The (ab)use of children in computer games

[Little_Sister]

Hi everyone,

Referring to what we can see in the 2K demo movies or hear in their podcasts, with Bioshock, a child is introduced as a main character in an action-based first person shooter game. To the best of my knowledge, this is happening for the first time in computer gaming history. The children shown in Prey only appeared transparent while reflecting a message from the past similar to the appearances in System Shock 2.

I would be interested to 1) learn more about the use of children in action-based computer games and 2) know how the role and characteristics of children in such games have to be defined in order to eliminate any potential interpretation of abuse.

In the world of Rapture, I understand that the Big Daddies are protecting their Little Sisters. However, I am curious about the behavior of the game engine upon violently approaching a Little Sister after her Big Daddy has been defeated. I realize that this tension is a part of both the Bioshock story and the thrill to solve the puzzles in the game. But I can see a potential risk for the translation of repeated virtual threatening of premature individuals into the real world at the same time.

So I am curious to read your thoughts about the (ab)use of children in computer games.

[nmrahde]

Here's some of what's been discussed by some of us forum junkies.
Do you have it in you?
Killing Little Sisters

Doesn't sound like it's *quite* what you're looking for though. One of the videos (I believe it was the 'Hunting the Big Daddy' video) showed a Little Sister cowering in fear as the player approached her after killing the BD. Dunno if they always cower in fear though.

In general I'm not the greatest to ask - in most games I play a megalomaniacal sadist if I can. Yet out in the real world I'd fight a grizzly to the death (probably mine. In the conservatory. With the mauling.) to protect one of my friends' kids.

[Pinky_Powers]

On the topic of children in electronic entertainment, I do believe James E. Stowers says it best:

http://cpaterick.realsightinteractiv...st_is_Yet2.jpg

[splicer]

the only instance i can recall,was the original silent hill,konami had to remove what appeared to be shuffling babies carrying knives from the the game.it probably didnt help that you could also whack them with a lead pipe and finish em with a kick! my philosophy for Bioshock is simple,the little sisters must be saved.And also no matter how hard irrational want to test our moral resolve,they certainly arent going to show the cold blooded execution of what appears to be a young girl,albeit grossly alterd in some way,the screen will fade to black and a message may pop up saying you have received x amount of adam for"your trouble"-any other scenario and the game wont last a week on the shelves.its a very thought provoking issue

[Hatesink]

Here's my input to the "Morality" thread at ttlg.com

It covers some what of what you're concerned about (and talks about other games also).

I've posted it over four three posts because it's too long for a single post (with the current word-limit).

The full thread can be found here...
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110531

Info. on banned titles here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrill_Kill

--------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I would have played [or could have played a game like Hitman Codename47 and been so callous] that way if I hadn't have been in that whole 'agentic state' that Codename 47 offers the player. There've been sequels with crowds of civilians that you can easily just shoot, but it's just not fun to do (or at least I don't find it fun) since there's no real tension such as you would have with a more defined objective.

As an example for sake of argument, I guess if there was ever a game produced where you had to play a serial killer targeting civilians, and avoid leaving evidence, being sighted, letting the targets escape etc., there might be the same kinds of tension that generally makes a game enjoyable (providing it was well-designed with great gameplay), but would you really enjoy playing that kind of character if it wasn't the prescribed approach and so wasn't expected of you (i.e. if it was a totally freeform sandbox, maybe even an mmorpg, but one where you could just choose to make your character a serial killer (kind of the ultimate in grief-play) e.g. making people disappear from 2nd Life or creating a murder house for The Sims online). If you were tasked with being that kind of character by a game specifically designed around that premise, then I guess (providing it was well-made with great gameplay and didn't make people think you were some kind of 'sicko' for playing it) it could probably be very enjoyable, since if it made it to the shelves (which would be very unlikely) you'd probably feel it would be totally justifiable for you to enjoy it (since it hadn't been pulled or censored).

Ultimately, I guess killing every A.I. in a game-environment just for the sake of it really just destroys all the enjoyment of roleplaying. I guess that's kind of the realm of run'n'gun, which is ubiquitous (and definitely not my kind of game).

