Talk:BioShock

Unknown Big Daddy

There is a third Big Daddy that is very unshown. Is it confirmed that it is in the game? I think it looks the coolest looking. On one of the refences for an IGN Blog on this wiki has all big daddies has a banner. (the one about the little sisters) So, is this third one in the game? I hope so!

There are probably alot of different big Daddies. They all just wear differet diving suits. I'd like to see if they have different weapons/upgrades for each suit 209.250.132.217 02:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added for people's knowledge on the 16th August about which Big Daddy is which. The Bouncers are the Daddies with 3 portholes on their helmet, and carry a rivet gun. The Rosies have bubble helmets with the 6 small portholes on and carry the drills on their arms, this is the version of the Daddy we see in the demo mid-play, when he kills the splicer. Someone decided to change the names around two days later. I have changed them back now, just remember, Rosie = close combat with drills on arms. Bouncer = long range attacks with big rivet gun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.30.81 (talk) 16:38:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain of the Rosie/Bouncer assignment? When you get right down to the names, the way you have it set up makes no sense. I'd imagine Rosies would be the ones toting rivet guns, Rosie the Riveter being the inspiration, and Bouncers would be the close-quarters type just as the name implies. Do you have a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.92.61 (talk) 19:10:36, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found the link, if anyone wants to know what i am talking about. The one of the right, at the top of the page: http://blogs.ign.com/Irrational_Games/2007/05/23/55572/ Also, whats with the weapon the Rosie is carrying? It looks like a werird ball-shaped thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.206.223 (talk) 01:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The "Rosie" (which I still believe to be a Bouncer) you're pointing to is equipped with what appears to be a type of rotary drill bit.

The Bouncers are the close-combat daddies, and Rosies are the long-range ones. The only official source of this outside of the game (afaik) is the artbook, where the foreword clearly states "Rosie’s Rivet Gun. It’s one of those things that shouldn’t work, but does. Huge props to Lorne for taking an out there concept and making it happen from half-way around the world.". Now can we please stop changing the article to say otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeX3 (talk • contribs) 05:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Dammit no, im not talking about the one with the 50 portholes, or the one with 4 portholes on each side. Im talking sbout the other one, on the link i provided, that looks like it had no portholes. You see? It looks different from ANY big daddy i have seen. is that a scrapped one, or no? it looks very interesting here an even better picture of the big daddy im talking about:

[1] you may need to scroll around a bit. Plus, there are a couple of old, old, old pcitures of Bioshock, in its orginal concept and form. Possibly add in the orginal concept?

No dude, I do believe you're looking at concept art for the Big Daddy, I know what you're talking about, but those are old renders. Also, I don't think concept stuff is relevant to the game article, but then again I've never done a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.92.61 (talk) 10:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, good game articles will have a development section, and if there's exceptional differences in the original version (as shown to the world) and the actual version, with such changes being verifiable and notable, it's useful to include that in the article. See, for example, Okami (which I just got to GA) which shows photorealistic vs watercolor renders. Now, again though, we need verifiability. Looking at that picture doesn't tell me much; if there's an article to go along with it, it would be better. (I haven't had a chance to look through the free art-book that came out last week, but I suspect you'll find more in there). --Masem 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, the dude is right. There were going to be 3 main big daddys, but one was cut and the bouncers and rosies were to be focused on. It was to be called a "slowpro" (slow protector) and it was gonna be the grenadier barrage big daddy with a grenade launcher one hand, rocket other. It did have a weird looking face too. Got it from the LE making of DVD.--70.23.118.114 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to that , it was 4 at first, then 3 till some time in 2007 I think then finally just rosie rivet and bouncer with the screw.Phansoft

Spoilers?

