Bioshock Remastered Review

Would you kindly cast your mind back to 2007? Bioshock, at the time of its original release, was a revolution in game artistry. It was perhaps the first game to seriously make the argument for videogames as an art form. The setting of Rapture was a fascinating study in its dystopian vision mixed with iconic sci-fi 50’s flavour, and the premise explored themes such as genetic modification, free will, and objectivism that are still strongly relevant 11 years later. 

 

The game's aesthetics are still spectacular and affecting, even today. Source: in-game screenshot

11 years on and two sequels later, does the original Bioshock hold up? This question is especially relevant as now the idea of videogames as art has taken root, particularly in the indie scene, and where 11 years of advancement in technology takes us to more fantastic and graphically-astounding places than ever before. With the remastered edition of Bioshock, I took the plunge to explore the ruined city of Rapture with fresh eyes. 

The first thing to note on Bioshock Remastered is, of course, the graphics. While the remaster offers a fresh coat of paint to offer higher resolutions and frame rates, the fact of the matter is that the game doesn’t look a world apart from its original state by any means. Bioshock does benefit, however, from the finer attention to detail, especially in the twisted facial expressions of the Splicers. However, as a remaster goes, the graphical overhaul has achieved very little more than the minimum to meet modern standards.

 

The first look at Rapture is still a breathtaking sight. Source: in-game screenshot

This is arguably because Bioshock was a stellar-looking game to begin with. Yes, it is a last-gen games and yes, this does occasionally show in the odd muddy texture or in some of the detail of level backdrops. But the aesthetic of Rapture as a location is so good that the game is still a marvel to look at. Each pocket of the city is fleshed-out and lived-in and you get a sense of authenticity from the run-down bars all the way to the optimistically-built, abandoned farmer’s markets. Rapture still feels and looks like it was once a living, breathing city and this is in no small part because the artistic direction of the game was spot-on. Rapture is to gaming what Gotham City is to comic books; a realised and authentic vision of an exaggerated and tragically-beautiful, ruined city. 

The main annoyance with Bioshock graphically is in the vision-altering effects. While it does make sense and adds to the game’s authentic feel that getting soaked by water will make your vision alter appropriately, or that drinking three bottles of vodka instantaneously would cause blurry vision (and probably a severe hangover and liver poisoning), but the execution of the vision-impairing effects is more of an annoyance than anything else; perhaps they last just a few seconds too long, but I often found that I avoided waterfalls with more fear than I avoided the enemy’s iconic Big Daddies.

Other than those small niggles, and the fact that as a remaster the improvements to the graphics feel insignificant, visually Bioshock is a joy to behold; from its bright neon lights to the grimy reality of underwater dystopian life, every part of Bioshock’s aesthetic is authentic, atmospheric and artistic in all the right ways.

 

The locations are authentically built to look ruined, and are powerful visual clues as to Rapture's downfall. Source: in-game screenshot.

In terms of the sound design, Bioshock presents excellence in some areas; particularly as fitting music plays while you take in an important visual spectacle, or when a hidden enemy whispers sinister threats at you from out of sight, or the spine-chilling moan of a Big Daddy. The result is that the sound leaves you feeling totally immersed in Bioshock’s setting; you truly feel as if you are in an underwater city and the atmosphere is as oppressive as you would expect.

The main issues here, however, are in the volume settings. As one of the most important aspects of the story, it is such a shame that the audio diaries wind up constantly drowned out by the cacophony of chaos going on as the player fights off waves of enemies; I ended up turning every other audio slider down to the minimum setting and the voice turned all the way up, just so I could listen in. This is a shame, because the voice acting performances are stellar and emotive, giving the player a real sense of what it was like to live and die in Rapture. Another issue is with the variety of the voice clips being played; too often, you will hear the same line being uttered by Little Sisters and Splicers over, and over again.

