After all the hoo-ha on the website, I thought this'd be something a bit more new and exciting, but at least it looks it'll make up the complete redundancy of Bioshock 2.
Hey awesome it's Airbørn! oh wait. It's Skyoshock.
liked the cinematic trailer though, and it looks like the cities society is also racist, this might be good, for he sake of story.
I actually wish I hadn't made the snap judgement I did in the other thread, after reading a bit more about the game. My initial feeling of dissapointment at the transparant marketing-led reasons behind calling it Bioshock were premature; Ken Levine compares it to Final Fantasy, which seems a fair comparison.
This article in particular made me very hopeful: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/12/irrational-anthem-their-new-game-unveiled/
Skamberin: I love that part about it. It's not so much racist as it is xenophobic, afraid of 'them', the people that are 'out there'. It's all propaganda-led paranoia, and it's a fantastic setting for a videogame. The article I linked to goes into that a bit as well.
I don't buy that excuse at all... I have no issue with them releasing multiple titles under the same "brand" name, but come on... The name is "SHOCK" not "BIOSHOCK".
It should have bene System Shock, Bio Shock and now AERO SHOCK. Calling a game set in the SKY Bioshock makes totally no sense and makes me feel a little bit upset. About the same as I was when I lost my hamster, nibbles, many years ago...
Damn you 2k... Why did you have to bring up Nibbles...
"Obvious changes first. You arent the blank cipher. This time around, youre playing a character with a distinct personality."
Uhh... so... do I just send them my money in an envelope or what?
edit:
The "Bio" part might as well relate to humanity's struggles against the nature - both Rapture and Columbia are cities that put people in places they weren't really meant to be.
The "Bio" part might as well relate to humanity's struggles against the nature - both Rapture and Columbia are cities that put people in places they weren't really meant to be.
it's a name. I wouldn't care if the game was named mr winky's magical air balloon rape fest as long as the game is good.
I am more interested in the story and gameplay than the bloody name.
I totally agree, apart from the fact that "bioshock" implies big daddies and that injection magic gameplay. I would personally prefer something new in the new setting. Perhaps nimble, flying enemies instead of big bulky nauticalish enemies etc.
And Shock implies roleplaying game and survival horror.
But as said, bioshock has become a brand, and if it means that they can keep making new different games while 2K suits are maniacly giggling that they're making another game with the bioshock brand, then that's all good.
I totally agree, apart from the fact that "bioshock" implies big daddies and that injection magic gameplay. I would personally prefer something new in the new setting. Perhaps nimble, flying enemies instead of big bulky nauticalish enemies etc.
To be fair, we only saw one bulky, 'nautical-ish' enemy, and it could well be a boss or significant character enemy. Reading through the report of the press demo, it sounds like mobility will be a factor in the combat, so who knows what kinds of enemies there'll be?
Honestly, all this pissing and whining about the name is pretty lame. So what? If it looks good (which I'd say is a safe bet), and it's fun to play, which I've no doubt it will be, then what's the problem?
Yes, it was awesome, but people need to move past System Shock. It came out sixteen years ago. It's probably not coming back, and if it does, it won't be in a way that people will like because everyone hates everything.
Why can't games just look great and be fun to play?
To be fair, we only saw one bulky, 'nautical-ish' enemy, and it could well be a boss or significant character enemy. Reading through the report of the press demo, it sounds like mobility will be a factor in the combat, so who knows what kinds of enemies there'll be?
Honestly, all this pissing and whining about the name is pretty lame. So what? If it looks good (which I'd say is a safe bet), and it's fun to play, which I've no doubt it will be, then what's the problem?
Yes, it was awesome, but people need to move past System Shock. It came out sixteen years ago. It's probably not coming back, and if it does, it won't be in a way that people will like because everyone hates everything.
Why can't games just look great and be fun to play?
I always took the the Bio in bioshock to be related to fuckin injecting yourself with the plasmids, a biological shcck to your system so to speak. the trailer looked neato, I bet there will be some awesome vertigo inducing falling sequences or wicked vertical vistas.
