Why does everyone love Bioshock?

[Treblaine]

A bunch of arguments

They ARE little girls, only a true psychopath would think it's acceptable to calculatedly murder children for personal gain if they aren't cute. And all those splicers? You killed crazy people in self-defence as the only means to prevent your immediate death. That's war. Soldiers can make good statesmen, such as President Kennedy and not forgetting George Washington.

My analogy isn't even an analogy, it is a perfect explanation via a shifted perspective.

You are a worthy opponent, but you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Question: When you are isolated with little hope against surviving with murderous things after you and the only way to keep your chances of survival above 0% is to obtain a special substance, wouldn't you want as much of that substance to improve your chances of survival even if it means to kill someone you wouldn't normally?

Hint: The question is rhetorical, it is human instinct to survive, and when put in a situation and traumatized in such a manner, morals get thrown out the window for the average human being. It isn't just a psychopath who would do that.

On a side note: You just mixed morals and instincts leading to two different outcomes to prove a point which wasn't actually proven at all.

You don't HAVE to murder the little girls, you get by just fine by only Saving them, though you must suffer a bit but not too much. Only greed and psychopathic lack of empathy leads to harvesting. Greed, wanting more than you NEED. That makes you a BAD person. You need "some" to survive, but it does not justify infanticide to get "as much of that substance" as possible. Just because some is necessary, does not mean ALL must be obtained at all costs.

Every time a Splicer attacks you have no choice, it is kill or be killed. It is self-defence.

Now if ADAM was so short going the "Rescue Sisters" route that the game was almost impossible to beat, then that is no moral choice, you have no choice but to resort to Harvesting or dying. It's like those people whose plane crashed on a mountain and had to resort to cannibalism, they had NO CHOICE! If someone is chasing you with a knife intending to kill you and you use a gun to shoot them, it is not murder, you have no choice but to kill them to save your life.

It is in fact YOU who is the one conflating morals and "survival instinct"! Harvesting a single Little Sister is never necessary for survival. Only Greed.

I think this is a god damn excellent moral choice, as it shows how moral the players really are. Those who have poor moral guidance are the ones who say there is no real choice or they shouldn't be judged for infanticide. You're a slave to your greed. It deludes and blinds you that there is no choice, to obey your greed with the rationalisation of "survival instinct".

A man chooses, a slave obeys.

 

[Vonnis]

I enjoyed Bioshock for the gameplay (which although not particularly original was pretty well done) and the setting. If Rapture had just been some old military installation or another location we've seen hundreds of times before, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much.
The story didn't really do much for me. Frankly I don't understand why that gets so much praise; it wasn't particularly deep (which most people seem to claim it is), the "amazing plot twist" could be seen from miles away, and I don't think it was all that original.
Still, a fun game because of the setting and (IMO) smooth gameplay, even if it is one of the most overrated modern games out there.

Name a game that does a better job then.

A better job of what? If you just mean "games I enjoyed more", that would be System Shock 2, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Deus Ex (old one, haven't bought the new one yet), Morrowind, Mass Effect 1 & 2, to name a few. If you mean something more specific, be more specific.

No, I mean what ways where they better.

Maybe you like them for dumb reasons, I don't know. You need to give an actual REASON not just your bare opinion. Everyone has an opinion on something.

