Bioshock thoughts (part 2)

Bioshock is not only an inspiration to me but also to others as well. It is a critically a claimed game after all, and I dare say that it has aged well, because the relevant themes of the story, setting, and trilogy of games it has spawned. Bioshock is responsible for the creation of my favorite terms that are unique to video game discussions, ludonarrative dissonance. when the game play of a game and its story clash. This term was created by Clint Hocking in his blog.

• http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It is very much because of this blog that motivated me to write this on a NINE year old video game, if video games interest you I highly recommend his blog. Otherwise why are you reading this blog? Having these two very tangible levels of story telling is something unique to story telling and any game that can successfully utilize that is excellent in my opinion. 

The inspiration of this game was objectivism, as created my Ayn Rand. Simplified, objectivism is the belief that there is no faith or higher power but only reason that you should hold yourself accountable to, and that as an individual your goal is to achieve as much as you personally can. This is a much nicer way of saying the end justifies the means. (sorry teacher) In this fictional world Andrew Ryan creates a utopia on the bottom of the ocean in order to escape established government. The appeal of this city is finical growth not restricted by governments, no censorship for artists, and no moral limitations for scientists. The effectiveness of this philosophy is demonstrated in the fact that this city gets built, and the it does become inhabited, yet when you as the player see the city for the first time you see a hollow image of a city torn by civil war. So story for the player the becomes conflict between objectivism and just trying to do the right thing. This is implemented through a system where you either kill or help little girls who create supper natural power through a special genetic modification they have. The rest of the story is one hundred and fifty percent linear. The issue with this mechanic is that you benefit more in the long run from saving the little girls, where this choice should have put you in a disadvantageous situation and made the game significantly harder it does not. This defeats the moral conflict that the game is trying to create, where you can be the hero and the most powerful person possible, ludonarrative dissonance. Strike two is in the linear story, this is a particular issue because this game is set to the back drop of great men that created their own destiny, but you are the play have only one path you can follow. This first half of the game you as the play are trying to help the first man you come into contact with "escape" Rapture with his "family", by killing Andrew Ryan the founder of the city. You as the play have no choice in the matter because you were raised in a test tube to be a solider and had been brain washed to fill any command/sentence that ended in "would you kindly". (ohhhhhh, I should have probably put in a spoiler warning somewhere before this... ouch.. well too late now) The first of two cut scenes is used here to illustrate this point, you don't get to kill Ryan, you watch him die. Personally it was a moment of shock for me as a player because I wanted to believe in the good side of that one person (Atlas/Frank Fontaine) and myself that I was doing the good thing, but the manipulation was a good double take. On the other hand for the people that didn't want to do the good thing but rather survive and become as powerful as possible.... it was more of a slap to the face, limiting what was possible to do in the game. It seemed as if the game was created to appease the naive hope with in us, that says good will prevail and my favorite soccer team can win, because I root for it. Its a nice message, and the ending credits for a "good" ending are beautiful, but this concept goes against the objectivist ideals that should make the game thought provoking. Ludonarrative dissonance. After you discover that your character is being controlled, even though there are multiple characters that know about this and yet explain nothing to you. The story is STILL linear. Your goal is to find a way to take back control over your mind and kill the man how now runs the city (Atlas/ Frank Fontaine, same person, just has two different personas). Thematically this makes sense whether you want to gain control over the city and take as much power as possible or you want to save the children. Props to the games creators for finding one scenario that enables both actions to be taken, but again the linearity of the story goes against the message of objectivism. Unless the developers are trying to create the argument that the actions of the morally good and the ruthless are near identical, but it is much more likely that the reason is some sort of technical limitation. Bioshock is excellent game, but in addressing this inconsistencies you have to ask if it could have been better.

Thanks for reading.