Ignorance

[splicer]

I've just come across the following letter in my monthly 360 magazine,its typical of the high horsed moralistic garbage that those who know frig all about Bioshock love to spout in an attempt to cause unwelcome publicity for games they choose to believe are below them...AHHHHHHHH!


Quote:
Just watched the Bioshock demo footage and I can't believe you are raving about a game that has sunk to such a new low.In the video I noticed when the person playing the game was shooting at the Big Daddy,the child accompanying him could be heard screaming in agony in the background-this means that by harming the Big Daddy,the player is in effect harming the child.This game is sick and should be banned or changed before release.I'm no prude,I enjoy violent games,but at no point are you orderd to kill innocent children.Boycott Bioshock!




Oh god..I am going to scream!!!!!

[2K Elizabeth]

Which magazine was this, Splicer? I'm interested!

The writer, of course, is incorrect. You cannot shoot Little Sisters and battling the Big Daddy does not do harm to them.

We'll have a podcast out soon about Little Sisters with more information!

[Newbiezilla]

Yeah, i've seen people at other forums calling Bioshock a "child murdering simulator".

I linked this in response:

Eurogamer: With the implied moral structure of BioShock's world, we've been given the impression that we'll need to make tough decisions while playing. What purpose do moral challenges have in gaming? To what end have you made use of them here?

Ken Levine: I don't believe moral choices in games have a huge amount of meaning if they don't go hand in hand with gameplay choices. BioShock ties the two together. The game asks the player: "How are you going to deal with the Little Sisters who've been enslaved by the city of Rapture? Are you going to help them? Or exploit them?" And the choices the player makes will directly tie into not just elements of the plot, but with how the player's character's abilities grow and develop over time.

It seems to be parents who see this as the game being based around having no choice but to kill kids. Clearly showing that all they are doing is basing their argument on the first video on the marketplace.

Thompson is going after Microsoft and Halo 3 now, what is he going to say when he sees this? Sad thing is, parents will hear the message, and they will do the surface check of the game, and if they feel its not in their tastes, there may be a lot of trouble brewing later on.

I really don't see why. I mean, this is, at its core, an RPG. So, its about choices. Now, personally, I will not be capable of doing this in the way of hurting the little sisters. But I certainly have no ill conceived notions like "being violent in a video game will have any real repercussions on a person".

If a person isn't capable of differentiating reality from fantasy.... Will a game like this really change anything in the long term?

Oh, and what if Bioshock does get very popular? We know it takes all kinds to fill a world, but if this game is played by huge numbers of people, and someone does something as is seen in the game, and whether they use the game or not in the justification, the game may be branded yet again. As someone on TeamXbox forums posted about Halo and Thompons reaction to it:

Microsoft sold somewhere in the neighborhood of six million copies of Halo 2. With two people using each copy of the game (dad/son, brother/brother, brother/friend, I won't pretend to figure girls into this equation. Girls dont' add up in real life) that means there's 12 million people who have played Halo. Add to that all of the uncountable used copies that have sold and you could easily come away with a game that 20 million people have played.

That means there should be 20 million crazed snipers. Or 10 million. 2 million? One million? Ten thousand? ONE thousand?

There was ONE sniper.

You take twenty million of ANYBODY and you'll find at least one of anything. One cake decorator? One lawyer? One person who can pop an eyeball out? A rapist? A Senator? A nun? Because these people all play Halo, does that mean Halo made them all what they are?

[splicer]

Which magazine was this, Splicer? I'm interested!

The writer, of course, is incorrect. You cannot shoot Little Sisters and battling the Big Daddy does not do harm to them.

We'll have a podcast out soon about Little Sisters with more information!

Hi,sorry I was getting a bit wound up,the magazine is XBOX WORLD 360-issue 53,page 19

[501105]

I just hope that Thompson wont target bioshock

[splicer]

I dont think he can,at least not directly,-What I do know is that the closer we get to August the more anxious I am beginning to feel.

[Newbiezilla]

I just hope that Thompson wont target bioshock

Oh, of course he will. He'll get some press coverage on the game at least. I mean, if he's saying Halo 3 teaches the proper use of a sniper rifle, he clearly hasn't the cleanest bill of mental health. He called Halo "Hyperviolent".

Hoping for him to ignore Bioshock is probably not going to be a realistic hope.

Edit: I agree, Splicer. I'm pretty worried about it myself. And i'm pretty sure the PEGI (which is what i'm going to have to look out for) may want serious cuts from the game.

I noticed the ESRB have rated it M from a topic here, and I think (maybe incorrectly) that the PEGI haven't rated it because they want certain cuts from the game.

