Why wasn't Bioshock our Watchman?
- Thread starter Not G. Ivingname
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Although Bioshock was definitely a step forward in storytelling in games, I don't think it was quite the medium's "Watchmen" just yet due to some of its flaws.
I would still like to see some of the game-design ideas in Bioshock used in future games, such as it's great use of "storytelling through gameplay" and sophisticated underlying message (that is, the dangers of extremism and grandeur, not "Ayn Rand was right!", which people somehow mistake it for).
I would still like to see some of the game-design ideas in Bioshock used in future games, such as it's great use of "storytelling through gameplay" and sophisticated underlying message (that is, the dangers of extremism and grandeur, not "Ayn Rand was right!", which people somehow mistake it for).
I dunno, if I had to pick a comic that had the general public reading it (not just ones with comic loving friends), I'd go with Maus-- although I'm not sure it's been embraced by the comic book crowd as "one of us one of us".
The first time I ever heard of a videogame being held in similar regard was Myst, which was popular waaaaaay back in the last millenium. Frankly, I do think videogames have "mainstreamed", but first person shooters haven't. MMOs are approaching mainstream, but they still have enough of a geek aura to them that many won't admit that they play them.
The first time I ever heard of a videogame being held in similar regard was Myst, which was popular waaaaaay back in the last millenium. Frankly, I do think videogames have "mainstreamed", but first person shooters haven't. MMOs are approaching mainstream, but they still have enough of a geek aura to them that many won't admit that they play them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm no comi- errr graphic novel expert, but I would have to believe that Watchmen didn't really change everybody's minds of people outside the demographic. Just like Bioshock didn't change everybody's mind that video games are art. I think in years to come we'll look back at Bioshock as the game that really got the ball rolling like Watchmen did for comic booksNot G. Ivingname said:
And Von Braun = Citadel Station. The name you're looking for is Polito, as inthejackyl said:
The Polito form is dead, insect...
There are three endings to Bioshock, depending on if you kill some of the little sisters or all of the little sisters, I think. Doesn't matter enough, though.
OT:
Overall, I think it didn't come because it's too soon for that. Watchmen's had twenty, maybe even thirty years to make an impact on the public consciousness...people only took notice of The Dark Age sometime around the nineties when Gaiman won the WFA, and the words "suggested for mature readers" meant themes would be presented in a mature way for people who were old enough^, not "this comic has naked boobs and maybe some gore".* Dark Knight Returns hasn't really even been brought into the public mindset, apart from people who read that sort of thing, and the book review columns in highbrow magazines or wherever, who are just starting to pay lip-service to comics in a column that usually seems more like "Oooh, what a novel idea! A book in pictures!"
^ Please correct me if I'm off...I just felt that Sandman is when it started to pick up speed and people started to notice, even though Alan Moore and Frank Miller's early work touched off the whole "Dark Age" movement.
*Though there was that.**
**I'm looking at you, Mr. Ennis.***
*** I should note that most of this is my opinion, opinion and my own patchy memory.
This threads title and explanation baffles me on so many levels. Go in a public place and take a poll of how many people even know what watchmen is (if they say 'oh yeah the movie' that doesn't count). It's not going to be a high number. Also Bioshock is a game that somehow earned God status after being ridiculously mediocre and having terrible combat. I guess compared to Tetris the story was breathtaking sure.
Bioshock is about as artistic as a sledgehammer to the face.
Look, it's presentation (visuals in general) and story complement each other beautifully. Just the overall look of the game reinforces the themes the story is trying to convey. However, the gameplay is just another arcady shooter that completely takes you out of the experience due to just how much it seems to not fit.
Even the worst movies understand that the action has to complement the story. Even Transformers 2 has scenes where the characters are at their lowest point.
Videogames however, insist on putting arcady shooting mechanics and letting you mow down hundreds of guys in the name of fun. Metro 2033 understands that shooting has to complement the story. Stalker understands that the game mechanics have to reflect the cruelty and merciless nature of the Zone. Fuck, even Borderlands understands that its story and world are so ridiculous and over the top that it couldn't NOT have had arcady combat.
Bioshock is like someone presenting you with a crying baby and then having a clown dance around it laughing hysterically.
Look, it's presentation (visuals in general) and story complement each other beautifully. Just the overall look of the game reinforces the themes the story is trying to convey. However, the gameplay is just another arcady shooter that completely takes you out of the experience due to just how much it seems to not fit.
Even the worst movies understand that the action has to complement the story. Even Transformers 2 has scenes where the characters are at their lowest point.
Videogames however, insist on putting arcady shooting mechanics and letting you mow down hundreds of guys in the name of fun. Metro 2033 understands that shooting has to complement the story. Stalker understands that the game mechanics have to reflect the cruelty and merciless nature of the Zone. Fuck, even Borderlands understands that its story and world are so ridiculous and over the top that it couldn't NOT have had arcady combat.
Bioshock is like someone presenting you with a crying baby and then having a clown dance around it laughing hysterically.
It exposed me to Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I probably wouldn't of gone ahead and learned about those two things otherwise.yoshiru said:
Im glad someone quickly noticed how someone declared their opinions and the opinions of those who like the products as universal fact.Sober Thal said:
He also said: "...is beloved beyond reason by people that played it." -Regarding Bioshock
When that is *not* the case at all.
