Talk:BioShock/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Gameplay Screenshot

The screenshot used to illustrate the "gameplay" section is not very representative of the game. 75.36.176.51 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unknown Big Daddy

There is a third Big Daddy that is very unshown. Is it confirmed that it is in the game? I think it looks the coolest looking. On one of the refences for an IGN Blog on this wiki has all big daddies has a banner. (the one about the little sisters) So, is this third one in the game? I hope so!

There are probably alot of different big Daddies. They all just wear differet diving suits. I'd like to see if they have different weapons/upgrades for each suit 209.250.132.217 02:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added for people's knowledge on the 16th August about which Big Daddy is which. The Bouncers are the Daddies with 3 portholes on their helmet, and carry a rivet gun. The Rosies have bubble helmets with the 6 small portholes on and carry the drills on their arms, this is the version of the Daddy we see in the demo mid-play, when he kills the splicer. Someone decided to change the names around two days later. I have changed them back now, just remember, Rosie = close combat with drills on arms. Bouncer = long range attacks with big rivet gun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.30.81 (talk) 16:38:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards I checked on their website because I knew it sounded wrong. I was right, the Bouncers are the big daddies with the drills and the Rosies are the daddies with the rivet guns. The Bouncer is shown in an in-game clip where he kills the splicer after walking down to the theater at the beginning of the game--TheMysteryWaffle 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain of the Rosie/Bouncer assignment? When you get right down to the names, the way you have it set up makes no sense. I'd imagine Rosies would be the ones toting rivet guns, Rosie the Riveter being the inspiration, and Bouncers would be the close-quarters type just as the name implies. Do you have a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.92.61 (talk) 19:10:36, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found the link, if anyone wants to know what i am talking about. The one of the right, at the top of the page: http://blogs.ign.com/Irrational_Games/2007/05/23/55572/ Also, whats with the weapon the Rosie is carrying? It looks like a werird ball-shaped thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.206.223 (talk) 01:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


The "Rosie" (which I still believe to be a Bouncer) you're pointing to is equipped with what appears to be a type of rotary drill bit.

The Bouncers are the close-combat daddies, and Rosies are the long-range ones. The only official source of this outside of the game (afaik) is the artbook, where the foreword clearly states "Rosie’s Rivet Gun. It’s one of those things that shouldn’t work, but does. Huge props to Lorne for taking an out there concept and making it happen from half-way around the world.". Now can we please stop changing the article to say otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeX3 (talkcontribs) 05:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Dammit no, im not talking about the one with the 50 portholes, or the one with 4 portholes on each side. Im talking sbout the other one, on the link i provided, that looks like it had no portholes. You see? It looks different from ANY big daddy i have seen. is that a scrapped one, or no? it looks very interesting here an even better picture of the big daddy im talking about:

[1] you may need to scroll around a bit. Plus, there are a couple of old, old, old pcitures of Bioshock, in its orginal concept and form. Possibly add in the orginal concept?

No dude, I do believe you're looking at concept art for the Big Daddy, I know what you're talking about, but those are old renders. Also, I don't think concept stuff is relevant to the game article, but then again I've never done a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.92.61 (talk) 10:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, good game articles will have a development section, and if there's exceptional differences in the original version (as shown to the world) and the actual version, with such changes being verifiable and notable, it's useful to include that in the article. See, for example, Okami (which I just got to GA) which shows photorealistic vs watercolor renders. Now, again though, we need verifiability. Looking at that picture doesn't tell me much; if there's an article to go along with it, it would be better. (I haven't had a chance to look through the free art-book that came out last week, but I suspect you'll find more in there). --Masem 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, the dude is right. There were going to be 3 main big daddys, but one was cut and the bouncers and rosies were to be focused on. It was to be called a "slowpro" (slow protector) and it was gonna be the grenadier barrage big daddy with a grenade launcher one hand, rocket other. It did have a weird looking face too. Got it from the LE making of DVD.--70.23.118.114 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to that , it was 4 at first, then 3 till some time in 2007 I think then finally just rosie rivet and bouncer with the screw.Phansoft


September 29, 2007, I just found another Big Daddy called "Elite Bouncer", here's a photo of the screen http://www.enzymatics.com/elitebouncer.jpg. The tag "Elite Bouncer" appears when the camera hovers over the corpse of the bouncer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahsachs (talkcontribs) 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers?

I think they mabye should put spoiler tags around Gameplay, and other areas. I did not know that the first boss (spoiler) is a crazed surgeaon. Spoiler tags would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.206.223 (talk) 01:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by WP:SPOILER policy, spoiler tags are redundant for these sections; spoilers are implicit by the section names. If you don't want to be spoiled, the best way is to avoid the page until you've played the game yourself. --Masem 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that he is a crazed surgeon adds nothing to the gameplay section, it should not be in there. The gameplay section should discuss gameplay, not characters or plot. It shouldnt contain spoilers beyond the game mechanics. Capuchin 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the part about becoming a Big Daddy at one point in the story? I'm pretty far in, and that hasn't happened. Could that be removed/spolier tagged? 12.210.83.66 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Plot section should be wrapped in spoiler tags, just as it would if this were a movie or even a book. Bioshock really focuses on story and, whether intentional or not, plot spoilers should be noted. -Xeon25 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The spoiler policy for WP only was changed recently - yes, it used to be common practice to use spoiler warnings for game plots, but with the new policy, it is implied that there's spoilers if you are looking at a plot section. These have been removed as well for movies and books (if you see them sitting around particular for any work that's been out for more than a year, it needs to be removed). --Masem 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I checked the WP:SPOILER page, and there is at least a template we can use to show that this is a current work that falls within the policy, that being the {{current fiction}} on. I've added this to the top, but it should be removed a week or so from now (2 weeks from launch) so that it doesn't stay stale up there. --Masem 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've added a comment to the Plot section that explains why a spoiler tag is inappropriate under WP guidelines. I hope it doesn't get removed (again). Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, an IP put a sentence at the top and removed the comment, so I replaced it with {spoiler} to remove the random "spoiler", but I see that it doesn't belong in this case. BURNyA 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No probs. It's clear you're making good faith contributions. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that there should be some explanation of the way Bioshock uses surprising twists in the storyline to enhance gameplay. I think this would serve two good purposes. First, it would give a heads up to people who didn't realize that the storyline of the game was paramount to the experience of playing it. Many people who read this article won't know much about Bioshock at all (since wikipedia is where people go to find out about things they don't know about) and they may not realize the detriment of reading the whole plot before it's too late. This is exacerbated by the fact that most FPS game stories don't matter that much to the gameplay. Kevin Levine himself said that Bioshock is a game which uncommonly relies on plot twists to enhance gameplay. Second, I think it'll be informative (is this not the purpose of wikipedia?) to explain this in the article: That Bioshock relies upon story twists much more than most games. This is akin to the difference between the movie "The Sixth Sense" and movies in general. Anyone who remembers when The Sixth Sense came out knows what I'm talking about here. Revealing the twist at the end was taboo because the movie relied on that twist so much. Bioshock is the same way. One last thing (I'm sorry this is so long), I understand why WP:SPOILER exists. It's because they are trying to avoid redundancy in articles since people should already expect spoilers to be contained under a "Plot" heading. But a "Plot" heading does not emphasise the points I have made above. A statement reflecting the above information has not been placed anywhere in the article, and so I cannot see how it can be redundant. So far I've tried to put this information into the article in two different ways. Apparently these ways have not been acceptable because they have both been removed. I'm going to temporarily add back my last statement (even though it may be flawed) in order to give people a heads up before they read the plot, until we can come up with a better explanation that you all find appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtravel (talkcontribs) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that while this may be apparently true, if you put it in without citing a reliable source, it is original research and cannot be allowed. If you can find a critical review that says this is the case, be our guest and insert it, but without such a reference it will be removed. --Masem 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
One of them does. I think the Gamespot review says that specifically if someone wants to dig it up. Could be wrong. On the other hand (and I was one of those that incorrectly added a spoiler tag) a very good point has been made, that if an editor intends to play the game, they should avoid the article until afterwards. Yes, it happens to be especially important with BioShock, but I think that it's safe to say it's a good choice with any story driven media article on Wikipedia or any other non-professional review site. On a side note, I personally had the story ruined before I finished the game by a vandal that posted the info at the top of the article in bold letters. So I'd avoid this area all together until after. BURNyA 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Then for now, since I believe it is harmful to have no notice of the delicate nature of the game's storyline, I will go back to the spoiler warning which I originally used. I'll do this because placing a spoiler warning is permissable. If you read the first section of WP:SPOILER you will find it stated, "This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." A spoiler warning is permissable, and I think necessary to protecting the integrity of the game. However, the spoiler warning is only temporary until a consensus is reached through this discussion section. Remtravel 03:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have several questions to pose: 1. I've given some reasons for why I think having a spoiler warning of some kind is necessary, but what good is done by its omission? 2. In what way could I insert an appropriate addition to the article in order to warn uninformed readers that they might later regret reading it? Also, (this is directed to Masem) I'm not sure what sort of reference I would need to cite. Would just any main stream web site with a similar statement work? 3. Lastly, I don't understand how the following quote violates original research, "Ideally, the plot of Bioshock should be experienced through playing the game rather than through reading it from this section. This is because Bioshock, more than most games, relies on the revelation of story elements to enhance gameplay." If someone could clarify where the contradiction occurs, I would appreciate it. Could the statement be modified so that it is acceptable to be placed into the article? Remtravel 03:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then....
  1. Honestly I'm on the same page as you here: spoilers are annoying, and it would be nice if we could have spoilers hidden by default. However, the consensus is that spoilers are to be expected in certain sections, and thus policy dictates that the spoiler tag should not be used in those sections.
  2. You can't. WP:SPOILER explicitly forbids it.
  3. It's Original Research because (among other things) it can't be cited to any single outside source. If you could hypothetically find some article somewhere that specifically mentions that people should play BioShock rather than reading about it then it would pass WP:NOR. Of course, it would still fail other policies and/or guidelines.
Hope that clears some stuff up. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. I'm glad that you atleast understand where I'm coming from.
  2. But WP:SPOILER does not forbid spoilers. If you read the first paragraph is explains that WP:SPOILER is only a guideline, not a rule that must always be followed. It even says that there are times when exceptions should be made to it.
  3. While I don't see how the statement violates original research, what I really want to know is how can it be changed so that it is appropriate, yet still explains how BioShock emphasizes the importance of its storyline? Remtravel 03:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2 and 3 together: That statement contains two matters of opinion ("this game should be experienced..."; "BioShock, more than most games, relies..."). It is not that these aren't allowed on WP, but they must come from a reliable source. While every editor for this page may agree with that assessment, we cannot put our views up on the page, it had to be a neutral point of view. Thus, this is where the Original Research comes into play; you're stating your own feelings for the game. Now, again, these are likely statements that you can find in a review or several, and so a reference for this would be such a review, ideally a direct quote to make it sound less like a matter of Wikipedia editor opinion, and a cited source. Furthermore, this would be much better placed in the Reception section, otherwise you're mixing concepts in the article.
As for the spoiler warning, this was a huge discussion that went on around May or June. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general reference guide; the inclusion of spoiler warnings got to the point that people were putting spoiler warnings around 50-60 year old works. Thus, after a long debate, it was basically decided that since WP is a general encyclopedia, spoiler warnings are NOT appropriate except in a few extreme cases; the section titles of "plot" or "story" automatically convey this warning. That is, while those BioShock players that may not want to spoiled, the general public that likely will never play the game are better severed without the spoilers. Maybe if it was the week of release, or pre-release and people were doing this, spoiler warnings would be ok, but now that it's a month out of the game, its not appropriate any more. --Masem 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER doesn't forbid them, but then says they should not be used in sections explicitly labeled plot or story. The case that would apply here is if, say, part of the gameplay required knowing a critical aspect of the plot and there was absolutely no way to discuss the gameplay fully without discussing it, then a spoiler tag would be appropriate on the gameplay since you normally won't expect one there (This is why a certain part of the late game is kept out of the current GP section, because it does spoil the plot, but its not a critical gaemplay element). And even if we as BioShock editors agreed to a spoiler warning, someone else will remove it.
Again, I'll stress that the original research part of your statement is that it reads as a potentially disputable opinion, that the story is better enjoyed through the game than by reading it. First off, it's going to be almost impossible to support the statement "the story is better enjoyed played than reading it" because no critical review takes that point. However, it should be possible to state, in the "Reception" section , something like. "Critics have praised the game for having a story that can only be told by playing through the game" with a reference or two to a review that stated that. Or if there's a Ken Levine interview that states they wanted such a story, or something like that. That 1) makes it no longer original research and 2) provides a verifiable source for that statement. --Masem 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Before I respond to anything, I saw a large addition made by Masem in a previous version that seems to be missing now. I was going to try to restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtravel (talkcontribs) 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So there is no standard way to emphasize that a particular story/movie/game may have more important story elements to them than is standard? That doesn't make sense to me. What about mystery novels or books with serious storyline twists which the whole work hinges upon? If not a spoiler tag, then there should be some other mechanism for highlighting these exceptions for unwary readers. I guess what it comes down to is that I'm a long time gamer, and I know games of this type don't come around often. It's also the type of game which can be ruined for someone by unveiling its story. I don't think it's right to allow that to happen if it can be prevented (this is actually the reason I made my wikipedia account). If someone is skimming through the article who has only heard of BioShock, the word "Plot" may not be enough to halt them in their tracks. Isn't that outcome less desirable than having a simple spoiler warning in the plot section? Or a statement like the one I put in the body after the spoiler was taken out? Well, since I said I would follow consensus (and since spoiler warnings are not technically against the rules) I ask that you allow the spoiler warning to remain there until tomorrow. Atleast give people that much time to chime in on this issue, or to let me find a good source. By then, if there doesn't seem to be any change in the consensus, I will relent my arguing and accept that a plot heading is sufficient. I also will replace the spoiler tag this one last time after I add this, and will not replace it again after someone removes it. --Remtravel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtravel (talkcontribs) 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Masem, I haven't forgotten what you told me about finding a source. It's just that I haven't had much luck in finding one yet, though I have been looking. So far I've read gamespot's review and a few others. I guess the thing I don't understand about violating Original Work is this: How can it be that we wiki editors all agree that BioShock relies heavily on story revelations, but be unable to state it; while when a game website editor writes the same thing in a review (which is only commentary) it is considered a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtravel (talkcontribs) 03:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks to BURNyA, I found this, "Sure, the action is fine, but its primary focus is its story..." at http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/bioshock/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;reviews. And I found this, "...Rapture's tragic tale of paradise lost is easily the most engaging part of BioShock and to let even the tiniest sliver of detail slip out could be considered a crime against the gaming community" at http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioshock/813243p1.html Can I use either of these as sources for a statement similar to the old one? --Remtravel 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but again, these should be part of the game's reception. Putting these as a replacement for a spoiler warning will have them quickly deleted by less-forgiving editors that are completely against spoiler tags of any type. These comments should bein the reception section. --Masem 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But you must see that placing anything in the reception section will completely nullify the whole purpose of placing them at all. What if I created a new statement that wasn't a spoiler but would help warn readers. Something like, "Unlike most first-person shooters, BioShock places its primary focus upon the story" and then use those web sites as sources? --Remtravel 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to read the discussion behind the WP:SPOILER issue. Mind you, it's STILL going from this last May. The key points to take away is that implicit in Wikipedia is that spoiler warnings if used for a plot section should only be for recently released works; at some point that spoiler warning HAS to be removed. Thus, I don't think you want to spend all this time to write a cited-sourced work for a spoiler warning to have it deleted. If a spoiler warning is used, it should be the bare minimum, eg the {{spoiler}}.
My suggestion is that if you think a spoiler is really needed on this is to discuss the issue at WP:SPOILER's talk page as to get a larger audience, because, as you note, there's more about story to this game than a normal video game, and that might lead to some discussion, but even if you go there, I think they're going to tell you "no'. --Masem 04:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I will check page out. --Remtravel 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've inserted this statement, "Unlike most first-person shooters, the gameplay of BioShock is driven by its plot line." It shouldn't be seen as a spoiler warning because, it is a good opener for the plot section, it's informative with regard to the plot section, it's cited with two sources, and it tells people about something they should know before they read the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remtravel (talkcontribs) 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added one, just in case. I found on on Halo 3, so I don't think it should be that big of a deal, seeing as Bioshock is much more story-driven than Halo 3. ChristopherEdwards 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo just came out 3 days ago, it is within reason to supply a timely spoiler message. However, BioShock has been out for a month; it is no longer appropriate for such, as per WP:SPOILER. Again, sections titled "Plot" or "Story" and the like should implicitly carry such warnings. --Masem 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Demo