[splicer]

I also read that he blamed the recent high school massacre on counter strike!-Its an all round absurd argument,the whole Videogame breeds Violence debacle.Games dont kill people,people do!-I remember a similar case involving manhunt..it turned out the guy hadn't even played it,the game was still in its cellophane wrapping in his draw!-but of course,since he owned it...that must have made him do it!-Barmy!

[Raveness]

Let Thompson target Bioshock. He's a legal laughing stock, so he can't really do any litigational damage to 2K or Take2.

All he will do is drum up press and notice for Bioshock, probably leading to more sales than would have come about with his silence. Now that his word is essentially mud, all he's doing is indirectly fueling the industry he so hates by bringing it to the forefront of shock journalism.

[Rumor]

Heh, I wonder how that person would react to Little Sisters drinking blood from corpses. Some "innocent children".

[Newbiezilla]

Let Thompson target Bioshock. He's a legal laughing stock, so he can't really do any litigational damage to 2K or Take2.

I know that, but he can get the word out through media like Fox News, I would bet. I'm not from America so I can't say for sure what coverage he gets, but I always figured it was probably too much.

If a group of parents find out what you can do, they will not care that you don't have to. This will cause a pretty big problem as parents are not logical with a "I'm not having my child play this" but usually a more "I want this game off the market" which is very, very bad.

Though, I may be jumping the gun. If the ESRB rated it M as opposed to AO... Well, i'm seeing countless options and good and bad, but I don't have all the info, so I can only hope it doesn't end badly.

Heh, I wonder how that person would react to Little Sisters drinking blood from corpses. Some "innocent children".

He will probably call it degeneration of society, and encouragement of Vampiric cults.

[splicer]

Heh, I wonder how that person would react to Little Sisters drinking blood from corpses. Some "innocent children".

Exactly.
Because he hasnt taken the time to actually research what he is talking about...typical British knee jerker!

[Newbeing]

I just hope that Thompson wont target bioshock

Didn't Take2 strike some sort of agreement with Thompson saying they wouldn't sue him if he left them alone?


Splicer, did the magazine have a comment towards the letter?

[501105]

``In the settlement, filed with Federal District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga, Thompson has agreed that he:

1.) will not sue or threaten to sue to block sale or distribution of any game published by Take Two or its subsidiaries (i.e., Rockstar).

2.) will not communicate to Take Two or anyone doing business with T2 (like, say Wal-Mart) any accusation that the company committed any wrongdoing by selling its games. Thompson is not restricted from criticizing the content of T2 games, nor is he prevented from acting as counsel in lawsuits brought against Take Two by other parties

3.) will make any future contacts with T2 through its attorneys
``

[splicer]

Didn't Take2 strike some sort of agreement with Thompson saying they wouldn't sue him if he left them alone?


Splicer, did the magazine have a comment towards the letter?

if you mean the remarks made by Thompson,then no,only a general debunking of his overal theory.

[Rumor]

You cannot shoot Little Sisters and battling the Big Daddy does not do harm to them.

That's an interesting statement by the way.

I'm pretty sure a developer said somewhere that you can kill Little Sisters.

Or are they going to be this annoying invincible sort of NPCs?

[splicer]

I did notice the LS sat in front of the BD as he was taking some heavy fire from us and the security bots,and it did strike me as odd that she wasnt harmed,however in light of the comments made in that awful letter I'm pleased that she can't be shot-its one less stick for the moralists to beat us with!

[Newbiezilla]

``In the settlement, filed with Federal District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga, Thompson has agreed that he:
<snip>``

Thanks

I wasn't quite sure if that whole mess had come to any conclusion.

That's an interesting statement by the way.

You can probably only extract ADAM from them as in to survive yourself. Killing the Little Sister for its own sake would certainly earn the game an AO rating, I would have thought.

I'm pleased that she can't be shot-its one less stick for the moralists to beat us with!

Definitely agreed.

[FreshLaundryX]

Why would you need Big Daddy protection if you can't be killed?

I wouldn't kill them myself, but that would be a disappointment if they can't die. I would totally understand the motivation behind the decision, but I would hate humanity for its poorly prioritized shambles of a morality code. Sorry humanity.

I did see the little sister in the HTBD video put her hands up and scream when a grenade landed near her, but she fared the damage pretty damn well for being unarmored. The guy upstairs throwing grenades only needed one blast to shut him up.

[Newbeing]

if you mean the remarks made by Thompson,then no,only a general debunking of his overal theory.

No I mean did the magazine give a comment to this...