People on the forum have posted about their fears about censorship of BioShock, but the worst (in terms of run'n'gun "mass murder") is already here, and has been for years in the form of the standard run'n'gun FPS. In contrast, games like BioShock, Fable, Bloodlines etc. are a breath of fresh air, and a much needed departure from the 'mindless slaughter' of the standard FPS. They should absolutely not be censored but applauded, and I really hope that Ken Lavine and the BioShock team do succeed in redefining the FPS genre. I think it's well overdue.

On the other hand the game then becomes an eerie reflection of yourself...because what you make of it ends up painting a picture of what kind of person you are (or how you could be). Whether you're taking things seriously or not it may be disturbing to learn things about yourself you didn't want to know.

I'm sure every one of us is gonna try nailing a little girl just because we can. Doesn't make us bad people...Might be worth it to ask yourself how comfortable you feel doing it.

I'm not sure how effective it is to pitch the idea of having morality dilemma when it comes to issues like harvesting adams/eves from the little sisters. How many people are seriously going to feel the pangs of guilt when they do indeed perform the harvest?

...

Besides those that like to, how shall we say, explore their more malevolent sides in a virtual environment, would the concept of little sisters and the dilemma conflicts associated around them be irrelevant? Meaning, who would actually take it seriously or make it a priority when the point is to survive and be at the top of the food chain?

I think it's difficult to use the idea of morality in the world of gaming if that was the intention of the developers. I'm unsure if it's even practical or applicable in gaming. However, I'm open to such possibilities.

It's surprising. I've played a few games that have given the player the choice to be good and evil and I surprised myself with the fact that I wanted to be totally good and commit no evil acts. I bought the first one thinking I'd probably just play a bad character but it turned out that that didn't interest me. Once you get immersed and let yourself get emotionally invested it's a totally different story.

Since BioShock doesn't seem to have a totally black and white good/evil dichotomy, but rather offers degrees of morality through the variety of options it makes available, I'm really not sure how many people will purposefully set out to go out of their way to be as negative, destructive and inhuman as they possibly can, since as you say the point is to survive and the most 'evil' path possible probably won't be the path of least resistance, and I'm not totally convinced that going out of your way to be as inhuman and inhumane as the game allows you to be is going to appeal to too many people right off the bat.

I think players will be more likely to temper their actions, especially since successfully looting one of these little sisters might be quite a task, given the fact that they're protected by the big daddies. There are probably work-around solutions to looting the little sisters, that to a certain extent distance the player from the act, such as not intervening when a little sister is in peril, or using a roundabout method to cause their death etc. but full on clubbing one to death I would imagine would be quite a difficult thing to do unless you've set out to make that a specific part of your strategy, but who knows.

There's a part of me that thinks I will ultimately play through as a purely psychopathic/sociopathic character, but that's what I always think every time I play a game with moral choices and so far I haven't done so.

Having said that, I think if on a subsequent playthrough you do decide to roleplay a 'morally bankrupt' character and make the decision that you'll be out for yourself regardless of who you hurt to survive, the playthrough will have both a totally different atmosphere and a totally different emotional weight (given the difference in modifications to the character you'll experience also, it'll almost be like a totally different game).

That being said, if you show up covered in the blood of little girls they may have reason to go "o_O"

...

everyone in the game is familiar with the big players of the world. Then this new guy shows up and starts making waves. Ammo and gun supplies in areas he's been are stripped clean, and the Gatherer population drops by 40+ members in areas he's been, their bodies crushed by a wrench that he's been seen carrying often. Further he's got access to modifications that could only take the full stores of dozens of Gatherers to make happen. It doesn't take a genius (and these people are super-geniuses) to figure out what happened

I think it would be cool if under those circumstances some of the A.I.s started avoiding you and/or working together to ambush you. Maybe you'd have to start employing stealth tactics and technology to avoid them and/or stalk them for more resources.

Originally Posted by Chief Wiggum
Like with all games with moral choices I'll go through the first time really trying to role play the scenario for myself...The second time through I'll be a complete psychopathic serial killer that hasn't had the taste of blood in a century.

Having the choice to be bad is one of the things that makes moral gameplay so interesting. It makes being good feel that much more meaningful, which really helps to keep your head in the game, especially if it's more challenging, since there's generally, potentially, an easier 'morally questionable' option, with the path of least resistance potentially running straight through the centre of the gray-area, so taking the moral option really keeps your head in the game, basically because you're both choosing to "own the character" (so-to-speak) and to more fully immerse yourself in the role, rather than just thinking 'screw it, it's only a game'. With moral choices there are (hopefully) emotional consequences, not just logistical problems and emotional responses to logistical difficulties.

