Why wasn't Bioshock our Watchman?

[AyreonMaiden]

This is a perfect example of why it is important for video games to be culturally recognized as an art form. Bioshock could have had a huge, awesome cultural impact, but it did not because of the exclusivity of those who enjoyed it and appreciated its depth. Because video games are seen as nothing more than a pastime for the select few who enjoy it.

People say the "games as art" movement and argument is useless, but things like this are the reasons they are absolutely wrong.

Here's my perspective:

I don't see the idea of games being art as useless. I personally think games are most definitely art, and can be art higher than what Fumito Ueda thinks. I see the "movement" as completely stupid because as I just said, it's an inevitable conclusion. There's no movement to be had when you know how it ends. So instead of discussing whether games can be art or not, why don't we move past that and discuss the art in games?

To me this is such a logical next step that it is why it pisses me off to keep seeing the same arguments, examples and comparisons to things like "Citizen Kane" and "Watchmen." It's not just with the "art" question, but with the other "serious questions" like feminine equality in gaming and stuff. They've become as meaningless as industry buzzwords with how often we bring them up, and how little we variate our examples and arguments (I mean, every last feminist argument will include Jade, Alyx, and Bayonetta and damn Peach and Zelda in some way. Really, that's all there is folks?) Every gamer knows games are art and will be known as such one day. I mean, do a Google search for "video game museum" and it will autocomplete you with the cities of New York and Berlin and the state of California.

So why do people desperately want to be assured of this by people who don't get it, don't wanna get it, and as such will never get it? Just who are we telling all this to? Why do we need to repeat the same arguments to ourselves every now and then? What's the point of making a "cultural impact"?

What will it take for the "movement" to be satisfied? Will it be when someone goes on TV and says "I am (influential pop icon) and I say games are art, so stop challenging it?" Because dream on. The integrity of the medium will forever be challenged. Even after we've taken over the planet. The integrity of literature, an art form that is approximately as old as fuck, continues to be challenged by governments and organizations worldwide, big and small, meaningless and influential.

I might sound a little heated, but I seriously have those questions, and would love a take on those questions. I'm in no way meaning to troll or be inflammatory or come off as dense, because maybe I don't do hard research too often but I definitely think about these things in my downtime. If it comes off that way, I truly apologize. I just really don't get it from my perspective, ya know?

 

[KingofMadCows]

I think we'll have to wait until games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Legacy of Kain series, etc. get ported to mobile devices.

 

[Shirokurou]

I'm sorry, but Braid encompasses the "games as art" thing 9000 times more than Bioshock could've hoped.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

In order to have the same status as Watchmen, it has to be a bold statement AND it has to be accessible to the masses. Bioshock was incredibly alienating, so the cost of entry was more than just your 60 dollars, at least as anything other than a core gamer.

Half Life, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts, No More Heroes... these are the sorts of games that can rocket us to a status similar to Watchmen. A game like Bioshock can make a bold statement, but not to the entire audience.

 

[Murray Whitwell]

"the biggest change in the industry that came out of 2007 was CoD 4."
"change" "CoD 4"
What change?

 

[TeeBs]

Watchmen was a movie based on a comic.

Why do you assume the OP is talking about the film? Seriously why?

You think the masses would have known about Watchmen if it wasn't for the movie?

 

[Chased]

Because Bioshock was a game and Watchmen was a movie. People go to a theater and see Watchmen and say "Hey! That's great! I should read the comic!" while Bioshock will rarely, if ever, be played by someone who has never played a video game. People who never read comics can see Watchmen, people who never play video games don't play Bioshock.

In all fairness, my friend got heavily into reading objectivism after playing Bioshock.

I don't think it's an issue of medium but more so time. Comics have had far more exposure to the masses and a much longer running than video games.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Okami did the games and art thing way better than Bioshock.

The intro to the game actually turned me off quite a lot. I step into the doorway and see the giant golden bust of the founder of Rapture. "Well... this isn't subtle at all... this is the realm of a mad egomaniac". And then the cinematic shown in the submarine simply cements it "I reject capitalism and communism, but 'lo and behold, even a fool can see from this brief film explaining what I did that I clearly incorporated the worst of both worlds!"

By the time I had my first plasmid (done in a way that made me think of the protagonist as a complete idiot, jabbing an unclean and rusted needle into himself, containing a completely unknown substance) the game had completely lost me. I ventured on a bit further, knowing many of my friends placed, but the more I learned, the more I realised only an absolute nitwit would follow Ryan into his mad underwater dystopia.

So yeah, to me Bioshock was a complete dud, an utter failure in video game storytelling carrying all the subtlety of a glowing brick.

 

[soren7550]

So, I ask you my fellow Escapists, why wasn't Bioshock our Watchman?

Here's the real short version:
It's interactive, therefore it cannot be taken seriously nor can it be art.

That's what many seem to think anyway. I of course disagree.

A bit more, it's partly because video games are still a relativly new medium. Watchmen came out in the 80s, right? Comics at that point had been around for 50 or so years. Video games are much younger, and and have only fairly recently (considering) have reached the same deph and complexity of movies, novels and so on.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Watchmen was a movie based on a comic.

