Minerva's Den: How pacing affects quality (game critique)

Minerva's Den is Rapture's central computing. There is a machine called The Thinker which has been responsible for running the city, even through its downfall and decay. The Thinker was created by Charles Milton Porter, and Reid Wahl. The player controls the Big Daddy Sigma who has been sent to Minerva's Den by Dr. Tenenbaum because Porter has access to a bathysphere, which she can use to escape to the surface. Porter agrees to take her if they can use Sigma to rescue the code of The Thinker and take it away from Rapture. Reid Wahl is the antagonist of this tale, going mad through splicing, and wanting to use The Thinker's predictive capabilities for his own benefit. Minerva’s Den is the game I wished Bioshock 2 was. At 4 hours its pacing is lightning fast. It's a Bioshock game condensed, and this video explores whether the quickness of its pacing makes Minerva's Den a masterpiece or a mistake.

One reason for a quicker pace is railroaded level design. Each zone is compact. A joy of the Bioshock games is the exploration of a space, looting everything not nailed down, and scrounging up resources. Minerva's Den accommodates this in a straight-forward manner. The player is sent to each wing of a zone, and while there are optional side-rooms full of goodies and enemies, the player is never far from where they need to be. The player is always moving forward, even when they're taking time to explore. This is made more obvious due to the placement of the audiologs. It felt like every room had a new log to listen to. I might have missed one or two in my travels, but it felt like each tape was placed to make sure the player would have the full story before the finale (using the final audiolog of the game as a bittersweet coda). 

Due to railroading the player, there's an increased emphasis on combat encounters. Brutes are everywhere, and the new Big Daddy varieties can be disastrous if you're not prepared for them. Spider and Houdini splicers litter each room, and the game gives the player new weapons and plasmids to use against the increased onslaught: the Laser and the Gravity Well plasmid being the most memorable. I loved using Gravity Well on the Brutes, firing Phosporous buckshot or rocket spears into them as they flailed around the mini-black hole keeping them incapacitated. The laser was great for cutting down normal splicers, coupled with a well placed plasmid shot. My new found power meant I never felt overwhelmed by the combat encounters until the final fight, when my resources were at their lowest, and I was throwing everything I had up against Wahl and the Big Daddy onslaught. It was exhilarating.

The intensity of the combat, and the speed of how I was being guided through each area got me thinking about if the pace of the original game wasn't required. I think the majority of games outstay their welcome. When it feels like everything should be moving to a climax, there's hours more of the same gameplay I'm already bored with. Since there is no climax, the game loses the narrative weight keeping me going. Before starting my channel, finishing a game was a rare occurance. Most just wore out their welcome. However, while the shortened gametime of Minerva's Den allows the story the developers are trying to tell make a greater impact, I do think the gameplay needed more room to breathe.

One benefit of stretching out any game with combat is it gives the player ample time to become comfortable with the ebb and flow of the combat encounters. It allows the player to get good at the game. Each new encounter is an opportunity to make decisions, and increase the player's efficiency. In Bioshock 2, I knew what weapons and plasmids I enjoyed the most, and felt confident using them. In Minerva's Den I became attached to the Laser and Gravity Well. They were new toys so I relied on them over a lot of the other weapons and plasmids I had spent my time in Bioshock 2 using, but maybe that's why the final fight was so exhilarating; it forced me to search through my arsenal for whatever would work. I could no longer rely on the reliable.

The pace at which Minerva's Den throws new weapons, upgrades, and plasmids at the player is too fast for the player to become comfortable with before something new is introduced. This is why it felt like there was an increase in combat encounters, to allow mastery to take place (and of course, this is downloadable content for Bioshock 2, so the player should be familiar with a lot of these weapons and plasmids from the base game). This is the only reason I could think of in favour of the length of Bioshock 2 over Minerva's Den. However, I have no problem trading confidence with the game's systems for narrative impact, because this is where Minerva's Den shines.

Minerva's Den brings back the twist Bioshock 2 was lacking. All through the game we hear about Andrew Ryan being displeased with Porter and his creation. Porter talks about Ryan's guards coming and taking him to Persephone Prison, and how there's no escape. Wahl talks about wanting to steal The Thinker from Porter, pushing Ryan in the direction of imprisoning his colleague. As this goes on, I never thought about where Porter is now, and what the ending of the game will be. I thought nothing of Porter feeding The Thinker audio diaries of his dead wife trying to recreate her personality in the machine. I just felt for his loss. This is why the twist was so effective. I didn't see it coming, but in retrospect, it made everything before it make sense. If you haven’t played Minerva’s Den and don’t want to be spoiled, this is your last chance to back out. 