Quote:
Just watched the Bioshock demo footage and I can't believe you are raving about a game that has sunk to such a new low.In the video I noticed when the person playing the game was shooting at the Big Daddy,the child accompanying him could be heard screaming in agony in the background-this means that by harming the Big Daddy,the player is in effect harming the child.This game is sick and should be banned or changed before release.I'm no prude,I enjoy violent games,but at no point are you orderd to kill innocent children.Boycott Bioshock!

[Raveness]

Why would you need Big Daddy protection if you can't be killed?

I wouldn't kill them myself, but that would be a disappointment if they can't die. I would totally understand the motivation behind the decision, but I would hate humanity for its poorly prioritized shambles of a morality code. Sorry humanity.

Agreed. It's a sad day if developers have to design the game around perceived threats from supposed "moral" activist groups.

If you can't kill the littleuns, what is the supposed moral dilemma reduced to? Does the game portray only simple guilt, from when we take the Adam candy from the LS's. What then, are they vulnerable to splicers then? Is there any actual threat to them? Are we suppose to believe later on they may encounter hardship?

It's a pretty weak moral choice in a game if you do not see the results of your actions promptly. In the narrative context of Rapture, I'm fine with taking Adam by force from the LS's if they can't die anyways. I'm sure if they were aware of my predicament they'd acquiesce.

[splicer]

No real defense,which also worries me,people in general seem ill informed about what is and what is not possible regarding the LS.
@fresh laundry
Why indeed need big daddies?-read the It doesnt make sense thread I started!
@Raveness
Are you agreeing with me now,that the BD'S would appear to be a surplus feature as I suggested earlier?

[Rumor]

Why would you need Big Daddy protection if you can't be killed?

Big Daddies were not created to defend Little Sisters, but rather the ADAM that Sisters harvest. Even when invulnerable, Sisters have no strength to prevent it from being stolen.

Still, I'd definitely hate them to be invulnerable. How exactly are you supposed to shut them up if their screaming annoys you, for instance?

[FreshLaundryX]

I apologize if there are any Christians here, but as Christians seem to have determined themselves the arbiters of all morality, then they deserve this criticism:

If god gave people a CHOICE to either be good or evil, then why do fundamentalist Christians spend so much time trying to take people's moral choices away??? What does 'being good' really mean if you have no other option? What kind of sacrifice is that?

[splicer]

I respect and understand what you are saying dude,I really do,but a religous discussion on righteous ethics is a minefield best avoided

[the noob 22]

Why would you need Big Daddy protection if you can't be killed?

I wouldn't kill them myself, but that would be a disappointment if they can't die. I would totally understand the motivation behind the decision, but I would hate humanity for its poorly prioritized shambles of a morality code. Sorry humanity.

I did see the little sister in the HTBD video put her hands up and scream when a grenade landed near her, but she fared the damage pretty damn well for being unarmored. The guy upstairs throwing grenades only needed one blast to shut him up.

Actually if you watch the hunting video very closely there is a point when the splicer is atacking the big daddy that the little sister falls down looking either unconscious or dead. Maybe they nerfed player attacks (I blame crazed media outlets building horror stories out of nothing if this is the case) and only other enemies can hurt them but I would guess that the LS is not the invincible npc we all despise. I think she waas programmed to be alive at the end, so think like bad movie editing she was out of it at one point but is still there at the end. Not that I'm critiqueing the video it is a great video

[Bartekk]

That's an interesting statement by the way. (...)

Very true. I'm waiting for a podcast that will possibly clarify this matter.

[Ectoplasm]

JT is losing all around - gamer generations grow up, pre-gaming generations slip into retirement. He bet on something he though would make him a career - and instead got nothing but ridicule and contempt. He will either fade into obscurity or, in his vehemence, will overstep a certain boundary and will finally get disbarred for good. Either way, he's not a factor.

Far as LS go, I also think that BDs are there to primarily protect the harvest, not the actual harvester. And even if LS cannot be killed, suppose that forceful Adam extraction causes them intense pain. Where do you rate torture on your moral scale?

P.S.And if suffering of LS is of no concern to the originator of the scheme, suppose also that extraction damages LS' ability to process Adam, and it takes a sizeable chunk of time to restore it.

[Jeff]

JT is losing all around - gamer generations grow up, pre-gaming generations slip into retirement. He bet on something he though would make him a career - and instead got nothing but ridicule and contempt. He will either fade into obscurity or, in his vehemence, will overstep a certain boundary and will finally get disbarred for good. Either way, he's not a factor.

Far as LS go, I also think that BDs are there to primarily protect the harvest, not the actual harvester. And even if LS cannot be killed, suppose that forceful Adam extraction causes them intense pain. Where do you rate torture on your moral scale?

