral choice but punished you so much for the right one you know harvesting the little sisters is the only way"
Fair enough, but here's why I say Bioshock only has "eat babies/don't eat babies" as its only moral choice; why can't you harvest anyone else? Remember at the beginning, right after you shoot up the electro-bolt plasmid, and those two splicers talk about gutting you and taking your ADAM? Apparently, it can be done by them, so why can't I do it? For that matter, why can't I save anyone else? Apparently, that bottle of kryptonite and witchcraft that Tenenbaum tosses you can reverse not only ADAM mutation, but the invasive surgical insertion of a whole other living creature, so why couldn't I do the same to those who've not had the latter happen to them? (The answer is pretty simple in the second one; You're a big daddy, so
fuck everyone else.) Also, why does the bad ending, in which you've presumably eaten every baby under the sea, are you jacking a sub? How does "baby eating" equal "steals shit?" when I play Fallout (3 and New Vegas) I tend to rack up a fairly high negative karma rating early on but not because I've been killing people left and right, no, rather I have been stealing all their shit.
That's how I play, every time. I don't help people out of the milk of human kindness, I do it because if you help people in video games,
they give you shit and you don't have to waste ammo by killing them.
Treblaine said:
PS: Only idiots get caught up in the hype. And you shouldn't let relativism with idiotic-hype detract from what the game actually is on its own.
Who said I did? I didn't. Actually, here's the
rest of that comment you butchered earlier;
6_Qubed said:
No, Bioshock was not the great ethics-examining masterpiece it was hyped up to be. Never trust hype. That is not to say that it was a bad game. On the contrary, it was still very good. The story was a very strong part of the gameplay, and it was fun exploring Jack's not-amnesia (Jack knows full well what his identity is, it's just wrong,) even though I had seen gameplay footage on Youtube beforehand, spoiling me to "the twist."
Did you read that last part, where I say that I knew what was going to happen, and bought the game anyway?
That is how good Bioshock is. It didn't live up to the hype that surrounded it but then few games, if any, do. Hype is not information, it is an opinion-based information substitute, and should not be used as the basis of one's own opinions. I did not say that I shut out all feedback, but neither do I trust it without examining it, because to do so would be just as bad in a different direction.
And a word of advice boyo, take it or leave it; If you're looking to be a game's white knight, you don't need to defend it from other people who also think it is good.
