Pleased edit your post of yours with Spoiler warnings.
KingofMadCows said:
OK, you're just twisting my arguments and focusing on the little details rather than the basic reasoning behind what I'm saying.
I've played BioShock and I know the story, I understand why you can't let the Little Sisters harvest ADAM for you and I know that Atlas SPOILERS, but that's not the point. The point is that the story could have been written in such a way where you are offered less extreme choices concerning what to do with the Little Sisters. They could have also written Atlas in such a way that his lies are less transparent.
Also, you keep making false dichotomy fallacies. Just because the Little Sisters is not more adorable than Bambi, Woodstock, Winnie the Pooh, Nemo, and Tweety put together does not mean they're suddenly horrifying to look at. They may not be on the level of Kirby or Yoshi but they're at least the equivalent of Sackboy or Nordom. Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story.
And yes, there are many extreme choices in real life but how can you possibly compare buying something and not buying something to killing someone and not killing someone? That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy.
And you're completely missing the point of the thread. This is a thread about games that people think are overrated. Do you know what that word means? It does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less.
Notice how I never actually said that I dislike or hate BioShock, Fallout 3, and GTA IV. I like those games. I like BioShock for its gameplay, atmosphere, fun weapons, and interesting enemies. However, I do not find the story to be as good as other people say it is and that is why I think it's overrated.
As for appreciating a game for what the developers intended it to be, how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise? If Terminator 5 was made into a crime drama, are you going to be able to appreciate it for what the director intended it to be and completely ignore previous movies in the franchise? And how do you know any problem in a game, with the exception of glitches and bugs, wasn't the intention of the developer? The controls are terrible? Well, that's what the developer intended and if you can't appreciate that kind of control, maybe the game isn't for you. This comedic film wasn't funny? Well, that's what the director intended and if you don't get that kind of humor, then the movie isn't for you. Is there any time when "Looking at the games for what they actually are, are they really over-rated?" can't be used as an excuse for problems in a game?
Atlas doesn't have to be that good a liar, considering the *SPOILERS* psychological brain washing that has gone on and really he is pretty convincing and it perfectly exploits the convention of gaming in how gamers are conditioned to obey what the voice on the radio tells them to do, just like someone under mind control. Yes, by the confrontation with Ryan it was obvious, but you had crossed the rubicon, the die was cast, you had to follow through and in the end were given no choice.
Well you walked into that false dichotomy with the objection that you shouldn't care about them for their appearance when they are particularly ghoulish.
"Just because I want characters that I can connect with because of their personality or backstory does not mean I want to hear a ten minute monologue about a character's life story."
It's kinda hard to do that when the very way the game is designed with many discrete stages of levelling up in any order and with minimal interaction with each agent I hope you see it would become a nightmare to create empathy by entirely non-physical characteristics. You DO need to dedicate time to monologuing and back story if you aren't going to depend on appearance. This can be done with for example Alyx in Half Life 2 but that look a LOT of time being spent with one character. Not a brief time spent with several dozen little sisters.
"That's an obvious false equivalence fallacy."
Except the buying example is not an equivalence, it is an EXAMPLE of how often there is no middle ground. No way out, you have to decide between two very extremely different courses of action. When cornered by an armed assailant, do you shoot or surrender? You better decide because if you just stand there procrastinating you'll get worst of both options. Sometimes there is another way out, but rarely and you have to be smart and daring to exploit it. The third way in Bioshock is completely ignore ALL the Little Sisters, and that's not nit picking.
"Overrated does not necessarily mean games that everyone else likes but you hate. It could simply mean games that everyone else loves but you like a bit less."
Well, no, actually I don't think you understand the term over-rated.
What does "rated" mean? Well, for video games that would mean it's critical reception amongst journalists and the wider community who would play it. OVER-rated would NOT mean ANYONE didn't like it as much as most critics (statistically that's almost guaranteed, my grandmother might say ALL video games are over rated... because she hates all of them), OVER-rated would mean the critics (and gamers) gave it higher acclaim than they really should given hindsight and being relative to other games. Like Modern Warfare 2, the critics may have over-rated that game simply because it was a true sequel to the highly lauded COD4 and made all the improvements they expected... but were blinded by this excitement to the flaws. Such as how unbalanced it was, how easily exploitable it was, how the plot didn't really make any sense and didn't have the same drive as COD4 nor such a neat epilogue. With hindsight you can see people far more reminiscent of COD4 than MW2 and talk excitedly of elements begin more like COD4.
"how is the audience supposed to know what exactly the developers intended the game to be, especially if it deviates from previous games in the franchise?"
Well for one they could play it with an open mind and see where delineations are made. Bioshock may be spiritual successor to System Shock 2... but that doesn't make it System Shock 2.5: Under the Sea, and one shouldn't go into it expecting all the aspects of System Shock 2. Similarly, Fallout 3 it is very clear (to spite the numbering scheme) to be a completely different game from Fallout 1 & 2, also Grand Theft Auto 4 was as different from GTA3 as GTA 3 was different from the early top-down 2D games. This should be obvious, but if people hold such prejudices that because they liked the jetpack in San Andreas so much then it SHOULD be in GTA4 well then they need to GET REAL! The developers wanted to try something else, something where there is no place for jetpacks. Same with Resident Evil 4, a HUGE departure from previous entries almost completely separate canon but still a DAMN good game.
Movies can HUGELY change with sequels. Alien was a suspenseful body-horror thriller. Aliens was an action-adventure war-film with Vietnam overtones. Horror to action. Everyone knew from trailers and TV spots what the new film was about but only if you willingly take prejudice into the film that it SHOULD be just like the prequel, THEN you will be disappointed for WRONG expectations.
I know it is what the director intended as I have read many interviews with the developers talking about their game. Also, other things you can figure out for yourself by actually playing out alternate scenarios in your head and thinking about how it doesn't work if it was done this other way. Like how being forced to harvest Little Sisters by extreme challenge of non-harvest isn't really a moral choice any more, your decision is forced.