As some of you may be aware, due to a fault of some kind at fileplanet, the unencrypted version of the BioShock demo was put up, and was accessible yesterday. They have since removed the file, with the as intended encrypted preload version for subscribers the only available file, but of course the demo is now spreading around torrent sites. Should this be mentioned in the article? 68.151.136.226 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an event that will no longer be relevant after another .. 6 hrs? (as I type this) - I would say no. --Masem 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

May or may not be a reception issue

People are discovering that, as they can tell from the PC demo, that widescreen effectively cuts off parts from 4x3 and changes the FOV to match, instead of truly widening the view. (forum post at 2k games that has a screenshot) Now, I also read somewhere but cannot find that the demo was based on a year-old build of the engine (this likely should go in th article if a verifiable source can be found, so this could all change in the final release. As no major news sites yet mention this, it's non-notable (and forums aren't verifible as I yet to see an official 2k response in there), but it may come up as the retail version is distributed. --Masem 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for East Coasters to verify the issue with the retail PC version, but a couple gaming sites are picking this up (but still not article-inclusion worthy unless proven with the real game). Joystiq Kotaku --Masem 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about including it, just yet. Seems someone has already added it though :S. I'm not sure because, even though gaming sites are reporting about this forum post and using the original image, they aren't offering up any tests or backup. It's the same junk "article" with the same Joe Public image - what if everyone is being had? I can't see an un-reliable source suddenly become reliable because gaming sites are reporting the original source without further research. ParjayTalk 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Shacknews said they confirmed it (and have a different image too), and they also have a couple 2k developers in the folds that said they're checking on this. The other sites just pulled from the forums, and haven't seen any other confirmation yet. --Masem 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, the feeling I'm getting for this issue is the same as Dead Rising's small text problem, which was notable within a single paragraph or two over there. I think they'll be one or two more things to say about it at most, either they'll patch it, or they say that they had to go that way for reason X. I doubt it will go farther than that (there's people making a huge deal out of it, calling it a game-breaker, but's nowhere as bad as that, or even the DR problem with small text). --Masem 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the section with 2K Games' latest press release. My guess is this section should only stay if there's actually a large outcry about the press release, but it looks right now as if 2K Games isn't going to do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.87.1.171 (talk)


I'm also updating the section...the comment by Kline isn't really needed. The truth of the matter at this point without any doubt is that this is a Field of View issue and not one with widescreen. The patch will allow a change in FOV also, thus essentially having nothing to do with widescreen other than the "comparisons" of 4:3 and 16:9, thus it is being rewritten. 66.82.9.69 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end, it isn't wide vs 4:3, but I believe it is important to note that this is what lead to this being an "issue" (people demanded reconciliation for Kline's statement, leading to the discovery of it being an FOV issue instead of letterboxing), and we have the documented verification of what lead this to this case. --Masem 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that BioShock was released the way it was intended for the longest time. The ONLY thing done here was an extension of the 4:3, which caused -mass hysteria among a handful of forum posters and blog sites- The wiki needs to eventually lessen this NOT into a full paragraph, blowing this thing up as if every buyer of BioShock has a problem with the intended FOV/feel of the game, but a simple sentence or two basically saying "Some people want a larger screen than the intended FOV". That's all that has happened with the FOV "issue".

Fanatics jumped the gun, its an "issue" thousands of BioShock players are unaware of nor find fault with the intended version of the game. Much like the issue with Twilight Princess last year which caused the SAME jumping to conclusions, it is now a minor footnote and apparently, the mirroring of an -entire game and changing its intended vision- did not hamper the enjoyment of the game or become something that is an actual "issue" for even left-handed players, yet the wiki maintains a neutral and factual point, not citing self discovery and forum debates as "proof" there is a problem. Again, if this is the maturity of approaching encyclopedia quality articles, all we need do is scour forums for "Facts" and "neutrality", correct? Citing Forums and self-discovered realizations that (especially prior to 2k's statements) held more theory and gossip (again, which heightened this problem in and of itself) against the actual facts of the game/"issue". In other words, I'm hoping we can reach a point where this becomes as mentioned, a simple sentence or two of "negative criticism", and less addressing it as some massive "technical issue". 67.142.130.42 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I myself could care less as a game player on the FOV issue as it doesn't bother me; I'm not trying to force it into the article because I feel slighted by it or the like and I agree that most gamers blew this out of proportion to a good extent. I am trying to state how the FOV issue factually came about. Unbiasly, it is important to note that other (non-verifiable) gamers discovered widescreen appeared letterboxed; this lead to (reliable/verifiable) gaming news sites to confirm the issue, in turn which lead to the discovery of (verifiable) Kline's statement when specifically asked about widescreen in the forums. This lead to 2K's (verifiable) double response: that it's FOV and FOV as intended, and that a patch would be out to support FOV changing for those that need to.
All this is (at least to me) currently being reported unbiasedly using verifiable reliable sources.
The main reason why its necessary to go into certain detail now is that this FOV issue may be a notable game development problem industry-wide, much like the small text in Dead Rising or the problems with the Church of England with Resistance: Fall of Man. Many people can get sick if the FOV is set inappropriately, and not giving the players the ability to adjust this can lead to motion sickness (This is a big problem with Marathon: Durandal on XBL, among other games). I don't believe we need to go into any more detail (Beyond noting when such a patch comes out), and the SecuROM issue overshadows this even more so, so I think what's stated is sufficient and necessary. --Masem 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Endings

I added the Endings , Please correct them if i'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.218.142 (talkcontribs)

Is it really necessary to have them listed? 24.127.184.64 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge and Bioshock seems to be an important cultural work, it seems natural to have a fairly complete description of its content. Please don't bring up spoilers, as wikipedia contains spoilers, and also some people (like me) can never play the game to see for ourselves since we have epilepsy. 69.120.2.231 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Slow down there, don't let your personal opinion get in the way, pages should outline the plot but theres a difference between "plot" and what some put in. Every single detail is considered overlly long and is really not required. Stabby Joe 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm almost certain the game only has 2 endings, but the article says there is 3, but 2 are almost identical. If I'm correct, the Little Sisters take down Atlas/Fontaine in both endings as seen through an ingame engine cutscene, then depending on whether you harvested or rescued the Little Sisters, a CGI cutscene is shown. If you rescued them, a cutscene is shown of you releasing the Little Sisters from Rapture and how they grow up and comfort the player on his death bed. If you Harvested them, a cutscene is shown of you grabbing a Little Sister (implying you are so ADAM-hungry you Harvest your saviors) and then your army of Splicers goes up to the surface and murders the people on top who are there to retrieve the plane, and there is a possible implication that you gain nuclear weapons and set out to conquer the world. If someone can confirm this, please fix it in the article. The Wookieepedian 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting the endings on that page is not only unjustified and arbitrary behaviour, it's logically invalid! Think of it this way: Those that haven't finished the game do NOT want to know about the ending. Those who have beaten it, don't want to read about it, since they already know it. I propose changing it to mention that there are different endings dependant on your actions in game, but leave integral plot details outside of this page. It's supposed to be informative, not a detailed acount of the events in a videogame who's very foundation is its plot. 82.95.20.180 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the whole section about alternate endings confusing. Also I think that integral plot details should be kept for those who may want to read it (or in other words spoil it for themselves, like me) but I think there should be a warning at the top of the Plot section warning that there are integral plot details below so that those who do not wish to see it do not have to. And one more thing I really like the fact that movie and game pages have heaps of detail on them, I can understand others views but personally I really enjoy reading fine detail about plots of games or movies or books. besides if somebody reading a wikipedia article doesnt want to read them then they don't have to. --Fukhed666 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP must be non-biased and retain a neutral point of view. This has come to include that you do not leave out significant events of the plot including possible spoilers. To only cover the first half of a game, for example, is not sufficient.
Additionally, it has been determined that sections titled "Plot" or "Story" implicitly carry a spoiler warning, and thus there's no need for these.
However, at the same time, to fully describe every element of the plot in full detail is putting undue weight on that part of the game's article. Highly detailed plot descriptions are not appropriate for WP. --MASEM 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception section revisited