System Shock 2 I prefer because of the deeper gameplay. Bioshock basically copied and streamlined SS2 to make the gameplay more fastpaced, but I enjoyed the inventory and skill management that was lost in the transition. Bioshock was a fairly simple shooter with hacking mechanics thrown in, and there's nothing wrong with that but I like having more options to get through the game. It is also far creepier, Bioshock had its moments but overall I didn't think the atmosphere wasn't particularly tense. I think SS2's scarcer ammunition and messed up soundbites are the main contributor for that. Of course, some SS2's gameplay mechanics are a bit wonky. Bioshock's combat obviously feels much smoother, though not appearing to be born with a gun in each hand suited the game's atmosphere rather well and added to the feeling of being stuck in a place you really shouldn't be.
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games are simply the most atmospheric games I've ever played. It's mainly the setting I believe; very few games are this immersive, and there's an interesting clash between the realistic and unrealistic. I can explore the Zone for hours without getting bored of it. To be honest I'm not sure what it is about the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games, there's just something about the setting and the events taking place that draws me in and refuses to let go. I really like Rapture as well but it isn't as interesting to me as the Zone, even though one could argue most of the Zone is just like walking through a woodland area with a rusted car here and there. It feels more alive, if that makes sense.
Deus Ex stands out for its grand storyline, and to me the way upgrading/augmentation of the body and the consequences thereof are handled in the game felt deeper and much more interesting. In Bioshock, there's hardly anyone who isn't a splicer. In Deus Ex, there's people with a wide range of augmentations, and plenty of people who have none. Gunther Hermann's feelings on becoming obsolete were a lot more interesting to me than any number of splicers or capitalist dreams. Like SS2, the gameplay mechanics are deeper, leading to slightly wonky combat, but a lot of ways to achieve your objectives, which I prefer to Bioshock's "go there, stand here and hit F, now kill the three waves of four guys each".
Morrowind is a completely different kind of game again, again with a cool setting (much better than Oblivion, but that's a different topic altogether). The storyline is something you can ignore completely if you so wish, but as it has the player go from nowhere to some hybrid between Hitler and Jesus it is decidedly awesome. I also love being able to do whatever the hell I like, but that's not a fair comparison because it's meant to be a completely open game world, whereas Bioshock is meant to be a fairly linear shooter. Leaving that out of the equation, Morrowind wins by being more immersive and atmospheric.
Mass Effect again is a completely different genre, but the story, as much as it was a sci-fi cliché, felt well done and I actually gave a crap about the characters I met and the events that took place. I cared a lot more about the story than in Bioshock, in fact I didn't really care about Bioshock's story at all.

In conclusion: gameplay was solid, setting was interesting but as the game progressed the novelty kind of wore off, and the game failed to create the atmospheric experience I've had with other titles (see above). The game's plot didn't really do anything for me. Bottom line: a solid, fun shooter, but nothing that really stands out, certainly not the things most people praise it for (story and atmosphere).

 

[Treblaine]

PC gaming is awesome. Preference for analogue stick movement are nothing compared to the tangible differences in precision and speed with mouse aim that totally change the game.

(fetch quests were fun, but maybe you just want a de-facto rail shooter like COD. Or maybe you don't like any games)

Fontaine clearly found a way to prevent Ryan being resurrected with Vita-chambers, what do you think he was doing the previous 2 years since the adopted his Atlas persona till you arrived in rapture?

"If Ryan just decided to live, he would've lived."

Do you NEVER pay attention? Ryan set the whole place to self-destruct when he realised he was finished, surrounded and that his "own flesh and blood" was here to kill him. Clearly it is pearls before swine, you don't realise the significance of the "a man chooses, a slave obeys". Fontaine's plan was not dependant on Ryan being suicidal, it depended on him not knowing, it just happens to be he was so beat he didn't want to live, nor anyone when he tried to destroy rapture.

The plot makes sense considering how Ryan is driven crazy by his objectivist ideology. But the problem is you have to actually comprehend such things and look beyond the superficial. You have to think about how it could work rather than how it does not!

Explain to me how Fontaine found a way to prevent Ryan from being resurrected because Ryan disabled his own vita-chamber. Are you trying to imply Fontaine got in and broke Ryan's vita-chamber? Because if he could get to Ryan, he wouldn't need Jack. Oh, and by the way, the game lets you re-enable Ryan's vita-chamber before you kill him, I did that and Ryan still died. I thought there was going to be a twist at the end that Ryan was still alive.

I don't know. The point is he didn't. A little plot hole, no one hear Kane say "rosebud" in Citizen Kane. I suppose that makes it a shit movie. There is always the possibility that Atlas didn't know the Vita-chambers were for Ryan, while in his suicide (as part of his attempt to destroy Rapture to prevent Atlas getting it) he disabled them for himself as he genuinely wanted to die.

