Bioshock Hates Freedom

[Guitar Gamer]

Hmmmmmmmmmm good points.
However "Love" wasn't the large theme for me at least in Bioshock 2.
A good factor but not the entire thing.
More so "I HAVE A F*************** DRILL FOR AN ARM"
out you speak of plot elements don't you?

Meh.............. I guess you're right but I just kinda took it for what it was meant to be.
But I am a sap when it comes to these things.
................heh my avatar ruins my credibility doesn't it?

 

[jamesworkshop]

I always found the slavery angle in the bioshock series to be a strange one anyway big daddies/little sisters/pheromone controlled splicers/jack are all products of slavery (completly incompatible with objectivism) the only true freedom is not in your actions but your physical escape from rapture which itself is really a very pretty cage or atleast it was

The slavery angle in Bioshock is nothing to do with conditioning of any character in any way. It is about the conditioning of you as a player to follow the goals laid out for you by a game designer and presented by someone you hardly know in an environment you are entirely unfamiliar with. The fact that your character does anything he is asked to with the phrase "would you kindly" is a reflection of the fact that you the player do anything you are asked to with the word "GOAL:" in front of it on your mission screen, and that this is the only way you can proceed with your interaction with the game. Jack dies if he tries to resist, if you as a player wish to "resist" you can only turn the game off.

The same theme is present in Metal Gear Solid 2, however that presents it poorly as a result of Kojima's confused wittering script and the fact that you hardly "play" one of his games anyway.

The original Bioshock underscored this message by taking "control" away from the player only once, for the scene in Ryan's office.

big daddies/little sisters/pheromone controlled splicers/


Jack isn't the only slave and certainly isn't the first simple fact is Ryan as an objectivist should never under any circumstances allow the creation of little sisters or attempt to control splicers to act as killers quite a few elements in rapture exist that shouldn't be there

 

[tstek]

i disagree to some extent, because i DO think there is a fundamental difference between the two games in THAT particular field

the message in the first game is
"a man chooses, a slave obeys"
the message that I got from the second game is
"even as a slave, you can still choose"
and someone who chooses, is not a slave
he's a man

No. I cannot accept your interpretation for the second game. It might be perfectly valid, but it completely undermines the theme of the first game. It would be like if they made a sequel to Dr. Strangelove where the Russians and Americans found a way to protect themselves from Cobalt Thorium G poisoning. Even if it is a damned fine movie it will forever ruin the first one, so it is on those grounds that I must ask you to find a new message for Bioshock 2.

Actually, I think he was on the right track, but didn't take if far enough. The message the first game gives you directly is "a man chooses, a slave obeys", however this is not the message of the game, it is a message a character in the game tried to tell you. The message of both games is "even as a slave, you can still choose", as in the story of the first game you disobey the person who is trying to control you, though you nearly die while choosing freedom. That interpretation of the second game therefore doesn't undermine the theme of the first game at all, instead it reinforces it.

 

[Thaius]

The game never allows you to choose because Delta is choosing.

Delta never chooses anything. Your actions to progress the plot in Bioshock 2 are out of the necessity of self preservation. He must reach Eleanor, or he will die. (Likewise you as a player must continue the story, or turn the game off).

Until the link is severed at the end. Then it's all a matter of his own choice. And considering his attachment to Elanor regardless of the link, it would make no sense for him to just abandon her. Besides, even if this is the case, what is wrong with a linear story? I really take issue with the idea that linearity in games is a bad thing in the first place.

 

[ultrachicken]

I disagree.

Spoiler

The woman (forgot her name) is still a threat if you leave her alone, as she can continue to send security bots and "the family" to try to murder you if you spare her. Killing her is a conscious act of revenge. As for Stanley, killing him is a conscious act of revenge. Not killing is knowing that this person has tried to harm you and tried to make amends, so you both give mercy and ignore something unthreatening. Not killing Gil Alexander is a form of punishment, and killing him is "mercy." He doesn't pose a threat anymore, so you have no reason to kill him other than because he asks.

You do have choices, even while enslaved.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Spoiler: Spoilers, every body loves'em right?

WRONG. When writing your reviews, unless you feel that spoilers are absolutely necessary to prove a point, avoid including them. Even if you feel that something must be included, do your best to restrain yourself. There are people out there who want to play the game and experience the story for themselves out there, so try to keep that in mind. And if you must spoil something, stick it in these spoiler tags: don't just leave it hanging around your review for all to see.

And I would also appreciate if you weren't such a dick to criticism.

DAMN RIGHTS! That's my job you hack!

 

[zombiejoe]

This Post is epic

But one question

In the neutral ending
[spoiler/]Elanor is about to steal your ADAM, but you stop her, and she says you didn't want her to have the memories of a murderer. Sure SHE says YOU think that, but Delta seemed to choose to keep his memories. So in a way, he dose escape his slavory in that ending.[/spoiler]

Do you agree?