I noticed that it was ranked 1 on Game Rankings in the opening which it is not. Please do realise that regardless if you like the game and it so far has great reviews, such information is subject to change so much it shouldn't be in the opening paragraphs. Plus like I've said, it isn't ranked yet due to a small number of reviews. I know there are plenty of new edittors since its realesed and most of you here who will love the game and do everything to make it look good here but this is wiki, at it is neutral so do make sure such claim are real and not what you "predict". Stabby Joe 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of "Southpaw" controls criticism

I feel fairly strongly that this section should be removed. It's given undue weight based upon a few forum posts. Comments? Docta247 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just done it. ParjayTalk 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. It was not only a lengthy thread on the BioShock forum, it also spawned the Southpaw Manifesto. Just because it may seem trivial to you, it mattered to a lot of gamers. --Dark54555 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

A blog post with one comment? I hardly think that meets the notability bar... Achromatic 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Number of comments is a pretty crappy barometer for the popularity of a blog entry. It's had a few thousand hits. --Dark54555 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. People comment on things they feel strongly about. People will read a whole forum as a matter of course and that is in no way an agreement. Docta247 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rapture - Dystopia or Utopia

I have changed 'dystopia' to 'utopia' in the opening paragraph. Please see the wikipedia page on utopia for clarification. A utopia may refer to a society attempting to achieve perfection while a dystopia never claims to be the ideal society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.50.182 (talk) 03:59, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

"Dystopia" is what numerous reviews call it. Maybe Rapture was set up to be a utopia, but as it ended up in the present of the game it does qualify as a dystopia. Eg, from dystopia: "Many dystopias, found in fictional and artistic works, can be described as an utopian society with at least one fatal flaw." --in this case, ADAM. --Masem 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Actually Rapture is an Anti-utopia, given that it isnt a utopia, obviously, and a dystopia is purposefully made to be all that a utopia isn's. An anti-utopia, is a utopia that, either through corruption or accident, was meant to be a utopia, is portrayed to be a utopia, but isn't anymore. --Antimus 15:37, 18th September 2007

Do you have a source for this? or is this OR? There are many sources calling it a dystopia. Capuchin 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we can take two approaches to this. First, by WP:NPOV, we are simply stating what the gaming literature in general is calling Rapture (dystopia is the word used there). If they are wrong, they're wrong, but we're not introducing bias to this. The other route is that, as reading through the dystopia page, the concept of "anti-utopia" being different from a dystopia is suggested not to be a completely accepted concept in literature works. Sure, I understand the difference (the flaw introduced later, vs the flaw introduced at the time of conception), but given that its not well-accepted (again, as I read it, I may be wrong), I think we want to stick with the more accepted term. This latter approach is still edging on WP:OR, so I think that as long as we go with what reliable sources are calling it, we should stick with that. --Masem 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Antimus, please discuss this issue here until we come to a consensus. The consensus at the moment is to leave it as dystopian. Please do not continue to change it back or it will be seen as vandalism. The wikipedia page on dystopia is not a valid reference for calling Rapture an ant-utopia. This is still OR and you know it. Capuchin 12:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a previous comment that anti-utopian is not a completely accepted term, and therein lies the problem, the disambiguation of anti-utopian from dystopian was done for a reason, because it is a different kind of society. It is somewhat farcical that it has not been accepted but that is mainly because of certain literary sources not wanting to taint their collective works by having them pulled apart by this topic. Though if you actually read the Dystopia page on wiki, it does state that Rapture is anti-utopian, I assume you just missed this part. The only way out of this I can see, because I have a rather obsessive attitude to correctness on this issue, probably stemming from my time at university, is an edit to the page to add the arguments for both sides instead of a blanket link saying Dystopian which basically seems as though the high likelihood that it is anti-utopian is ignored just because some people haven't agreed the term yet. Is that an acceptable compromise? Antimus 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I actually agree with you the Rapture is an Anti-Utopia, the problem is that such a discussion section would still be OR. In the huge majority of online literature it is called a dystopia. (170,000 ghits for "Rapture"+"dystopia", 186 ghits for "Rapture"+"anti-utopia"). This is what we must base our article on. You claimed on the talk page that in interviews the developers have called it an anti-utopia. If you have a link to it then that would be a valid reference. But I have no idea why you did not use that as a reference in the first place.
Obviously, from the above, we can conclude that in popular usage, dystopia includes anti-utopia, and I think that therefore calling it a dystopia is a compromise.
I think we should remove that mention of Rapture in the dystopia article too, since it is unsourced.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? Capuchin 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I do see where you're coming from, and after a better search the quote wasnt from a developer, but I simple have a problem with the fact that just because the game developers can't be bothered to look up the definition of dystopia, they call Rapture one. And because of that everyone else does. Just because every game page has a transcript of interviews from them with them saying dystopia, so google picks up thousands, doesn't mean it is one. by definition Rapture is an anti-utopia, because by popular opinion it isn't doesn't change the fact, and isnt Wikipedia supposed to be factual, not based on what everyone thinks? Antimus 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a problem with language, not with physical reality. If enough people call an apple an orange, then an apple is called an orange. That's how language works. The article on dystopia only verifies that anti-utopia is not seperate from dystopia except in "some academic circles". I truely think that dystopia is a perfectly accurate word to use here. Anti-utopia would be equally accurate and a little more precise, but would introduce unverfiability and obfuscation to the article for the average reader (plus anti-utopian, to me, is an ugly sounding word, but that's my own POV). I don't think it's something worth doing, on balance. Capuchin 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
But let's be honest here, one game calling an anti-utopian society dystopian, isn't going to change the language. True anti-utopian is a bit jerky for a word, but let's not get started on the English language, we'll be here forever. Though I can see this one going on for a while. The problem with my argument is that the term anti-utopian isn't a verified literary term, and because of that I'm probably going to lose this. Though I disagree with removing the remark from the Dystopia topic, because while it isn't verified, it is true. And the fact I had nothing to do with that edit shows that I'm not alone in this argument Antimus 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

-SERIOUS- SecuROM problem

I refer to the issue that can be read on here and here. Long story short, the retail PC edition apparently is limited to a grand total of two installs, due to the intentional design of the SecuROM authentication scheme. Needless to say, this is a very serious problem with the product that should be mentioned in the article. Any ideas on how to best incorporate it while being neutral on the issue? CABAL 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them next to criticism section. Not quite sure who will delete them. They is lot of deletions and merge going on in wikipedia. Best of Luck. --SkyWalker 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to mention, under reception, that the game uses SecuROM (which has a host of its own problems), and then to include specifics at the SecuROM article. However, I'd wait until at least some good gaming source provides this news, instead of relying on forum posts. --Masem 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Aight, I'll hold out. Frankly, its just idiotic to hear of something like this occurring, especially when I'm planning to grab a copy myself this Friday. CABAL 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Something to do with Windows Vista, I believe. ParjayTalk 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd still use discretion here (lets see what 2K says), but Firing Squad's validated the 2-install issue. Oh wait, I see that 2K's Elizabeth's commented on it, that if you don't uninstall correctly, you may have to call SecuROM to ask for a deactivation. Unless there's more to this, I would say this is a non-issue (unlike the Widescreen thing at the moment) --Masem 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Question for the curious, then: How does it know if you've uninstalled? Does it notify the SecuROM server when that occurs? Anyone care to confirm? CABAL 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the information is stored on Registry. If you happened to have one copy and then install one more copy upon that the registry would be same and it activates Securom anti-piracy. --SkyWalker 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And how is that going to work across more than one system? CABAL 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Simple, You need a net to activate the copy right?. You enter the first cd-key and then the cd-key of the different system. The CD-Key will be registered on the server. Once the servers receive third request for the third copy it denies the request. The cd-key is encrypted when sent to the servers. Overall this sort of protection can be cracked by people who have knowledge of this. It will take weeks,month or years depending on the knowledge they have. --SkyWalker 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And how does the server know its the third system? Say I have it installed on two machines, and the first one dies from a hard-drive failure. That leaves me with one working installation. However, I can't install a replacement third copy on another machine because their server would assume the dead copy is still working. CABAL 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Iam not sure about how this work. I think the hardware info be sent to the server?. It takes hardly 1 or 2 kb to sent to server about hardware config. Dont buy this game now. If there is enough of outcry about this. 2K game may remove this sort of CP from bioshock. It will be worth the wait. Personally i wont be buying this game until next year. --SkyWalker 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a pretty easy fix. Ghost your second machine, uninstall the game, restore the ghost image. You have a working bioshock install on your second machine and you are no longer using up one of your activations. --chutzpah 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone still cares, but here goes. To add insult to injury, the SecuROM nonsense apparently resorts to stealthily lodging a rootkit in your system. You can check for yourself using Microsoft's own utility here, if you have the game installed. Furthermore, in a stunning display of idiocy, key reactivation apparently requires that, in at least some cases, you send them a photo of your CD and manual to them via email, something which even Microsoft doesn't require for its considerably more expensive software products. See for yourself here. CABAL 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Starforce got into this trouble that is why most companies stopped using it because of customers outcry. If 2k games get enough of outcry they will remove it after sometime. The main reason of this copy protection is because of piracy. Many of them would pirate it. --SkyWalker 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I've tweaked the wording of this issue to (hopefully) be more understandable and reflect the latest state of affairs regarding SecuROM. There were also some things that I couldn't find in the references, specifically about how the activation scheme wasn't included in some methods of delivery of the software (it's in all methods, including Steam, retail disc, etc.), and how uninstalling the software refunds one of the activations (it doesn't; according to the FAQ, the only way to reclaim an activation is to run a special-purpose utility that 2K Games/SecuROM hasn't even developed or released yet). I tried to be as objective as I can, but obviously, this is totally unacceptable to me, and I highly recommend that everyone avoid this game. --TonyV 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SecuROM is not included in the Steam demo. I searched through the registry (in a fresh install of Windows XP) and didn't find that entry (…\Software\SecuROM\!CAUTION! NEVER DELETE OR CHANGE ANY KEY*). Corky842 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Over-criticism?