[Hatesink]

I expect that most players would ignore this whole morality issue and do whatever they please. Surely, some people will be thinking "it's only a game, I'll do what I want to do," even though there may be less destructive and maybe more rewarding ways to achieving the goal, such as allying with the little sisters.

I'd imagine there probably will be players like that but, like Myagi was saying, I think they'd probably be missing out on a great game if they approached it from that angle, and if they do, since they're not going to be emotionally invested in the game I don't think looting a little sister would particularly bother them.

If you think about how emotional film can make you if you emotionally invest in it and let yourself be swept away by willing suspension of disbelief, and then consider how much more immersive games can be, it's easy to appreciate how potentially challenging these kinds of decisions can be.

I do hope there will be some major ramifications or consequences to the ecology and story if one chooses a particular path. For example, some kind of impact to the availability of the adams/eves due to the continuous farming. Having the NPCs like the Big Brothers/Big Daddies/Protectors attacking you or having increase hostility towards you just doesn't seem to be a sufficient deterrent.

I think it'll be totally cool if the ecosystem is really broad and also really deep, but I think it's better that there's no moral judgment made by the game, since it's down to the player's conscience as to how they behave. If you're offered a good/evil dichotomy the game suggests the 'evil' path as a possible route through the game, so to a certain extent it takes the moral decision out of your hands. It seems that BioShock isn't going to do that, but rather that it's going to give you a wide variety of options and ultimately leave you to make the decisions, which hopefully should lead to a greater emotional investment in the game and a deeper level of immersion as a result.

One game I really love, the original Hitman game (Hitman: Codename 47) is a kind of 'perfect storm' when it comes to positioning the player. You enter into the experience knowing you're expected to carry out these acts and so by making a choice to play the game you leave your conscience at the door. Having already dispensed with morality and conscience, you roleplay a sociopath, and are most successful within the game only when you learn to put aside a lot of the emotion that causes you to make the kinds of mistakes the game picks up on (the missions are long and complicated with no saves, so you're basically forced to keep a totally cool head). It's only when you approach the missions as if you're running a harmless errand, and can pull out your silenced Beretta, drop someone with a single head-shot and dispose of the body quickly, efficiently and without your heartbeat raising or faltering that you can really progress through the game with any kind of success. I personally think it's one of the most complete desk-top role-playing experiences available, basically because of the sum of the parts that position the player in such a way as to create a feeling of really being a cold-blooded killer. It's quite remarkable.

It seems morality in games does have its limits however. Fable has a section of the game where you can open an enchanted door only by carrying out an act of unmitigated evil in front of it. To get it to open you have to eat a bunch of 'crunchy chicks' in front of it, which I though was a little weak, especially since there's a part of the game where a well-meaning and trusting traveler hires you to protect him on his journey across the map, and the path he takes just happens to lead you right past the door. The only bad act I committed throughout the whole of that game was to hack that guy to pieces in front of the door, but it didn't work, it didn't open the door, so I re-loaded and escorted the traveler safely to his destination. I think if it were possible to open that door by killing a charge of yours in cold blood there probably would have been complaints and the game may even have risked being pulled, especially since you're able to lead children away from the villages (although they altered the game engine so that it was impossible to kill the children). Obviously all of this is just my opinion, and all and everybody are free to agree or disagree.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet
How do you suppose this should or will affect difficulty as the game progresses, assuming neither path is inherently more difficult than the other? Sounds to me like it could have the potential to get easier as you go...

Originally Posted by Shingro
the problem is, if each path is equally viable there's no tempation and no fear to get someone thinking about it... Sure it's great if both countries are equally strong and both are confident in victory and they both think "we don't have to resort to X" It's more interesting though if one country is much weaker... are they willing to fight alone even if they're likely to lose? Will they start considering other, less moral alternatives...

I think that's pretty heavily tied into the theme. What will you do once your back's against the wall? How far will you go to survive? What lengths will you go to, and will you ultimately sacrifice your humanity in exchange for survival. Given that that's the premise it wouldn't surprise me if it was more difficult to take the moral path, otherwise it may just feel like a bunch of purely arbitrary moral choices as part of a conceit aimed purely at increasing appeal and re-play value through enabling a variety of gameplay styles.