Or explain how Fontaine knew Ryan went crazy and would let Jack kill him? That is never implied at all in the game. Fontaine's plan was just plain ill-conceived.

I said:
"Fontaine's plan was not dependant on Ryan being suicidal, IT DEPENDED ON HIM NOT KNOWING, it just happens to be he was so beat he didn't want to live, nor anyone when he tried to destroy rapture."

I clearly have to write things in bold block capitals for you to take them in. There is no need to bog down the story with disabling Ryan from Vita-chambers as that would let the cat out the bag too soon on your role here.

LMAO, the significance of Ryan saying "a man chooses, a slave obeys" was due to the fact that Jack was a slave and just didn't know it. Anything Ryan did would've been due to him choosing since he wasn't brainwashed. It's one of those things that if you go back and play the game again, you see the game giving you hints as to what is happening just like any movie with a twist.

Your shallow comprehension of significance betrays how poorly suited you are to this game if you think that was the soul significance of his iconic phrase.

I didn't say I was under attack during conversations in Bioshock. I said if there is no gameplay to be done during dialog, I'd rather have the scene framed in manner to get the most emotional value out of it since I'm not able to do anything but move around. And if there is gameplay to be done during dialog, then I can't have my full attention on the dialog. The no cut-scene way of presenting the story WORKED in Bioshock since exposition was done with radio communications, I'm just saying it doesn't work for most games.

The scrolling test analogy isn't that good. A game could have scrolling text and make it work, you could shoot the text down to get to move text so it's static text but with interactivity as well. Games have are a very unique medium that can use techniques from pretty much all other mediums. A book can't use movie techniques because there is no visual or audio aspect to books. I'm sure movies have used several ways of framing a scene that were originally done in a comic book first. I don't see why you would want to limit the tools a game can use to deliver an experience.

I've figured you out, every time you say "that isn't a good analogy" I can tell it is as VERY good analogy, you just hate how it proves you wrong. You clearly don't want to think how it works, only nit pick at the trivial details of how it doesn't.

Typical.

There's plenty of things to do while listening to recordings/radio, such as searching for loot, disabling traps, hacking devices, vending items. LOTS of things to do. Or do you have ZERO ability to multi-task?

Cutscenes are NOT as evocative as if the camera is kept in perspective, contiguous with the gameplay you don't depend on empathy (feeling for the protagonist) as YOU are the protagonist, and you feel that you are playing that role all the way through. The camera perspective cutting to an "out of body" while losing perspective and control of your character detracts hugely from the immersion. You may not care about immersion if you are a philistine who has no taste for the significance and ability for games to be evocative.

You don't seem to like anything.

Again there is a problem is with console controls, the foster a BAD approach to the First-person perspective because the thumbstick is such a shitty way of looking in an IMMERSIVE way. With a mouse I look around naturally, with zero-order interaction, just a single flick and I can look right where I want to look. Thumbstick look is like tank controls, I can't just naturally snap my look around, I have to ease it around without unnecessary mental load.

So what if your PC is 10 years old, but that's like a Dreamcast owner bitching that they can't play any modern console games. Don't complain PCs are too expensive, there are plenty of cheap builds out there and Bioshock is very low spec.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

PC gaming is awesome. Preference for analogue stick movement are nothing compared to the tangible differences in precision and speed with mouse aim that totally change the game.

(fetch quests were fun, but maybe you just want a de-facto rail shooter like COD. Or maybe you don't like any games)

The majority of games don't require aiming precision and speed. But almost all games require moving character around a virtual world. PC controls need walk and run buttons because keyboards only allow for digital controls. You can put walking, running, and normal movement all on a analog stick.

There's very few PC exclusive games that I actually want to play, that is the main reason I don't PC game.

There is always the possibility that Atlas didn't know the Vita-chambers were for Ryan, while in his suicide (as part of his attempt to destroy Rapture to prevent Atlas getting it) he disabled them for himself as he genuinely wanted to die.

Didn't Atlas know the vita-chambers worked on Jack because he had Ryan's DNA? And, how could Atlas not have known? I found out about the vita-chambers by exploring and finding audio diaries. Plus, Atlas was at the center of everything, he had the contacts to find out things. I'm sure Atlas would've made it a point to find out what all these chambers that were being built were for.