It seems that in an attempt to remove the excess of positivity previously present in the Reception section, certain people have gone overboard in listing the flaws of the game. All but ONE PARAGRAPH of the entire reception section describes problems with Bioshock. While describing negatively-received aspects of a game is perfectly fine, more detail should be given to why its such a WELL-received game. Ultimately, it seems some people have gone overboard in removing positive hype from the Reception section. This should be fixed. Qwo 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit to cutting down the positive reviews, because people were just quoting praise, repeating the same praise stated a different way in other reviews. However, with the 3 paragraphs, I made sure to address: the positives of the game; the negatives of the game; and any noted differences between PC and 360 versions (which isn't really positive or negative, just to note that reviews did see differences between these).
But again, we're an encyclopedia, not a review summary site. The reception section should be outlining what critics liked, what critics didn't like, and any other notable issues (pro or against) for the game. --Masem 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if a game has strong reviews, wiki pages must remain neutral. A featured article, Shadow of the Colossus seems to have a fair balance of pros and cons. Stabby Joe 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now the section has over-criticism... either crop it or expand the pros which there are more of it seems so far review wise. Stabby Joe 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I will argue that the widescreen issue and the SecuROM issue are "special" cases; one doesn't break gameplay at all, the other one is technical and once overcome, doesn't touch gameplay. Eg, they are what Small Text is to Dead Rising: notable problems but don't change how the game is received. Also, since both have yet to be fully resolved but will be resolved based on 5x5 patch, these are only transient problems. If we need to put them into a special section as to not make the Reception look unbalanced, then that's fine. (Remember, we haven't added any GOTY or GOTM awards this game is likely to be getting). --Masem 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Reviews section of this article is overly negative, violating W's neutrality. Whoever added the cited sections from Zeropunctuation and Press Start (?) are cherry picking for negative reviews. All reviews cited should come from reputable sources. Yes, there are reputable sources for game reviews. If you edit here, you should know them. I think the editor who chose these comments from these two sites simply couldn't find any from the mainstream media. As further reference, look at the Half-Life 2 Wiki article. No negative reviews at all, even though there was certainly criticism (Jeff Green, Computer Gaming World). There are editors here who are not abiding by the neutrality clause--here in the review section and the "technical problems" section, which in reality are transient issues that will be fixed. Jamelon 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Zero Punctionation one is probably a bad one to link to, period. However, I will say that the other ones (the Yale Review one and the Press Start Online) aren't necessary negative reviews, they just highlight the negatives in a different way. But however again, I can definitely see that you can probably find a review SOMEWHERE to point out a negative issue that you want to have it say (as long as its not coming from your own mouthpiece), and those points feel like reaches. If the same points can be found in the usual top tier review sites (IGN, 1UP, etc.) then they should still be mentioned and primarily sourced to those, but if not, it's definitely reaching.
I realize I'm responding to an old post here, but that last line is hooey. Those huge sites do not reflect the popular opinion so much as they subtly shape it, and their paid reviewers are not the only authority on a game's reception. There is a strong contingent of smaller publications that have given this game fair reviews, but that point out a number of flaws glossed over by major media sites. In an ideal world, any of these would be as legitimate as the bigger sites, but for practicality's sake I'd say that if a few of these agree on a particular issue (say, the lack of variety in enemies), that it's every bit as legitimate as anything said by the bigger sites.76.88.38.191 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The tech issues I think are definitely less of a problem a month out from release than they were then. I think once the patch is out and confirmed that issues are cleared or as expected both tech section can be condensed since its not as newsworthy anymore. --Masem 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ps3 rumors... commented out until better confirmation

To whom added the PS3 rumors.. I'd argue that none of these are actually sufficiently strong confirmation to include. They're speculation on their own by lack of certain statements from 2K, which is just as bad if we were speculating. Now, mind you, if there is a PS3 announcement, these become valid, so I've commented them out until such a point may happen. --Masem 05:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This just in: [2] ParjayTalk 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions

How about a section about the early Nazi-zombie-mutants and really-bio games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talkcontribs) 05:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

If you would kindly post a link or two with info on the old versions, maybe we could put something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.160.181 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro spoiler

"The architecture and society of Rapture was strongly inspired by the works of Ayn Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged"

This reveals the relationship between the "good" Atlas and "bad" Andrew Ryan when that is meant to be revealed after playing the game for a while. It was a spoiler to me when I read it but I've only played the demo so far so mabye I'm wrong (comes out tomorrow in Australia). ShadowUnseen 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPOILER 198.6.46.11 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That is hardly a spoiler - it doesn't say how the game is inspired, or give away any plot details at all. It's the type of teaser sentence that appears in a newspaper review. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SM2.0 Patch

Should the link be removed as a moderator has posted that workarounds are not covered in Bioshock's T&C? http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132192&postcount=367

Broken Figurine in CE/LTD Problems

Having just received the CE/LTD with a broken figurine, I think it's worth noting in the CE/LTD section the reports of the broken Big Daddy figurines that people have been receiving. [link] 2K will be sending a printed version of the free artbook to customers with a broken figurine. ParjayTalk 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shader 2.0 problems

Removed from article:-

I think this needs to be rewritten to make it more encyclopaedic and neutral in tone before it should be included in the article. The most glaring issues I can see are...

  • "The problem however" (see WP:WTA)
  • "three times as powerful as ... equivelent (sic)" inherent contradiction - or poor wording - and this is original research
  • "suddenly unable to play" who could play this game, say, in July 2007?
  • "large public outcry" WP:PEACOCK and WP:V both apply
  • "going to convince them" WP:CRYSTAL

I would say there is perhaps a short sentence that can be salvaged from this paragraph, assuming the petition has sufficient notability, but what do other editors think? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears other articles that highlight such technical issues are minor within their articles. Considering such issues are fixed it would be subject to change and highlighting the history of such an error is overlly long and drags out the page to long. While it should be included, a major cropping should be in order. Stabby Joe 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can this even be considered a "technical problem"? The minimum requirements do not state shader 2.0, hence it is unsupported rather than technical problem. Should we also start listing all the other old hardware that doesn't work with this game? Of course not. ParjayTalk 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


I think the issue has grown into a big enough controversy can be put in the issues section along with securom and activation. Of interest is how easily the game can be made to work on sm2.0 cards by the user community with acceptable performance and graphics quality (for x800 series certainly), yet the developers have ruled out ever supporting sm2.0/b. The issue isn't a technical one since the unreal engine 3 (engine bioshock runs on) can run on sm2.0, its a developers choice to intentionally exclude sm2.0 cards, most likely due to Nvidia's influence. Some references:

sm2.0 hacks for bioshock:
http://www.paolofranchini.com/shshock/viewforum.php?f=1 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/76259-Shader-Model-2-0-Hack-for-BioShock

a ref to unreal engine 3 supporting sm2.0 no probs:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=602522

article on the issue:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2007/08/23/no-bioshock-rapture-in-sight-for-ati-x800x850-users
--202.63.36.240 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ars Tech. article is fairly balanced and good. I have included this as a topic as well as reducing the weight of the rest of the technical issues section (keeping the references however) so that it's just one single section, given that the furor over these topics has really died down. --Masem 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fallout references.

Throughout the game I've found quite a few references to Fallout (I.E. Bathroom symbols, mentioning of 'Eden'.). I guess at this point its just speculation, but is this set within the Fallout world? It takes place before Fallout does. Was Rapture the first attempt at a Garden of Eden Creation Kit? Could the Splicers be considered the first of the mutants from Fallout 1? Is Andrew Ryan the beginning to it all maybe? Ryan starting Rapture seems a bit like the Unity from Fallout 1.

Maybe I'm reaching a bit but it seems to me as if this falls before the first Fallout game. I guess if enough people agree, it should be added to the article. Maybe as nothing more then speculation of its connection to the Fallout world.--Rainalor 01:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Also, why would this game have anything to do with Fallout in the first place? And no. ParjayTalk 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get into adding "this game is like that game" thoughts to the article - not without reliable sources at designer, programmer or producer level. Humans are very good at finding similarities. Unfortunately such observations tend to fall under the heading of original research rather than notable facts. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, agreed; the only game that absolutely needs to be talked about besides BioShock is System Shock 2, given the number of times Levine has mentioned this as a basis for this game. Unless you get an article where a developer says "Oh yea, we threw in a Fallout references, just cause", its OR. --Masem 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it has NOTHING to do with fallout. Fallout was set as if there were nuclear war in the 50's fused with some modern technologies, Bioshock is ALSO set in the 50's, thus similar styling. Just cos the buildings are art deco doesn't mean they stole them from sim city. Comradeash 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Has ink spots music in it. WOOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.120.147.237 (talk) 10:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The Ink Spots were a popular group in the 40s. dethtoll 08:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

it heavily rips off Fallout anyone with a brain can see that, [3]

For what it's worth, we just started it playing it over here and the first thing I said was 'The art and music really resembles Fallout.' The bathroom m/f images are also reminscient. I came to the article specifically to see if any of the Bioshock crew were Fallout refugees. Not that any of that makes anything said here encyclopedic, but I can at least join in on the talk here and say 'no, you're not crazy if you think of that game.' 75.39.15.138 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)MD

You guys aren't seeing the actual picture. This game is set around the same time of the 20th century that Fallout itself was inspired by. This game is not inspired by Fallout. Both games simply reference that period of time. ParjayTalk 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived 50 posts of this page. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The POVness of the Reception lead

I know people want to say how well this game was received, but we need to watch out for violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and avoiding WP:WEASEL.

The current form that is being added:

  • "BioShock has received, to date, universal acclaim from critics, repeatedly garnering perfect scores. "

Has several problems that I see:

  • A ten out of ten rating does not necessarily equal "perfect scores". It means its one of their top rating games, but unless the reviewer says "perfect", it's not perfect. Case in point IGN's rating system, where a 10 is "Virtually flawless. No game is absolutely perfect, but 10s represent the pinnacle of gaming brilliance. It doesn't get any better than this."
  • "repeatedly garnering" implies that the same mags/websites are reviewing the game over and over.
  • "universal acclaim" is a bit loaded. "universal" edges on a weasel word or peacock term, and given that there's a 8/10 in the table, plus the addition of what several people are finding upset with widescreen and securom (even though I don't think these are big issues), its very hard to support this term.

I would also say that, depending on how well these fixes come out, there may be some retraction in the acclaim. All the pre-release views are super positive, but the post release ones are less than that.

My suggestion: "BioShock has received a positive response from critics" is exactly the way it should read until, say, a month from now, when all reviews are pretty much in and stable. Then we can reassess and come up with a better statement. Now, on the other hand, if you can find a citation that says "BioShock has universal acclaim from credits", taking it out of the NOR/NPOV field, we can then say that. --Masem 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. ParjayTalk 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you f***ing serious? How about Metacritic, which specifically uses the words "universal acclaim" [4]. By the way, it's tied for the second-best reviewed game- among all systems- on MC's database. It's the fourth-ranked game of all-time on GameRankings [5]. The fact that the "reception" section is only two paragraphs, one of positives and one of negatives, is absolutely ludicrous. The game has received not good reviews, not great reviews, but incredible reviews. There should be at least three paragraphs of positive notes, especially in comparison to the length of the section on issues- a game average 96%-97% from critics does not have many negatives that need to be spotlighted. (Or is it spotlit?) And as far as the "wait until all reviews are in" thing above... how many more reviews do you need? Metacritic has 41 and GameRankings has 36. I can't possibly imagine there are any important reviewers, aside from a stray magazine or two with odd street dates, that hasn't already put out their review of a highly-anticipated twenty-hour game (as opposed to, say, an MMORPG). Currently, the reviews section is appalling, plain and simple. -- Kicking222 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
HL2 has 80-some, Gears of War has 80-some. There's a load of print journals that can't run as fast as web sources to help fill those spaces in, and it may be that the widescreen/DRM issues will affect their reviews. The game got released in the other major English market yesterday, so all I am saying is, let us wait a couple weeks for both the reviews to fill up and the issues with widescreen and DRM to settle down, and then we can tackle and improve the section. However, do compare this section as it is to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion reception section, which is really tight.
Also, the Widescreen and DRM issues are not BioShock negatives; they are industry issues, much like the small text issue in Dead Rising. These have to be noted because 1) they're notable in verifiable sources including those outside major gaming rags and 2) likely will change what developers do in the future with regards to both. I don't consider these criticisms that need to be counterbalanced by good points. But remember, at least right now, I see nothing preventing this game from getting a buttload of GotY awards (well, maybe Mass Effect, but that's neither here nor there) that will make it a lot more impressive positive response.
Short answer: it is too good to write this section effectively. In 2 weeks to a month, we can; right now it's futile. --Masem 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I think you stopped making sense. This is an objectively oriented website with the goal being all-encompassing encyclopedic data; if the game has received universal acclaim to date I believe it should be noted. Also I've reasoned a bit of a problem with your argument over your use of the word "perfect," the context in which I used it did not imply it was the perfect game (which would be entirely subjective and obviously an opinion) but that it had received several perfect scores (which a 10 / 10, seeing as how it can get no better, obviously is). If I decide to change the section back to my satisfaction (which I consider an objective and acceptable change) I don't expect Parjay to engage me in a series of reversions without first taking it to the talk section where we can have a logical discussion about it. I think enough good points and not enough logical negatives have been raised by now that its safe to say my edits were sound.
Pyrogenix 12:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A 10 of 10 is not a "perfect" score, it's the best possible rating. There is a subtle but important difference. In any case, I did modify what you put to this:
"BioShock has received, to date, "universal acclaim" from critics and has received some of the industries' highest ratings."
This 1) gets the issue of "universal acclaim" out of the way, as that's exactly a quote from what Metacritic ranks it as, so we keep WP objectivity, and 2) outlines that the game has received the best-possible ratings out there without calling them perfect. I think we're still jumping the gun here because within a week this could change, but if you insist on having it now, there's ways to make it factually correct, sufficiently NPOV for WP, and yet still infer that its getting strong reviews all over. --Masem 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the idea is, according to your argument, a 10/10 may be considered "virtually flawless," but this is only in relation to the quality of the game. A game can have a perfect score without being a perfect game, there is a very large distinction between the two things and it is ultimately up to the reviewer or website. However, I refer you to the way you worded it: "A 10 of 10 is not a "perfect" score, it's the best possible rating." Definition of perfect, according to webster: "entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime." A 10/10 can not be improved upon, it is a perfect score, unless eclipsed by an 11 / 10, which does not exist in any rating system and is not mathematically possible. It is a perfect score. While 10/10 may never mean, unless the reviewer decides, that the game is absolutely perfect, the score, as I originally stated, is.
Nevertheless, I'm glad we're now working towards a middle ground, which repeated revisions certainly does not.
Pyrogenix 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is more the problem with semantics of game ratings. A 10 out of 10 is the "best possible" rating for many gaming reviews, but this does not assure that a game is "perfect". This, for the game reviewers benefit, is their fudge factor; if a review came out and said the game is "perfect", only to have a significant flaw show up later (which, incidentally, happened here with BioShock), that could hurt their reputation. That's why the best possible score on these review sites always use a term less than "perfect": "prime" (gamespot), "excellent" (1up), "virtually flawless"(IGN), etc. None of these review systems allow for a "perfect" game rating, and if such a case was needed, they would find a way to make that clear.
So for WP to say that these are "perfect" scores are overstating what the reviews have said, and thus adding OR to the article. "Top rated", "best possible", "maximum" - these are all correct within the reviewing context because, as you said, you can't best a 10 out of 10.--Masem 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That covers it I would think.