Given the potential that BioShock has-- to pose some pretty valuable questions about the nature of humanity, and as a result, lift the medium as a whole into a different kind of arena, I'd personally really hope that the moral issues are much deeper than a simple illustration of potential gameplay paths, since the game could really go some way towards pushing the video game as a genre much further up the continuum of credible medias (something that I think inevitably has to happen sooner or later). Maybe I'm expecting too much. After all it's "only a game" right?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:In addition, a little more from here... http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthrea...ssing+children

Originally Posted by v.dog
Why do people keep saying forced? I'm not. I'm saying that from a cost/benefit standpoint, it's a viable option. The mere fact that it is is going to cause concern.

Not necessarily. Deus Ex Invisible War let you crawl into a secret hiding place with a bunch of missing children and allowed you to shoot them dead, and no one could care less.

Fable let you lure children away from villages and sacrifice them in a satanic church, and no one batted an eyelid.

Just because BioShock presents you with the question of whether or not it's moral to exploit the ultimately (i.e. through lots of required effort on your part to render them so) helpless, it dosesn't necessarily make it controversial. It's a possibility that it might cause some discussion but I personally don't really see it being a problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hatesink]

Originally Posted by Shingro
Similarly I fully expect it's going to be *Hard* to be moral in a war-torn no-resource enviroment... Yes, it might pay off later in how other people see your actions and judge you, but will you ever get to that point if you don't have *power now?* if you're desperate and need to survive... 'just one little sister' is much more of a question then if you're taking an equally viable path

If it is harder it would serve to give more weight to the decision to be good -- but I'd hope that it would be hard without being either frustrating or overly labour-intensive, and that it wouldn't mean you have to forfeit too much cool stuff (which, in gaming terms, seems like 'asking for the Moon'.)

But as long as we are asking for the moon, maybe they could conduct research to find out about the types of people who would insist on playing through as a pure moral (lawful good) character. Their personality-types, what types of games they prefer, and what aspects of those games they like the most; whether they're not averse to using walkthroughs [I don't like using walkthroughs, and games these days seem to be designed as if the player is expected to use a walkthrough, or through some means already knows the necessary information or has the necessary information readily accessible], or whether you could maybe get away with making the moral path more puzzle or adventure oriented etc. It might be a very specific type of person that makes the black and white choice to take the moral path over the easier morally-gray route. Having said that you wouldn't want to discourage people from taking the moral path just because they don't like the type of gameplay it's going to route them towards, or because there'll be a lot of what they might perceive to be unusually difficult or overly challenging gameplay elements, or simply because they just want to shoot dudes (since this brings us back to the notion of forcing the player towards a certain type of morality), although maybe there are ways around this, such as intelligence boosting plasmids for puzzles and hacking skills for accessing information to help the gamer progress, or maybe even to bring to bare a management-game type dynamic, accessible at higher hacking skills etc.

I guess what it comes down to is finding out just what it is people are looking for from the path they choose; what kinds of people choose those paths, what they like and what new things they might like if they were presented with them; what would suit the key personality-types of that demographic etc. and how you can cater to them.

For instance if you were to 'nest' an adventure game thread in the Bioshock environment as part of an alternative playing path you'd have to eliminate every single instance of gun-play (and probably all of the jumping also) or you'll lose the 'adventure collective' -- they just wouldn't play it otherwise (which is a real shame, since (I believe at least) it's lack of attention from the mainstream that keeps the adventure Genre from really fulfilling it's potential (plus Adventure fans far too readily accept low quality). I'd imagine that it's not until adventure games are made in full 3D, and subsequently retrofitted with an optional FPS dynamic (to garner mainstream fans) that the adventure game will be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century.


I think what Chief Wiggum wrote re. an ultimate long-game pay-off is probably the easiest solution as I'd imagine it'd fit with the mindset of the 'moral gamer' quite readily and require the least amount of work to fit it into the overall gameplay dynamic (but it probably wouldn't be as much fun, or break as much new ground as taking a more creative approach might be. Plus labour intensive gameplay is seemingly never fun outside of a either puzzle game or management game context, and using underpowered, comparatively lame weaponry can get pretty frustrating).