The gameplay of Bioshock is impressive and is perfectly in tune with the story. For those unfamiliar with Bioshock’s formula; the game mixes FPS gameplay with RPG-style progression in the form of plasmids: abilities the player can use either in combat or in puzzle-solving, such as the ability to cast fire or lightning at enemies, pick up objects with telekinesis, or even hypnotise Big Daddies to make mincemeat of anyone in the player’s way. Plasmid use is dictated by the EVE bar, which is implemented as a mana system, showing the player how many plasmid uses they have left. On top of this, the game borrows from survival horror in that ammo must be carefully conserved lest the player end up under-equipped for tough encounters. The result is an engaging, complex game that rewards clever use of abilities. Instead of just being levels, Bioshock’s maps become sandboxes for players to experiment with different strategies for dispatching enemies. There are many ways to make it through a level; by hacking security cameras and turrets to kill enemies for you, by enraging splicers to kill each other, or just blast through as an unstoppable, genetically-enhanced killing machine. Because of this, gameplay is largely emergent and always has the potential to surprise. 

 

The game is atmospheric and often-terrifying, especially with its enemies. Source: in-game screenshot

There are a few of the gameplay elements, however, that have aged poorly; hacking, for instance, quickly becomes tedious with its take on Pipe Mania gameplay. Often, I preferred just to destroy cameras and turrets, just because I was so fatigued from hacking, rather than for any strategic reason. Also, the use of the camera to research enemies for greater damage and bonuses becomes an annoyance that leaves little strategic value. 

It is in Bioshock’s story, however, where it truly shines. The narrative is powerful and asks many probing questions of the player; about free will, objectivism and morality. The story of Rapture is a tragic tale told through implication and in-game voice recordings that are acted emotionally and authentically. The result is that players feel immersed and affected by the plights of Rapture’s denizens and are drawn deeper into the world. The narrative of the player, however, is without question excellent, with plenty of surprising twists and turns and allowing for multiple interpretations on the many characters they meet. 

 

Little Sisters may be an eponymous part of Bioshock, but the choice they represent is one of the stories' weaker aspects. Source: in-game screenshot

The one area where the storytelling falters, however, is in the moral binary choice that Little Sisters present to the player. They can either be brutally murdered for more in-game currency to buy plasmids, or saved for only slightly less. The result is an unaffecting no-brainer of a choice, because the consequences of choosing to save the Little Sisters is tiny, leaving little reason for the ‘evil’ decision. This is the school of the Fallout morality system, where not being an evil monster suddenly makes one an angelic hero worthy of worship. It is ironic that in a game where many probing areas of debate are explored in their many shades of grey, such an obvious binary decision becomes the central morality choice that the player makes in the game. 

 

Even from the beginning, Bioshock's atmosphere and story is masterfully-executed. Source: in-game screenshot.

In the end, Bioshock is still an excellent game, whether you are playing it remastered or not. The narrative is still a masterclass in world and character building and Rapture is one of the most accomplished settings ever in a videogame. That Bioshock presents a campaign that is over 10 hours, most of which is a deep and non-linear FPS experience, is particularly encouraging in a world with lootboxes and multiplayer shooters that offer tired variations of deathmatches. The value prospect of the remastered edition of Bioshock, as well as its status as still one of the most artistically-powerful and engaging games ever created (unusual for a AAA videogame), makes it one of the most important must-play titles of modern gaming. Bioshock is a title I would recommend to almost any gamer, as it shows the true potential of a high-production value FPS made with excellence in mind.

Control the Controller: Rebuttal

Another day, another sad media opinion piece dragging the videogame market through the mud. This time it is the turn of The Star Online, which concludes: ‘Videogames are doing many children great harm. The many children in question constitute a significant number of boys in the up-and-coming generation. For these boys to become authentic men, they need to be rescued. They are not going to rescue themselves.’

One of the better videos on the topic of videogame addiction and the surrounding media hysteria surrounding it is by Extra Credits, shown here. The video is rightfully careful to discriminate addiction from compulsion, and importantly demonstrates why videogame ‘addiction’ as it is termed by the media is largely sensationalism. I think the most important part of the video to pay attention to is that addiction refers to the alteration of brain chemistry to create biological dependence on the substance, an effect commonly seen in truly harmful addictions such as nicotine and alcohol and to a lesser extent, caffeine. Addiction carries with it a horrifying stereotypical image; a violent man with poor hygiene performing desperate acts of crime to further fund his own habits, perhaps. This imagery is often wrong and unfair to those who suffer from addiction, which in itself is one way in which the article and wider media are largely wrong. Not only does such sensationalism harm gamers but it also harms those who suffer from addictions.