Avion.png This user has visited Rapture

BURNyA 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exaclly and I do think that certain reviews in the table should be cut. However one problem is at the moment the large amount of PC issues seems to imply this game is bad even though its one of the best reviewed games recently. Nice User Box by the way. Stabby Joe 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot analysis & literary criticism

This section is reserved for discussing the actual story and plot and further defining the Plot section of the page, as well as relating Objectivist ideas to the game as Ken Levine has clearly indicated Ayn Rand as his source of inspiration. Book report time! Big Head Zach 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, talk pages are not a forum for the material, they are here to help improve the article. I understand these themes exist, and there's likely Levine interviews out there that suggest these, but 1) anything we alone come up with here is OR and not valid and 2) this is not a forum for discussing these points.
Also, the plot section is about as long as you want it, but what you're suggesting is "Themes", which is typically done in a movie article. As this isn't a movie, I would still include this, but under Development (because you need to have 2K Bo/Au saying they includes those as they built the story) I would be very careful about adding such until you have a good deal of references, otherwise, you're going to get the anon IPs and newer editors adding their own unsourced theories and then we'll suddenly have a trivia section, and... well, it'll take a while to get the article back to GA quality that way (I'm hoping that once the reviews have stabilized out, we can get this article there). --Masem 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Just got excited over the fact that the game plot is worth discussing in such a fashion - my intent here was just to get some clarification on the motivations of Ryan, and the extent to which Rand is referenced in the story text/action. Big Head Zach 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It might be worthy to somehow mention this article, and possibly even link to it in the lit crtiicism section. http://my.opera.com/noisewar/blog/2007/09/01/bioshock-explained It seems fairly significant to me that Bioshock has sparked a criticism debate that truly reaches towards literary fiction. At my university, It's actually being discussed in some Literature and Creative Writing classes. And what's more it's being regarded as literary art as opposed to genre art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.45.206 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness Influence?

While playing the game I noticed the plot takes a somewhat striking resemblance to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. While the developers never mentioned it, I think it warrants further inspection. Going on a quest to find Ryan (Kurtz)? Upon arrival in Ryan's section of the building there are bodies on the walls (the heads on pikes in HoD)? It just makes me too curious to leave it alone. (Nbmatt 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

If you can find information on 2K Bo/Au using that as a source of inspiration, it certainly can be added. As it is, that is currently WP:OR and can't be used as such. --Masem 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Besides, leaving impaled corpses outside the (figurative) gates is a time-honored means of scaring your enemies, both in history and fiction. CABAL 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I started a thread at the 2k Forums to see if I can get some closure on the matter. Only time will tell from now, I guess. Thread URL. (Nbmatt 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Ryan's death scene and the nature of Jack's purpose

Been trying to wrap my brain around what Levine's intent is with having Ryan go so quietly once Jack reaches him. Going to restore an old save game and play the scene back again, but it appears he is either:

  • Welcoming death, having tried to destroy Rapture and failed, and now he's mocking Jack (and Fontaine) by repeatedly telling him he's a slave to his programming (and the plasmids), and that he's never been a true man (in the Objectivist sense that he is not actively choosing a path that is in his best self-interest, but rather doing it for someone else), or
  • He's trying to use some trigger phrase "A man chooses, a slave obeys" to get Jack to stop, which also fails.

Has anyone tried to get a screen cap of the intro, when Jack looks at the gift in his hand? I really want there to be a clue or message there that says, "Would you kindly hijack this plane and ditch it at these coordinates"?

Also, the achievement icon for killing Ryan being a dripping golf club is full of lulz. Big Head Zach 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a screenshot of that bit, I can oblige. The writing is in the top-left of the package. CABAL 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To paraphrase a very good website about this, the point of that moment is a mockery of choice in games. The whole game you think you are choosing your path, when you're under the control of Fontaine, and when you finally want to choose something contrary to his will, the game takes over and thwacks Ryan in the head. In saying "A man chooses, a slave obeys", Ryan is dying with dignity- he's choosing death. The player is just an obedient slave, and Ryan will always be above him for it. 76.181.171.86 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

The name of the book refers to the idea that the people responsible for making the world work - the scientists, businessmen, and the movers and shakers - what if they decided not to do their jobs anymore? What if Atlas, the man who mythologically held up the world, shrugged his shoulders? He isn't doing it for his own benefit, which is a key "gripe" that Rand illustrates, and one that Ryan discusses in his opening monologue.

Fontaine using the name "Atlas" seems to indicate that he feels he is truly the one running Rapture, as he is a smuggler and all-around fixer. It follows that a mobster/gangster would be the one to undermine Ryan's authority as his philosophy is generally flawed, because it requires everyone else to play by the same rules; we clearly see in the likes of Sander Cohen and Dr. Steinman that once the humanity is stripped from oneself due to the plasmids, the whole "right to pursue what is in my best interest without denying others that same right" goes out the window, and everything starts to collapse.

So, was Fontaine's smuggling operation truly what "held up the world" of Rapture? Does he see Ryan as an idealist that trusted way too much in those he invited to live there? Keep in mind that Fontaine is, while opportunistic, completely free of plasmid taint until the final scene, so his head is clear. Big Head Zach 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a note on the package saying 'Would you kindly-', but the lower half seems to be blocked from view.--86.145.136.200 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a note about ken levine's stupidity and ignorance

I posted a small entry about the Ken Levine post that was deleted from the Bioshock forums, i don't know if it's entirely appropiate, but i don't know the entire story about the thread, perhaps someone could expand? Tlarsen 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is important, yet. If this turns out to actually have significant effect, then we can figure out how to add it, but right now, including it (particularly calling it "stupidity and ignorance", is slanderous and approaches violating the biography of living persons standards. --Masem 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the title is one he wrote himself, so i didn't consider it slanderous, i've removed my re-added section as well, but if needed be we could change the title, although we might wait until we also have the posts itself, i think he posted about 15 posts in the topic before it was deleted Tlarsen 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, may not be slander, but still, I'm not seeing how this directly relates to BioShock, or if it will in the long term. Keep the link handy, should this become of newsworthiness, we can add it back (and likely will need a separate subpage if it is a big issue). --Masem 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some forum-users have posted this as being the original message, i'll just leave it here in case some other wikipedians have something to add about it:

Tlarsen 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Endings

Exactly how do you get the second bad ending. is it random? and (it is possible) what if you NEVER killed a Big Daddy, and the only the LS you saved is the one that you are forced to ineract with. It is possible with the Vita-Cahmbers and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.25.23 (talk) 06:34, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The second "bad" ending is likely to be a developer leftover, in the beginning you killed little sisters, this was later changed to harvesting little sisters, the filenames should be pretty self-explanatory, there's "SavedGatherers.bik" "HarvestedGatherers.bik" and "KilledGatherers.bik", the last obviously being a reference back to when the game had you kill little sisters instead. Tlarsen 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anagram" reference

I took out a piece in the Influences section about Andrew Ryan being an anagram for "new Ayn Rand," because it's not-- the closest you can get is "rew Ayn Rand". 67.86.1.247 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that post was in violation of our guideline on bad original research. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Ryan isn't an anagram for Ayn Rand or new Ayn Rand, but And Ryan is an anagram for Ayn Rand. Whoever put it there, thats probably what they meant. --Samhed 03:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still Irrational

Irrational's official website does NOT say anything about it being renamed. There is NO reference at all to 2K Boston/2K Australia as mentioned. They might have been acquired by Take-Two, but that's a different story altogether. speaks rohith 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry boy-o it's the same story altogether. The company is in transition. Its name is legally 2KBoston/2KAustralia. Would you Kindly see the credits on the BioShock packaging and at the begining of the game. BURNyA 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see it's been cleared up... nevermind. BURNyA 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say "Would You Kindly" BURNyA 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting up Andrew Ryan (BioShock) for Speedy Deletion

Someone created a page for Andrew Ryan (BioShock). Given recent changes to notability particularly in fictional works, there is no need for this page to exist (all information about Ryan is primarily in universe), the connection to Ayn Rand is indicative of the whole game itself.) --Masem 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

There is no word in the article that several recent stabbing deaths in Britain have been linked to Bioshock addicted perpetrators! 82.131.210.162 07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be self-censorship on the part of some editors; wikipedia is officially not censored. More likely, though, it's just that no editor has added anything to the article. Please go ahead and find a reliable source that makes the link you described. All are welcome, and encouraged, to edit here - just try to keep within wikipedia's principles and we will all be happy. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but we're fucked if someone goes on a rampage beating up people with a 20 pound wrench. Comradeash 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah shame it hasn't been linked to bugger all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.103.34 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Enemies" section

This read like a game guide, telling the reader the different types of creatures fight and a lot of original research about how "the player" can counteract them. The section is not encyclopaedic, and has been removed; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a game guide. Neil  13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the content of the enemies section (as with the expanding setting, most of the details can be left there without game-guiding them); I'd just note that there were a few good references and an image in that section and deleting without warning could have affected other references in the article, I would have put a clean up template tag on the section to give time to recover the key parts (eg {{unencyclopedic}} or another appropriate one off WP:TC. I did go back and recover those in this case. --Masem 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that wikipedia is not a game guide. However, I believe it would be benificial to add a more descriptive entry of the enemies other then the one that is in the intro, in order to give readers a good feel for what the game makes you feel when you play it. In my opinion, the details of a game are some of the best parts of it.Paulysan 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge push on WP overall to make sure articles on fictional works are kept to the points necessary for notability. This cuts a lot of stuff in video game article. As we've got the opportunity to keep the BioShock article above the bar, we need to be careful what to add.
What has been added (including spelling out what all the Splicers are) has been too much game guide material OR material that is better described in the setting. Describing characters based only on in-universe details (game itself, game manuals) needs to be kept to a bare minimum for understanding. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a game review site. If the appearance and behavior of the enemies is part of what sets the mood of the game, this better set as a quote from a game review rather than trying to imply it with WP:OR. --Masem 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER: Plot hole - Little Sister choice

The Plot Holes section of this article mentions that it's up to the player wether or not he harvests a Little Sister despite being under Atlas/Fontaine's mind control at that point of the game, so he shouldn't really have that choice at all.