Yes, it was awesome, but people need to move past System Shock. It came out sixteen years ago. It's probably not coming back, and if it does, it won't be in a way that people will like because everyone hates everything.
Why can't games just look great and be fun to play?
I'm not too worried that bioshock:infinite much like bioshock wont be fun the play, it was fun to play, I'm just worried that it, just the same as bioshock, will be good for one playthrough, a linear experience.
Systemshock can go get a worthy rest at the graveyard now, it had its two titles, the story ended, but people want the gameplay, that's what all the fuss is about.
Bioshock was always the same kind of game as systemshock2, it was even intended to be an evolution of that gameplay.
So yeah fun to play, but emphasis on "fun to replay".
So yeah fun to play, but emphasis on "fun to replay".
Good point, but these days replay value is pretty much defined by multiplayer alone - though I must've played through the first Bioshock at least three times now.
Don't get me wrong about System Shock (both of them) - I'd love to see either a remake or a true adaptation of the gameplay, but since it seems so unlikely what with the console market diluting the majority of single-player game experiences and much more emphasis and priority placed on visuals over gameplay than back in the mid-to-late Nineties, we're setting ourselves up for disappointment by making constant comparisons to titles like Shock 1 & 2.
Honestly, all this pissing and whining about the name is pretty lame. So what? If it looks good (which I'd say is a safe bet), and it's fun to play, which I've no doubt it will be, then what's the problem?
IMO, it's not simply the name but the universe that name conjures. To work from a big example, pick anything Star Wars. If you buy a Star Wars game, you have certain expectations of what that game will feel like - Jedi, the Force, TIE fighters, all that jazz. Now let's say you grab a copy of Star Wars: Generic FPS, and it has none of the things you associate with Star Wars. No Force, no Empire or rebels, no familiar ships or characters or weapons or anything. It's just a generic space marine FPS with the Star Wars label on it.
It could be a good game, solid gameplay, quality production, etc, and I believe the vast majority of players would still be pissed that their Star Wars game didn't include any actual Star Wars. I think that's going to be true to a degree across any brand that has a distinctive style. An X-Men game that replaces Wolverine and Cyclops with new, unheard of mutants would disappoint. A Street Fighter game that drops Ken, Ryu and the gang for a roster of new faces with entirely unfamiliar controls would disappoint.
Bioshock isn't as strong a brand as those, but it's still pretty distinctive. If you asked someone to describe a few things about the game, they'll certainly mention the undersea/diving motif, the distinctive art deco styling, the noir horror vibe, the emphasis on genetic mutation and human engineering, maybe the Ayn Rand-ish political stuff, etc.
As far as I'm aware, Bioshock: Infinite doesn't have any of that, outside maybe an echo of the politics. From a visual standpoint (everyone here appreciate aesthetics), the new game simply looks nothing like a "Bioshock" game. Not in terms of architectural style, not in setting, not in lighting, not in theme - not in any way except for the logo with the Bioshock name.
That's my issue with it. I don't want a 'chocolate chip cookie' that barely has any chocolate chips in it, and I don't want a 'Bioshock' game that barely has any Bioshock in it.
The irony with people complaining that bioshock:infinite is not bioshock anymore, considering I sat there complaining that the first bioshock wasn't shock anymore
I think the bio in Bioshock came from far before the rapture incarnation of BS (har har)
I remember seeing early shots back in my teens of Bioshock when it was all weird mutant grubs and nazis or something along those lines. it was about mutation. perhaps the name just stuck. they were working on it back when HL 1 was released.
i too really wish they'd do another title as deep as system shock. I don't care what they call it or if it has Shodan in it.. it would be a plus if Warren Specter lead it up though.
edit: here we go
The game now took place in an abandoned World War II-era underground lavatory which had recently been unearthed by 21st century scientists. The genetic experiments within the labs had gradually formed themselves into an ecosystem centered around three "castes" of creatures, referred to as "drones," "soldiers," and "predators." This "AI ecology" would eventually form the basis for the "Little Sister," "Big Daddy," and "Splicer" dynamic seen in the completed game.[49]
That's my issue with it. I don't want a 'chocolate chip cookie' that barely has any chocolate chips in it, and I don't want a 'Bioshock' game that barely has any Bioshock in it.
