Monday, August 27, 2007

The Mechanics of Choice

First, let me beg your patience, as this is, like, the ten millionth BioShock-related post in a pretty discrete time period. I'd say it'll be the last, but that'd be useless. As a writer, I'm most interested in gaming as an experiential medium, the way games affect us emotionally, what they say about us as humans, and the things we can explore through gaming that are unique to it, that we can't have, feel, see and do in real life -- with that in mind, a game like this is my meat and milk. That's a turn of phrase, of course, as I hate milk; nor do I eat very much meat. My toast and protein powder, then?

Second, I'm not discussing BioShock endings on this blog, at least not directly. I'm fine with spoiling old games in major series or any title whose lifespan can be considered archival rather than current -- if the ending of, say, Metal Gear Solid 2 or Silent Hill 1 is still a source of the suspenseful and unknown to you, you probably aren't reading my work anyway, and Lord only knows, if I didn't discuss Metal Gear endings periodically my precarious grip on exactly what the hell happened in those games and who ended up being on whose side would be shot to hell. There are a few occasions with more niche titles where I feel it's more valuable to a point I'm making to discuss an ending rather than obscure it, but in those cases I'd warn in advance that the article's intended for people who've finished a given game. But BioShock's been out for what, a week? And it's being played or likely to be played by, I dunno, everyone? So let's keep it on lock, okay?

Especially because I haven't finished it yet. There are many reasons why BioShock is compelling to play. To explore the next eerily breathtaking scene, to look with uncomfortable intimacy into every corner of a world that reflects a society's deepest madness is one good reason; to find out with a voyeur's morbid curiosity what happened to them is another. This is a large part of what fixes our interest; my last Aberrant Gamer column discussed how terrifying and thrilling it is to see an inevitability, a portent of human more-more-more compulsion in Rapture; we're seeing ourselves as we might be.

Some want to know just how powerful they can be; to discover 99 ways to kill and to exercise them all. Some are hunted by the impulse to save the little children. The reason most discussed, though, is to see just what the impact of their choices will turn out to be.

In the comments of that Aberrant Gamer piece, and elsewhere, I've heard a lot of discussion about how much choice there is (or isn't) in BioShock on the matter of the Little Sisters, and in gaming in general. People have been saying for years they want more choice in games, and they want to see the gameplay reflect their choices. We want consequences both foreseen and unforeseen; we want the opportunity to make a moral decision without knowing exactly what we'll get out of it. We don't want, as some gamers have called it, a mere "cost-benefit analysis." In other words, at the core of any gaming experience, no matter how intense, it's still a game; you are still an explorer, a combatant, and you have a protagonist with stats to manage. In the end, choice in games may simply come down, at least historically and at present, to what gains you want for your character and what you're willing to trade. It's not a moral issue at all, then, but the simple exchange of boost for penalty, choice being a factor only insofar as you can decide which bonuses you want and which you can do without, and perhaps which cutscene you'd rather see, which ending you'd rather get.

This is why I had to get so specific early in this post -- though there'll be no discussion of endings here, I wanted to address something I've heard said in several circles; that BioShock may be wrapped in a pretty package and obfuscated with the layers of philosophy, but at its core its much-touted player choice is still the same cost-benefit analysis games have given us for years. The saucer-eyed Little Sisters are arresting; it's safe to say that the first time one is barefoot and sobbing at your feet and you're asked to decide what to do when she's kicking and struggling in your hands is one of those "moments in gaming" you'll never forget. But as the game progresses and you learn the system -- and become desensitized to that piteous sobbing, begin to see not a little girl, but a number, and all of the plasmids it will or won't buy you, things simplify a lot. Especially when you factor in that the consequences of your choices are ultimately not very stark in terms of the resulting game experience -- you will still be rewarded for sparing the Little Sisters, just differently.

