Well, sorry. I'm not angry, it was just a request.

The topic-creator stated he is only a few hours into the game (and I'm half-through), so I thought it was possible to discuss it without spoilers.

Btw, isn't there a function where you can hide text with black here on VGC?.

What do you think makes a good story?

Thats why people focus so heavily on
Character arcing & development

There wasn't much character development in Bioshock. Ryan never changed, Atlas was predictable, that German woman never changed and the player never said a damn thing (and yes, I listened to every tape I found and I was searching for them for the achievement).

On another note, I fail to see why a game with the budget of a full-blown movie shouldn't be held to the same storytelling standards.

 I think there are many things that can make a good story (and character changes being the best).  Smash_Brother simply stated that he thought the big part of Bioshock was that it had an OMG TWIST YOU'RE WORKING FOR THE ENEMY and that was it.

Bioshock doesn't really have much character change in the three main characters (actually, I don't think there's any) but all the surrounding characters change.  It's up to you to find these characters backgrounds and see how they devolve as the world falls apart, but it's there. 

Actually, I do take that back-- there is character change because I forgot Rapture is a character.  You see Rapture rise, fall, and then fall some more.

The german women changes she wen't from being a cold hearted nazi, to caring about other human life and mothering.

Your character changes from being a puppet on a string to making your own decession and (depending on tour choices) becoming evil and fillinf fontains spot.

You see the story of how you were created (andrew Ryan and the stripper) You get to see there love affair. Andrew ryan does not change his political views but he does change his view of you, and relisises he can't kill you for who you are.

Also if you ever read an Ayn Rand book you might appreciate it more

Actually, I'd agree with this. While the art direction is superb, the storyline let me down.

Rapture is basically a satire of mid-20th century entrepreneurialism run amok, a kind of undersea archeological dig into the prehistory of Fascism. But instead of linking that prehistory to our own social moment - the scary ways in which malevolent politicians and greedhead corporations lie us into godawful colonial wars which enrich the few and murder millions of people - we get the same old melodrama: the villain is just evil. Simply kill the bad man, save the kiddies, and everything will be fine.

The truly great videogame narratives of our time -- MGS3, FF12 -- have rich, complex storylines and multiple characters. Bioshock has conversations, but not characters, which limits what it can do. That said, I still think Bioshock is a wonderful game, it's just not a great leap forwards in storytelling.

Yes that is the biggest character and if you ever read ayn rand then it makes it even better.

I have to go and will continue this in a hour.

I felt BioShock was a contrived self-indulgent fairy tale with no real message or meaning, and a severe lack of interesting characterization all unnecessarily dragged out through a series of fetch quests and a over a hundred scattered tape recorders.

Which I might have forgiven if the actual gameplay wasn’t an easy and mindless shoot-a-thon through repeat enemies, with you’re only major decision making being how obscenely powered up do I want to be at this point.

But that’s just me and I’m Cleary a minority here.

Quick note:
I'm not saying it's "heart of Darkness" I'm just saying it's great relitive to other game stories. Which generaly suck.

And all the Ayn Ran stuff is great if you get it.

The characters certainly make the story, but there has to be a sense of connection or at least a sense of empathy.

The only character I could relate to in the game was Ryan because, summarily, he hated "the man" and wanted to do things his own way. Everyone else was just fodder to the story, which sadly includes the player.

The game was also mostly filled with characters who were batshit crazy simply for the sake of being batshit crazy (or the plasmids were causing it, and if that was the case, it was never explained clearly). If the plasmids are to blame, why isn't the protagonist also going crazy? In fact, if the plasmids are such a great evil and the downfall of Rapture, why is our hero so quick to jam one into his arm without much prompting?

Never mind the fact that our hero also is a gun expert, a hacking expert and a master at using all plasmids the same second he picks them up.

Actually, the protagonist going crazy from plasmid use and hallucinating all sorts of weird things (more than the few "ghost" images you saw on rare occasion) would've made that angle not only more realistic but more enjoyable to boot. Like you start seeing splicers with multiple heads and all other manners of weird deformities.

On that subject, why are they called splicers and yet they never use a plasmid power against you until near the end of the game?

At least the conclusion was realistic despite being horribly predictable: power-hungry usurper wants to be a god, etc., etc.

Still, the game's message is completely unclear. Andrew Ryan's actions were noble, and what he did was akin to the same actions as the pilgrims: evade persecution in a new land. This is viewed as an act of heroism by the pilgrims but Ryan doing the same ends in ruin.

Are they trying to say, by means of the plasmids, "power corrupts" or "don't give people too much power"? If that's the case, our hero shouldn't spend the entire game jacked up on the same power the story tries so hard to condemn.

If it's an allegory about free will, then why does the player overcome his mental conditioning to obey by the command "Would you kindly..." by having the German scientist "abracadabra" it out of his head instead of him overcoming it on his own?

The story meanders around without actually committing itself to anything or summoning up the balls to make a statement. It has enough glitz and shine to it that most people will leave thinking it had one, but it's not until you boil it down that you realize that the story didn't make any hard stances.

It's like a woman who goes into a clothing store, tries on 15 different outfits, most of them bizarre enough to be considered "bold" or "daring", but she ultimately leaves wearing the same clothes she came in with and having not purchased anything.

It was a good story in the sense that it made for some neat atmosphere and interesting concepts, but to call it "one of the best ever" gives it far, FAR more credit than it deserves and that's not even comparing it to other game storylines.

Ayn Rand's book doesn't enter into the game's story. Games don't need "prereading" (and no, the manual doesn't count). 

Exactly.

The game felt like it was building toward some meaningful conclusion, but it suddenly switched gears into "Kill that Fontaine bastard and everything will be great."

I'm not going to give them "partial credit" for having a good lead-in but a terrible follow-through, primarily because it just makes the contrast between the two that much more stark.