Bioshock has no story - but it could have

I realized today that Bioshock has no story. It has a very interersting setting, a powerful mood, and lots of clues scattered throughout about how Rapture came to be in its current state. In fact, by the time the player arrives on the scene, everything seems to have already happened. Rapture's society has fallen apart, and all that's left to do is fight through the zombies and crazies created by the what has happened before the game begins.The events of the game itself have no real plot driving them forward, despite all the claims about the game being "story-driven." Clearly, it isn't.

So that got me thinking - it's unfortunately that Irrational didn't set the game DURING the fall of Rapture. Clearly, that is the chain of events that the writers put thought into. All the information you are given in the game is about what happened then, rather than what's happening now. So why not set the game in the midst of the rich and chaotic history. Fight crazies AND ryan's thugs as he institutes his crackdown. Sneak through Apollo square while people are getting "rounded up" instead of reading about it in some diary entry. Hell, maybe the player should have BEEN Fontaine or Atlas. Who knows? But if you've got a story, you should set the game during that story instead of after the story is already over. As it is, it's just a backstory which serves only to enrich the setting.

it does have a story you can forget it exists if you dont care about it but its there and i kinda enjoyed the showing up after everything happened setting made a good mood

"Would you kindly?..."

"A man chooses, a slave obeys."

Those two lines are up there with some of my favorite RPG quotes. And BioShock's story is amazing, I love finding out what happened to Rapture.

Three things thjat would have made Bioshock make better use out of the amazing underwater city theme...

1. Should have been a RPG instead of a FPS.

2. Should have set it when the city was populated and going well and then seent he downfall.

3. Get rid of Plasmids because they just ruin it and have a more realistic downfall.

Three things thjat would have made Bioshock make better use out of the amazing underwater city theme...

1. Should have been a RPG instead of a FPS.

2. Should have set it when the city was populated and going well and then seent he downfall.

3. Get rid of Plasmids because they just ruin it and have a more realistic downfall.

Grantelicious

1 and 3 would completely ruin Bioshock. Bioshoch is gritty and intense, RPGs for the most part are good at being huge and fantastic, but not intense. Also irrational makes FPSs not RPGs. The plasmids were also totally central to the storyline and are among the best abilities in any modern video game in my opinion( C'mon, you get to shoot bees at people for god's sake.)

Also, that bit about a realistic downfall. You want realism in a game where you explore an underwater distopia and where you can genetically enhance yourself. And the downfall makes total sense in the context of the game.

I appreciated the story the way it was told, moreso than if we were presented with it in real time through traditional cutscenes and sci-fi civil war set pieces. It's more of a mystery that way because you're in this oppressive, atmospherically haunting environment and the story is up to you to decipher as you move throughout the course of the game, examining what possibly could have happened here and how you play a role in it.

It's subtle and and it forces you to think by putting the pieces together of everything presented to the player, both large and small. Setting the game after the downfall of Rapture is essentially complete makes it that much more interesting of a place IMO.

The game is not story-driven, but there is a rich, sophisticated story that is waiting to be uncovered if you want it.

I realized today that Bioshock has no story. It has a very interersting setting, a powerful mood, and lots of clues scattered throughout about how Rapture came to be in its current state. In fact, by the time the player arrives on the scene, everything seems to have already happened. Rapture's society has fallen apart, and all that's left to do is fight through the zombies and crazies created by the what has happened before the game begins.The events of the game itself have no real plot driving them forward, despite all the claims about the game being "story-driven." Clearly, it isn't.

So that got me thinking - it's unfortunately that Irrational didn't set the game DURING the fall of Rapture. Clearly, that is the chain of events that the writers put thought into. All the information you are given in the game is about what happened then, rather than what's happening now. So why not set the game in the midst of the rich and chaotic history. Fight crazies AND ryan's thugs as he institutes his crackdown. Sneak through Apollo square while people are getting "rounded up" instead of reading about it in some diary entry. Hell, maybe the player should have BEEN Fontaine or Atlas. Who knows? But if you've got a story, you should set the game during that story instead of after the story is already over. As it is, it's just a backstory which serves only to enrich the setting.

Vladek

Clearly you havent completed Bioshock.