It turns out the player is controlling Porter. Sigma is Porter who had been turned into a Big Daddy at Persephone. Tenanbaum's research is about removing Adam from a subject without killing them, and she wants to help save Porter. She wants to help the player. The Porter we've been speaking to is The Thinker's personality re-creation matrix. It was tasked by Porter before his arrest to work out a way to survive and get to the surface. It calculated the best way to achieve this task was by emulating the man who had already been changed into a monster, in order to guide that same now-changed man to victory.

The final audiolog in the game is Porter activating his wife's personality within The Thinker. It's too much for him to bear. He tells the machine to switch it off. He knows it's not his wife, and it reminds him of how much he misses her. While Wahl wanted to use The Thinker for his own ends, Porter came to understand how what he was doing was not in his own best interest. In the end he made the right decision, but it still cost him, and as the player, we try to give him a second chance.

Minerva's Den is what I wanted Bioshock 2 to be. It's a wonderful coda for a game lacking its own identity. Minerva's Den has a stronger sense of self. Rather than getting bogged down in the themes of the collective or objectivism, it's about people. Their struggles, their shortcomings, and the mistakes they make. It's about loss, and dealing with loss. It's about healing. It's about making the player care about Porter, and it’s successful. Its success is due to its length. It tells its story, and because no part drags, the emotional impact is felt at full force. If the player wants to become more comfortable with the game's systems, that's what replays and higher difficulties are for.

But what do you think? Did you feel Minerva's Den was the right length for what it wanted to do, or did you feel it was too rushed? Did the twist and emotional impact of the story affect you in any way? Please let me know in the comments. If you enjoyed the video, why not buy me a coffee? There's a link in the description. If you'd like to help me out in other ways, please like the video, share it on your favourite social media sites, or subscribe if you haven't already. Until next time, I hope you're all having a wonderful day.

Bioshock 2: A Lamb in sheep's clothing (game critique)

Late during Bioshock, Jack changes himself into a Big Daddy in order to stop Frank Fontaine. In a moment which should have been impactful because of a self-sacrifice on the part of the player-character, the transformation changed nothing aside from a reduced field of view. By the time the fight with Fontaine happens, the player isn't even looking through a fishbowl anymore. The idea of playing a Big Daddy had merit, it’s just in its execution where it stumbles. We find ourselves playing as Delta (a Big Daddy) in Bioshock 2 for this reason. Much of the sequel consists of addressing the criticisms from the first game, but does improving upon Bioshock allow the game to have its own sense of identity?

Playing a Big Daddy recontexualises the relationship the player has with the Little Sisters. Instead of rescuing them, you adopt them, and help them fulfill their Adam collection duties, guarding them from Splicers until they're ready to be cured of their affliction. The player still murders the Big Daddies protecting the Little Sisters, before adopting them. Let's hope there’s little trauma as the girls cry over their dead protector. Aside from the rescue / harvest duality, there’s an additional morality system at play in Bioshock 2. Each level is run by a person connected to Sophia Lamb. They act as an end goal, and an antagonist. To move on, you need to confront them, and the player chooses if they live or die. I always try for the good endings in games with morality systems, and in Bioshock 2, the "good choices" become trickier as the game went on.

Bioshock 2 doesn't punish the player with the bad ending for a single transgression like the first game. Pushing the Little Sisters aside, there are 3 life or death choices the player must make: Grace, Stanley, and Gil. Who deserves to live, and who deserves to die? Let’s go through all three. The reason Grace hates Delta is due to a misunderstanding. Grace projects the pain of her lot in Rapture and the injustices she faced onto Delta, who broke her jaw back when he obeyed his programming, protecting Elanor as a Little Sister. I found it easy to leave her be. Mercy makes Grace realise she’s wrong, and she goes out of her way to aid the player. I waited for such a response from Stanley but it never came. Through my time in Dionysus Park, I learned about Stanley's past. How he manipulated Lamb's followers in her absence and sold Elanor to the Little Sisters Orphanage. It would be easy to say such actions deserved death, but I thought to myself, "who am I to decide who deserves to live or die?” I left him alive. Afterwards, I thought about the silliness of such a question, what with the hundreds of Splicers I've murdered over the course of the game already, but I stick by my decision to let Stanley live.

