Jamie Antonisse

I'll trackback tomorrow, but right off the bat I wanted to say: Great post! I think you've pretty much nailed it. Also: you have no idea how to work the tags, do you?

I have my own method of tagging, thank you... I put in arbitrary words then never use them again. But I guess the least I can do is put the commas in.

"And Bioshock, arguably our medium's greatest narrative accomplishment, is still nonetheless... a Shooter."

So. Much. Umbrage. Taken.

Harrumph, good sir!

So...were you disappointed that the game wasn't innovative in its play mechanics, or that it wasn't innovative in its storytelling? I would argue that the presence of "shoot it if it moves" gameplay makes the excellent story that much more compelling, because there are points in the story where you are encouraged to step back and wonder if your kneejerk shooting reactions were justified.

Oh, and for the record, the Little Sisters are not the only inhabitants of Rapture who will not attack. Big Daddies also do not attack unless you shoot them first. Interesting, given that they are by far the deadliest enemies in the game.

Good question... I'd say the Shooter mechanics hurt the storytelling.

Let me reiterate... Bioshock is an awesome game. The shadows on the walls, the tape recordings, Andrew Ryan... without spoiling anything I'll say there were parts that gave me chills. But I think that part of the reason games aren't regarded as a more mature art form in the larger, stupider world is designers' obstinance in clinging to this general conceit:

"You are in a world filled with people. All these People are Enemies. Destroy them for points!"

It is totally possible to make VERY fun games in this mode. Hell, most of my favorite games follow this structure. But in the larger world of stories, this is a REALLY limited way to portray a world, and I think the excellent narrative Bioshock suffers by adhering too strongly to it.

On your second point, while the Big Daddies won't attack YOU on sight, I think I can confidently say they are there to BE destroyed, which was my point. I think there's certainly something interesting there though. It does make players more thoughtful about how they play, which is always good.

Great post, Jamie. I agree with you a lot.

I've said before that the choice of harvest vs. rescue feels cheap to me. And I agree with you that the feeling of "kill everything on sight" is still too pervasive. Hell, you can't even accidentally kill the Little Sisters. Sure, they have a story "explanation" for it, but that's cheap too. They want you to have the A or B choice there, and if we're going to be dealing with a moral issue like this there should be some grey area. You still kill these Big Daddies no matter what, and it's still for game purposes. What if I accidentally kill a Little Sister? Would I feel bad? How about if I smash her with the wrench? BioShock fails when it comes to the grey area, and I need do no further than point to the endings themselves to show that the game doesn't really care about it.

There are some great storytelling moments in this game and some fantastic moments that question the "follow the objective given to you" type of gameplay. But in the end, while it brings it up, it never changes the mechanic. You always do the objective it gives you. You always solve your problems with violence.

Did you see the couple that was dancing?
They didn't attack you.
I thought that was a very moving scene. You come upon a couple, dancing with each other. They ignore you completely but you get the sense that they are just off in their own world.

It really gave the world much more character.

I saw the dancing couple, and I blasted the hell out of them.

See, I wasn't sure if they were just not noticing me or actually not going to attack me, so I torched the guy and killed him, and then used telekinesis to hurl his body into the person he was dancing with.

You also don't have to kill Cohen either, but since you aren't ever penalized for killing something (usually you're rewarded, actually) I made short work of him.

They just kept dancing? I... I didn't know...

Like RJ, I was afraid of getting too close, so I shot the man. The woman rushed me and I made short work of her as well. I am no better than a beast.

What you describe is very interesting though... it's clear that Ken Levine et al were invested in creating these kinds of emotional moments. I would've loved to have the experience you had, but after so many zombies, killing was just my knee-jerk reaction. Maybe that's part of the point... Bioshock is certainly in the class of games that makes an artistic statement about gamers' tendency towards thoughtless, violent solutions... but in that case I wish the woman had quietly mourned her partner instead of rushing at me.

Trackback: http://softcore-gamer.com/blog/2007/10/an-illadvised-editorial-on-bio.html

In response to your post, I wrote my own ill-advised treatise on Bioshock. Much of what I say is no doubt highly inaccurate, as I haven't actually played through the game yet. But still, I wanted to get my thoughts out there, and piggy-back off the obvious popularity of your blog.

For the record, I agree with RJ about the harvest vs. rescue mechanic. I was surprised when I realized that was the cornerstone of all the buzz about Bioshock and choice. It doesn't seem like the momentous sort of choice it was made out to be.