This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
It was stated in game that the physical appearance Plasmids are the ones that most damage your mental health so I fixed the part about your sanity.
The Mutant: Any chance that Fontaine's testing Jack's mind control by forcing him to break a puppy's neck against his will- when Jack was a little kid, no less! would qualify as a Kick the Dog or Rape the Dog?
Bob: Actually, that was Suchong. I'd call it a Rape The Dog, and that is before we find out how the Little Sisters are mentally conditioned. I'm a huge fan of Mad Scientist villains, but that creep crossed the line. In my opinion, discovering the audio tape containing his Karmic Death was the second best moment in the game. The best being the Good ending.
Shazzbaa: Hmm, shouldn't "Would You Kindly" be Arc Words, due to significance? Or is that too spoilery?
tristanheydt: Yes, and maybe.
Shazzbaa: Changed, added spoiler tag.
Jae: I haven't played through the whole thing yet, but it seems to me that the tropes "Science Is Bad" and "Mad Scientist" apply to this game. Can anyone else confirm this?
Bob: I wouldn't say so. It's more of a "Science Is Bad if there isn't morality there to guide it" Aesop.
Roland: Correct me if I'm wrong, but ascribing Lost in Imitation to this game is a personal opinion- while ZP certainly ascribed it to Bioshock, most game reviewers have nothing but praise for this game, especially its brilliant writing (which even ZP acknowledged), sound, presentation, and other aspects. Calling it in every way inferior to System Shock 2 seems grossly unfounded.
Rebochan: Bioshock has become one of many games that has fallen victim to It's Popular, Now It Sucks!.
Mr.Bookworm: Wait, shouldn't it be Bioshock, not Bio Shock?
Tera: It's BioShock, actually.
Bob: Cutting Natter.
- It's up for interpretation whether it's a condemnation of Objectivism or humanity itself. As in "Objectivism is a nice idea, but it fails because Humans Are Bastards."
- Ken Levine has been pretty blunt that its the theory itself that's up for criticism.
- How much that matters really depends on what sort of art criticism you prefer. Much modern criticism takes the work in question on its own. The creator's opinion doesn't necessarily change what the work itself says. To me, the game itself presents a much stronger example of "Humans Are Bastards" than anything else.
- I feel it's more that Humans are corruptable by Bastards. Fontaine was able to rule part of Rapture through fear that you'll be found, face-down in a pond in the tea-gardens, Andrew forced his view on the people of Rapture, and the Splicers are insane.
- General rules for Mary Suetopia is that when characters use the favoured societal set-up, they are Mary Sue but Humans Are Bastards when using disfavoured social systems. The game might look like All Humans Are Bastards everywhere but that's just because the author hasn't juxtaposed a utopia for people to show their good side in comparison.
- This troper thinks the city didn't get a fair chance. The only way one could blame objectivism is by suggesting that maybe Ryan should have regulated ADAM. Without proper regulation, society got hooked on the ultimate drug by a Magnificent Bastard. Who knows where Rapture would have ended up without ADAM?
- Probably badly. The recordings indicated that there was huge amount of poverty within the marginalised immigrants. This didn't seem to be directly related to Adam. One of Fontaine's diaries indicate that it was fairly easy to set up poor houses and gain an army. It wasn't just a Magnificent Bastard. It was a weakness inherent in the system.
- It's up for interpretation whether it's a condemnation of Objectivism or humanity itself. As in "Objectivism is a nice idea, but it fails because Humans Are Bastards."
<random troper>: I'm not sure the Tommy gun would count as a Rare Gun in this case. Rapture was founded in the 1940s, at which point Thompsons had become somewhat common and saw substantial use in WW 2.
Rosvo: The M1 was. But, the 1928-model is a different story. It took ten years for every part of the original batch to be used in guns.
Rebochan: Moved this to Dystopia.
- Suetopia: Of the Straw Dystopia variety. Rapture is an Objectivist/Libertarian nightmare that charged admittance to toilet stalls and made you pay for your air supply. Food quality declined due to a lack of regulation, Christian missionaries smuggling in Bibles were killed, and ADAM was discovered thanks to science "unbound by petty morality." That said, some Objectivists view Rapture in a favorable light, no doubt helped by Andrew Ryan.