But perhaps not. Atlas doesn't say "would you kindly" when prompting the player to harvest the little girl, now does he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.99.213 (talk) 18:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I believe that atlas wanted to "test" Jack in a way, trying to see if he was truly a passively aggressive person, or if he was only aggressive because he was forced to be. I have no proof of this though...

The real plot hole is this: How did Fontaine's order get onto the present int he first place? Jack was the only survivor on the plane, and it's not like Fontaine would have had access to the gift or anything...so wtf? 72.241.165.155 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the note on the present, you can see the words 'would you kindly'. So the present came from Fontaine in the first place, containing the pistol and the orders to hijack the plan. Ninjoc 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the little sister plot hole, Atlas just wanted you to get adam, so it didn't really matter if you rescued or harvested them. 68.248.236.54 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that he COULD have said would you kindly, but chose not to. We were still under his spell at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs) 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

cite for "u-invent"

I removed the {{fact}} tag after the name "U-Invent" because it seemed pretty uncontroversial that such is the name of the machine. If anyone particularly feels that a reference needs to be cited for this, here's one: [6]. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to cite the game manual for some of the "new" terms that exist in the gameplay section - otherwise it could appear as OR. --Masem 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cite for stuff that's in the game like that is not needed. There was only a fact tag on it due to the game not being out when it was added, thus it couldn't be confirmed if it really was called this by playing the game at that time. ParjayTalk 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Technically, it's not; the fact a "u-invent" is in the game is an incontrovertible fact. However, if we were to get this article as a Good Article or better, it helps to have a game manual citation for such items. It's easy to get this , not a big issue to worry about. --Masem 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats about as sensible has having to find a report to cite the fact that the sky is blue or my car is white.Comradeash 06:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Verification of the third ending

Can anyone else to collaborate (beyond just their personal experience with the game) on the existence of the third ending? If it does exist, there's an easier way to write it into the plot, but I want to make sure that it does before doing so (and we should be pretty confident about the conditions to achieve it too.) --Masem 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can find all 3 on Youtube already. Far as I can tell, there are only 2 endings graphically, the "good" one and the "bad" one. The "third" ending is really just the "bad" one with a different tone of voice used for the voiceover. I don't think there's even a change in dialogue. 38.112.96.194 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it occurs if you do a mixture of harvesting and rescuing. Which is a bit weak. Comradeash 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How the endings work goes like this. If you rescue the Little Sisters you get the good ending, if you harvest them all you get the bad ending. If you harvest even one Little Sister you get the 'third ending'. As stated before it is nothing more than the bad ending with a less harsh of a voice over. No dialouge is changed in this ending and the world above the water is introduced to Rapture. Good times. Aevely 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just completed the game and harvested a single little sister: I got the "good"/"happy" ending. The article should be modified to reflect a certain amount of harvesting is tolerated before one of the two bad endings is earned. --AM

Removal of Plot Holes Section

It is bothersome that people unnecessarily remove valuable information from Wikipedia simply because it doesn't suit their style or taste. My section on plot holes regarding the Little Sister choice being under the spell of Fontaine as well as the issue regarding the player being able to respawn in vitachambers, while Ryan cannot, despite the fact that the player is given the ability to use the vitachamber by having part of Ryan's DNA was removed in such a manner. If the section contained spoilers one need only to tag it as such, rather than removing it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs) 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really encyclopedia-suitable information though. If the plot holes had a significant impact on the reception or public opinion of the game, or if they were a major point of discussion in many different places, it might be worthy of being on the page. But that sort of stuff is better suited to game-specific webpages. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, sections like plot holes that aren't collaborated by secondary sources is original research and that is not allowed by WP:NOR. --Masem 11:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning behind this is that, unless you cite a source with directly verifiable information (such as a quote from 2k / irrational), whos to say that it IS a plot hole? Maybe Ryan DID get revived? There is nothing to the contrary; personally it seems like a good premise for a sequel. But that is more or less irrelevant, any edit must adhere to wikipedia standards and policies, which this did not.
Pyrogenix 13:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of citing the source of each and every bit of information is ludicrous when considering something like the storyline of a game. The section on the plot makes many assumptions that according to Pyrogenix could be considered "original research", such as the assumption that the player takes over Rapture and sends the splicers to the surface. This was never directly stated, and like the plot holes cannot be collaborated by evidence because it is simply a logical assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs)

Parts of the story line that have been speculation have long been removed; what remains is factual and as we work to improve the article, can be supported (such as the bits from a Levine interview I found. Everything on WP must, at the end of the day, be verifiable. We can't do that with plot holes. --Masem 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor can one verify that the player does indeed send splicers to the surface to attack the sub. Is that piece of unverifiable information OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talkcontribs) 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone had put that back in there, so its gone now (as well as the entire third ending since its still questionable.)

--Masem 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So long as no one is being hypocritical about it I can't much argue. Thanks.
By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~). Capuchin 11:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

length

the article is overly long and the entire plot should not be there just a brief overview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.100.14 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Compared to other FA for WP:CVG, this story/plot section is quite appropriate in length, particularly compared to what it was a few days after release and while it might not yet be fully sourced, I don't believe what's in there now is going to be a problem. The section is covering the settings, the main characters, the main enemies, and the main themes in the story, all which is necessary to describe its notability later in the reception section. Given that how its written prevents the need for "List of characters" or "list of enemies" pages, this size is appropriate. --Masem 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

none of that is necessary you need to focus on it as a culture artifact in the real would and give a BRIEF Synopsis of the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.103.34 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

However, aspects of the plot have become notable already (the choice of dealing with the Little Sisters, etc.), and it is impossible to describe their notability without briefly describing the setting and plot. (and yes, this is brief plot summary). It falls well within the lines for new fictional notability requirements that are being developed. --Masem 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Influences"

Someone added this silly section:

- System Shock (Audio emphasis) - DOOM (Horrific content) - Mafia (Date/Time Settings) - Half-Life (Weapons and overall "gate" design) - Oblivion (Magic) - DeusEx (Powers and Character Development)

This is just plain silly. The game is made as a "spiritual successor" to System Shock 2, so the first part is redundant. "Horrific content" is by no means exclusive to DOOM. The date/time of the game has nothing to do with Mafia - sounds like the author was really stretching it. I see no way in which the weapons are related to Half-Life - they are the standard fare of 1st person shooters since whenever. "Gate Design" isn't explained so is worthless. Magic isn't exclusive to Oblivion and anyway has much more to do with the Psy-Powers of System Shock 2. Deus Ex isn't the source of the game's "powers and character development", System Shock 2 - a game that influenced Deus Ex as well.

Since the section is unrefrenced and useless I advocate removing it.

EDIT: Someone was W:BOLD and did it, nevermind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciouspiggy (talkcontribs)

For what it's worth, I concur with both editors. original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia. The only debate is whether it's better to tag it (either as {{or}} or {{fact}}) or delete it immediately. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trailer

what is the song they're playing for the trailer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.128.250 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Beyond the Sea (song) by Bobby Darin.--The Infamous Dr. Salvador 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Do we really need a list of licensed tracks in the soundtrack section? ParjayTalk 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and a separate article would be much better. --SkyWalker 08:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to correct the soundstrack listing anyway. "Johnnie Ray" is actually Johnny Ray, no "ie", and the version of It Had To Be You in the game was not Danny Thomas's 1951 version as it has no vocals--just the instrumental.71.189.237.68 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You see, that's the exact reason why I didn't want a list of licensed tracks; its obvious original research, non-verifiable. ParjayTalk 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The developers of Bioshock released a list with all the tracks used in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.22.123 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

brief freezing/video lag/seizing/hitching

not sure if someone wants to add this to the technical issues section, but a large number of people have encountered what was written about in the Gamespot review that "On some consoles, the game hitches up and totally freezes for anywhere from one to five seconds at a time, then proceeds as if nothing happened". for a full discussion of the matter that could be used as a citation , see http://forums.xbox.com/14955171/ShowPost.aspx . the Problem may be related to the caching and can be solved by keeping only 1 save and/or holding "LB/RB" before you start the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.58.18 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the forum you provided a link to is the perfect place for such information. I'm not trying to be rude here; I just don't think it's really encyclopaedic information. If the subject gains notability by being mentioned on other sites (news sites, for example) that would be a different matter.Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
as I said, it was mentioned in the GameSpot review, and perhaps other reviews as well.216.234.58.18 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Not "encyclopaedic information"? Then why is it necessary to have a technical issues category in this article at all? There's all sorts of information about the screen cropping AND SecuROM issues, which have little to nothing to do with the actual gameplay proper. This is a serious issue that deserves at least a brief mention given the inclusion of the aforemention technical "problems". - L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.143.100 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is the notability of the problem. Both the widescreen and SecuROM caused enough of a ruckus to get gaming mags and other sources to cite the issues with the games. These are verifiable, reliable sources. We would need the same magnitude of feedback outside of forums to make these graphics glitching issues a problem, and I've not seen such. --Masem 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, you're completely right. I find it disturbing that people spend time focusing on if you can see the bottom of the main character's arm or not rather than something that renders the game practically unplayable at points. Not to mention the aforementioned SecuROM issue... heaven forbid you can't install the game on all 6 of your PCs. Frustrating... I thought the problem was with my XBox, not the game, due to the fact that it wasn't mentioned on this page. It wasn't until I was on a forum for another reason that I saw the "fix" for the problem by chance. I'm angered that it hasn't captured more attention, given the severity of the issue.

XBox 360 achievements: where to put them?

For a game that's exclusive to the 360, I would say you could put the information wherever seems appropriate, perhaps judging it on a case-by-case basis. For cross-platform games, it's a harder call to make, unless there are sub-sections documenting the separate consoles. As the BioShock article stands, I can't see a good place other than External Links. Other editors suggestions are welcome. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

External links are fine. As we're not a game guide, we don't need to go into any detail about them, but a pointer is always handy. --Masem 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I was the one who added it to the Bioshock page. I added it on the gameplay section as well as the external links section because I didn't know which section was more approriate. I love Xbox Achievements and I want to start a section for it on every game's page. I just want to make sure I understand the right way to do it. So for games that are exclusive to Xbox 360, I am allowed to have a section on the page devoted entirely to achievements? And for games that have more than one platform, I should put it only on external links? Any help is appreciated. --UaneReade 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, stuff like 360 achievements are considered game guide-like material (needed for those that play the game, not necessary for encyclopedic knowledge of the game), and are thus not appropriate for even 360-only games. See WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:CVG/GL. Adding a link to a page of 360 achievements in an EL is fine, and for a 360-only game, a single sentence could be used to summarize the number and general type of acheivements, but please don't list them out. --Masem 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Thanks! --UaneReade 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed 360 achievements because a wikia link already exist. Why is there any need the same link over and over again?. One link for one article.--SkyWalker 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Setting" session is very confusing...

I don't know how to describe it, anyway that session is hard to understand and is very confusing. such as [ADAM was used to develop a series of genetic modifications called plasmids, that could give humans special powers (which used a serum called EVE) and additional innate abilities.] VivaLaED 05:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible information to mention in article from Electronic Gaming Monthly article

Hello! I just got a copy of the latest issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly. Anyway, there are two bits of potentially useful information:

First, the magazine gave the game a 10/10 score.
Second, the magazine states, "The Relevant Wikipedia Entry: Ayn Rand's Objectivism"

The source is "Bioshock: It's better down where it's wetter," Electronic Gaming Monthly 220 (October, 2007): 96. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Controls

I don't own the game, but I have heard that the controls are not customizable, and that many people cannot really play the game because of this. I think this would be a worthwhile detail to add to the article.--SkiDragon 11:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The PC controls are customizable. I don't know about the 360 version but it's not really standard to have customizable controls on console games, is it? Capuchin 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
For console FPS games it has become standard to offer a few basic joystick layouts, like the "legacy" and "southpaw" modes found in games like Halo.--SkiDragon 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I havent owned a console since the N64 :) Capuchin 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers!

