I think the main point is that Metroid Prime 3 = direct sequel to MP2, which = direct sequel to MP1, and all = part of a specific Metroid series.

Bioshock was supposed to be a completely new game. Forgive me if I'm wrong (I haven't kept up with it at all), but I don't think Irrational Games actually specifically MEANT for it to be a "sequel" or "spiritual successor" at all (at least, not originally. If they ever DID say anything about that, I'm willing to bet it was AFTER the similarities started getting noticed by outsiders).

So, what I'm saying is that the Metroid series is, and always has been, supposed to resemble previous games. That's what being part of a series is about. Bioshock, though, was supposed to be a whole new experience, and really, really wasn't - especially compared to another game by the same company.

I mean, sure, similar games happen. But it's the mark of a good developer when the games you're known for aren't all similar when they're not supposed to be.

Don't think I'm taking one side or another here, please. I'm just clarifying what I see this whole argument as actually being about.

"...they are VERY similar." This is rather vague. I went through the trouble of making a list; you can at least say more than "nuh-uh!" That said, I can mostly agree that it's not as groundbreaking in regard to moral choices as some may have felt led to believe, but I think the important accomplishment of the game was bringing SS2-depth-of-gameplay/story to a larger audience who need to see more of what potential the medium has. Sure, compared to SS2 there wasn't a quantum leap, but compared to the shooters most people who play shooters (the majority of which never played SS2) are familiar with, it certainly was. And those people have now experienced that, and will hopefully want more. That's pretty groundbreaking I think. Groundbreaking would also be a game that gets all of its elements just right (graphics, sound, gameplay, etc.) and is incredibly cohesive and believable. The experience the game delivers is groundbreaking in many ways you aren't focusing on.

Addressing the 2 moral-choices issue more deeply (since it seemed to be your primary concern), if you're looking for the only ground-breaking to be done here, then yes you may be disappointed... Though the developer never actually did suggest that there would be any moral choices to be made outside of whether or not to kill each of the Little Sisters. The theme of the game was still choice (as injected into the story and the gameplay in the mentioned regard), and the choice they gave you was a real one and did make for significantly unique paths through the game. And you really do FEEL the choice, which doesn't always come through in other games that have done something similar. But remember that nothing like that was even in SS2 in any form, which goes against the other part of what you're arguing - that it's a clone.

It's easy enough to pull the game apart piece by piece and say: "oh this was done here, that was done before there..." But I think time would be more wisely spent commenting on how all those elements and (undone) others came together so well in this one game to create an experience with a heart and depth you don't see often, if ever.

Sorry, but they said from the very beginning that it would be a spiritual sucessor to System Shock 2. They had known that it would be years before they got around to making it, while still kicking the idea around at the studio.

@naznatips - I'm thinking more about your idea of the "middle ground." Is that the route you'd prefer to take if you were to play, or does the concept of having more choices just appeal more to you for its own sake? Frankly, I don't see how it could work. Perhaps MORE choices between good and evil, but not a middle ground. Insert a middle-ground into the harvest-rescue Little Sister scenario. The middle ground would be, say, breaking the Little Sister's legs. You get an amount of Adam somewhere between killing them and saving them for this... Cut to the end of the game... all the girls are in wheel chairs. Bad ending. Or do they heal up but kinda look at you funny from then on?... Sort of a bad ending too... Okay maybe this is just a bad example?

A middle-ground destroys the potency of the choice. Having to choose between good and evil is a significant choice. When you can choose C: not to hurt, but not really help either, either you'll look at that choice and say "boring," or you'll take it and undermine the significance of the decision.

Hell, you can kill half the Little Sisters and save the other half... there's your middle ground. I don't know what effect that has on the ending, but I know that the fact that you didn't pick a side and stick with it rather craps on everything interesting about the choice in the first place.

Edit - Oo, oo, another middle ground: Don't harvest or save ANY of the Little Sisters. Ahh! Is that an evil choice? You aren't killing them for Adam... But is it a good choice either? After all, you aren't saving them from their... unique predicament. Good luck beating the game with no Adam though, lol.

 The choice doesn't affect gameplay in any way at all other than a few gifts or more adam.  Other than that, the game plays exactly the same whether you decide it's fun to kill little girls or save them.  As far as gameplay goes that's the exact opposite of the part I have highlighted.  Choice plays no part in all in gameplay.

As far the story goes, the story may be about choice but the choices you make plays almost no part in the overall story.  Almost the entire story is told through lame interactive cut scenes (personally, I'm not a huge fan of those) and audio diaries with the small part that changes due to choice is from comments from the little sisters that affect nothing and the ending cut scene.  That's really it.  Once again, choice doesn't actually play a huge part in the game as far as story progression goes.  

I get what the game is trying to say and don't me wrong, I dug the game, but just like the reviewer said, it's one extreme or the other, no middle ground, and those choices have no real effect on the game so the choices just don't matter. 