Because it's not an attempt to make a massive critique on Objectivism - Levine has said the dystopia angle was a fascination of his and came about to justify building a city underwater. He's actually sympathetic to certain Objectivist ideals
. The dystopian angle is a result of a pure ideologue failing to account for any failings in his fundamentalist approach. Note that it's the game's villain who makes the most criticisms of Ryan's philosophy. That it's easy to read the opposite out of the game is up to player's interpretations.
— Despite his failings, Ryan still remains true to his ideals in the end, an important point. Gattsuru: I think it is, Rebochan, given the above quote from that Kotaku page. Ryan doesn't remain true to his ideals; he socializes an entire industry, bans commerce in something he doesn't like, and does countless other little things that just can't be consistent with an Objectivist viewpoint. Remember, despite her many failings, that Ayn Rand was also a woman that stated, in the same paragraph, that homosexuality was formed off moral flaws and psychological disorders and was inherent morally wrong and disgusting... but that the laws against it (which existed at the time) should be repealed. She had ridiculously strong opinions against religion, but the idea of banning books or commerce in those books would be anathema.
The system fails not because of organic failures logical to the premise, but because the author inserts several of his or her own presumptions.
Bob: Not to mention altering the plasmids for the purpose of Brainwashing anyone using them.
Rebochan: I pulled the following entry after some thought:
- Fridge Logic: Videos for Bioshock 2 reveal the Big Sister trying to kill the player character by breaking the windows in the room, thereby flooding the room with seawater. She seems to have forgotten that the player character wears a diving suit and was engineered to be able to survive underwater...
The Big Sister isn't trying to drown the main character, she's trying to limit his ability to pursue her. Underwater, the Big Daddy is unarmed and moves much more slowly. Since he had a tail on her, it was easier to just shake him than it was to try and confront him when he knew she was there. The Big Sister's entire tactic is sneaking up on people and gutting them - and in the game, she apparently will chase you down herself.
Cambdoranononononono: Stealth does not appear to be the name of the Big Sisters game, given how the fights with her are advertised and the fact that she shows up to hand the player his ass at the end of the video. However, I did get the impression that she was just trying to shake him off there, presumably because the player hadn't really done anything at that point. She only went for an actual confrontation in that video when the player messed with a Little Sister.
Rebochan: Pulled this for the moment:
- Depraved Dentist: Dear god...
Who's the dentist? There is a dental office, but was there actually a dentist enemy?
Tacitus: I believe The Dentist is the doctor whose room fills with smoke when you enter. The first time he rushes in, plops down a corpse in the exam chair, and rushes out. The second time the smoke clears with him staring at you from a foot away. It's one of the more effective gotcha! moments even if there isn't much to distinguish the character model from the other deadly doctors running around the Medical Pavilion.
Regiment: Should Dr. Steinman be considered a Meaningful Name, Fridge Brilliance, or what? He's not that similar to his namesake except for the Morally Ambiguous Doctorate.
Jerrik: Moved this here
- But that's wrong! That's not Objectivism! Read this... (Please.)
Objectivist politics begins with ethics: The question of if, and if so why, a rational agent —>needs a set of principles in his life. In the objectivist view, proper ethics tells an —>individual how to preserve his individual rights while interacting with, benefiting from —>cooperation with, and trading with, other individuals in society. That is, it determines the —>principles that constitute a moral social system. According to Ayn Rand, the only social —>system that fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism.- By the time that Bioshock begins, Rapture no longer has a moral code. Sander Cohen is allowed to run rampant in Fort Frolic. Doctor Steinman experimented gruesomely on his patients with little consequence. If ever Rapture used real Objectivism, then that philosophy was destroyed by the introduction of the Plasmids and Gene Tonics. I think we've got a bit of Did Not Do ''All'' The Research. Admittedly there are some accuracies, like moving a business out of a city that wants to impose taxes. Perhaps Andrew Ryan is what you get when maintaining objectivism is put in a single man's hand. A man who becomes a dictator to preserve his philosophy, without realizing he's cutting his nose off to spite his face.