Add in the fact that we're trained to predict what the game "wants" us to do. In the RPG genre, choice often comes down to which answer you pick to a question. There's usually a "nice" answer and a "jerk" answer, and it's almost comically clear which will result in a reward. The gray area comes in when you're playing a character who's a total dick, in which case you might sometimes wonder whether choosing "...." instead of "Yes, I like you," is the "better" -- i.e, more faithful reply. Persona 3 does a particularly nice job of handling this element of RPGs; even then, though, it is a cost-benefit analysis, where the "right" answers will get you something and the "wrong" answers won't.

Could it be though, that we as players have been conditioned to look at our gaming experience as a cost-benefit analysis? What is it, exactly, that we're hoping to "get" from a game that offers us choices? Complete open-endedness in a console game just isn't possible, at least not anytime soon -- it sounds like a designer's nightmare, as human behavior is endlessly unpredictable and having even, say, three disparate plot branches might be like designing three games instead of one, to say nothing of the fact that the player will still lament the fourth option that was never presented to him. If we want to customize our gameplay experience -- to have a darkened adventure instead of a bright one for example -- it's best to just make those decisions in the checkout line of GameStop.

What is the crux of choice? When we make decisions in life, like which college to go to or what to do on a Friday night, it's true we are deciding between disparate experiences. But those kinds of choices are actually fewer and farther between than you might think, and, surprisingly, are not the ones we remember most. Think back to a time in your life where you had to choose -- chances are, the flashpoints that stick with you were times when you asked yourself not, "what do I want to do," but "what do I want to be?" At those times, the cost-benefit analysis was almost irrelevant as you sought to reconcile your soul with itself.

Maybe the choice in BioShock ultimately isn't much of one in terms of gameplay; harvest or rescue, you're still playing the same exact game, though it's safe to say it'd be a little harder one way versus a little easier another. Harvest or rescue, the environments available to you are the same, the words spoken to you are mostly the same, and the game story is the same with the exception of the ending -- and when you're watching the ending, there's no longer anything you can do about it. But do values and identity really mean nothing because it's only a game?

If one of the most compelling things about BioShock is the ability to see ourselves, to see humanity, advanced to such a nauseating eventuality, to see our human vanity, our lust for power, our self-gratification up close in such an unsettling way, then the rich detail of Rapture draws us in and forces us to answer questions about ourselves that have nothing to do with how much Adam we're going to get.

I'm harvesting all of the Little Sisters (save for a couple I saved out of curiosity). At first, this was a pragmatic, cost-benefit decision. I'm no good at shooters; my aim is pitiful, and I figured I'd need all the help I could get. But everyone who's been playing it knows what an incredibly immersive game BioShock is; it can feel so real sometimes that you feel sick to your stomach, you can almost smell the blood and brine and rot. I've noticed a certain madness setting into my hands on the controller, into my eyes, the forward-leaning, blood-hungry posture of my body. And it gets worse the deeper I go.

At first, I wanted to be careful. I didn't like the idea that too many plasmids could make me crazy. Again, this is not something that will actually appear in gameplay, but sucked completely into the experience of being in that world, I allowed it to become a creative experiment in what I would do, and what I'd become, under the circumstances. I didn't think I'd play this way. I didn't think I'd feel this way. At first, I'd hesitate over the crying Little Sister. Harvest or rescue? Yes, I'd be calculating the cost-benefit. But I'd also be wondering if I could override my maternal instinct and whether I really wanted to be this kind of player. This kind of person.

After a while, I started letting the Little Sisters squirm a sec after I'd felled their Daddy. Just because their behavior was so lifelike, I thought, and because it'd be a shame not to observe such impressive character modeling (right? Right??). But against the backdrop of Rapture's madness and excess, the gratification I felt at their fear was enormously uncomfortable. The richness of the world makes it quite possible to feel as if I am in it, to see what I might do if I were there. To see what I'd make of the opportunities to choose what I wanted to be; what I wanted to become -- and whether the outcome would be something I could live with.

Now, I chase the Little Sisters down. I want 'em. It's like I can't wait; I deserve that Adam after what I went through to get it. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

I made some choices. And now, much to my surprise, I'm becoming something I hate. And I love it. Cost-benefit regardless, the choices in this game are beyond the mechanics. The merit of choice in games may not be what we get from it, but when done this richly, how it feels.