Originally Posted by lambizkit
I don't think there is a big problem with the creators throwing in questionable material, if done correctly. I believe that games should allow for maximum freedom and if the player chooses to do evil then that is his or her problem. However I do see a problem if the creators make it hard not to be evil because it will be less fun playing good or something to that effect. I guess I will have to wait and see how it's handled in Bioshock.

I don't see a problem with it either, as long as it's not gratuitous. For instance if you had to brutalise the Little Sister in a kind of blunt-trauma-frenzy style attack for a full minute, but with accompanying sound effects and visceral gore before you could extract the Adam it might be a little excessive. Having said that I think the rag-dolls should remain interactive (as do the meshes in Soldier of Fortune), for largely the same reason that environments ideally should be totally destructible.

Also, I don't think the bodies should just disappear-- they should either just stay where they are, and themselves influence the environment (e.g. scaring, attracting, and/or in other ways influencing the behaviour of non-player characters; attracting carrion feeders; or just plain smelling up the place in ways that affect gameplay) so as to have impact on the ecology, and certain aspects of the gameplay (e.g. if you're trying to maintain a stealth approach, you may need to dispose of the rag-doll/mesh, or maybe even use it to create a distraction)) Obviously there's only so far you can go with a rag-doll until you get into the realms of the Postal franchise and the whole thing turns into distasteful comedy.

I think there are always going to be people out there who'll want to exploit the game dynamics-- for instance wanting to brutalise and exploit the rag-dolls because they find some kind of unfathomable enjoyment in it, the kind of people that might find some kind of pleasure in abusing the dynamics of Trauma Centre or torturing their virtual pet. It seems so unlikely that I feel almost absurd to be writing it, but there is a point to be made-- the point being that just because there is that very small minority that visit the airshow, or nascar or the stunt show just in anticipation of a horrific accident, it shouldn't mean that those things should be outlawed, banned or censored. But then, when it comes to computer games, this isn't a new argument. Ultimately if games like BioShock are distributed via channels such as the Steam Server it's even possible that that kind of behaviour could be monitored.

Originally Posted by lambizkit
This reminds me of when Richard Garriot (creator of the Ultima RPG series, for those who don't know) created a room full of evil children in one of his dungeons. You were given the choice of killing them or not. If I remember correctly it caused quite a stir back in the day.

Arctic Computing's 1982 release Ship of Doom caused quite a stir when it was released in the U.K.. It featured a child (who turns out to be an android) who you have to kill in order to stop her attacking you and ending the game. There was also reputedly a section where it's possible to destroy an android with a certain 'intimate act' and apparently the text parser would accept such words as f**k and r****. It made front-page headlines in at least one U.K. tabloid, but these days, with modern censorship of computer games I doubt any kind of game will again cause that level of controversy (i.e. making front-page headlines in the national tabloids). Rockstar's Bully caused some fuss as did Hooligans: Storm Over Europe, but as far as I know both only got so far as getting airplay on a magazine program or two, and maybe a few column inches, but no front page headlines (as far as I remember).

Soldier of Fortune was banned in Canada I think, or at least pulled from the shelves. It caused a bit of a fuss more or less everywhere due to it's graphic injury-animations (exploding heads, traumatic amputation of legs from shotgun blasts, etc.), and there were also questions raised about its ethical undertones (you could shoot unarmed civilians who'd basically beg for mercy in a foreign tongue) which if I remember correctly also raised some issues regarding racial politics. Given the nature of the game (a Quake-style shooter designed more for on line play than anything else) I personally don't think the damage model and animations were at all gratuitous, but rather added a huge amount to the gameplay, improving the entire on line-skirmish experience hugely (I also love realism in games). It seems Raven's GHOUL character engine later also served as a basis for the character animations of Star Wars Jedi II: Jedi Outcast.

Then there was the hotly anticipated Thrill Kill, later re-skinned, 're-dubbed' and released as Wu Tan Clan's Taste the Pain after being pulled a few weeks before release during the full-on PR hype (EA acquired Virgin Interactive who were originally to publish the game and subsequently pulled it, stating that they didn't want to publish "such a senselessly violent game" since they felt it would harm EA's image. They were also reported as stating they deemed the game so offensive that they wouldn't even attempt to sell it). It's a myth that the game was banned due to it's content, and apparently it was originally going to be a lot less extreme but, as the story goes, Virgin apparently pushed for it to be enhanced as a kind of publicity exercise. The reason it contains so much blood is apparently to identify it with the red of the Virgin brand. According to Wikipedia Aaron Celta, one of Thrill Kill's programmers, said in a Chatterbox Video Game Radio interview that "Thrill Kill was in development for four years [and] During the first half of its development [...] was a two-on-two Mayan basketball game."