BUT, the issue here is not the topic, its just very, very flawed communication method from him.
So ill ignore that, and try to address his main point without critiquing his reasoning.
;
Games will not be considered art until they do several things; And i mean ANY game.
1: Take themselves more seriously as a Medium, as oppose to often treating themselves like passtimes.
2: Become more varied in Genre, rather than swaying towards the most popular Genre at a given time. The reason for this is variety, since without variety, it becomes more of a monotopic with a few exceptions, rather than a Medium from which you could categorize a creation as art.
3: Have mainstream games become more like the Artistically profound Indie games. The Void, Pathologic (To a small extent, but more in theme), Amnesia The Dark Descent (Ill mention now that this isnt about whether a game is good, since we're discussing art, we look at visual and depiction based outcomes), and a few others i wont take the time to remember the names of.
;
Having said that, i wont even go into comics, as your reasoning is simply buggy in that regard. Simply though, Comics had a very short lifespan in terms of their "Hey-Day".
The reasons for that are simple:
1: They became too similar due to lack of variety.
2: They appealed to a smaller and smaller audience, dragging that audience in deeper and pleasing them, without maintaining any other audience; Which is a road gaming is starting to fall in to (Not all gaming, but enough to cause serious damage to the Industry)
Thats about all.
Why did i take so long typing this?
Because now if ever i need to discuss Art mediums again, i can just copypaste my own text.
And always remember, only Gamers try to call Games Art.
Only Comic partakers try to call Comics Art.
And the very few exceptions are often an irrelevant minority.
And i refuse to state my opinions about Bioshock, or any other artsy games, this isnt a popularity contest.
*Bigger Picture*
I didn't like it either.mireko said:
OP: Maybe because Bioshock isn't universally considered to be the best video game of all time? It was a decent game with a wonderful art design, but the Watchmen of video games? Hardly.
Because while the story was great and the atmosphere was great, the environments and game-play was horrifically repetitive and the camera shake whenever you get hit made me want to throw up. In addition, the RPG elements were just lazy.
I loved Bioshock and it's my favorite game, but I don't think that it's on the same level as Watchmen. When Watchmen came out, there were not a lot of serious gritty comics. In the gaming industry, there are a lot of serious gritty games and that's why the general public is against it. They see a FPS and assume that the people who are buying it are wanna-be Columbine kids. You can read Watchmen and no one will ever assume those kinds of things.
The difference is the interactive experience and the fact that unless you are a gamer, it's hard to see the differences between one gritty FPS and another. Watchmen was COMPLETELY different in style, tone, etc. Even the color scheme was completely different from comics at the time which used the typical red, blue, and yellow (Watchmen used purple, green, and orange)
The difference is the interactive experience and the fact that unless you are a gamer, it's hard to see the differences between one gritty FPS and another. Watchmen was COMPLETELY different in style, tone, etc. Even the color scheme was completely different from comics at the time which used the typical red, blue, and yellow (Watchmen used purple, green, and orange)
Watchmen the comic came out two decades before somebody was finally able to make it into a film. First guys who tried did it in 1986. They been trying again and again, but unable to move the project further. The film only made 50 million more then it's 130 million dollar budget, which if one does the calculations, means the studio only broke even (a percent went to the theaters). It was a big deal before release of the comic.Nick Stackware said:
Of course, I really forgot to mention the huge speculator market that came into comics at this time. The few remaining prestine early Superman and Batman comics started to be found and sold for huge piles of cash at auctions. This created a comic book buying craze, were people who had never even touched a comic in their lives started buying comics left and right thinking they would be worth millions in a decade or two. The first ones they bought was Watchman, since it seamed that one was getting so many good reviews and the like.
And you would have been the better person for it.SaneAmongInsane said:
Bioshock, what have you done?
How the hell did CoD 4 change the industry other than prove that people will buy essentially what is an annually released fps sports game? All it has done is pass itself off as a "realistic shooter" and dominate the market by continually out-dating itself. It is commercially a work of genius but as for advancement of gaming, it is causing stagnation.Not G. Ivingname said:
Bioshock really didn't do anything amazing for having story in an fps, It has been done before. And the rpg elements aren't really a huge step ahead either. While it was a really great game it didn't do anything special.
Other than that Watchmen was really well developed plot wise and had really great art. I don't think it brought anything really new to graphic novels but it certainly brought a lot more people into graphic novels. And most of the reason it became "accepted" was that it was made into a movie, and even that did shied away some people because of the fear of blue penis.
On a more basic expression, most of the younger generation are gamers, and have already been exposed to Bioshock, so no change there. The outside and older population generally views all video games a as waste of time. Now one really great game might have the potential to change that, but first the person has to invest in either a computer or a game console that would allow them that experience. With Watchmen, they can pay 20 bucks or so to see the movie on dvd now, or 10-15 when it was in theater, or pick up the graphic novel for what...20 bucks? Which is very different than what was a $60 game +$300 or more console, or a $500+ pc. And then they actually have to get past the first minute or so of playing the game without being frustrated because they don't know how to play games, but most people can look at pretty pictures and read.
This is what I have been saying for a long time. This, people.Necromancer Jim said:
You can not define "art" and it comes down to the individual. There is nothing to debate about, if you want to consider it an art form, don't go out of your way to prove it with certain games etc. Just leave it the fuck alone since many of us have always considered it art from it's inception.