35 comments:

Vanny Vicious said...

Wow Leigh. This was an ill piece. "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" Damn son. It's always interesting whenever a game sucks you in this much. You'll have to keep us posted on your journey through Rapture!

SVGL said...

Oh, thanks, man! Yeah, the awesome thing about "it's only a game" is I can have fun with how disturbing it is that I'm getting sucked into the same modus operandi that ruined the Rapturites. I'm sure I'll follow up with where it leads me as soon as I know :D

Robert said...

This would come up a lot in PC RPGs. Since free choice was often assumed, much more so than in console RPGs you always had a contingent wanting to be able to be "evil." Now Fallout was the first that really put any real type of role into role playing. And you could be evil as you want to be assuming you get that waterchip in time. But given the nature of the first really big Fuck You ending and the nature of the world yourself good and evil are sort of nebulous.

Then came Baldur's Gate. And here is where you start to see the what people who want "choice" really want. Now in Baldur's Gate you can be the evilest puppy kicker around. The problem is, unlike the Fallout universe, there is a fully functioning society with laws. So you go around murdering people you'll be noticed. And then you'll be hunted. Now later in the game this isn't a big deal, but in the beginning fully armored troops can destroy your party. And the in game benefit to playing evil was really only making ti easier to keep the best Cleric and Mage NPCs in your party. And so this solution was labeled as "not a choice."

And so for future games, starting really with Planescape:Torment, the choice came down to having to fight and kill your party members to go forward as evil. This happened near the end in KOTOR and also in Jade Empire (which coincidently included having to basically kill a little girl who was possessed by demons).

The point is that developers face the desire for players to have a "choice" but not to pay too high a price in the game for the choice. So they try their best to make teh decision as agonizing as they can by making you at least feel a few twinges of betrayal of you party, or in Bioshock's case your humanity.

kadosho said...

I will admit this, BioShock reminds me alot of Metroid Prime 1. It takes you to the furthest depths of the planet, that is alien. Its been asleep for so long, waiting for a tortured soul to walk on its grounds, and prepared to be tested till their dying breath.

Aside from gameplay factors, its a journey worth taking (backtracking aside). Just the exploration, and later facing the monster that caused all of this.

Maybe its the mentality we have, when we're playing First Person Adventure titles as such. Its a type of adrenaline that cant be calmed down until we get through the games' bare bone design.

That's what has always fascinated me about Metroid, or BioShock. You have many elements at your disposal, how you use them is up to you. On some elements, Prime 3 seems to nod towards the "finale" that BioShock obtained. You now have a choice, use this newfound "power' to take your stand, or "turn" to the other side and become an ally of a foe you've been fighting since the first game.

There's a time I question if a series could end in such a way. But I dont doubt that anymore, seeing the "one-shot-trick-pony" that BioShock has made. Its left a mark on how to make a game "work".

I like your comparison with Metal Gear, which is also true. Even though the titles vary from one another, its key hook is its story and solid gameplay. Period.

Hope you find more during your ongoing quests through Rapture. Fare thee well traveller.

Grand Puba said...

I iced the first one I saw - serves her right after what she did to me in F.E.A.R.

Mr.Bubbles said...

While the Little Sisters may represent a somewhat artificial "choice", I would argue that what is really going to make each person's play-through unique are the Big Daddies.

We've all seen the "upgrade your character/abilities/weapons any way you want" system before, but I believe that Bioshock adds three important wildcards:
a) the Big Daddies roam, so you can fight them in many different rooms
b) the environment in each room is highly interactive and quite unique
c) the Big Daddies are strong enough to require planning and strategy, and passive enough to give you time to do so

I'm betting that if we compared notes on Big Daddy kills, we'd find that we had completely different experiences and tactics.

Either way, fantastic article Leigh!

Steven said...

Excellently constructed, proposed, and considered as always.

SVGL said...