I agree with you in principle, Tom, and you raise a good point regarding serial franchises generally, but are you honestly saying you'd want another visit to Rapture?
I loved the first game and really enjoyed the second, but enough's enough. Even though Columbia and Rapture are completely different cities, I disagree that there's no visual continuity between the two whatsoever, and even if the art deco / objectivist elements were more pronounced, people would still shit all over it because of a lack of anything we hadn't seen in the first two games.
Personally, I'd give both nuts to work on it, and it'll be a first-day purchase for me. It looks great, it sounds like it'll be fun to play and that's enough for me.
I think the bio in Bioshock came from far before the rapture incarnation of BS (har har)
I remember seeing early shots back in my teens of Bioshock when it was all weird mutant grubs and nazis or something along those lines. it was about mutation. perhaps the name just stuck. they were working on it back when HL 1 was released.
Yeah, the whole game was going towards having an ecology where there were gatherers, much like the little sisters, who were walking around and gathering resources, and the other stray groups that would fight them and the big daddy sort of creatures that would protect them, a more simulated system was actually the main idea behind it.
And there were ideas about manipulating environmental controls, like oxygen and such.
Guys, guys. Gav, mr. big dick himself is working on this! thats enough to sell me on it I'm sure itll look fantastic, there are some great PC members hammering on it.
Bioshock isn't as strong a brand as those, but it's still pretty distinctive. If you asked someone to describe a few things about the game, they'll certainly mention the undersea/diving motif, the distinctive art deco styling, the noir horror vibe, the emphasis on genetic mutation and human engineering, maybe the Ayn Rand-ish political stuff, etc.
As far as I'm aware, Bioshock: Infinite doesn't have any of that, outside maybe an echo of the politics. From a visual standpoint (everyone here appreciate aesthetics), the new game simply looks nothing like a "Bioshock" game. Not in terms of architectural style, not in setting, not in lighting, not in theme - not in any way except for the logo with the Bioshock name.
I had this same experience with this other thing called WWII. I was cool with the style they had going for the enemies, they called them Nazis, both the uniforms and the architecture, the look and feel of a bombed out, gloomy, desolate Europe, the environments, setting, lighting etc.
Then they came out with this whole Japanese campaign thing. Its not even set in the same place. The original games were set in continental Europe, and now I'm storming some lush islands? The enemies don't even look the same, the architecture isn't the same, and the whole political undertone of it is different, with completely different objectives and goals. About the only thing the same with it is that I'm playing an American, and some of the guns and equipment are the same. I'm not sure why they went with this stylistic change, or why they decided to slap the WWII brand on it.
...I'm not sure if this counts for Godwin-ing a thread or not
Bioshock isn't as strong a brand as those, but it's still pretty distinctive. If you asked someone to describe a few things about the game, they'll certainly mention the undersea/diving motif, the distinctive art deco styling, the noir horror vibe, the emphasis on genetic mutation and human engineering, maybe the Ayn Rand-ish political stuff, etc.
As far as I'm aware, Bioshock: Infinite doesn't have any of that, outside maybe an echo of the politics. From a visual standpoint (everyone here appreciate aesthetics), the new game simply looks nothing like a "Bioshock" game. Not in terms of architectural style, not in setting, not in lighting, not in theme - not in any way except for the logo with the Bioshock name.
Yeah, I don't really agree with any of that. First, what's to say there's no genetic splicing? Sure looks like some weird shit is going on to me. I think there is definitely going to be a clear equivalent to splicing if it just doesn't flat out have splicing to begin with. 'Echo of the politics' is a ridiculous statement; politics is clearly a massive focus for them.
It's in the sky instead of underwater. As far as I can see, that's the only difference. Everything else feels like Bioshock so far. Plus, 'bio' doesn't mean water; it means life. Politics, life, supernatural powers, a very distinct environment... if anything I'm disappointed it's too much like Bioshock.