I didn't know that about Atlas, argh. Thanks for spoiling the fucking game for me whoever wrote that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.162.219 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whatever you're eluding to either, but i'm not going to read the PLOT section before i've played the game, as it obviously will contain spoilers. Capuchin 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, if you're reading the Wikipedia plot summary or associated talk page about a game you intend to play, and you see spoilers and the game is "ruined", it's your own stupid fault. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The guideline that applies here is WP:SPOILER. Essentially it says that spoiler warnings should not be necessary on any section whose subject is "Plot", "Story" or anything similar. Maelin, it would be a nice gesture if you were to edit the above comment and use <s>strike out</s> on the word "stupid" - just in the interests of keeping a WP:CIVIL atmosphere here.Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tattoo

Would it be suitable to assume that Jack's tattoo of interlinked chains on his wrists are symbolic of him being Fontaine's prisoner/slave? FullyClothedMike —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullyClothedMike (talkcontribs) 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No; that's an assumption (it could also refer to the "Great Chain" symbolized in the architecture about Rapture, but we have no clear answer so should not be included.) --Masem 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The mouse acceleration issue

Why did someone delete my section in the Techincal Issues section? Theres is a huge problem with mouse acceleration in Bioshock, I think it should really be in this article, because it is so critical to the gameplay of the game. Many people have said that they would not have bought the game if they knew about the problem.85.156.228.242 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.228.242 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things: first, you need reliable sources that discuss this problem - forum posts and the like are not acceptable for this. Secondly, relating to the first, is that this issue has not be covered or has made as significant noise as the widescreen FOV or the SeceROM problem, that is, it lacks notability for inclusion. If you can find sources that say this is a significant problem, we can include it, but otherwise it pretty much seems like a bug/quality control problem that any video game can be faulted for and not specific to BioShock. --Masem 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted the section when you first added it. Firstly, I have Bioshock for PC, and I have experienced no such problem, but that would be OR. My reasons for deletion were the exact reasons that Masem has covered. Additionally, some of the information you included about ini fixes and things were not well written and not actually useful in an encyclopedia article such as this. Capuchin 07:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for explaining, I do understand the reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.233.247 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival horror? Where?

As much as I try I can't find any elements in this game that would qualify as survival horror.

Well let's see, just going by cited information on "survival horror", we got: a video game genre in which the player has to survive against often undead or otherwise supernatural enemies-- typically in claustrophobic environments-- The term has since been often used to describe games of a similar nature-- the genre contains titles which borrow heavily from gameplay styles associated with other genres. These games can resemble beat 'em ups, point-and-click adventures, RPGs and first-person shooters. --They all deal with dark, violent and supernatural themes typical of horror movies. This helps to define the genre more than any specific gameplay mechanic.-- The player often must contend with limited supplies such as ammunition and health - hence "survival" horror.-- The player's goal is generally to escape from an isolated building or town that is overrun by zombies or monsters. Enemies can be defeated in combat, though avoiding enemies is often preferred or even necessary in order for the player to progress.-- Game developers use several techniques to unsettle the player and make him/her feel underpowered,--. On top of that, the game constantly shows horror and repeatedly tries to scare the character (enemies appearing behind you suddenly, lights blowing, music wailing. The diaries. There are plenty of survival horror elements featured in this game. ParjayTalk 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets see which elements of survival horror BioShock has:
  • Survival horror is a video game genre in which the player has to survive against often undead or otherwise supernatural enemies -- not there
  • typically in claustrophobic environments and from a third-person perspective. -- none of these
  • The genre makes liberal use of both Western and Japanese horror film elements. -- nope
  • They all deal with dark, violent and supernatural themes typical of horror movies. -- not in BioShock
  • Player characters are typically armed, but rarely as well-armed as characters in other genres such as first-person shooters. -- nope, BioShock has abundant and infinite resources
  • Makeshift weapons such as metal pipes, kitchen knives and other implements are often used in place of firearms. -- A huge maybe as described, but if you've ever played say SH, you know it's completely different
  • The player's goal is generally to escape from an isolated building or town that is overrun by zombies or monsters. -- nope
  • Enemies can be defeated in combat, though avoiding enemies is often preferred or even necessary in order for the player to progress. -- combat is constant and preferred in BioShock
  • Game developers use several techniques to unsettle the player and make him/her feel underpowered, with the strength or number of enemies reflecting how well-prepared a player character is. -- no such feeling in BioShock. Player feels like a god carrying enough weapons to kill a mid-sized town
  • If players control an 'average Joe' type character wielding a makeshift weapon, that character seems more vulnerable, allowing even human-sized monsters in small numbers to threaten the player. -- nope
  • Many survival horror games feature protagonists who are stereotypical weak females; again this is often the developers trying to make the player feel under-prepared to face countless monsters. -- not at all. In BioShock the player is always more than prepared for whatever lies ahead, and knows it.
System Shock 2 had elements, yes. It was scary, there was little ammo, weapons constantly broke, resources were very scarce, and so on. BioShock is a typical FPS, though. I didn't detect any horror elements when I played it. In fact thanks to the whacky graphics it seemed more comical than horror. In short, there is nothing in BioShock that would make it survival horror. Either that or every shooter is survival horror. Is Far Cry survival horror? Well, more so than BioShock surely. Next thing you know, they'll be marketing the Sims as survival horror to sell additional five copies. Hope this clears things up Catofax 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Survival horror is a video game genre in which the player has to survive against often undead or otherwise supernatural enemies -- not there -- OFTEN undead or supernatural; the enemy type in Bioshock do apply as "monsters".
  • typically in claustrophobic environments and from a third-person perspective. -- No claustrophobic enviroments? I doubt you've even played the game.
  • The genre makes liberal use of both Western and Japanese horror film elements. -- Actually, Western horror elements as body horror, the little sisters soulessness etc. Plenty there.
  • They all deal with dark, violent and supernatural themes typical of horror movies. -- not in BioShock-- There are plenty of dark and violent themes in the game.
  • Player characters are typically armed, but rarely as well-armed as characters in other genres such as first-person shooters. -- nope, BioShock has abundant and infinite resources-- According to the developers, and hey the article, ammo conservation is a must.
  • Makeshift weapons such as metal pipes, kitchen knives and other implements are often used in place of firearms. -- A huge maybe as described, but if you've ever played say SH, you know it's completely different-- Not particularly different, if at all; you use makeshift weapons, full stop.
  • The player's goal is generally to escape from an isolated building or town that is overrun by zombies or monsters. -- Rapture isn't an isloated town overrun by "monsters" that you need to escape from? Are you sure you've played the game?
  • Enemies can be defeated in combat, though avoiding enemies is often preferred or even necessary in order for the player to progress. -- combat is constant and preferred in BioShock-- It's not prefered, you can go either way, and some sections require sneak.
  • Game developers use several techniques to unsettle the player and make him/her feel underpowered, with the strength or number of enemies reflecting how well-prepared a player character is. -- no such feeling in BioShock. Player feels like a god carrying enough weapons to kill a mid-sized town-- Regardless of weapons, the developers still use techniques to unsettle; some of which I already list and you conveniently overlooked.
  • If players control an 'average Joe' type character wielding a makeshift weapon, that character seems more vulnerable, allowing even human-sized monsters in small numbers to threaten the player. -- Notice the IF.
  • Many survival horror games feature protagonists who are stereotypical weak females; again this is often the developers trying to make the player feel under-prepared to face countless monsters. -- not at all. In BioShock the player is always more than prepared for whatever lies ahead, and knows it.-- Jack (and the player) knew what they were expecting right off the bat? Nope.
Bioshock is a game with clear survival horror elements. ParjayTalk 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Survival horror elements don't make it a survival horror game. "The game incorporates elements found in role-playing and survival horror games," is really all that's necessary. We're not calling it a role-playing game are we? Rehevkor 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but editor Catofax still maintains that the game doesn't even have those elements. ParjayTalk 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, you can take whatever interpretation of survival horror elements you like. The fact is that BioShock is about as 'horror' as Wacky Races, and the gameplay is that of a typical fast-paced FPS. Moreover, IF BioShock is SH, then so is 99% of the FPS market. Do you really want to go there? Catofax 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some very clear horror elements. I must have watched a different Wacky Races to you, and played a different Bioshock. But it shouldn't be considered as a part survival horror genre as a whole. I propose we remove it from the genre and remove the category but keep the reference to survival horror elements, as it is the case. Rehevkor 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. ParjayTalk 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere. If you think it has horror elements, then it has horror elements, not survival horror, which is a wholly different kind of animal. I concede that under some very lenient interpretation that would include 99% of FPS, the game has some horror elements like monster closets and dead bodies lying around. Of course, I fully expect you two to go around wikipedia adding that line to the relevant FPS games. Catofax 05:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
By horror I meant survival horror. Thought that'd be clear by the subject of the debate. Rehevkor 11:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your opinion is totally biased. For one thing, on "makeshift weapons" you say " a huge maybe". You fight with a wrench for the first 20 minutes of the game or more. The United States army doesn't exactly use wrenches as standard issue. "If players control an 'average Joe' type character wielding a makeshift weapon, that character seems more vulnerable, allowing even human-sized monsters in small numbers to threaten the player. -- nope" What? You play as an 'appearent' average person who wound up in the situation because his plane crashed there. I never thought of him as some commando who paradropped in until I met Ryan. "The player's goal is generally to escape from an isolated building or town that is overrun by zombies or monsters. -- nope" The player's goal is to excape the city until you meet Ryan. Did you not notice? "Player characters are typically armed, but rarely as well-armed as characters in other genres such as first-person shooters. -- nope, BioShock has abundant and infinite resources" Did you play the game on easy? I had to wrench most of the game becuase I was constantly running low on ammo. "Enemies can be defeated in combat, though avoiding enemies is often preferred or even necessary in order for the player to progress. -- combat is constant and preferred in BioShock" It may be prefered by you, but the sneak ability does exist and it is an effective means of play. Perhaps you have played and watched so much horror related media you are completely desensitized to it. This game is survival horror through and through, and I’de say much more so than any resident evil game, unless you abuse the vit-chamber with constant suicide dives. That’s how I thought of it untill after Ryan, its not just a regular shooter. --IronMaidenRocks 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you say this is not a survival horror game, I will remove the same from the resident evil article under the same principles. Why? Because there are no makeshift weapons in any of the games, the monsters are bio-engineered, there are no supernatural or occult elements, there is usually an abundance of ammunition on easy mode, sneaking is not prefered, there are rarely overly confined spaces in the game, at times the games take place in gardens and city streets, etc. And this for the game to which the term "Survival Horror" was coined. So if Bioshock is not survival horror, the game that coined the term is not either. --IronMaidenRocks 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I will have to disagree with you. I played the game on normal and I never found myself low on ammo (especially for the machine gun) and once I had the pistol I never used the wrench again. And the ability to sneak past enemies isn't the same as being forced to run from enemies like in Clock Tower or Silent Hill. Those games you have no choice, you WILL lose if you try to fight your way past every enemy. Also, what about the character is average Joe? In Silent Hill your character will get tired from running, and even well aimed shots will go off target because your character can't properly fire a gun. Ability-wise, there is almost no difference between the main character of Bioshock and the main character of Quake. There are certainly horror elements to Bioshock but calling it survival/horror is completely off target and misleading IMO. If I bought the game thinking it was Survival horror I would have been very upset. --63.73.199.69 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Individualism or Capitalism

I thought Rand wanted to create a pure capitalist economy, free of government interference, rather than an individualist utopia.