Gil is where I made a quote "bad" choice. My rationale for letting Stanley live reflects the way the Bioshock 2 team coded the morality system. Who is Delta to decide whether anyone deserves to live or die? Elanor watches after all. She's always watching her father. During my travels through Fontaine Futuristics, Gil left messages addressing his slipping sanity. He begs whoever listens to end his life when they find him. When we come across Gil, he’s a tank-bound pulsating monstrosity. It would be a stretch to call him human, and even more of one to call him sane. Seeing what Gil has become, I thought the humane and quote "right" moral action was to grant the request he made while of sound mind and body. The game takes this as the wrong action. Gil may no longer be human, but we're still not allowed to take a life. I don’t disagree with this stance, but seeing I’m allowed to make a mistake and still achieve the "good ending", I had no idea this was the wrong course of action until researching this video. Perhaps the clouds of blood and agonised screams coming from the tank should have clued me in, but echoing my thoughts on considering the murder of Stanley, what's one more gruesome death when my primary action as a player is to use all manner of joyous plasmid violence on any who stand in my way?

As Bioshock 2 is a refinement of Bioshock, I expected a similar narrative structure as well. I didn't get it. The pivotal moment of Bioshock, (the Andrew Ryan scene) is not at the climax of the game, though it feels like it should be. One reason the last few hours of Bioshock were lacking. Playing through Bioshock 2, I waited for Lamb to have her "Andrew Ryan moment" and I expected it at Dionysus Park. Imagine my surprise hours later when I still hadn't encountered her. I remember saying to myself, "Oh of course, they've addressed many criticisms about the first game, perhaps the climax is at the end where it belongs". There’s a similar moment to the Andrew Ryan scene when the player first encounters Lamb and Elanor face to face, but it’s understated compared to what I expected. It’s just not as memorable. There’s no twist in Bioshock 2 putting everything the player has gone through in a new context. No “Would you kindly” moment. When the player comes face to face with Ryan, he champions his free will by ordering his conditioned slave of a son to kill him. Meeting Lamb contains no traces of her supposed philosophy. She suffocates Elanor to sever her link with Delta, all to complete her plan. Nothing more. Sophia Lamb is no Andrew Ryan.

By this point, I had already checked out because the events of Bioshock 2 are reverse engineered to run alongside the timeline of the first game. Sophia Lamb is meant to be an important citizen of Rapture. There's audiologs of her public debate with Andrew Ryan, how as a psychologist she influenced the downtrodden of the city into forming a religion around her and her daughter. The problem I have? None of it works. It's asking too much of my suspension of disbelief. I've played Bioshock, and yes, the game's explanation is Lamb’s imprisonment during the events of it, but to have not even heard her name until the sequel, and yet she's supposed to be this central a figure? No sir, I don't buy it.

When it comes to Lamb as an antagonist, the question I kept asking is does she believe her own bullshit? The audiologs are full of her philosophy. The power of collective, how Rapture betrays its people, how Andrew Ryan's vision is foolish, and how the current system needs to be torn down for a new utopia to flourish. It sounds persuasive on its surface, but as I heard more from her, Lamb’s message felt hollow and contradictory. It’s accepted among many players that Lamb is running a con. She's amassing power. She's a narcissist who put herself and her daughter at the centre of a religion. One who took advantage of Rapture's vulnerable citizens in order to amass power and influence. While Lamb’s role in the story sets her up as Bioshock 2's Andrew Ryan, if she is manipulating the poor for her own ends, and it is all an act, she's not Andrew Ryan, she’s Frank Fontaine.

I have trouble believing Lamb's rhetoric is all an act because of her plan for Elanor; to use Adam to put all the minds of Rapture into one person. To have this person be whoever Rapture needs them to be moving forward. To be an altruistic messiah to lead the masses to a new utopia. Let's put aside the horror of what happened to Gil for a moment, Lamb planning to do the same to her own daughter (despite the assumption being a Little Sister protects Elanor from Gil’s fate). What’s the purpose of the plan? Even with the combined memories of the brightest minds of Rapture, one person is not a collective. Everyone is not melding and co-existing as one being. The dead are going to live on in one person, and send her insane, causing more harm in the process. Is this just another empty piece of philosophising meant to maintain Lamb's control over her Splicer collective? Is this a power play, maintaining a frightening level of agency over her daughter? It’s possible, because the role of the player is to save Elanor. Are these just the ravings of a madwoman? Has Lamb always had delusions of grandeur? Is what she wants to do to Elanor the latest bad idea from Rapture’s new leader? Is Lamb just a tyrant no one dared say “no” to?