I would not say that Bioshock manages to completely deconstruct objectivism, mostly because the best example of an objectivist in the game, Andrew Ryan, ended up not following his own code and became a something of a Knight Templar instead. However, it does point out some flaws in applying the philosophy. Rapture started as an objectivist society, and was eventually corrupted and destroyed by Frank Fontaine. From the materials detailing his rise to power, it seems he was able to do this by capitalizing on the problems already present in the city, namely a large amount of angry poor people and lack of restrictions on what someone could sell. It basically shows examples of how things could go wrong within an objectivist system. Like "What would happen if the richest, most successful person in that society didn't care about morality and attempted to exploit the system for all it's worth?". "What would a powerful, influential individual do if, it so happens, they are not talented enough to win and would lose everything they had by continuing to following the morals of objectivism?". Though by the time the game begins most signs of objectivism are gone, they are definitely there in the background. And although it doesn't directly deconstruct the ideas of objectivism, it does deconstruct how it would affect and be affected by a society that lives underneath it.
Cambdoranononononono: I'm removing A God Am I because, as the Justifying Edit mentioned, I don't think this perception is really shared by many people beyond the one who added it. I would guess that the person was just misinterpreting the fact that the splicer quotes the Bible from time to time.
Also pulling the extra bulletpoints to The Atoner. They're heading into Natter, and the first one is just that person's speculation. Since Tennenbaum created the Little Sisters, she'd presumably feel responsible for the Big Sisters regardless of any direct involvement in that part. If this does turn out to be correct, it needs to be re-worded anyway.
- Also, judging by previews and trailers for Bioshock 2, she's also responsible for the creation of the Big Sister. Damn it, Tennenbaum, don't you EVER learn?
- Well, the Big Sister was just a regular Little Sister who went psycho after she was brought to the surface, so it's not like she directly suited her up and sent her on a rampage. That would be Sofia Lamb, the new Big Bad. Besides, she is going to help the second game's hero hunt her down.
- Or we think she is, anyway.
- At the risk of dipping into Thread Mode, why wouldn't she? Big Sister is stealing girls with the same physique as the original Little Sisters, whom Tenenbaum naturally wants to save. It's not a big stretch of the imagination to believe that Tenenbaum believes the Big Sister is irredeemable.
- Also, judging by previews and trailers for Bioshock 2, she's also responsible for the creation of the Big Sister. Damn it, Tennenbaum, don't you EVER learn?
Cambdoranononononono: On the Karma Houdini/Wall Banger thing: for the first, I don't think it should be on the page at all. For the former trope, there's not enough of an epilogue to appropriately make that designation; we only know one specific event. Secondly, this page isn't really for personal complaints about the game. Blogs, forums, even Darth Wiki might take it, but ultimately it seems like people are inserting their own thoughts on a page that's not supposed to be about that. (Sticking a YMMV in front doesn't give a blank check to say whatever you want.) Looking through a few forums devoted specifically to this game, I'm having trouble finding people who were particularly interested in this aspect of the ending one way or another. From that, I find it difficult to conclude that enough fans were outraged by this to really be noteworthy on a page that's mostly about cataloging information about the game. It's not as though there's an a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming counterpoint, either, which is an opinion I've also seen. (But, again, not from a large enough group for me to decide to add it.)
I would suggest that it either be removed, with the basic facts filed under Save the Villain, or to have such a counterpoint in an attempt to head off arguments about it. I prefer the former, personally; then we don't have to go back and forth about the ethics of the situation.
Unknown Troper: Agreed. I've slashed the editorializing and left the simple facts there.
Mister Bibs: Actually, I've seen on three seperate forums the Wallbanger you purged. I'm going to add it - in addition to another one that I've heard multiple times - but keep it brief.
Cambdoranononononono: How about this: I'll move the examples to the Wall Banger page proper. I've been in discussions about whether the page should be cut, and one of the major arguments in its defense is that it gives people a place to vent without it bleeding over into the rest of the wiki. I've seen people express opinions on both sides of both of the listed issues; leaving them here suggests a bias toward a particular end. The points also connect to broader ethical issues; weighting the page toward a particular side implicitly casts stones at people, not just the work.
The wording is still problematic, as it's still rather obviously written from the point of view of someone who agrees with the points. This loops it back around to simply complaining about the plot points, rather than noting an issue people had with them. However, in light of the above, I don't think a rewording is enough to keep it here.