...I'm not sure if this counts for Godwin-ing a thread or not
There's a couple more video-interviews on Gametrailers,
Yeah I don't get why it has to be underwater or have mutants to be bioshock? The details ma ybe deifferent but the art style stills looks like the same world to me and until we see any gameplay it's too early to tell anything anyway.
Illusions: don't mean to sound dickish here, but you know parts of WWII were fought in the pacific against Japanese soldiers right? I fail to see how this is confusing to you.
Illusions: don't mean to sound dickish here, but you know parts of WWII were fought in the pacific against Japanese soldiers right? I fail to see how this is confusing to you.
He wrote a fairly clever satire grounded into the idea that there can be a great deal of stylistic and tonal breadth under one framework or brand, and i'm thinking it went way over your head.
Yeah, I don't really agree with any of that. First, what's to say there's no genetic splicing?
Like I said: as far as I know.
'Echo of the politics' is a ridiculous statement; politics is clearly a massive focus for them.
I'm not talking about politics generically, I'm talking about the fascist/nationalist/objectivism themes in Bioshock specifically. The Civilization series has a massive focus on politics - are you going to say that it is in any way like Bioshock?
It's in the sky instead of underwater. As far as I can see, that's the only difference. Everything else feels like Bioshock so far. Plus, 'bio' doesn't mean water; it means life.
Yes, I know what the prefix 'bio' means. I think most people know that the name referred to the genetic engineering/Splicers/plasmids in the original game, rather than assume it has anything to do with water.
Politics, life, supernatural powers, a very distinct environment...
He wrote a fairly clever satire grounded into the idea that there can be a great deal of stylistic and tonal breadth under one framework or brand, and i'm thinking it went way over your head.
Very clever. World War II makes for great satire.
**
Image deleted so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.
**
I agree with you in principle, Tom, and you raise a good point regarding serial franchises generally, but are you honestly saying you'd want another visit to Rapture?
I'd like to have seen where else the property could have gone, with people taking Ryan's philosophy further. Alternately, it might have been great to see a direct prequel, with a game set in the early, pre-disaster days of Rapture. There was so much material there, I don't think they mined that much of it, especially with Bioshock 2 just recycling a lot of Bioshock 1.
I will admit I'm not itching to walk around the remains of a deserted city anymore, and I've had enough creepy Little Sisters/Big Daddys.
But it is a game about a lot of stuff. Its a game people are going to end up spewing a grand torrent of exciting wank about. Its got ideas.
The 1880-1900 gap is key. This isnt a game about history but it is a game set in the context of history, as Levine puts it. In 1880, the US was a country tired and broken by war, having experienced massive casualties. In 1900 it was having different sorts of urges. Levine talks about President McKinley questioning whether they should annex the Philippines, just freed from Spain. At which point Levine reads a full quote from McKinley on the issue, as he tossed and turned whether he should do this potentially horrible thing
"I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way I dont know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany our commercial rivals in the Orient that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves they were unfit for self-government and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spains was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by Gods grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."
He wrote a fairly clever satire grounded into the idea that there can be a great deal of stylistic and tonal breadth under one framework or brand, and i'm thinking it went way over your head.
way way over...
see folks? that's what happens when you read a reply to a quote without reading the quote.
Also, here's hundreds of dead Jews at Belsen-Bergen:
Seriously man, was this necessary?. The satire was a cleverly written point describing how it could remain in the same "world." No one needs to see pictures of a bunch of dead people in a hole. It doesn't prove your point further, it just make you look like a douche.
I'm looking forward to the game. I could care less of the name being Bioshock, because I enjoyed their last game and I'm sure this one will top it. The idea that not everyone is out to get you and peoples perceptions change depending on what you do is amazing to me. "oh, I whipped out my gun in the bar, I guess everyone is really pissed now."
The interview with Ken Levine makes it sound like the gene splicing is back and ramped up. I like the idea that Elizabeth can use powers as well for a tag team approach to fighting. I'm really interested to see how this will change any gameplay mechanics.