Delusional or a manipulator, since I have no idea how to process Lamb's actions and the reasoning behind them, I feel the same towards Bioshock 2 as a whole. I have no idea what it's trying to say. This disappoints because while Bioshock didn't stick its landing, I knew what it aimed for. The story of Rapture is the story of Bioshock. The mystery of Rapture unveils itself to the player in the first game, and this new outing in the same setting doesn’t offer any new insight. While Rapture is a testament to Andrew Ryan and his objectivist ideology, Bioshock 2 tries to be about the people left behind. This approach explains Lamb's rhetoric, and why the relationship between Delta and Elanor is effective. Their bond is the most memorable part of the game, especially through the final areas. Speaking of their relationship, I enjoyed how Delta wants to protect Elanor because she’s his Little Sister, but after Elanor saves Delta’s life, she puts on the armour of a Big Sister, becoming the one who then protects Delta.

In the end, Bioshock’s greatest strength is Bioshock 2’s greatest weakness; Andrew Ryan. He's still more compelling a character than anyone in both games. Rapture cannot escape the shadow of the man who willed it into being, even this long after his death. While Bioshock 2 has the opportunity to carve its own path, the first stop after the intro is in Rapture's amusement park. A shrine to the objectivist ideology, to Andrew Ryan himself, and to the first game. Bioshock 2 can't escape the shadow of its predecessor, and I’m not sure it ever wanted to. Bioshock 2 may play better, but like Lamb’s rhetoric, nothing about it feels substantial. It’s just paying homage.

The best games I played in 2019

Hey hey folks, Dave here. I hope you all had a great 2019. It was a rough year, but when it came to the video games themselves (and not the industry), I have few complaints. I set out to have a new impressions video every Friday on the channel in 2019 and I succeded. I got to play a lot of great games. I began a series going through the Elder Scrolls saga, and a friend loaned me an Xbox One. This allows me to not only play Xbox exclusives, but a lot of games I've always wanted to try are on Game Pass. I don't have to worry about my laptop not being able to handle such titles.

For new viewers, allow me to explain how the list will work. This is not a list of the best games of 2019. No, this is a list of the best games I have played in 2019. Due to my funds and an ever growing backlog, I find myself playing more games from years past. In a shocking twist, everything on this list is no more than a couple years old. The oldest game is from 2016. There's a couple from 2017, a couple from 2018, and a couple from this year.

What I ended up doing was choosing from the 15 games I want to play more of after making impressions videos of them. To make hard choices, I cut the fifteen in half and rounded down to 7. Seven is a lucky number. These are the 7 games I want to play more of in 2020 or the years beyond. Whenever I can get around to it. These 7 games will be in alphabetical order, and then following this list will be my favourite game of the year. The game of the year is one I’ve played through in its entirety and then made a critique video about. It should be easy to guess which game it is for those who've been watching my channel in 2019, but regardless, let’s start the list with...

Control

Control is the most fun I had playing a game this year. The reason is Control ticks off a lot of my boxes when it comes to science fiction. Secret government agencies, alien technology, and a reminder our understanding of spacetime and quantum mechanics is woeful and rudimentary. These ideas are packaged up in a third person shooter with superpowers. Control feels good to [ahem] control on top of gorgeous lighting and use of space, cementing this as a game I cannot wait to return to.

Dead Cells

In my impressions video I said Dead Cells was the smoothest Roguelike I've ever played. How I didn't feel my time was being wasted by not making progress because cells can be donated towards game upgrades, and plus the gameplay is reward enough. As exciting as I found rolling around and bonking foes with my frying pan, trying out the shield and engaging with the blocking, stun, and parry mechanics added a whole new layer to my excitement. A further appreciation. I look forward to spending more time with this game and uncovering its secrets.

Forza Horizon 4

I don't play a lot of racing games, and when I do I prefer to hold down the accelerator and zoom around rather than learning how to navigate a vehicle through a fine tuned racing simulation. Forza Horizon 4 is a nice marriage of these two styles of play. I was able to just choose a car and drive, the guide arrows suggesting the best time to brake and turn, but for those who want to delve deeper, the options are there. What kept me playing was the magic moments kept occurring. The right car, the right lighting, the right song on the radio, the right landscape; I was gawking at situations I found myself racing in, and I want to return to experience more of these moments.