Thanks everyone, for your feedback and thoughtful input! Yeah, definitely, Mr. Bubbles, the open-ended play style is another big element -- I think that people who've been arguing about choice-versus-not are really craving a game in which, specifically, moral decisions affect the larger environment and the story independent of them.

And Robert -- I think you're right that PC RPGs could be considered somewhat differently. Maybe the way to allow choice to be a factor is to have a lush environment against a more minimal story, so that the differences in experience can be credited to the way the world reflects the player, rather than through broader story-based strokes.

beylita said...

Funny that you mentioned the Big Daddys' passivity, but neglected to note that the assumption about your "choice" about what to do with Little Sisters is completely dependent on your decision to hunt down and murder the Big Daddies which otherwise are not really going to fuck with you.

SVGL said...

beylita -- excellent point. If you want one, you need to take down the other, who won't otherwise harm you. Wonder if we'd feel sentimental toward the Daddies too if we could see their faces?

Chuck said...

"Wonder if we'd feel sentimental toward the Daddies too if we could see their faces?"

I already feel sentimental towards them. They lumber around making whale song, they don't bother you, they're interested only in defending a little girl, and you get the sense they don't do anything out of malice.

And still, I've been walking around levels watching them go about their business, knowing that I was going to kill them before I exited the area. Not because they're evil or because of something they did, but just because they're in my way.

That's 1000 times more interesting than the big, controller-button "save" or "harvest" choice that's getting all the press. What you do with the little sisters is completely un-subtle, and since you get a reward no matter what you do, has no real repurcussions either way.

But in some levels, it won't even let you exit until you've dealt with all the Big Daddies. I think it says something that the most interesting psychological/social aspect of the game is something that you don't get to choose.

Tom said...

This article is awesome. Very well done. Perhaps I was wrong.

And Chuck's right, the Big Daddies are where the action truly is.

farren79 said...

I think it all comes down to what kind of gamer, and what kind of person, you are. Some people will only play a game as a game, approaching it like you would a puzzle, purely taking a min-maxing, or cost/benefit, approach.
Others (like myself) treat most games as a sort of role-playing experience, trying to make the choices that fit the character, or rather, fit the person you want to be. As you so astutely point out, the choices where you define who you are, as opposed to what you want to do, are the most relevant choices in this regard.
While I agree that the game would have worked better if there had truly been less of a reward for remaining on high moral ground (doing good should be its own reward, otherwise you're not being truly selfless), I actually think it's telling that some people get desensitized to the little sisters' as the game goes on. After all, in real life, one gets desensitized to killing innocents as well, as Andrew Ryan's conveniently voicelogged slippery-slope slide towards immorality so eloquently illustrates.
Myself, I haven't been able to kill even one of the little girls, and I feel real sorrow at their cries of grief at the demise of their beloved Mr. Bubbles, even though I know I've only orphaned them to set them free...

John J said...

First off let me say I enjoyed your article. I also like the blog overall.

Now I think I will vent a little bit. I think that after playing games for some 20+ years I'm beginning to burn out. I've played games on consoles, computers, and hand-helds (anything I could get my hands on really). For the life of me though I just can't get a handle on what is so great about BioShock.

Perhaps the fact that I don't get it is a sign that I have hit the proverbial wall. After so many years of playing games I see BioShock as the product of the slow evolution of first person action/adventure games.

It has elements of many games.

High level of production design and polish

- Doom 3

Physics based game play with powers

- Half-Life 2
- Psi-Ops

Setting/Atmosphere
-System Shock (duh)
-Fallout
-Resident Evil

That's to name but a few influences without going into detail.

In the end I really see BioShock as the game Id was trying to make with Doom 3. I won't go into my Doom 3 rant. Suffice it to say that I fervently dislike the game for a host of reasons. More than anything though I expected something better.

I guess I really feel the same way about BioShock. It differs in that I think BioShock is a good game where I think Doom 3 was crap. Nevertheless, I expected more from both games.