Why do you assume the OP is talking about the film? Seriously why?

You think the masses would have known about Watchmen if it wasn't for the movie?

It was from the comic, the movie barely made back it's budget.

 

[tlozoot]

It wasn't "Our Watchmen" because it was an overwhelmingly mediocre game with a mildly intriguing setting. The only thing that stood out to me was how underwhelming it was.

Yep, I have to agree; Bioshock really wasn't anything new or interesting to shout and scream about. System Shock, anyone?

Unique setting
Deconstruction of linear narrative
Intertwined critique of objectivist philosophy
Atmosphere thick enough to spread on my morning toast
Narrative told through interaction and participation.

From a purely playable perspective it was simply a coherent and functional shooter, but the above points are more than enough to make Bioshock a very, very good game.

 

[CrashBang]

Watchmen was an experiment by Alan Moore who wanted to prove that comics as an artform could achieve what other mediums could not. It wasn't solely to gain respect for comics or anything, if it was he probably wouldn't have chosen a superhero story. Even though Zack Snyder made a passable film version Moore did prove his point... because it's not a hard point to proove. Moore's got a massive ego and like many artists thinks his chosen medium is superior to all others. Games have been proving that they can achieve what no other medium can since pong - it's interactive media.

As to why BioShock isn't considered some great thing that finally exonerates gaming... well because although it was artistically stylish and had a fairly solid narrative it wasn't unparalleled by any means. The twists were well done but not particularly brilliant, the gameplay was pretty samey and despite some memorable sequences it also made a number of poor choices, draggging out the game in the final sequence making many gamers, myself included, just wanting to get to the bloody finish - which was pretty unsatisfying to be honest.

This may be the single greatest post I've ever read on The Escapist. Thank you, you said what I was going to say but in better words than I could. Don't get me wrong, Bioshock is one of my favourite games of this generation because it is beautiful, has interesting gameplay elements, top-notch voice acting, an intriguing setting and storytelling mechanics and I enjoyed it from start to finish (although the good and bad end sequences were both hugely disappointing)
It is certainly not the Watchmen of the videogame world, not in the sense of it's artistic integrity nor it's critical success
Damn, I really fancy reading Watchmen now

 

[4173]

Because it's so much easier to start reading comics book. They certainly aren't the same as books, but a person can transfer many of the skills learned from reading books.

Video games (especially something like Bioshock) demand much more as far as physical interfacing (flipping a page is easier than using a controller). A person can take as long as they like to read each panel, but games have a time limit.

In short, once you've convinced a newbie to try either comics or video games, they are more likely to be able to finish the comic. They may not get the full experience of a comic book fan, but they won't be bogged down by minutia either. If someone told me I needed to learn a new language in order to try reading comics (no guarantee I would even like them), I would politely refuse.


Maybe not even politely.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I think that this could be proven by saying that Watchmen only became popular after it was turned into a movie (a more accepted form of media).

I don't think he's talking about the movie. I was laboring under the impression that the OP was referring to the comic book Watchmen finally opening the eyes of the public to the strengths and merits of comics.

As for Bioshock, while it might have been artistically brilliant, and a much needed breadth of fresh air, it wasn't accessible to the majority of people who still need to be convinced that games are art. For one, it's rated M, which immediately limits the market, and it's a completely modern and complex game, which makes it too difficult for the skeptics and older folks to pick it up and play it. It was critically and publicly lauded within the gaming community, but it never broke out of it.

 

[mitchell271]

A more important question: How does it fucking matter to us whether or not people see gaming as an art form?

because if it isn't soon, the Supreme Court of America will censor the hell out of games an turn them into glorified children's toys and then everyone who has ever touched a game will be ridiculed

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Hahahaha. Bioshock isn't our watchmen because comics had been around a whole lot longer than video games.

And also because you can read watchmen in what, less than a day? Whereas video games consume a whole lot of your time that you could spend doing something more fun. Bioshock was incredibly interesting but it didn't teach me anything important,

It exposed me to Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I probably wouldn't of gone ahead and learned about those two things otherwise.

And you would have been the better person for it.

Bioshock, what have you done?

Yeah clearly there is nothing an English major can learn from reading her fiction... Oh Wait <.<

*Rolls Eyes* Ayn Rand doesn't say you shouldn't be selfless, but that you should only be selfless if thats the option thats going to make you truly happy. That's how a Randian Utopia would work anyway.

 

[Freechoice]

Hahahaha. Bioshock isn't our watchmen because comics had been around a whole lot longer than video games.

And also because you can read watchmen in what, less than a day? Whereas video games consume a whole lot of your time that you could spend doing something more fun. Bioshock was incredibly interesting but it didn't teach me anything important,

It exposed me to Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I probably wouldn't of gone ahead and learned about those two things otherwise.

And you would have been the better person for it.

Bioshock, what have you done?

Yeah clearly there is nothing an English major can learn from reading her fiction... Oh Wait <.<

*Rolls Eyes* Ayn Rand doesn't say you shouldn't be selfless, but that you should only be selfless if thats the option thats going to make you truly happy. That's how a Randian Utopia would work anyway.