Irrational never claimed anything other than that Bioshock is the spiritual successor to System Shock 2. I don't know about you, but I hear the words "spiritual successor" and immediately think "the game is going to be damned similar, if not the same". Not that it's a bad thing, it's just the course many teams take with their gaming strategy and in the case of Irrational (or now 2K Boston/Australia/Outer Congo/Whatever the f*** they're called now), they stuck with their highly-acclaimed formula and ran with it. That's not a "rip-off", that's just a dev team playing to their quite highly-praised strengths. So, in short, please do us all a favor and shut the hell up about a game I seriously doubt you've played for more than 20 minutes.

With that said, that review was freakin' hilarious. While I think he was a little harsh, that's obviously his schtick and it was damned funny none-the-less.

You mentioned exactly how it affects gameplay: more Adam, which equals more abilities and power, vs. less for the sake of the little girls. The gifts were okay alternatives, not preferable, but you didn't save the girl for the gifts; you did it for the girl. The fact that the game can get you to set aside your own benefit to save characters that aren't real is an achievement not to be brushed off. And the story/experience is not the same for both choices. You are made to feel heroic on a consistent and growing basis if you do the right thing, and I imagine you are made to feel equally scummy for doing the opposite. Actually feeling the choice is what you have to commend here, and because of it, the choice does matter.

The only reason I mentioned that the story involved choice was to in-part justify the developer going on about choice playing a part in the game. I was not implying that choice as a theme of the story was somehow integrated into the gameplay outside of the Little Sister dilemma.

(You prefer CG cutscenes?)

Choice plays every part in gameplay, not just the story, it contributes to the adam, which in result gives you the ability to change who you are, i agree with plague almost fully with everything he has said

The "lame" interactive cutscences were fantastic i believe, and choice does effect story progression, not as much as they said, but plays a little mroe then i think you believe.

The choices make all the matter, in any game. If choices had no effect, then there would be no reason to include them. The choices will always have a effect, and i believe they had a decent, but not to deep effect, that def effected my gameplay choices and effected my view of the game overall

You mentioned exactly how it affects gameplay: more Adam, which equals more abilities and power, vs. less for the sake of the little girls. The gifts were okay alternatives, not preferable, but you didn't save the girl for the gifts; you did it for the girl. The fact that the game can get you to set aside your own benefit to save characters that aren't real is an achievement not to be brushed off. And the story/experience is not the same for both choices. You are made to feel heroic on a consistent and growing basis if you do the right thing (Tenebaum, the Sisters, an area I won't specify so as not to give anything away but toy blocks and hopscotch was involved, and others), and I imagine you are made to feel equally scummy for doing the opposite. Actually feeling the choice is what you have to commend here, and because of it, the choice does matter. Edit - the depth of "feeling" the choice was so deep in this game, in fact, that the end of the game moved me to freakin' tears. I felt like I had done the right thing. I don't mean my character, I mean ME - I did it. I don't know that I've ever felt that before.

The only reason I mentioned that the story involved choice was to in-part justify the developer going on about choice playing a part in the game. I was not implying that choice as a theme of the story was somehow integrated into the gameplay outside of the Little Sister dilemma.

(You prefer CG cutscenes?) Edit - In fact, that's garbage. The story was in no way told entirely through cutscenes. Most of the story is learned from the environment, many aspects of which are not explicitly delivered to the player in any other way. The audio tapes and the posters are a major part of this, but even that is not the only way it's delivered. The story is told in more diverse ways, in fact, and has more layers to it than most if not all games before it. (Before this, how many first person shooters delivered their story through more than direct narration or cutscenes? What are we complaining about?) And the "cutscenes" did not feel like mere cutscenes, so much so that I was confused at first when you suggested there even were any in the game. "Interactive cutscene" is a bit of an oxymoron, especially when it feels as smooth as it does here.

Edit - Sorry, not even sure how this got posted again. Meant only to edit.

The thing with the more adam is that it doesn't result in much more adam at all. It's almost like just slightly varying the difficulty setting. One of my buddies actually made it through the game by rescuing one little sister and ignored the rest with little difficulty. I believe I read somewhere that you could still get just about all the plasmids by rescuing the little sisters if you didn't take a few of the health and/or eve upgrades. All it really is is just a difficulty setting and it's not even a big one since you get gifts anyways.

As for the lame interactive cut scenes, that's merely a personal choice. I don't like them a lot. They can be neat if done well, but when you're forced to just stand there behind a pain of glass and watch, stand next to somebody you can't interact with until the scene ends (the guy at the piano), or all enemies stop what they're doing as soon as an audio diary plays they are lame in my book. Like I said, personal choice.

As for no reason to include the choice, there is a huge reason: gimmick. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's actually really smart, but it's only a gimmick. You give the player the feeling that they are controlling their actions (which fits well with the story) when really it's all just smoke and mirrors.

-edit-
And just to elaborate how much  the extra adam really doesn't matter, how many times did you find yourself hoarding adam or just buying things because you had the extra adam?  I know I didn't need any more than three plasmids at any given time and having a lot of tonics were useful but it wouldn't have bothered me to go without most of them.  The choice really is just smoke and mirrors.