Why wasn't Bioshock our Watchman?
- Thread starter Not G. Ivingname
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because recognition of gaming(or lack of recognition) as an art form WILL have huge ramifications for the legal freedom and regulation placed on games in the future. Governments across the world are finding and seizing opportunities to censor and control as much as they can, and gaming will not preserve its current freedom if it can't earn recognition as legally protected "artwork".Necromancer Jim said:
It was a first person shooter, which is arguably the poster-child for "games are not art" to the ignorant masses.
Bioshock is in no way the equivalent of that comic, simply because there have been so many games that have told more interesting stories in more interesting ways before and after it.
I think the marketing juggernaut that is the industry have lead to video games being accepted as a new medium, albeit not publicly. For some reason it's still a taboo to argue that video games can be every bit as engaging as a film or a book, even though it's such a subjective experience that it would make no sense to dispute it.
Not that I have any idea why this is all playing out like this. Let's just assume there's a conspiracy afoot.
I think the marketing juggernaut that is the industry have lead to video games being accepted as a new medium, albeit not publicly. For some reason it's still a taboo to argue that video games can be every bit as engaging as a film or a book, even though it's such a subjective experience that it would make no sense to dispute it.
Not that I have any idea why this is all playing out like this. Let's just assume there's a conspiracy afoot.
Oh, and the Watchmen movie adaptation wasn't that great. I still don't get what people see in it.
The problem with Bioshock being accepted, or any game really being truly understood universally, is the learning curve required to understand it. I mean, navigating a figure around in a 3D space is a skill that does take some time to learn. For people like us, we're so full of muscle memory and basic gaming knowledge that we can pick up virtually any game and play it right away. It's practically second nature. For non-gamers, however it's significantly harder to pick up and understand.
The other issue comes with how the game got the message across. It made me feel smart for about 10 minutes towards the end, and it is always nice to see Ayn Rand get metaphorically punched in the face with her own copy of Atlas Shrugged, but it doesn't change the fact that about 99% of it was shooting dudes in the face. Forcing the player to carry out hundreds, or even thousands, of graphic murders gets in the way of any artistic or philosophical statements that are being made.
Don't get me wrong, I thought that the game was freaking amazing. The environment sucked me in, the opening sequence was easily one of the best ones in any game that I've ever played, and the twist towards the end served as an amazing deconstruction of the FPS genre and made me as a player really think about what I was doing when playing games. It's a brilliant statement, but there's an EXTREMELY steep learning curve to really appreciate it.
The other issue comes with how the game got the message across. It made me feel smart for about 10 minutes towards the end, and it is always nice to see Ayn Rand get metaphorically punched in the face with her own copy of Atlas Shrugged, but it doesn't change the fact that about 99% of it was shooting dudes in the face. Forcing the player to carry out hundreds, or even thousands, of graphic murders gets in the way of any artistic or philosophical statements that are being made.
Don't get me wrong, I thought that the game was freaking amazing. The environment sucked me in, the opening sequence was easily one of the best ones in any game that I've ever played, and the twist towards the end served as an amazing deconstruction of the FPS genre and made me as a player really think about what I was doing when playing games. It's a brilliant statement, but there's an EXTREMELY steep learning curve to really appreciate it.
Bioshock isn't that revolutionary. We've had games with complex stories and atmosphere for years, it's nothing new. We need something COMPLETELY revolutionary to truly advance the medium, and I have no damn clue what that would be.
Or maybe it's impossible. There's nothing really to advance, just a public image to improve, and that'll probably just come with time. Watchmen marked the change from cheesy superhero fun family fun to dark, dramatic, realistic and artistic fiction, but that already happened for video games, so there might not be any more big changes to make.
Or maybe it's impossible. There's nothing really to advance, just a public image to improve, and that'll probably just come with time. Watchmen marked the change from cheesy superhero fun family fun to dark, dramatic, realistic and artistic fiction, but that already happened for video games, so there might not be any more big changes to make.