On the other hand, Extra Credits reports that videogames rather use the way in which brain chemistry works to create a rewarding system for the player. This is a correct identification, and possibly the main reason that we play videogames as a whole. However, this comes with a lot of issues regarding responsible use of the tools available to videogame developers, something which has sadly been lacking. Many of the big developers instead exploit compelling design in gaming for immoral reasons, in the most cynical of ways. More needs to be done from an industry perspective to tackle immorality in game design, and more pressure from the market will eventually lead to an improvement in this area.

More immediately, however, many of the assertions of the article are downright false and damaging. The way in which the writer paints game compulsion in children is offensive and harmful and not indicative of a healthy approach. This is a tough, negative approach to a problem. Blame is placed squarely on the videogames and they are identified in this article as the singular variable that is causing so much damage. The solution to the problem is to ‘confiscate the controller, smash it, and toss the pieces in a dumpster located at least ten miles from home – and do not ever, under any circumstances, allow one of these nefarious devices back in said household.’

This is, of course, a nuclear option. The complete withdrawal of videogames from a child’s life is an extreme course of action to take. Let’s face it, we live in a time where gaming is more visible than ever, and more accessible than ever. Either through mobile gaming, or through their own social networks, a child is going to be exposed to videogames. To tackle the underlying issue which is toxic videogame playing, a nuclear option is oftentimes going to do more harm than good unless in the most extreme of cases. Granted, where gaming becomes the square, central behavioural issue, some withdrawal of gaming privileges can, in a parenting sense, be a logical move to make. However, this is definitely where the facade of the article’s bias begins to fade; look at the terminology used. Games are described as ‘nefarious’. Evil, cunning things that are out to get you. This is the definite thing that games are not. Games are tools, and it is the misuse of these tools that are causing the problems.

On the other hand, Extra Credits has a great counter-strategy in the positive sense to combat toxic, compulsive gaming in young people. It correctly identifies that in a lot of these cases where videogames have become a harmful element of people’s lives, the main problem is mismanagement. Not just of the videogame as a tool, but a chronic mismanagement of that person’s life, either through a lack of real discipline or parental engagement. This is where I particularly like EC’s approach: it identifies the use of a positive mechanism by which to tackle and encourage videogame behaviour.

Too much is placed on the negative aspect of videogames. They’re addictive, they’re violent, mind-numbing. Not enough is placed on the positive ways in which we can use them. Through a good use of scheduling and the right encouragement and parental framework, games can be just another useful tool by which to raise your child. Instead of taking away, and engaging in destructive activities that only serve to cement one’s dominion over their child, Extra Credits instead encourages positive relationships with games.

Instead of throwing out the controller, pick it up, and use it as a point to engage with your child. Talk to them about games. It’s such an important part of your child’s life, and they would be thrilled to be able to have a meaningful conversation with their role models about it. Learn about gaming and learn about the right and wrong games for your child to play. Use this knowledge to push your children from the toxic parts of gaming into the kind of games that help them grow; the Minecrafts, the Zeldas, the Don’t Starves of the world. Ultimately, I think that Extra Credits approach is a lot more involved and a lot more realistic. We live in a world where videogames exist, and they are protected as free speech and as an art form. Not only that but videogames are a valuable medium that has developed a strong economy but also is a strong learning tool and culture in and of itself. To think that we can destroy people’s engagement with the medium is naive and destructive in and of itself. Instead of treating videogames like the enemy, the public should instead treat it like a tool, just like television and books.

The Star Online’s article may be sensationalism for the sake of clicks, or it may be a genuine piece of opinion. But it most certainly is harmful and encourages exactly the wrong kind of engagement with gaming, coming from a stark misunderstanding of what a videogame is. While there are massive issues underlying the cynical exploitation of videogame mechanisms, particularly in the mobile and microtransaction space, games are a tool that I will always firmly believe is a force for good. Not only that, but I am a strong proponent of the use of positive mechanisms instead of negative, and the use of engagement and knowledge will surely be far more effective in everyday circumstance than the use of force and oppression.