More minor point: Apart from Grace, the assertion that "the people you showed mercy do were either generally good people or ignorant of the consequences of their actions" is not correct. For some reason, people tend to forget that Stanley drowned everyone in Dionysus Park to save his own skin. I guess Gilbert could have an insanity defense, but it's still a pretty problematic designation to give to "Alexander the Great". I didn't reword that when I moved it, but someone might want to.
If it matters, I actually think that killing Gilbert is still the right thing to do (or, at least, not "evil" under most intentions), and I could go either way on killing Lamb (I would like to see her get her comeuppance but was happy enough that Eleanor wouldn't be a direct party to killing her after Sofia was already neutralized and defenseless). But, I don't think this page should be used to support a particular one of the perspectives; unless we can find some kind of "comparing to ethical philosophies" trope, I say we leave it off this page.
Mister Bibs: I'm going to assume you don't remember that the game flat out tells you that had Stanley no idea that giving Eleanor to the orphanage would doom her to becoming a Little Sister, or that giving Johnny Topside to Sinclair would turn him into an Alpha Series Delta, right? Just because it didn't reach Wall Banger status for you doesn't mean that it didn't for others, and like I said, I've seen similar comments on three different forums focusing on the Wallbangers you temporarily purged.
Cambdoranononononono: On Stanley, I wasn't referencing what he did to Eleanor/Johnny Topside, I was referencing the point where he drowned everyone in Dionysus Park to keep Lamb from finding out. Hence why I said, "For some reason, people tend to forget that Stanley drowned everyone in Dionysus Park to save his own skin." On the removal of the Wall Banger examples, I'm not moving this because it bothered me less than other people, I'm moving it for all the reasons I listed in the first paragraph. My opinions on the events weren't meant to be the core of the post (hence "If it matters"); I just thought I'd address them in case someone thought I was just removing the example because I disagreed. I guess I feel like you only skimmed my post without giving it a fair chance.
Mister Bibs: I didn't skim it. I read your post, then I read the respective tropes, and found your opinion of the situation incongruous with the tropes in question. A Karma Houdini is when someone very deserving of punishment doesn't get the punishment the viewer wants or expects. Sofia Lamb's lack of dying in the 'good' ending is an example of this, and many gamers have commented on this. A Wall Banger is when something, thematically, goes wrong, and even the Mantra can't contain it. Only getting the Savior achievement by saving a guy who begs you to kill him is an example of this, and again, many gamers have commented on this. Then, to make matters worse, you claim you're having trouble finding people that believe these things! Your basis for purging the Karma Houdini and Wall Banger lines in this article, I feel, falls under the Did Not Do The Research on your part. But, this isn't Wikipedia, so the only proof we need is that someone added those examples in the first place.
Cambdoranononononono: First paragraph of my second post, I meant. The was the post I felt you didn't give proper attention (see the stuff about Stanley for a less subjective example of why I felt this). However, that's a petty complaint based on a misunderstanding I'll go into below, so I'm sorry if I offended you.
Some of your concerns with my original argument are legitimate, which is why I didn't reiterate them or press the issue on, say, the Karma Houdini trope. I'm willing to accept anecdotal evidence that people's annoyance with Sofia's fate is more common than I knew about, and you may note that I didn't remove the example when I raised that issue. (I actually have seen complaints about Alex, but that example was posted after I made the original argument.) Looking back, I realize it wasn't really clear that my second post was revising my argument specifically with respect to the Wall Banger examples that you wrote and I removed, so I apologize for that.
While it's obvious that some people definitely consider these events to be Wall Bangers, I have greater issues with adding the examples on this page, for the reasons I listed earlier. To boil down the main part, I think the way it was added biases the article in a specific direction on some fairly touchy ethical issues for which I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides. (Case in point: I just got back from removing a Justifying Edit, complete with Pot Holed insult, on this very example.)
What if we entered these points under Your Mileage May Vary, explaining the arguments made in both directions on whether the actions are good/evil, then stuck a Wall Banger example that pointed back to the YMMV above? (Maybe with a note somewhere indicating the problem that the game took a side on something like this.) We would leave your version of Wall Banger on the Wall Banger page. In essence, we'd note the complaint here and make the complaint there, which I feel is more in line with the intent of the two pages. Does that sound all right to you?