Before I go into my gripes though I will concede the positive points. The environment and backdrop for Bioshock is wonderfully realized in the departments of both visual and sound design. Since the 2K Boston team focused on a single location, Rapture, the level of detail and polish shines through at every turn. Bioshock lives and dies on how immersed you are as a player. If you go in whole hog it is great. But if you're like me and the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the Wizard...well it is still a good game but hardly worthy of all the superlatives being bandied about.

My gripes are within the game play department. BioShock is full of old game design crutches that I believe need to go the way of the dodo.

The first of these is the use of invisible walls. While most people were drinking in the great retro designs of the main entrance to Rapture I was coming to grips with something. That something was the fact that I couldn't jump over the banister to the floor below me. From that point on I kept an eye out for places I where I probably should be able to jump but could not. There are scores of such locations. In most cases jumping into such locations would probably result in death, but with BioShock being so forgiving that hardly seems like a good excuse.

The second mechanic is the old locking doors trick. You know the drill you walk into a room and then suddenly the doors look and you can't leave until you've defeated x number of enemies. This is all over the place in the game, but at the very least it is explained by the games back story. There are security systems all over Rapture so it is believable that the antagonist who are in control of Rapture could pull such things off. Despite it being plot driven, I still think it is pretty weak sauce. (I guess years of gaming has burned me out on the mechanic)

Next up is the enemies randomly appearing out of thin air. One of the things that was stressed heavily in the marketing materials for this game was how it was a living and breathing world. Unfortunately, for me I can almost see the spawn points for enemies when I play this game. Now I'm not talking about the set pieces where the lights flicker and something suspenseful happens. (I'm sure that's the intent but with all the cues they give it's pretty hard to be surprised. Random Splicers creeping up and dropping from the ceiling created better tension since they created a genuine surprise) What I am talking about is instances when Splicers are clearly triggered by a specific action and couldn't possibly have come from anywhere other than a spawn point in the back of the room. I'm thinking of a particular portion of one step and fetch it quest that involved gathering the product of certain insects.

I have more, but I'll rap it up with the highly touted AI. The AI in the game is pretty good overall. Nevertheless, I do have some serious qualms. Other than a handful of instances I didn't see the splicers do anything with the Big Daddies or each other. Since it happened so few times I'm not sure whether it is built into the AI or if what I did see was merely scripted to happen. Sure you can manipulate behaviors with various plasmids but out side of that the splicers mainly just try to kill you and only you.

The Big Daddies were fine except for an annoying little glitch I discovered. If you set a splicer on fire and it happens to run into a Big Daddy, consequently setting the Big Daddy on fire, the Big Daddy will become enraged and attack you. You don't even have to be in view. I once set some poor spliced out fool on fire and he ran screaming around a corner and down some stairs. I trailed after at a leisurely pace only to be greeted at the bottom of the stairs by a large drill bit attached to a very cantankerous Big Daddy.

I have many more bones to pick with Bioshock, but I believe most of them stem from me wanting to believe that Bioshock was something more than just a good game. I wanted to believe that it was revolutionary. It's not. It is evolutionary and quite good. However, I certainly don't believe that the game is worthy of ratings of 10's and 9.5's.

In a way the game reminds me of the Sixth Sense. Yes you should see it, but I doubt you'll watch it more than twice. Similarly, for BioShock yes you should play it but I doubt you'll play it more than twice. In both cases the product is good, but hardly a classic for the ages. In my humble opinion a 10 should only be handed out to a game that can be considered timeless.

farren79 said...

@ John J:

"Bioshock lives and dies on how immersed you are as a player. If you go in whole hog it is great. But if you're like me and the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the Wizard...well it is still a good game but hardly worthy of all the superlatives being bandied about."

That's the whole point. The rave reviews are based on the assumption that you'll be able to be swept away by the setting and the narrative, in which case you won't go looking for design flaws to nitpick (come on - jumping around to find invisible walls? When you're immersed, you won't try to jump to your death). Seeing as Bioshock is one of the most immersive games the reviewers have ever played, they feel justified in awarding 10s. Even though you're correct in saying Bioshock isn't anything new gameplay-wise, it's revolutionary in the sense that it takes immersion, and the artistry of storytelling in an interactive medium, to unprecedented heights.