GRIS

GRIS is an audio/visual extravaganza. I liken it to playing through an art installation. It's light on gameplay because of what it's trying to accomplish, but I am interested in what new sights and sounds lie around the next corner, and what kind of emotional reactions the game will end up eliciting from me.

Outer Wilds

Outer Wilds is special. It's special because of how alien it is. The solar system the player finds themselves in exhibits different behaviour than what we're used to. Much of the thrill of discovery is in figuring out how this universe works. What quirks inhabit each planet, and how to best use the alien technology available. I want to see if Outer Wilds can maintain its sense of mystery and discovery up until its conclusion, and I wonder just how strange this solar system ends up being.

Persona 5

It was during a PSN sale when I discovered Persona 5 was not a PS4 exclusive like I had thought it was. It was also available on the PS3, and during this sale, it was dirt cheap. What was I waiting for? Having loved Persona 4, I wanted to try this new entry in the series, whose sleek, and vibrant presentation had been talked about ever since its release. It's a joy to play. Perhaps a little drawn out, but the game makes allowances to give the player a stress free time, while keeping the core of what made the previous 2 entries beloved. I love the concept of the main characters travelling into people's hearts to cure them of their twisted desires, and look forward to continuing this tale. I am worried about the time commitment, but that’s a bridge I’ll cross when I come to it.

Unavowed

I'm a fan of the work of Wadjet Eye Games, the Blackwell series most of all. Unavowed takes place in the same world as those games, and is about a group of paranormal investigators / police. I love the attention to detail in the backgrounds, I love how hotspots have descriptions on them when moused over, and I dig the whole vibe of the game, becoming enamored with the characters. I look forward to getting to know the current cast even better, and meeting all the new members of the team.

Now we come to the best game I played this year. I created 5 critique videos in 2019, and all are eligible, as I played each title start to finish. The contenders are Killer7, Sleeping Dogs, Hollow Knight, Bioshock, and Yakuza 0. The winner? Drumroll please…

Hollow Knight

Hollow Knight is a rarity because when I finished the game, I didn't even start writing my critique before I began a second playthrough. I wanted to experience all the unexplored aspects left on my first time through, and it made me love the game even more. A lot has been said on Hollow Knight's value for money. How for only $15 US you get a platformer which keeps revealing itself to the player hour after hour (not even including the free downloadable content which extends the game even further). Affordable pricing aside, it's the level of love put into the art, the design, and creating a world crying out for exploration which had me returning to the game night after night, despite my frustrations with the movement and combat mechanics. A lot of games succeed by having their strengths outshine their weaknesses. Hollow Knight succeeds despite its weaknesses. My frustrations may have pulled me down in the moment, but I kept thinking about the game when I was away from it, and even though it's now been over 6 months since my second playthrough, I've thought about a third. More than any game, Hollow Knight captured my imagination and rewarded my perseverance. This is why it is the best game I played in 2019.

Now it's your turn. What are the best games you played in 2019? They don't have to be from this year, I'd just like to know the games you had the most fun playing. Please tell me in the comments. I hope you're all looking forward to 2020 as much as I am. It's not just a new year, but a new decade. The possibilities are endless. Let's all be the best we can be. I look forward to making and sharing new videos with you this year, and I hope you enjoy watching them. Happy new year everybody, and I hope you all have a wonderful 2020.

Why side stories are the heart of Yakuza 0

The sidestories of Yakuza 0 are the heart of the game. Yes the main plot is one of intrigue. It's a well told crime narrative with twists and turns, keeping players on the edge of their seat, but the sidestories, when Kiryu and Majima take time away from the immediacy of the crime drama, that's where the game truly shines. I think It's what endears players to this series and keeps them returning. Heck during the finale, I took a good 10-15 hour break from wrapping the game up to take over more areas in Real Estate Royale, and to finish up all the remaining sidestories I had an interest in. 10 - 15 hours. That's the length of a whole nother game. Eventually I became fed up with waiting around for the real estate money to come in and I wrapped things up, but even afterwards I thought about going back and completing Real Estate Royale and the Hostess Club. The only reason I didn't is the psychological effect of having the credits roll signaling that it’s time to move on. There are so many other games to play!