The story is great. It's like saying Deus Ex had no plot at all, when clearly its recognized as one of the best storytelling elements in a game. Same with Half-life.

And stop crying about it not being enough "RPG". Bioshcok was NEVER EVER EVER said to be an RPG, or designed. It was designed to be an FPS, but taking some elements from RPGS such asprogressive character custimization and abilites. Its basically an FPS with a coat of RPG principals on the outside.

There's a difference between a premise and a story. But I'd love to hear responses that say more than "there was a story lol the story is great!"

What Bioshock does is set up a premise and add some texture to that premise now and then by giving you a little information about events that were over before the game began.

The game for the most part doesn't attempt real storytelling.

The story is great. It's like saying Deus Ex had no plot at all,

You're dropping the names of other games instead of thinking about Bioshock.

I appreciated the story the way it was told, moreso than if we were presented with it in real time through traditional cutscenes and sci-fi civil war set pieces. It's more of a mystery that way because you're in this oppressive, atmospherically haunting environment and the story is up to you to decipher as you move throughout the course of the game, examining what possibly could have happened here and how you play a role in it.

It's subtle and and it forces you to think by putting the pieces together of everything presented to the player, both large and small. Setting the game after the downfall of Rapture is essentially complete makes it that much more interesting of a place IMO.

The game is not story-driven, but there is a rich, sophisticated story that is waiting to be uncovered if you want it.

viberooni

A video game's "story" unfolds through the events experienced by the player in the game. If Bioshock's "story" is about the fall of a would-be utopian society, then the player should experience the fall of that society, not read about it after it's over.Scattering a narrative about the background of the game's setting does not constitute real video game storytelling. Bioshock is a game without a story, that has scattered throughout it a story that is not part of the game.

It's anything but subtle. It's basically a back-story spood fed to you through voice overs in the absence of any real plot driving the actual game events forward.

[QUOTE="viberooni"]

I appreciated the story the way it was told, moreso than if we were presented with it in real time through traditional cutscenes and sci-fi civil war set pieces. It's more of a mystery that way because you're in this oppressive, atmospherically haunting environment and the story is up to you to decipher as you move throughout the course of the game, examining what possibly could have happened here and how you play a role in it.

It's subtle and and it forces you to think by putting the pieces together of everything presented to the player, both large and small. Setting the game after the downfall of Rapture is essentially complete makes it that much more interesting of a place IMO.

The game is not story-driven, but there is a rich, sophisticated story that is waiting to be uncovered if you want it.

Vladek

A video game's "story" unfolds through the events experienced by the player in the game. If Bioshock's "story" is about the fall of a would-be utopian society, then the player should experience the fall of that society, not read about it after it's over.Scattering a narrative about the background of the game's setting does not constitute real video game storytelling. Bioshock is a game without a story, that has scattered throughout it a story that is not part of the game.

It's anything but subtle. It's basically a back-story spood fed to you through voice overs in the absence of any real plot driving the actual game events forward.

If you feel that all of the story that matters should take place during the game's event's you should give up on gaming now.

Have you played the game?

Did you understand it?

If you feel that all of the story that matters should take place during the game's event's you should give up on gaming now.

On the contrary, I'm simply stating that Bioshock doesn't have a video game story -just a backstory fed to you for flavor as you play -and that it would probably have been a more satisfying experience if it did, given the nature of the experience. And the suggestion I made is that the game should have been set during Rapture's fall and revolved around those events, rather than feeding you information about those events as you dungeon-crawl through in the aftermath of those events.

The game's strengths are obviously the richness of its setting and the artistry in the presentation of that setting. I think those strengths stand on their own to a certain extent, but I also think this game would have been better if it utitilized some real video game storytelling in which the player's actions propel a story forward, and vice versa.

The mechanics of gameplay in Bioshockare probably another conversation.

So basically you just dont appreciate the style of storytelling Bioshock has. It does have a story, a rather deep one. It tells its story in a non-typical way, by not having some uber epic event happening (this isnt nessicary for a story, as a matter of fact, its gotten a little cleche), and not having it told to you. You basically as the character create the story, and see how you are related to it.

It does have a story. An unothodox and interesting way of telling it, in my opinion.