Well, I think comic books (or graphic novels) are more easily accessible than video games. In theory, any 30-something cubicle dweller could pick up a copy of Watchmen at Borders (which is how I found it) and read it.
Game consoles cost quite a bit more. It's unlikely a non-gamer would shell out all the that money to play one critically acclaimed game, which means the people who are most likely to play Bioshock are the ones who already have consoles, i.e. people who habitually play video games.
Compared to any other form of media (film, television, literature) it costs the most to sample video games, and the people you might be trying to win over might be (reasonably) unwilling to pay that much for something they aren't sure they'll like.
Game consoles cost quite a bit more. It's unlikely a non-gamer would shell out all the that money to play one critically acclaimed game, which means the people who are most likely to play Bioshock are the ones who already have consoles, i.e. people who habitually play video games.
Compared to any other form of media (film, television, literature) it costs the most to sample video games, and the people you might be trying to win over might be (reasonably) unwilling to pay that much for something they aren't sure they'll like.
I was going to make a nice constructive post about how you're wrong; comics still aren't taken seriously, Nick Fury this, Golden Age that, Sandman, etc etc... was also going to point out how sad it is that so many are immediately jumping straight to the movies, as if their respective comics had no bearing until they were made... but, I digress, if you can't even get title right, I'd have to assume the point would be lost.
Watchmen
also
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
also
The Dark Knight
The general public didn't know Watchmen was a comic. As with most movies, they don't realise they are based on books or famous comics.
Also, Bioshock was a good game but it wasn't that amazing.
Also, Bioshock was a good game but it wasn't that amazing.
I always though that if a game is going to show people that is art it would be an MGS game seriously bioshock has nothing artistic comparing it to MGS or almost any other game
Having played Bioshock (which I did enjoy quite well (Enough to play through get both endings) and watched a Let's Play of System Shock 2(I can't get the damned game to run on my computer), I can say this is true.AugustFall said:
Spoilers in this post... I can't get the hide tags to work properly
Andrew Ryan = Xerxes, Altas/Fontaine = (I forget her name. Started with a P I think)/Shodan. Rapture = Von Braunn
Hell, even the objectives were similar. Go to medical being the first(main objective) in both games, and the whole area of the garden?, yeah, SS2 had you release gas into the air as well.
Honestly though, I found the setting of Bioshock better than System Shock. But it's probably because Bioshock was my first taste of Steampunk, whereas I have seen Cyberpunk over and over and over and...
SS2 broke a few walls and is remembered for it (though I'm sure it's not the first/only old FPS that plays like it. There's always a clone) but Bioshock doesn't really feel as "new" as System Shock (1 or 2) did when they were released.
And as one of you said a few posts above: Gaming is a much more exclusive hobby than reading or film watching. Anyone who can read can enjoy a good book/comic/graphic novel, and anyone with working eyes and ears can enjoy a good movie. But not everyone able to hold a controller is able to enjoy a video game, and they aren't liable to spend $370 JUST to play a single video game. That is of course assuming they don't already own and XBOX360 ($299, cheapest console able to play it, and face it, consoles are more accessible for gaming than PCs) and the game ($59) (rounded up).
Hell, even though I played Bioshock first, I still wasn't awed by it. It was an above average game, at best, adding nothing new to the table.
I seem to have missed the 'deep plot' of the game you talk about.
Unless you are saying it in reference to its oceanic setting.
Unless you are saying it in reference to its oceanic setting.
Although Bioshock was definitely a step forward in storytelling in games, I don't think it was quite the medium's "Watchmen" just yet due to some of its flaws.
I would still like to see some of the game-design ideas in Bioshock used in future games, such as it's great use of "storytelling through gameplay" and sophisticated underlying message (that is, the dangers of extremism and grandeur, not "Ayn Rand was right!", which people somehow mistake it for).
I would still like to see some of the game-design ideas in Bioshock used in future games, such as it's great use of "storytelling through gameplay" and sophisticated underlying message (that is, the dangers of extremism and grandeur, not "Ayn Rand was right!", which people somehow mistake it for).