What makes the sidestories so important? Well Kiryu and Majima have a magnetic charisma of course (the way they wholeheartedly throw themselves into even the smallest of tasks) but I don't think that's why we like them as characters. They're good at fighting. Kiryu tends to think that’s all he’s good for, but it’s “why” Kiryu and Majima are fighting that lies at the heart of it. They’re protecting the weak while trying to get to the bottom of this whirlwind they've found themselves caught up in. The player is caught up in the same whirlwind. Wandering the streets of Kamurocho and Sotenbori is a moment of reprieve from the intensity of Yakuza 0’s tale. It's these inbetween moments when we're walking a character through a world, that's the time when Kiryu and Majima can be what we want them to be. It’s the time we have the most control over their direction. It’s the closest the player comes to having a sense of agency.

We tend to think of agency as an important factor in videogames. The core of the medium is its interactivity after all, and if a player is going to spend hours of their lives controlling a character in a virtual world, they want some input into how things are going to play out. They want a sense of ownership over the characters they are controlling. This is often why when games are talked about as being “linear” it is usually in negative terms. The term suggests that the agency of the player is being infringed upon. I don’t see this as a negative, but I think it comes down to the experience the game is promising. In the impressions video I made on Yakuza 0, I talked about how I thought Kiryu was going to have to make a quote "video game choice", a decision that affects the narrative. One way games give the player agency. so they can feel in control about how the story plays out. The reason this made me groan was up to that point the narrative was so well delivered that I didn't want to mess up the story the game had to tell me, by making my own decisions. That's why I was so relieved when Kiryu played out the scene according to his own whims. The only agency I have over Kiryu and Majima is wandering the streets. I mean I could let them get beat up during the main game's fights, but then the game would be over. Choosing what side activities to participate in, and which random strangers to help is the main form of agency in Yakuza 0. It not only helps endear us to Kiryu and Majima as characters, but to Kamurocho and Sotenbori as places.

What initially creates a desire for the player to help all these random passers-by is how off-kilter the stories are. From helping shut down a burasura ring, to training a dominatrix, to getting to use a mobile telephone! Hey the game is set in 1988. Such cutting edge technology is a big deal! Some of the stories are helping local businesses, or partipating in a side-activity. A few are linked to the giant Real Estate and Hostess Club projects that sucked up so much of my time. For instance I never especially liked the arcade racer Outrun. Spending so much time trying to get high scores to fill the friendship meter of the girl who works at the arcade so I could buy the place didn't improve my thoughts on the game. I still did it though, and took over that whole area. Now why did I put in all that time? Because no matter how out there or tedious the sidestories are, they all share one thing in common, Kiryu and Majima using the strength they possess to help others. These Yakuza showing empathy for the troubles of everyday citizens.

This makes the game a positive power fantasy. I think we like the idea of characters from the underbelly of our world being noble, living by their own sets of values. It gives us hope that the worst among us are still redeemable and not everybody who does wrong is a bad person. That we all have the power to help others and change for the better. Like most things in life, it's usually not as simple as that, but such stories let us enjoy characters like Kiryu and Majima restoring a sense of justice to the world they live in. This is reflected in Real Estate Royale and the Hostess Club as Kiryu and Majima are freeing Kamurocho and Sotenbori from the ownership and influence of unsavory and unscrupulous characters. We as the player are using the strength of these protagonists to create a stronger sense of community by helping people. Everyone can use their strengths for the betterment of the community, and in this case, the strength of Kiryu and Majima is literal, their ability to fight with wild abandon, and win.

Walking around the streets, I was often overcome with despair at just how many groups of malcontents were picking on innocent people. At times it made me question, if so many are like this, why is the world worth saving? Even Kiryu seems to think he's only good at hitting people, but now thinking about the side stories and all the people he's helped, I know that's not true. His compassion, empathy, and sense of justice are his strengths. His power, and ability to exercise that power is what allows him to succeed in pursuit of these ideals. It’s the sidestories and the strength of Kiryu and Majima creating this togetherness that showed me that most people are doing the best they can. Some of the worst folk can come around to helping others. They might just need to get some sense smacked into them first.