However, if there is an extreme case where videogames are causing genuine harm to a child, then professional help and a measured response is needed. A knee-jerk reaction informed by a sensationalist article will help nobody. Instead, seek professional help to come up with a measured response plan. It may be the case that videogame time for your child should be reduced or limited as much as possible, but the important thing here is developing an individual, measured plan. Just throwing away videogames is an expensive and damaging thing to do and treating them like the enemy is a more harmful plan in itself. Professional help exists and will undoubtedly assist parenting, but ultimately it is down to parenting strategy to decide a child’s fate, not a videogame’s.

Morality Choices in Gaming

My introduction to moral choice in a video game was Fallout 3. As first impressions go, it wasn’t the most ideal. I wasn’t a massive fan of the game when it first released and it was only when Skyrim came out that I became open to the Bethesda formula and tried it again. I enjoyed my time with Fallout 3, but personal reasons make it hard for me to enjoy and play the game again.

           

My issue with Fallout 3’s moral choice system, however, is quite simple. It is too easy to be good. 

The problem with a lot of the choices in the game is that to be ‘evil’ you truly have to make an effort; you have go out of your way, travel half-way across the wasteland and find a very obviously evil rich man and another obviously evil suit man, and push a button to literally nuke a city. The problem with this evil choice is that one has to make a genuine effort to choose to do something they know is evil, and not only that, make more effort than the good choice would be.

The problem is that being the ‘good guy’ is the easier choice in Fallout 3, and that doing the more ‘evil’ choices are so evil that nobody would genuinely pick them unless they were playing an evil character. When taking the choice between installing a poison into the water supply to cause the genocide of all mutants, many of whom you have met and engaged in conversation, or simply turning on the machine and creating a reliable source of clean, free water for all in the wasteland, it seems almost comically ridiculous to pick the ‘evil’ option.

           

There needs to be more ambiguity in the moral choices that we make in games, if we are to answer the questions that should be asked by the inclusion of a morality system. It is not enough to have a moral choice, but one has to make that choice feel meaningful. We need more options where it is easier and less obvious to be evil. Not ‘if you choose not to step on the puppy you’re a hero’.

How about instead of the poison option in Fallout 3 the decision is more grey. Perhaps the water purifier doesn’t have enough power. It would have enough power if you can install a module, but the installation means that you would poison the water for mutants. 

The choice would then be a lot harder, and more real, if either choice had a real negative consequence attached. Either you fail, or you discriminate against hordes of mutants. Of course, this choice has issues; between irradiated water for all or clean for some, I’d certainly be okay flipping the switch if it meant clean water for some. But this is just one example of how we can alter the morality choices to be more meaningful; by altering the consequences involved.

           

Morality choices and storytelling in general have a far way to go in games. Perhaps some storyline decisions will be incompatible with gaming as we know it. Maybe in offering the kind of open-world choices that seem so stylish today, game developers are keen to let players have their cake and eat it by experiencing a power fantasy. It is possible to save everyone. It is possible to make the right choice.

But if gaming is to continue to tell gripping stories that will blur the line between art and entertainment, then we need to be more evolved in our approach to morality. In films and books, many of the best stories have come about from the hero having limitations, or from showing impossible choices that people have to make.

We need to feel more comfortable limiting the gamer in their moral choices. Instead of making them go out of their way to be evil, we need to make 'evil' the more realistic choice at times, with real impact in making the game easier or more difficult. Perhaps we can even make storylines where there is no good and evil. Given the directions that Telltale games seem to be going in with their storylines, there is certainly a trend toward more morally ‘grey’ choices.

Morality in itself is an interesting idea in gaming. The notion that one can measure their current ethical standing is intriguing. But how do we reconcile this with reality? By having the labels ‘good’ and ‘evil’ on our actions and by measuring one’s position on a straight line, we’re not doing justice to a complex issue. 

In the real world, morality is not measurable and it is not so easy to tell evil apart from good, as much as politicians and newspaper companies would like you to believe otherwise. Perhaps we need our stories to reflect this, and modern trends are now shying away from traditional notions of good or evil, focusing instead on the consequences of our actions rather than a strict black-and-white moral dichotomy.

It will be interesting to see how this impacts morality in gaming. Given that games are ultimately computer programs, I don't envy games developers in having to come up with systems to emulate such hard, complex issues as morality. However, I am very interested to see just how they can manage this in the future.