BioShock: A Defence

EuroGamer feels the need to act as the knight in shiny armor for BioShock, writing up an eloquent defence for the game. While one could seriously question the journalistic ethics that would make a gaming journalist feel like he has to “defend” the product he covers, they do address some issues GameBanshee amongst others raised in our review.

“THE CHOICE DOESN’T REALLY MATTER.”

The game was built up as posing challenging moral decisions and showing the consequences. Now, Levine’s backed off on some stuff – he’s said that the multiple endings wasn’t his idea, and they weren’t too pleased with how they turned out… but that’s irrelevant to what the game actually does. What does the resultant game say?

Some have noted the game’s incredibly judgmental – that the ends are you being the Best Dad In The World or some guy who’s going to go nuke-crazy.

Hmm. Let’s put it in a sentence:

Is it acceptable to kill defenceless girls to stay alive, just because someone tells you do?

BioShock says no. The answer’s just “No”. It’s not something with grey areas – if you do so, you’re someone who prioritises your own existence over someone else’s or an easily lead dupe. There’s no moral excuse. You’re an ethical monster, and are made of the same stuff of Fontaine. Or, alternatively, you’re someone who treats it just as a videogame. You’re not thinking about it at all, just the lovely Adam. In which case, yes, BioShock – a game that’s furious that it’s a videogame – doesn’t think much of you either.

This isn’t a problem with BioShock. This is the absolute message. Perversely, for all its claims of edginess, it’s the most old-fashioned decent videogame of the year. Where others have teased the idea of good and evil options, pandering to your tastes, BioShock just glares at you. You killed some kids? What Kind Of Person Are You?

Oh wow, congratulations, EuroGamer, you just managed to Completely Not Get It. That kind of obtuseness has to be rare (at least, I hope it is).