Thanks for watching. Returning to the conversation on player agency, I think we sometimes forget how fulfilling narrative agency can be. I’ve already mentioned how the sidestories further endear us to Kiryu and Majima but that empathy and conviction is also present in the main story. I enjoy controlling Kiryu because I like him as a character and I want to see the decisions he makes next. Yes, I have little agency over his decision making process (which is why the side content is so compelling), but I still am controlling him, and there is a fulfillment is helping characters reach their goal.

But what do you think? Was there enough player agency in Yakuza 0 to satisfy you? Was it because of the main plot, or the sidestories? How much of the side content did you complete before you said “enough is enough?” Let me know in the comments. If you enjoyed this video, why not buy me a coffee? There’s a link in the description. If you’d like to help me out in other ways, please give the video a like, share it on your favourite social media sites, or subscribe if you haven’t already. Until next time, I hope you’re all having a wonderful day.

A character chooses, a player obeys: a Bioshock critique

If you’ve had any interest in games criticism, analysis, or even game reviews, you might have heard the term “ludonarrative dissonance”. It refers to a dissonance, a schism or split between what the narrative of a game is telling you, and what the gameplay is telling you. A popular example is how in the Uncharted series, the cutscenes and dialogue portray player character Nathan Drake as a lovable rogue, yet the game has the player murdering hundreds of people. This term was coined by Farcry 2 director Clint Hocking in a blog post he wrote after playing Bioshock in 2007. I’m going to use the dissonance Hocking perceived in Bioshock as a jumping off point for my thoughts on the game after a recent playthrough. Needless to say that if you have not played Bioshock and you worry about spoilers, please go play the game before watching this video. If just for the fact that when the player meets Andrew Ryan, not only do I think it’s the strongest moment in the game, but I think it’s one of the strongest moments in the entire medium, and I’m going to be talking about it. If you enjoy video games, you really should experience it for yourself. 

Here is my understanding of the dissonance in Bioshock according to Mr. Hocking. The gameplay contract is as follows. Seek power and you will progress. A common enough gameplay contract, and important because the city of Rapture is built on an objectivist ideology. This pursuit of progress gives no room for morality, but the game undercuts this contract with the choice afforded to the player in their encounters with the Little Sisters. Bioshock gives the player a decision to kill or free what look like little girls, who contain Adam, a resource that will allow the player to access more superpowers and thus make the game easier. While this choice undercuts the gameplay contract, the choice itself is undercut because the player gains even more power by freeing the girls. Power that the player is told will be lost if they free the Little Sisters. The dissonance arises when we compare the gameplay contract to the narrative contract. The narrative contract of Bioshock is following the orders of other people. Listen to Atlas and you will progress (and it’s Atlas telling the player to harvest the Little Sisters for Adam). After the meeting with Andrew Ryan, the player is listening to Tenenbaum, who is the one that asks the player to save the Little Sisters. This late in the game I no longer felt the need for more power, and I think that's why Frank Fontaine causes the player to lose health and eve. To make the player miss the power they had amassed over the game, returning it to them before the final confrontation, whether their power came from either following the gameplay or narrative contracts.

The meeting of Andrew Ryan signifies a shift in the narrative contract, listening to Tenanbaum instead of Atlas. Why is this moment so significant? Well for one, it's brilliantly written and performed. It's the one time I bought into how weird the humans in Bioshock look and move because Ryan himself is so captivating. He's more than the sum of his parts. The players find themselves in the presence of a man that was able to build an underwater city. We’re confronted by the charisma and vision needed to persuade all those who helped make Rapture a reality. In the end Ryan chooses suicide because it’s a death on his own terms rather than being murdered by his puppet of a son. To his last breath he is indignant, sticking to his ideology (even if he had betrayed it before). The 'would you kindly' reveal like most plot twists isn’t as strong on its own when you know it's coming, but thematically it makes the whole sequence all the stronger. A man chooses, a slave obeys. We’ll examine the meta-commentary of this scene as it pertains to the player later. 

After his death, Frank Fontaine replaces Ryan as the game’s antagonist. Fontaine was made for a place like Rapture. I find his conversations with Jack leading up to the final boss fight touching, if not a little melancholic. Fontaine considers Jack family, but he can only see people in terms of business transactions, like when he housed and fed the poor in order to buy loyalty in the most vulnerable of Rapture’s citizens. He does care for Jack like his own son, but sadly he is one of those fathers that considers his son his property. That’s a nice division between Ryan and Fontaine. Ryan wants Jack to be his own man (just as he wants every person to carve their own path in life, and not feed off the accomplishments of others). Fontaine wants total control, and the power and prestige that comes along with it. I think both men do what they do solely for themselves, but their reasoning comes from a different place. It’s like Andrew Ryan represents the ideals of objectivism, while Fontaine represents its reality.