"Fontaine's plan was not dependant on Ryan being suicidal, IT DEPENDED ON HIM NOT KNOWING, it just happens to be he was so beat he didn't want to live, nor anyone when he tried to destroy rapture."

It didn't matter if Ryan knew of Fontaine's plan or not. If someone came to kill Ryan without his knowledge, he'd be resurrected in a vita-chamber.

LMAO, the significance of Ryan saying "a man chooses, a slave obeys" was due to the fact that Jack was a slave and just didn't know it. Anything Ryan did would've been due to him choosing since he wasn't brainwashed. It's one of those things that if you go back and play the game again, you see the game giving you hints as to what is happening just like any movie with a twist.

Your shallow comprehension of significance betrays how poorly suited you are to this game if you think that was the soul significance of his iconic phrase.

I was merely talking about the plot significance of the line, which was the main thing the game was conveying at that exact moment when Ryan said as the twist was being revealed in a moment. I know it ties into Objectivism, which is not some kind of deep philosophic idea you think it is. Bioshock is not nearly as deep as you think it is. Watchmen is deeper than Bioshock. Ghost in the Shell is deeper than Bioshock. I base all my morals on the Deontology, I'd be surprised if you knew what it was, it is actually quite simple but flawless in determining what is moral and what is not.

There's plenty of things to do while listening to recordings/radio, such as searching for loot, disabling traps, hacking devices, vending items. LOTS of things to do. Or do you have ZERO ability to multi-task?

Cutscenes are NOT as evocative as if the camera is kept in perspective, contiguous with the gameplay you don't depend on empathy (feeling for the protagonist) as YOU are the protagonist, and you feel that you are playing that role all the way through. The camera perspective cutting to an "out of body" while losing perspective and control of your character detracts hugely from the immersion. You may not care about immersion if you are a philistine who has no taste for the significance and ability for games to be evocative.

You don't seem to like anything.

You forget that I like Bioshock, it's just not great.

What if there's an emotional scene with a secondary character where their eyes start to water as they are holding back tears. If you are going around looting the room during the scene, you totally miss that. Without proper cinematic framing, you totally miss that moment and you attachment to that character would be totally different.

So what if your PC is 10 years old, but that's like a Dreamcast owner bitching that they can't play any modern console games. Don't complain PCs are too expensive, there are plenty of cheap builds out there and Bioshock is very low spec.

Uhh... I can't play the said game we are talking about on my PC. I know how to build and fix PCs (I know how cheap putting together a gaming worthy PC is: pricewatch.com), it's just that I have no need to build a new computer if my current computer does everything I need it to do.

 

[RomanceIsDead]

this is exactly how i felt about half life 2. That game is so goddam boring.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

I agree 100% with OP.

It's even more underwhelming if you know the plot "twists" (I got spoiled a week after it came out, dammit).
Gameplay was like being chained to a chair watching reruns of Gossip Girl.

 

[Justice4L]

Here is maths 101 for people who don't understand like you. Just trying to help.

The average of numbers 4 and 2, is 3 because 4+2 over 2 = 3

Now with game scores it goes something like this...

1/10 = Waste of time, money and space
2/10 = Horrible
3/10 = Very bad
4/10 = Bad
5/10 = average
6/10 = ok
7/10 = good
8/10 = great
9/10 = amazing
10/10 = masterpiece

Hopefully you understand now, if you look up any official review (say IGN) they say 7 is around the good mark, not average, that makes no sense. Post back when you find a professional review that follows your logic.

Oh jebus, why are you being so bloody minded about this inanely simple point that you just seem incapable of grasping.

Fact: The average score for games is 7.5/10.

If you score lower than 7.5/10 then you are below average. It is THAT simple. You just have the bloody minded obsession that "Half = average".

"IGN (say) 7 is around the good mark, not average, that makes no sense."

That DOES make sense IF you have any basic comprehension of statistical mathematics. You clearly do not, hence your confusion. But we can't all lower ourselves to your poor level of numeracy. GIVE UP on the assumption that "half = average". Just drop it, you are being utterly foolish.