Dude, Rapture was a mess even before Jack arrived.

 

[Binerexis]

It wasn't "Our Watchmen" because it was an overwhelmingly mediocre game with a mildly intriguing setting. The only thing that stood out to me was how underwhelming it was.

Yep, I have to agree; Bioshock really wasn't anything new or interesting to shout and scream about. System Shock, anyone?

Unique setting
Deconstruction of linear narrative
Intertwined critique of objectivist philosophy
Atmosphere thick enough to spread on my morning toast
Narrative told through interaction and participation.

From a purely playable perspective it was simply a coherent and functional shooter, but the above points are more than enough to make Bioshock a very, very good game.

I'll give you that not many games happen in a failed utopia under the sea, Bioshock certainly has that. It doesn't, however, make it a good game; it's just set somewhere out of the norm.

Deconstruction of linear narrative? Really? All that game involved was constantly going from A to B via C and it never really tried to disguise that fact. Ooops, the roof collapsed. Uh oh, looks like you need a certain plasmid to get through here. The way it was pulling that off made me very aware that it was a game if that makes any sense.

I personally found the atmosphere to be lacklustre. I didn't really feel as if I was there or as if Rapture was a real place whereas the atmosphere in other games and a number of films have been able to accomplish that quite well. I'll give you that it was a little creepy but that was mostly due to things randomly jumping out at me which I hate.

A narrative told through interaction and participation is something that happens in EVERY game. If I were to stop interacting or participating in, let's say, Mass Effect then the story would narrative would stop. Why? Because I've turned the game off. Like I said before, the narrative in Bioshock felt very scripted and made me very aware that I was in a game. It was a game that was playable but it's nowhere near this godly game status that people keep saying it is.

 

[tlozoot]

Deconstruction of linear narrative? Really? All that game involved was constantly going from A to B via C and it never really tried to disguise that fact. Ooops, the roof collapsed. Uh oh, looks like you need a certain plasmid to get through here. The way it was pulling that off made me very aware that it was a game if that makes any sense.

I'm not referring to how your circumvent the obstacles in the game, I mean how the game makes asks you to reflect on the linear nature of gameplay through its story.

Usually in a game you are told that you have freedom. Freedom to move around, freedom to pick a direction, freedom to do what you want in the game world. Allegedly. A well designed game (well...a well designed linear game anyway) doesn't actually give you freedom though - it simply gives you the well-crafted illusion of freedom. You are still being subjected to whatever the designer wants. You're still just a lab-rat running a maze. Most games don't draw attention to the illusion though. Bioshock does. You think you're free to move around Rapture and help Atlus, but you find out in the story that you weren't free at all. You had the illusion of freedom, but in reality Jack (and by extension, the player) were being subconsciously directed. Jack by Atlas, and the player by the designer.

That shit is meta.

I personally found the atmosphere to be lacklustre. I didn't really feel as if I was there or as if Rapture was a real place whereas the atmosphere in other games and a number of films have been able to accomplish that quite well. I'll give you that it was a little creepy but that was mostly due to things randomly jumping out at me which I hate.

Then I guess this is mostly subjective then. The art-deco art style, period music and enviromental sounds all made it feel very atmospheric to me. I didn't find it scary though, bar one or two instances in the Medical Pavillion, but I did find it atmospheric.

A narrative told through interaction and participation is something that happens in EVERY game. If I were to stop interacting or participating in, let's say, Mass Effect then the story would narrative would stop. Why? Because I've turned the game off. Like I said before, the narrative in Bioshock felt very scripted and made me very aware that I was in a game. It was a game that was playable but it's nowhere near this godly game status that people keep saying it is.

Wrong. Many games simply force-feed you a cut-scene after every level, which is about as passive as watching a film. Bioshock thinks very careful before it wrests control away from the player, and when it does, it makes sense within the story, such as your eventual encounter with Andrew Ryan. Try not to think too literal about my point. Yes, if you stopped playing a game, then you would never get to the end of the story. However, in Bioshock you have to actively engage with the environment to create the story. You only find out the barest bones by listening to whatever is fed into your ear over the comm channels. To find out all about Rapture - its idealogical roots, its creation, golden years, problems, decline and collapse - you have to root around, explore the environment, seek out the audio diaries, and piece together the story yourself. Note that I'd call the rise and fall of Rapture the greater part of the story over the thing with Jack/Atlas/Ryan.

Mass Effect is also, I'd say, a game that requires player interaction to build its story, seeing as its so heavily choice-influenced. The vast majority of games tend to deliver story in the form of blocky, unwieldy, uninteractive cut-scenes though.

 

[Deacon Cole]

So, I ask you my fellow Escapists, why wasn't Bioshock our Watchman?

Probably because the story in Watchmen was written to fit the medium of comics itself. Bioshock, as much as i liked the story, do not do the same for games. The story of Bioshock was mostly backstory that was told through the audio diaries and radio messages, not through gameplay. Most of the more compelling events had happened long before you get there and the bodies are already rotted.