During the grand reveal of Rapture at the start of the game, Ryan passionately makes the case for Rapture as a city where no one will be constrained by moral limitation. Like he’s built this wonder for the benefit of others, but I think Andrew Ryan built Rapture solely for himself. A place to escape the world and live out an ideological fantasy. Of course even with a fantasy at the core of such a marvel as Rapture, it took scores of talented people to make it happen. I don't think we can do anything great alone. This brings me to why I think Bioshock is a great story, and why perhaps great stories are so rare in videogames. Great stories are full of great characters. It is the desires of these characters and the conflict between such desires that leads to the most compelling tales. Andrew Ryan is a great character. Perhaps at the expense of the supporting cast. He's definitely more interesting than Fontaine, or Suchong, or Tenenbaum. Cohen holds his own. But all these names I mentioned, they do leave their mark on the player even if Ryan towers over them. Out of the whole cast, Jack as the player is the least interesting character, and that's a paradox worth discussing. The player should be the most important character in a videogame, but they're often the least interesting, especially when they’re made silent. A player character is usually a silent protagonist because the developers think it will further immerse the player in the role if they’re not hearing a voice unlike their own (although Jack does talk in the game. Right at the start, and then never again, which is a strange choice).

Could the player being the least interesting character in Bioshock be part of the meta commentary of the Andrew Ryan scene? That as a player we are slaves to the designer. Just as Jack was conditioned through the phrase "would you kindly", the player has been conditioned by playing a lot of videogames. We follow Atlas not because we trust him (and if you've played System Shock 2 you likely never did) but because that's what you do in a videogame. You listen to the person that gives you goals. It allows you to move forward. It allows you to play more of the game. In games with narrative choices, players will often choose the path that reflects their values (such as not murdering little girls no matter what the player is told they are), but we're still making decisions in our own self interest. What makes us feel good, what will make the game easier, and what will allow us to play more. All the time we are slaves to the designer. Maybe that’s why so many feel the game loses steam once Andrew Ryan dies, and Jack is freed from his mental conditioning. It’s not that being a slave is what made Jack the least interesting character in the game, but while Jack is now free, the player is not. The player is still a slave to the designer. Jack still has no choice in following Tenenbaum’s orders, and if we want to see the end of the game, neither do we as a player.

I think another reason that people dislike the last act of Bioshock is because Rapture ceases to be important. It kind of fades into the background. Fontaine wants to rule its corpse. In the good ending, Jack and the Little Sisters escape Rapture and live idyllic lives on the surface. It's been said that if the player had actually undergone a full Big Daddy transformation the good ending might have been more thematically resonant. Selflessness over selfishness. Jack sacrificing who he is for the good of the Little Sisters. A refutation of the ideals that created Rapture and the Big Daddys in the first place. I guess this doesn’t work because as we’ve established, Jack doesn’t really have much of a character, and the player isn’t making a choice of sacrifice, they’re just following the predetermined game path to its conclusion. The bad ending is more thematically resonant. Jack leads an army of splicers to the surface to wage war on other nations. Rapture was built after World War 2 and the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most of the main players in Rapture are Jewish, as is Ken Levine. There's a strong theme of those that have been oppressed becoming oppressors themselves. The fall of Rapture is tied to many of the great minds that delighted in its morality free approach to progress, often committing atrocities on others to further this cause. In the bad ending, Jack continues this cycle.

My thoughts on Bioshock were made possible by reading and watching the thoughts of other writers who had something to say about the game. Links to these pieces are in the description. Now I’d like to hear your thoughts. Do you think Andrew Ryan failed the ideals that built the city of Rapture, or was its downfall inevitable? Was the meeting of Andrew Ryan the most powerful moment of the game for you as well? What are your thoughts on Jack being the least interesting character in the game because he’s controlled by the player, and how that plays into the meta-commentary of the Andrew Ryan scene? Please let me know in the comments. If you liked the video, I’d love for you to buy me a coffee. There’s a link in the description. If you’d like to help me out in other ways, please give the video a like, share it on your favourite social media sites, or subscribe if you haven’t already. Until next time, I hope you’re all having, a wonderful day.