You're right about the enzyme-gathering subquest, though. That shit was weak.

SVGL said...

John J:

I did notice some of the technical flaws you raised, and quite a few more, actually. But when you are actually seeking out holes in the design -- or, at least, when you consider them strongly when you stumble across them -- you can't really blame the game for breaking the illusion for you.

"Suspension of disbelief" is a requirement to enjoy any fantasy. Let's say you read Superman comics or watch an over-the-top action thriller; if you take every opportunity to go, "Pff, that can't really happen, that doesn't make sense, they've done it wrong," then of course you won't become immersed.

It's possible to notice flaws without letting them affect your experience of a game. Of course, we never forget we're playing a videogame; that's why we can easily tolerate conventions like saving and reloading, or why not all glass breaks when smashed, or why some enemies don't run away crying and hide when they've been beaten in the face too much. We accept that it can only emulate reality to a certain degree; that being said, you enjoy the experience much more if you spend time looking for reasons to let it suck you in, rather than looking for reasons to let it push you out.

And BioShock may have plenty of the latter, but I maintain it has plenty more, in abundance, of the former; seems a shame to reject the wad of cash for the sake of the small change, you know?

Nemphtis said...

A good read, thanks for writing it up. Although when you asked what I remember about my choices in the past, I can't say I was on the same page as you. When I think about the choices in my past right now, my mind is nearly blank except for what I'd like to drink in the morning, coffee or tea?

SVGL said...

Nemphtis -- you made me laugh! I guess, in that case, if your choice of breakfast drink stands out to you, there's a reason for that. I mean, why recall that choice and not others? And what makes the difference for you between coffee and tea? (For me, it's caffeine and psychological pleasure.) I suppose you could follow that train of thought and still learn something, even a small thing, about yourself.

John J said...

I appreciate the responses to my comment. Color me duly impressed that you guys read most of the post.

I just want to clarify a few things. I think BioShock is a good game. I just don't believe it is a superlative game. I had plenty of more gripes, but I didn't really see any need to belabor the point. I just mentioned things that I noticed that were jarring to me.

In full disclosure I have been following this game for a long time. I was a fan of System Shock, and I have read just about every preview and gameplay update I could find on Bioshock over the past year and a half. Admittedly, part of my problem stems from watching developer interviews on game trailers. They touted unprecedented game play and all kinds of stuff that has never been seen before. I understand they need to hype up their game. If they don't, who will right. Nevertheless, the game play in BioShock is reasonably fun and fairly polished but nothing new.

For me personally, game play is king. Game play is also, I believe, the weakest point of BioShock. Once again, I will reiterate that the game play is not bad, but neither is it great in my opinion. The greatest part of BioShock is the art and sound design. Every nook and cranny is meticulously planned out and realized. Kudos to 2K Boston.

I guess in the end I am holding this game to a higher standard than your average reviewer. I feel justified though. For me Bioshock is like Crash Bandicoot. It provides an extremely polished experience within the confines of existing genre conventions. I maintain, however, that it is high time that these genre conventions are redefined. Enter Mario 64 or in this case, hopefully, Far Cry 2 or Crysis or something.

For me the expiration date for this game is passed due. The technology to create this game existed 3 years ago. I will maintain to my death that this is simply Doom 3 executed correctly. I concede that such an accomplishment is a worthy achievement. I'm also sure that Ken Levine and the rest of the team would have had this game or one very similar to it up and running much sooner if the people at EA had supported them. However, with the technology available today I expect an ever increasing level of interactivity. As good as BioShock is I still see how much better it could have been.

Don't get me wrong. I have faith in the 2K Boston team and I believe that they will be every bit as critical as I am. I look forward to the next game. They can do the linear story thing if they like. I'm still not a fan of audio logs, but they are just bonus material. However, the next time someone sets me loose in a forest environment with fire starter powers I expect to be able to burn that mofo down.