Mister Bibs: You're not offending me. Risking forehead collapse, perhaps, but not offending. I simply cannot find any practical reason (in other words, I reject your assertion that there's "touchy ethical issues" about putting Wall Bangers from Bioshock 2 in the Bioshock article, under the trope WallBanger. Since they are causing people to bang their heads against the wall or desk. That, and that alone, 'sounds right' to me.
Cambdoranononononono: My recent suggestion was to put the examples back in under Wall Banger, just in a way that listed both opinions to discourage Edit Wars or Justifying Edits, such as from the person who first pulled it from this page or the person who argued with it on the Wall Banger page. As a draft:
- Your Mileage May Vary: On a couple of "morality" points in Bioshock 2.
- Killing Gilbert is either a Mercy Kill for a man who is suffering both mentally and physically and who went as far as to tell you to kill him, and who is potentially dangerous to you and others in his current state, or cold-blooded murder over the pleas of the victim and at the behest of a man who is effectively already dead.
- Eleanor saving Sofia in the "good" ending is either a horrifying extension of the player's decision not to kill under less extreme circumstances that turns a Complete Monster into a Karma Houdini or a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming where Eleanor chooses to be the better woman and rejcts her mother's philosophy that people are irredeemable.
- Wall Banger: The game is quite willing to tell you that killing Gilbert is "bad" and saving Sofia is "good". Players were not amused.
That lists the examples as Wall Bangers, it goes into detail on what makes them Wall Bangers (what I think you're looking for), and it acknowledges the difference of opinion at length (what I'm looking for). Independently of any disagreements you have with my personal reasoning to get there, does that look like a bad post? (It may need some rewording, but the basic content is there.)
(If you happen to be curious on where the "killing Gilbert is bad" stuff came from, there's a discussion on it here that brings up the points pretty well.)
If you don't feel that's acceptable, then I'm not going to pursue the matter. I promise not to make any more edits on them if you just move the examples straight back.
Mister Bibs: Hmm. I like it. A lot, actually. I'll add it, post-haste! I do hope you didn't take my... implacable desire to make TV Tropes articles really good as any sort of personal beef. :)
Cambdoranononononono: Okay, awesome. Glad we worked it out, and that you like my idea. It makes me much happier than it probably should to hear that.
Mister Bibs: On another topic, I think it wouldn't be a horrible idea to split this article into Bioshock and Bioshock2. There seems to be precedent that games should be split up, and while I'm inherently someone who lacks the willpower to avoid spoilers, I think it's reasonable that someone will want to read the Trope article for Bioshock without having played Bioshock 2 yet. Also, the two games are different beasts...
Tacitus: I'm trying to think of what a trope page for 2 would look like, and all I can imagine are different names behind entries like Complete Monster or Heroic Mime, and then copy-pasted lines for stuff like Fire, Ice, Lightning and Underwater Base. I don't think it'd be worth the effort.
Cambdoranononononono: I've seen series (Mario And Luigi, Sonic Adventure Series) where there was a section for shared tropes as well as sections for the individual games. Maybe we could try something like that? (I say "we"; I'm probably too lazy to really do much of it.)
What the hell is with this link under the main quote? I rejected those answers
◊ *
I removed it, but someone keeps putting it back and I have no idea why.
- Well, because that was Ryan's answer. He didn't say no, he said OH YEAH, and then went on to create a plan involving the production of large amounts of dubious red liquid, thus demonstrating that he's the Bioshock universe's Kool-Aid Man.
Talen Lee - Not like I'm exceptionally proud of it, but why was the entry on Squick removed? The rationale in the edit history was 'children are invulnerable,' which they're not, unless they have the sea slug. I assumed little girls were chosen because they had a body cavity that little boys lacked. Again, I'm not proud, and I'll understand if this sort of thing should be left out of the page for a reason - like the squick page itself - but it seems that the reason for cutting it was odd.
- I imagine because (a) that explanation is never offered by the game and (b) it's not clear from the entry that's what you mean. Generally 'tropes present' means they actually are present, I don't think fridge squick counts. Besides, having seen the size of the slugs in 2, it would be kinda outwardly obvious if they were there.
Cambdoranononononono: Tenenbaum, who helped create the Little Sisters, mentions in one diary that she doesn't understand why it has to be girls, so it's probably not something obvious like that.