Not only free from Government Interference, but free from any ethical authoritative base. Rand was a devout propionate of Nietzschean "proto-fascism" It's quite disturbing to hear so many so called enlightened free thinkers wrap themselves in the Rand Oligarchy. Whats even more disturbing is the number of people that just don't get the fact that 2k is showing the flaws of such a society. In Rands world vision both Bethovan and Hawking would have been killed at birth. Martinj63 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And(rew) Ryan, whose name is an anagram to Ayn Rand, is clearly a objectivist libertarian with some hues of Nietzschean existentialism, who becomes to act less and less coherent to his ideals in face of the harshening conditions of his city. I don't see the game as a particularly anti-libertarian pamphlet: you still can understand Rapture's crisis and decay as largely caused by a demagogue bandit and conspirator, Fontaine. -- 201.68.184.42 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... Andrew Ryan isn't an anagram of Ayn Rand. Sorry 'bout that. BURNyA 19:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying he wanted to create a free market would not have been accurate. Ryan clearly wanted a place where people could fully prosper, free from censorship and other such external restrictions. He wanted Rapture to be a place where the only restriction and concern would be yourself. Besides, it seems rather obvious that Rapture is based off the concept of Galt's Gulch from Atlas Shrugged. Both were deliberately built in hard-to-reach places, both were built with secrecy in mind, and both were occupied with a selection of humanity's best. CABAL 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing feels like a critique of rampant unrestrained capitalism, the sort you find Hayek or Friedman defending —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.103.33 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More like a critique of the fact that everything humans try will eventually fail, simply because they were tried -by- humans. Remember what Tenenbaum said, "ADAM improved every aspect of Man - except his character." CABAL 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BioShock in Online Humor

A reminder that when one chooses a plasmid, you have it 24/7. From Ctrl+Alt+Del online comic [7]

Buying an apartment in Rapture. From Red vs. Blue comic [8]

These are the ones I have seen so far. Novamonk 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Oi found [9] very amusing (and sad). I'm sure there's tons more as well. Catofax 06:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hacking minigame.

Just a question. Is the havking minigame different between xbox360 and PC? I find the PC one incredibly easy. is this because it's designed to be used with xbox controls which i imagine is 40 times harder than with the mouse. Capuchin 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you happen to be decent at Pipedreams it's pretty simple on 360, the only exception being some of the safes. I'm sure that with a mouse It would be incredably easy. BURNyA 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows 2000 fix?

Apparently, Bioshock players have been able to get Bioshock working on Windows 2000 with ease. They don't even touch any of the game files, so it should be legal. All people do is find a couple of DLLs that are possibly the easiest to get, toss them in the same folder that Bioshock is in, and go.

So maybe the System Requirements should say that the game supports Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista, and that a Windows 2k fix is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.149.3 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the list wouldn't be official anymore. After all, the idea is that with just what is listed, the game should be able to run out of the box. Having the user manually grab DLLs off the Net isn't exactly "out of the box". CABAL 10:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand connection should be much more prominent

BioShock is clearly no ordinary game. Reviewers have commented on the quality and sophistication of the game's design, particularly the moral dilemmas the player must deal with, which are directly described as references to the utopia depicted by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.


These aren't just online publications, and in the case of the Globe we're talking about a mainstream newspaper.

In the circumstances, this article fails Neutral point of view by playing down the importance of the Ayn Rand connection. I'd say it's important enough to put in the lead of our article, just as the headlines and leads of some reviews of the game have done. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I would have to tentatively second that. Ken Levine repetedly enforces in interviews the link to Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged (among others) and his preoccupation with failed utopias. I don't think it carries enough weight to lead off the article, but the Influences section definately needs to be fleshed out. BURNyA 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some ideas for expanding on that section. Mainly pointing out the fact that the name Andrew Ryan was obviously based off Ayn Rand's, and the similarities between the concept of Rapture and that of Galt's Gulch. CABAL 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
First off: the article in no way fails NPV. Secondly: if it's going to be expanded upon, do so in the influences section, it has no place in the lead of the article. This article is about the finished game primarily; not the influences or trivia on the making of it, that can go in the development sections - remember that the wiki is a general knowledge encyclopaedia. Thirdly: if you are going to add anything about Ann Rand et al, make sure you get good reliable sources from the developers else I don't particularly care if we all think Ryan was based off Rand or the similarities of Rapture and Galt's Gulch, as it only constitutes speculation and original research on our parts. ParjayTalk 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you completely misunderstand what we're about her with this encyclopedia if you're saying that "This article is about the finished game primarily." It's about a lot more than that. The fact that reviews in the mainstream press have led with the fact that it's heavily influenced by the designer's reading of Ayn Rand, and there are (per CABAL and BurnyA above) obvious references to Atlas Shrugged in the game, really does mean that we're failing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, by misrepresenting the cultural significance of the game. Then there's the comments by reviewers about the immersive aspects of the game. In this month's New York Times review, Seth Schiesel drooled:
Anchored by its provocative, morality-based story line, sumptuous art direction and superb voice acting, BioShock can also hold its head high among the best games ever made. (my emphasis).
He isn't the only one. On the other coast of the United States, in the LA Times review Pete Metzger raves:
Bioshock is not only a cinematic experience that is so well-crafted and executed it puts some Hollywood flicks to shame (yes, we're talking to you, "Halloween"), but it's also so completely immersive that gamers will actually feel as if they are lost wandering around a creepy, underwater city overrun by enraged, superpowered zombies who don't like strangers.
This is not just another brilliant first person shooter, reviewers are saying. Our neutral point of view policy requires that we should comment on the phenomenal cultural impact of this game, and on the fact that it's widely known, and reported in the mainstream press, for being inspired by the designer's reading of Rand. And, moreover, that we give those facts due prominence, which in the circumstances means we will probably have to give these points a place in the lead section. --Tony Sidaway —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, the article clearly states the great reviews and overall positive reaction; and also states the influence of Rand. The article in no way fails NPV currently. You want to update the Rand stuff, as per my first reply, by all means do - but do so with reliable sources. And no, the article IS primarily about the subject (ie, the game). Like stated before, I don't care how many "obvious" references there are, they can't be added until you cite them with a reliable source; otherwise, we're just assuming. ParjayTalk 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Lead section. If we're ever to conform to the Neutral point of view policy, then our lead section should reflect the article and the importance of the subject. From the lead section of that guideline:
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.
Reliable, published sources, which I have cited above, are saying that the game is based on Atlas Shrugged and that's its immersive qualities, particularly its focus on moral dilemmas, make it stand out as a game.
Are the Boston Globe, Wired, New York Times and Los Angeles Times reliable enough for you? They are absolutely the only sources I have cited in this discussion.
You say "Like stated before, I don't care how many "obvious" references there are, they can't be added until you cite them with a reliable source; otherwise, we're just assuming." Well we can certainly cite the author on the Ayn Rand influence, particularly Atlas Shrugged, and in that context the meaning of the in-games names Andy Ryan and Atlas may be worth a mention, though it isn't necessary. Inclusion should be judged by importance in this instance (which is very low). --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Like many assumptions you are making, you assumed I was judging the mentioned sources; I was not, I simple stated, and with fact, that if you are to add any content on this, make sure to do so with reliable sources. Also, please add new responses at the bottom of the sections, its hard to follow when you edit around. ParjayTalk 00:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


It looks to me like Tony offers two reliable sources above. And I have to agree - this should go in the lead - we are, after all, more interested in the game's role in the real world than in any of the rather insular questions of mechanics and style. Thus its critical response is absolutely something that belongs in the lead. Phil Sandifer 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have a section for that. ParjayTalk 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we do. The question is whether the reception is also important enough that the lead section should mention it (per WP:LEAD). In view of the near-universal critical acclaim, I think it would be extraordinary if it were not. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but the catch there is we then actually break the NPOV by not including the negatives also. And, that wasn't merely the question, the question was to mention Rand in the lead also. Edit: Furthermore, I have yet to see any evidence of quote suppression of some quite significant information of Rand on this article. The critical acclaim from reviews is already mentioned in the article, as is the mention of Rand. Where is the suppression? Have you stopped to consider that your so called "suppression" is infact just a lack of quotable sources? To date, all we've had is that one quote in the influences section, with nothing else to draw upon. ParjayTalk 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The very broad critical acclaim of the game is significant enough to mention in the lead, especially the comments from mainstream press such as NY Times, LA Times, and Boston Globe, which I've now added to the article. Sorry, NPOV does not mean we can't mention these extraordinarily good reviews in the lead unless we also scrabble around for one or two negative comments in the other reviews such as IGN's, Xbox World 360 Magazine's, Yale Daily News', or The Escapist's. Those are the only sources cited by the article n negative points.
It's at least as significant that the same review, in IGN, calls the game:
one of those monumental experiences you'll never forget, and the benchmark against which games for years to come will, and indeed must, be measured. [10].
And the Xbox World 360 review?
Any game that can have you frantically scrabbling through drawers and cupboards searching for the rusty nail you need to be able to create a round of pistol bullets, and have you actively enjoy doing it, is deserving of frenzied applause. [11]
Yale Daily News is not a newspaper I've had the pleasure of encountering before, but seems to be a New Haven freesheet. The Escapist seems to be an online gaming magazine. Both have pertinent and well argued criticisms of the game, but the presence of these criticisms in no ways we can't summarise the very broad critical acclaim, particularly in the widely circulated, paper-printed, mainstream press, in the lead section.
Ayn Rand? Yes, obviously the Ayn Rand-inspired setting of the game belongs in the lead section. Very reliable sources, as I've shown, make much of this too. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I just noticed that I overlooked the Press Start Online review which is also cited as a negative in the reviews section [12]. Again some very cogent criticism, and the fuss over the game is dismissed as "hype". That's fine, and the quality of writing is good, but who are these people? There's no Wikipedia article on them (which could well be an oversight--we don't yet have articles on everything). And then there's this rather ominous message on the website, dated September 22 [13]: "Press Start Online is pleased to announce its relaunch after a short hiatus."
So to sum up, it looks like if you do a painstaking trawl of all reviews on this game you'll find some mention of negative points and even some outright bad reviews (as with any other game). This doesn't mean that we must raise the prominence of those bad points by adding them to the lead, just because it is proposed to add the mention of the huge acclaim across the mainstream and specialist press to the lead. That isn't how NPOV works. Due prominence is the key. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
We have to maintain neutrality. Just because the game received overwhelming good reviews does not mean we should leave out, nor push the negatives "to the back" - to remain neutral we must keep a balance of listed good and bad criticism. Hence why we've only ever listed some good, some bad to keep it balanced, something which your inclusion of more good reviews has been lost. ParjayTalk 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that we should not leave out or unduly downplay negatives, it is also the case that we must give all opinions due weight. This means that reviews in, say, IGN, New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, get more prominence than reviews in obscure newspapers. We absolutely should not say "okay that's enough good, let's hunt around and find at least some bad reviews." If we assume that metacritic is broadly right and the game is (as of 27 September) a 96% rating, then it would be giving undue prominence to the 4% to mention them in the lead. To quote directly from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight (also known as WP:WEIGHT):
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority. (emphasis in original)
I'm suggesting here that the overwhelming critical response, particularly in the mainstream press, is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Your counter-argument says:
Just because the game received overwhelming good reviews does not mean we should leave out, nor push the negatives "to the back" - to remain neutral we must keep a balance of listed good and bad criticism.
I think that WP:WEIGHT makes it abundantly clear that you've misunderstood and mischaracterized WP:NPOV, and I've quoted the exact wording of the relevant section to show this, to wit: articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. If we encapsulate the overwhelmingly positive reviews in the lead, this does not place us under an obligation to similarly encapsulate the tiny number of negative reviews. Indeed, it's pretty clear that our article on reviews may arguably already be giving undue prominence to the few bad reviews, and that much is also evident from my earlier examination of the provenance of those reviews. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - if the best negative review you can find comes from a student paper then it's pretty safe to say "releaesed to critical acclaim." Phil Sandifer 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)