@TomDunne: FUCK YEAH CORPSEPILE! (Nothing is sacred learn to laugh and cry at everything and life is easier)
@Topic: The more I read up on this the more excited I am actually, if this is just a thing happening in the Bioshock universe with no ties to the previous games then thats fine. But I do hope they sneak in some kind of reference though, to something.
your ridiculous insinuation that a tragic event is inappropriate for satire just makes it clear you aren't well read at all, historically a large portion of satires have been a delicate way to approach a dissenting view about a tragic or unjust situation.
So on top of being a self important asshole you're a philistine, basically. And all this over whether bioshock doesn't need another sequel!
your ridiculous insinuation that a tragic event is inappropriate for satire just makes it clear you aren't well read at all, historically a large portion of satires have been a delicate way to approach a dissenting view about a tragic or unjust situation.
So on top of being a self important asshole you're a philistine, basically. And all this over whether bioshock doesn't need another sequel!
And now you're following me from thread to thread over this - having an entourage does make a guy feel important. What is it about my opinion on this game that's got you so worked up? I've managed to explain my opinion without attacking anyone personally. Making it personal, that's your call.
As for the pic, hey - it's a clever satire on how seriously people take these threads. Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's post would have been more entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tMawxwQjFs[/ame]
Replies
After all the hoo-ha on the website, I thought this'd be something a bit more new and exciting, but at least it looks it'll make up the complete redundancy of Bioshock 2.
Lots of info here too.
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/111/1111864p1.html
It was literally like 4 threads down :P
liked the cinematic trailer though, and it looks like the cities society is also racist, this might be good, for he sake of story.
This article in particular made me very hopeful:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/12/irrational-anthem-their-new-game-unveiled/
Skamberin: I love that part about it. It's not so much racist as it is xenophobic, afraid of 'them', the people that are 'out there'. It's all propaganda-led paranoia, and it's a fantastic setting for a videogame. The article I linked to goes into that a bit as well.
It should have bene System Shock, Bio Shock and now AERO SHOCK. Calling a game set in the SKY Bioshock makes totally no sense and makes me feel a little bit upset. About the same as I was when I lost my hamster, nibbles, many years ago...
Damn you 2k... Why did you have to bring up Nibbles...
Either way it doesnt fit in here...
"Obvious changes first. You arent the blank cipher. This time around, youre playing a character with a distinct personality."
Uhh... so... do I just send them my money in an envelope or what?
edit:
The "Bio" part might as well relate to humanity's struggles against the nature - both Rapture and Columbia are cities that put people in places they weren't really meant to be.
Bioshock was silly enough, in that it was referring to its ancestor, to take it any further than that would have been ridiculous.
I am more interested in the story and gameplay than the bloody name.
Now THERE's a game that sounds interesting
I totally agree, apart from the fact that "bioshock" implies big daddies and that injection magic gameplay. I would personally prefer something new in the new setting. Perhaps nimble, flying enemies instead of big bulky nauticalish enemies etc.
But as said, bioshock has become a brand, and if it means that they can keep making new different games while 2K suits are maniacly giggling that they're making another game with the bioshock brand, then that's all good.
To be fair, we only saw one bulky, 'nautical-ish' enemy, and it could well be a boss or significant character enemy. Reading through the report of the press demo, it sounds like mobility will be a factor in the combat, so who knows what kinds of enemies there'll be?
Honestly, all this pissing and whining about the name is pretty lame. So what? If it looks good (which I'd say is a safe bet), and it's fun to play, which I've no doubt it will be, then what's the problem?
Yes, it was awesome, but people need to move past System Shock. It came out sixteen years ago. It's probably not coming back, and if it does, it won't be in a way that people will like because everyone hates everything.
Why can't games just look great and be fun to play?
Flyoshock?
Highoshock?
apple pieoshock?
meanwhile:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/13/the-bioshock-infinite-ken-levine-interview/
Yeah okay, good point..
I'm not too worried that bioshock:infinite much like bioshock wont be fun the play, it was fun to play, I'm just worried that it, just the same as bioshock, will be good for one playthrough, a linear experience.