[nmrahde]

the only instance i can recall,was the original silent hill,konami had to remove what appeared to be shuffling babies carrying knives from the the game.it probably didnt help that you could also whack them with a lead pipe and finish em with a kick! my philosophy for Bioshock is simple,the little sisters must be saved.And also no matter how hard irrational want to test our moral resolve,they certainly arent going to show the cold blooded execution of what appears to be a young girl,albeit grossly alterd in some way,the screen will fade to black and a message may pop up saying you have received x amount of adam for"your trouble"-any other scenario and the game wont last a week on the shelves.its a very thought provoking issue

You haven't played the Fallout games I take it? There's children in them. You can steal from them. You can kill them. They have the same alternate death sequences that other people have. Among the various titles you can get is 'Childkiller' (This was changed in 2 so that if you got Childkiller it took away Champion - otherwise since they were listed alphabetically it looked like 'Champion Childkiller').

Also read that list of banned games, Hatesink. Never thought I'd agree with China on banning something - in this case CnC: Generals. While I much enjoy the gameplay itself I very much agree that the way the Chinese and the GLA (middle-eastern) was over the line into Racism. If they had presented the factions as they did but with more vocal minorities you can bet they woulda been sued. Ah the grandeur that is EA...

Edit: What version of Silent Hill did you play? Mine had babies/children with knives all over the freakin' place

[Glottis]

So I am curious to read your thoughts about the (ab)use of children in computer games.

I am 36 year old male in University who has been married to a 37 year old woman for four years,and we have a 16 year old teenage daughter.My wife and I are very much looking forward to this game.We have absolutely no desire to harm children.So....Since when do pixels and polygons constitute live living breathing beings !??!!!?

I have no thoughts on the subject,why you ask ? Well first of all,there are no children in this game,never mind any being 'Abused'.

Animated,textured polygons with a few pixel shaders applied,do not a living breathing thinking child make.... Stop watching Spielberg's A.I.

I question your sanity,and of those who look at a game like this,and make hyperbolic and fantastical conclusions like this.

I play allot of Pc games,but I consider none of them violent.Its a fantasy world,its not real.

Oh..... And as an aside,Soldier Of Fortune was never banned up here in Canada,although Walmart initially refused to carry the title,all other retailers carried it though.They changed their tune over time,as they carried SF2 and had it on sale at a price point far lower then others,when it hit retail.

[Pinky_Powers]

How many threads do you think we have currently devoted to this topic?

[Hatesink]

@Glottis— Thanks for sharing

What are you if not a 'moralist'?

An immoralist?

Please do tell.

[the_bUg]

/jack thompson

Bioshock is nothing more than a child murder simulator and must be stopped from coming to market!

/jack thompson

Thank god 2k recently made a settlement w/ Mr, Thompson which essentially gags him.

[Hatesink]

Thank god 2k recently made a settlement w/ Mr, Thompson which essentially gags him.

??? Do you have a link?

[the_bUg]

Sure, http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/19/b...jack-thompson/
There you go. and a lil follow up at
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/20/t...t-who-blinked/

[Hatesink]

Sure, http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/19/b...jack-thompson/
There you go. and a lil follow up at
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/20/t...t-who-blinked/

T2 (Take 2), not 2K

[the_bUg]

kk, Taken from the front page of the cultofrapture site.

© 2006 Take-Two Interactive and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. BioShock, 2K Games, the 2K logo, Irrational Games, the Irrational Games logo, and Take-Two Interactive Software are all trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Take-Two Interactive Software

They are the same entity. 2k is just a subdivision.

[Hatesink]

kk, Taken from the front page of the cultofrapture site.

© 2006 Take-Two Interactive and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. BioShock, 2K Games, the 2K logo, Irrational Games, the Irrational Games logo, and Take-Two Interactive Software are all trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Take-Two Interactive Software

They are the same entity. 2k is just a subdivision.

I didn't know that. I thought they were totally separate.

But legally speaking I think 2K is probably, to a certain extent, autonomous (we need Raveness to explain it to us).