Think of it like grades for an exam. Now what kind of incompetent teacher expects the average student to get HALF of their questions wrong?!?! That would be "5/10 = average". Games were initially scored in very technical way, hence the average was high with the high standard. In other word the average game was expected to get 3/4 of "things" "right".

Just ACCEPT the fact that 7.5/10 is average and 6/10 is as far BELOW average as 9/10 is ABOVE average. You know this, really, that's why you call Bioshock a 6/10 game. You want to have you cake and eat it. Bash it severely yet say you are being reasonable.

Good job, once again you fail to grasp the simplest concepts.

You put an average game and the average score for a maths test in the same category when they are completely different.

An average game is neither great nor terrible, just average.

The average core in a test is the average score of all the people who took part in it.

eg. " I got a pretty average score in the maths test." - he neither did great nor terrible.

" I got above the class average score" - He has done better than the average of the class."

Learn the difference

 

[putowtin]

I didn't like it!

Seriously I played it all the way through (damn me for buying on impulse) but I didn't like it

 

[rohansoldier]

I enjoyed bioshock but not enough to complete it more than once and bioshock 2 was unfortunately the worse game of the 2 even though dual wielding guns and plasmids was fun.

Mass effect may be repetitive at times but the games are also awesome and I love them both. I didn't enjoy fallout at all but each to their own!

 

[Flare Phoenix]

It's all about expectations: if you go into something after hearing everyone and their dog go on about how great it is, you've got a high chance of being disappointed. For example, I only recently played Portal, but had heard how awesome it was pretty much from when it was released. When I finally played it, I went "This is alright... I don't see what everyone was getting so worked up about though".

 

[Yuki_Seele]

I liked Bioshock and the second game too, however i diden't like the gameplay at all, it was so slow and it felt like the gamepla never evolved even though you were getting new genetic upgrades and weapons that wasn't enough (for me personly) to make it varied enough. The story was good but what most appeals to me about it is the aesthetics, the retropunk/steampunk theme was amazing.

 

[General Chase]

I agree on the point that the Gameplay at it's core is very average, but to put it this way, the Gameplay is a house, and it isn't the house I enjoyed so much as it was the Story and Writing that decorated the inside of the house. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed the philisophical points and twists in the story, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Silenttalker22]

This is one of those threads. If the topic is based around why something is good, or asking for input about how good something is, that's widely reputed as good, then the armchair geniuses spring to action.
For the purpose of showing how much more advanced their understanding is of games and stories, everything in the aforementioned 'good thing' becomes suspect or just "bad".
It's a really funny, and sad, dance to watch.

 

[ACman]

Greater Reasons:

*Aesthetics.

*Decent(ish) Characterization.

Lesser:

*Grand allusions to philosophical ideas and....

*PACING! So many games get this wrong! Don't get me wrong; Bioshock isn't perfect in this regard either but at least we get a sense of isolation. Quiet moments that develop tension.

And the plot, well, it isn't perfect but at least it's actually solidly original as opposed to tissue-thin narratives like Halo or Gears of War.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Why do people keep making "Why do people love <thing I didn't like much>?" threads?

 

[Silenttalker22]

I've always been a fan of the view that opinions can be wrong. If you play any quantity of games, and didn't find the atmosphere and setting, good (for starters), then your opinion of good is based on some weird, nonsensical definition that is wrong.

 

[Justice4L]

I've always been a fan of the view that opinions can be wrong. If you play any quantity of games, and didn't find the atmosphere and setting, good (for starters), then your opinion of good is based on some weird, nonsensical definition that is wrong.

The atmosphere and parts of the story make up 4/10, rpg elements 2/10

 

[Silenttalker22]

I've always been a fan of the view that opinions can be wrong. If you play any quantity of games, and didn't find the atmosphere and setting, good (for starters), then your opinion of good is based on some weird, nonsensical definition that is wrong.

The atmosphere and parts of the story make up 4/10, rpg elements 2/10

Thank you for agreeing to demonstrate a nonsensical opinion.