Systemshock can go get a worthy rest at the graveyard now, it had its two titles, the story ended, but people want the gameplay, that's what all the fuss is about.
Bioshock was always the same kind of game as systemshock2, it was even intended to be an evolution of that gameplay.
So yeah fun to play, but emphasis on "fun to replay".
Good point, but these days replay value is pretty much defined by multiplayer alone - though I must've played through the first Bioshock at least three times now.
Don't get me wrong about System Shock (both of them) - I'd love to see either a remake or a true adaptation of the gameplay, but since it seems so unlikely what with the console market diluting the majority of single-player game experiences and much more emphasis and priority placed on visuals over gameplay than back in the mid-to-late Nineties, we're setting ourselves up for disappointment by making constant comparisons to titles like Shock 1 & 2.
bioshock:infinite might turn into something great.
IMO, it's not simply the name but the universe that name conjures. To work from a big example, pick anything Star Wars. If you buy a Star Wars game, you have certain expectations of what that game will feel like - Jedi, the Force, TIE fighters, all that jazz. Now let's say you grab a copy of Star Wars: Generic FPS, and it has none of the things you associate with Star Wars. No Force, no Empire or rebels, no familiar ships or characters or weapons or anything. It's just a generic space marine FPS with the Star Wars label on it.
It could be a good game, solid gameplay, quality production, etc, and I believe the vast majority of players would still be pissed that their Star Wars game didn't include any actual Star Wars. I think that's going to be true to a degree across any brand that has a distinctive style. An X-Men game that replaces Wolverine and Cyclops with new, unheard of mutants would disappoint. A Street Fighter game that drops Ken, Ryu and the gang for a roster of new faces with entirely unfamiliar controls would disappoint.
Bioshock isn't as strong a brand as those, but it's still pretty distinctive. If you asked someone to describe a few things about the game, they'll certainly mention the undersea/diving motif, the distinctive art deco styling, the noir horror vibe, the emphasis on genetic mutation and human engineering, maybe the Ayn Rand-ish political stuff, etc.
As far as I'm aware, Bioshock: Infinite doesn't have any of that, outside maybe an echo of the politics. From a visual standpoint (everyone here appreciate aesthetics), the new game simply looks nothing like a "Bioshock" game. Not in terms of architectural style, not in setting, not in lighting, not in theme - not in any way except for the logo with the Bioshock name.
That's my issue with it. I don't want a 'chocolate chip cookie' that barely has any chocolate chips in it, and I don't want a 'Bioshock' game that barely has any Bioshock in it.
I remember seeing early shots back in my teens of Bioshock when it was all weird mutant grubs and nazis or something along those lines. it was about mutation. perhaps the name just stuck. they were working on it back when HL 1 was released.
i too really wish they'd do another title as deep as system shock. I don't care what they call it or if it has Shodan in it.. it would be a plus if Warren Specter lead it up though.
edit: here we go
I agree with you in principle, Tom, and you raise a good point regarding serial franchises generally, but are you honestly saying you'd want another visit to Rapture?
I loved the first game and really enjoyed the second, but enough's enough. Even though Columbia and Rapture are completely different cities, I disagree that there's no visual continuity between the two whatsoever, and even if the art deco / objectivist elements were more pronounced, people would still shit all over it because of a lack of anything we hadn't seen in the first two games.
Personally, I'd give both nuts to work on it, and it'll be a first-day purchase for me. It looks great, it sounds like it'll be fun to play and that's enough for me.
Pretty good memory...
http://irrationalgames.com/insider/march-from-the-vault/
And there were ideas about manipulating environmental controls, like oxygen and such.
I had this same experience with this other thing called WWII. I was cool with the style they had going for the enemies, they called them Nazis, both the uniforms and the architecture, the look and feel of a bombed out, gloomy, desolate Europe, the environments, setting, lighting etc.