P.S.And if suffering of LS is of no concern to the originator of the scheme, suppose also that extraction damages LS' ability to process Adam, and it takes a sizeable chunk of time to restore it.

on the LS points; You're fighting for survival, if they're not then why not put them through a little momentary pain in order to help ensure you're own survival. I'm under the impression that the moral choices revolve around life or death decisions and thus carry a certain amount of weight, if the general question is "cure them or not" there's no morality left to explore there, it becomes a matter of deciding which reward you'd rather acquire.

[Ectoplasm]

Apparently, since the game does present you with a choice, survival is possible without harming LS. So it is really not 'do I kill them to survive', but rather 'do I kill them to make survival easier'.

And suppose that Adam depletion results in suffering so intense that LS would gladly die rather than endure it - but death is simply not something they are allowed since any damage is repaired. What is more monstrous: killing someone, or causing suffering so great they wish they were dead had they the option?

[MF9000]

Perhaps the slug that's inside the LS is able to rejuvenate her and keep her from dying. Or even if "killed" maybe the stem cells from the slug are able to resurrect her. That would be one way out of not being able to kill the LS. She would die, but then rise from the dead like the vampire she is.

[2K Elizabeth]

Little Sister podcast is now up on IGN for you.

http://blogs.ign.com/Irrational_Games/2007/05/23/55572/

We should probably redirect conversation now to the official thread to keep it all in one place!

[somecut8]

Yeah, i've seen people at other forums calling Bioshock a "child murdering simulator".

I linked this in response:

It seems to be parents who see this as the game being based around having no choice but to kill kids. Clearly showing that all they are doing is basing their argument on the first video on the marketplace.

Thompson is going after Microsoft and Halo 3 now, what is he going to say when he sees this? Sad thing is, parents will hear the message, and they will do the surface check of the game, and if they feel its not in their tastes, there may be a lot of trouble brewing later on.

I really don't see why. I mean, this is, at its core, an RPG. So, its about choices. Now, personally, I will not be capable of doing this in the way of hurting the little sisters. But I certainly have no ill conceived notions like "being violent in a video game will have any real repercussions on a person".

If a person isn't capable of differentiating reality from fantasy.... Will a game like this really change anything in the long term?

Oh, and what if Bioshock does get very popular? We know it takes all kinds to fill a world, but if this game is played by huge numbers of people, and someone does something as is seen in the game, and whether they use the game or not in the justification, the game may be branded yet again. As someone on TeamXbox forums posted about Halo and Thompons reaction to it:

Well then again, the majority of video gamers is older than the age of 18, so this should not be that big of an issue. Bioshock is targeted, at least I think, at older and more mature gamers who are able to understand the game better rather than at little kids who like to just run around and shoot moving targets like in Halo.

Read Here for more information on the average videogamer.

[Jeff]

doesn't matter, you can't kill them, you can cause them to die however I don't believe they even become a corpse...

[smallsey]

interesting discussion.

from the podcast it doesnt seem like cuts can really be made to the game. you cant hurt the little sister with weapons, and all other things dealing with said small child are implied so if you imagine...bad things happening its your own over-imaginative fault.

besides, bioshock will no doubt pave the way for the new, sensative and morally chalanging fps genre anyway so they may as well get whats allowed and whats not right the first time.

also, although we dont really hear much of Thompson over here in aus it seems like hes not all there

[splicer]

doesn't matter, you can't kill them, you can cause them to die however I don't believe they even become a corpse...

You sound dissapointed?

[Jeff]

I am, because to me the moral dilemma lay in the more dramatic, to me the choice now seems watered down to the point where it's no longer a moral one in the slightest, but more about which reward you'd rather receive and when. I was looking forward to coming to a situation and being challenged with the idea of "Do I really want to do this?" but now that's not going to be what happens at all, I'm going to be asking myself what I could use more at the time, the adam or the unique plasmid. It's lost it's edge and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that.

[MF9000]

Perhaps the more challenging moral dilemmas will have to wait until somebody decides to create a mod. Once the SDK comes out then the sky's the limit.

[splicer]

I see what you mean,that it does become a very black or white issue,I guess for legal reasons they had to avoid those grey areas-I'm also certain that now its been revealed that the LS cannott die,The BD has no use at all other than what Raveness would call a crate mechanic in the game.Shame,but there it is.

[2K Elizabeth]

I see what you mean,that it does become a very black or white issue,I guess for legal reasons they had to avoid those grey areas-I'm also certain that now its been revealed that the LS cannott die,The BD has no use at all other than what Raveness would call a crate mechanic in the game.Shame,but there it is.

I assure you that the Big Daddy has a big reason for being in the game that makes sense.