For me the test of a game will always be the degree of interaction. You can get great audio and visual stimulation from a host of different mediums, but the unique aspect that games bring to the table is the interaction. It is high time to raise the bar in this regard.

For me BioShock is a museum. A beautiful one with plenty of fun diversions inside. It says look and listen, but don't touch. Did I get my $49.99 certainly. However, after 20 years of gaming, if this is the pinnacle of the art then we truly have a long way to go.

Invisible wall
indestructible vine
behold you not
in crystal ball
of mine

JJ

CameO73 said...

The thing I like the most about games are the interactive stories they provide. In the case of Bioshock it's very well narrated. I do think there are different outcomes depending on the save/harvest choice you made (I'm not really sure, I only have finished the 'save'-story so far).

The technical aspect of the game isn't half as interesting as the story ... as long as it doesn't get in the way. The only 'glitch' I encountered was a flaming splicer that set fire to (and enraged) a Big Daddy unexpectedly (unfortunately for me I was stuck in a very confined space -- you can guess the outcome).

I read some other blog that compared movies to games, and noticed that current movies fail to entertain; this in spite of big budgets and great CGI. In my opinion it's the storytelling that they lack.

It seems that great stories are now 'played out' instead of being watched!

Anonymous said...

Well written article. I have to say it seems almost like you were trying to be funny with this. You are writing in such a serious tone about a game. Are you really that drawn in by this?

There's a reason it doesn't touch your innermost feelings. It's a game. You know that you aren't really harvesting little girls.
Don't get me wrong. I own this game, I love this game. I also have a little girl of 3yrs old. I personally chose to save all of them, because I thought it might make the game more challenging.
I digress. If you want to spend so much time pondering something that deals with consequences and emotions, why don't you ponder the choice you have everyday to buy a latte, or save a child's life in africa. How about your choice to have cable TV or save a starving child? Drive a car...Eat out less once a week.

My point is simply that there are plenty of opportunities in real life that deserve your attention and writing skills rather than this game.

What this game is is an awesome diversion...now excuse me I have to go drive and get my latte now.

SVGL said...

Anonymous -- you'd have a point if I wasn't a game writer. Writing about games is what I do, and yeah, I take it seriously. I don't write about kids in Africa or lattes, but that doesn't mean that games are the most serious thing in my life. It's just, y'know, my job, dude.

Jay said...

Hi Anonymous here again, this time with a name.

First, I should not be one to criticize someone's writing as you can tell I suck at it. Secondly, I apologize for not taking the time to look through the rest of your blog. I didn't realize this was your job. I thought it was another blog like the billions of others out there.
Still, there was something that I found funny about the article. I linked to it from Kotaku, but somehow, it seemed very out of place in the Kotaku world. It's hard for me to put into words. Kotaku just never seems to take themselves that seriously. Your writing about Bioshock reminded me of my philosophy classes in college. Taking 10 pages to write about something that can be explained in 3 minutes by a good Proff. Then again, I have never understood people who get so wrapped up in the virtual world (WoW, Second Life etc), so maybe I should just understand that to some people, this is that important. The funny thing is, my wife always tells me I am too into games, but I just like them like I like a good movie. When I turn off the system and walk away, real life takes over again. I'm sure this blog is just a sliver of the writing you have done, so I apologize if I seemed to be calling you one dimensional, I didn't mean it in that way.

OnlinePharmacy said...

K8ClkF Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!

tramadol med said...

7Z60gb Nice Article.

lilly meridia said...

Good job!

columbus georgia motels said...

Thanks to author.

name said...

Hello all!

boy date fall spring tour said...

Wonderful blog.

big and rich tour 2007 said...

Please write anything else!

lp on the internet loan pr said...

Nice Article.

ringtones said...

actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.

Money to loan classifieds< said...

Nice Article.

cialis drug impotence said...

WtxlXH Magnific!

free ringtones for ky said...

Please write anything else!