Then they came out with this whole Japanese campaign thing. Its not even set in the same place. The original games were set in continental Europe, and now I'm storming some lush islands? The enemies don't even look the same, the architecture isn't the same, and the whole political undertone of it is different, with completely different objectives and goals. About the only thing the same with it is that I'm playing an American, and some of the guns and equipment are the same. I'm not sure why they went with this stylistic change, or why they decided to slap the WWII brand on it.
...I'm not sure if this counts for Godwin-ing a thread or not
It's in the sky instead of underwater. As far as I can see, that's the only difference. Everything else feels like Bioshock so far. Plus, 'bio' doesn't mean water; it means life. Politics, life, supernatural powers, a very distinct environment... if anything I'm disappointed it's too much like Bioshock.
If nothing else, it was a commendable attempt.
Yeah I don't get why it has to be underwater or have mutants to be bioshock? The details ma ybe deifferent but the art style stills looks like the same world to me and until we see any gameplay it's too early to tell anything anyway.
Illusions: don't mean to sound dickish here, but you know parts of WWII were fought in the pacific against Japanese soldiers right? I fail to see how this is confusing to you.
He wrote a fairly clever satire grounded into the idea that there can be a great deal of stylistic and tonal breadth under one framework or brand, and i'm thinking it went way over your head.
Like I said: as far as I know.
I'm not talking about politics generically, I'm talking about the fascist/nationalist/objectivism themes in Bioshock specifically. The Civilization series has a massive focus on politics - are you going to say that it is in any way like Bioshock?
Yes, I know what the prefix 'bio' means. I think most people know that the name referred to the genetic engineering/Splicers/plasmids in the original game, rather than assume it has anything to do with water.
You've just described Final Fantasy 7.
Very clever. World War II makes for great satire.
**
Image deleted so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.
**
I'd like to have seen where else the property could have gone, with people taking Ryan's philosophy further. Alternately, it might have been great to see a direct prequel, with a game set in the early, pre-disaster days of Rapture. There was so much material there, I don't think they mined that much of it, especially with Bioshock 2 just recycling a lot of Bioshock 1.
I will admit I'm not itching to walk around the remains of a deserted city anymore, and I've had enough creepy Little Sisters/Big Daddys.
Anyway, the Rock Paper Scissors article posted earlier
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/12/irrational-anthem-their-new-game-unveiled/
discusses the political situation in Columbia in some detail And it goes on...
way way over...
see folks? that's what happens when you read a reply to a quote without reading the quote.
you get made fun of on polycount:(
Seriously man, was this necessary?. The satire was a cleverly written point describing how it could remain in the same "world." No one needs to see pictures of a bunch of dead people in a hole. It doesn't prove your point further, it just make you look like a douche.
I'm looking forward to the game. I could care less of the name being Bioshock, because I enjoyed their last game and I'm sure this one will top it. The idea that not everyone is out to get you and peoples perceptions change depending on what you do is amazing to me. "oh, I whipped out my gun in the bar, I guess everyone is really pissed now."
The interview with Ken Levine makes it sound like the gene splicing is back and ramped up. I like the idea that Elizabeth can use powers as well for a tag team approach to fighting. I'm really interested to see how this will change any gameplay mechanics.
@Topic: The more I read up on this the more excited I am actually, if this is just a thing happening in the Bioshock universe with no ties to the previous games then thats fine. But I do hope they sneak in some kind of reference though, to something.
It does indeed. Here's Kurt Vonnegut exposing the tragedy and horror of western firebombing campaigns to the public through a science fiction comedy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse-Five
your ridiculous insinuation that a tragic event is inappropriate for satire just makes it clear you aren't well read at all, historically a large portion of satires have been a delicate way to approach a dissenting view about a tragic or unjust situation.
So on top of being a self important asshole you're a philistine, basically. And all this over whether bioshock doesn't need another sequel!
But yeah...Who was hoping the guy was going to get chopped up in the blades of the aeroplatform..
And now you're following me from thread to thread over this - having an entourage does make a guy feel important. What is it about my opinion on this game that's got you so worked up? I've managed to explain my opinion without attacking anyone personally. Making it personal, that's your call.
As for the pic, hey - it's a clever satire on how seriously people take these threads. Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's post would have been more entertaining.