I think they mabye should put spoiler tags around Gameplay, and other areas. I did not know that the first boss (spoiler) is a crazed surgeaon. Spoiler tags would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.206.223 (talk) 01:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by WP:SPOILER policy, spoiler tags are redundant for these sections; spoilers are implicit by the section names. If you don't want to be spoiled, the best way is to avoid the page until you've played the game yourself. --Masem 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he is a crazed surgeon adds nothing to the gameplay section, it should not be in there. The gameplay section should discuss gameplay, not characters or plot. It shouldnt contain spoilers beyond the game mechanics. Capuchin 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the part about becoming a Big Daddy at one point in the story? I'm pretty far in, and that hasn't happened. Could that be removed/spolier tagged? 12.210.83.66 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Plot section should be wrapped in spoiler tags, just as it would if this were a movie or even a book. Bioshock really focuses on story and, whether intentional or not, plot spoilers should be noted. -Xeon25 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler policy for WP only was changed recently - yes, it used to be common practice to use spoiler warnings for game plots, but with the new policy, it is implied that there's spoilers if you are looking at a plot section. These have been removed as well for movies and books (if you see them sitting around particular for any work that's been out for more than a year, it needs to be removed). --Masem 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I checked the WP:SPOILER page, and there is at least a template we can use to show that this is a current work that falls within the policy, that being the {{current fiction}} on. I've added this to the top, but it should be removed a week or so from now (2 weeks from launch) so that it doesn't stay stale up there. --Masem 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've added a comment to the Plot section that explains why a spoiler tag is inappropriate under WP guidelines. I hope it doesn't get removed (again). Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, an IP put a sentence at the top and removed the comment, so I replaced it with {spoiler} to remove the random "spoiler", but I see that it doesn't belong in this case. BURNyA 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs. It's clear you're making good faith contributions. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Demo

As some of you may be aware, due to a fault of some kind at fileplanet, the unencrypted version of the BioShock demo was put up, and was accessible yesterday. They have since removed the file, with the as intended encrypted preload version for subscribers the only available file, but of course the demo is now spreading around torrent sites. Should this be mentioned in the article? 68.151.136.226 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an event that will no longer be relevant after another .. 6 hrs? (as I type this) - I would say no. --Masem 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

May or may not be a reception issue

People are discovering that, as they can tell from the PC demo, that widescreen effectively cuts off parts from 4x3 and changes the FOV to match, instead of truly widening the view. (forum post at 2k games that has a screenshot) Now, I also read somewhere but cannot find that the demo was based on a year-old build of the engine (this likely should go in th article if a verifiable source can be found, so this could all change in the final release. As no major news sites yet mention this, it's non-notable (and forums aren't verifible as I yet to see an official 2k response in there), but it may come up as the retail version is distributed. --Masem 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for East Coasters to verify the issue with the retail PC version, but a couple gaming sites are picking this up (but still not article-inclusion worthy unless proven with the real game). Joystiq Kotaku --Masem 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about including it, just yet. Seems someone has already added it though :S. I'm not sure because, even though gaming sites are reporting about this forum post and using the original image, they aren't offering up any tests or backup. It's the same junk "article" with the same Joe Public image - what if everyone is being had? I can't see an un-reliable source suddenly become reliable because gaming sites are reporting the original source without further research. Parjay ► Talk 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Shacknews said they confirmed it (and have a different image too), and they also have a couple 2k developers in the folds that said they're checking on this. The other sites just pulled from the forums, and haven't seen any other confirmation yet. --Masem 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, the feeling I'm getting for this issue is the same as Dead Rising's small text problem, which was notable within a single paragraph or two over there. I think they'll be one or two more things to say about it at most, either they'll patch it, or they say that they had to go that way for reason X. I doubt it will go farther than that (there's people making a huge deal out of it, calling it a game-breaker, but's nowhere as bad as that, or even the DR problem with small text). --Masem 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the section with 2K Games' latest press release. My guess is this section should only stay if there's actually a large outcry about the press release, but it looks right now as if 2K Games isn't going to do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.87.1.171 (talk)

I'm also updating the section...the comment by Kline isn't really needed. The truth of the matter at this point without any doubt is that this is a Field of View issue and not one with widescreen. The patch will allow a change in FOV also, thus essentially having nothing to do with widescreen other than the "comparisons" of 4:3 and 16:9, thus it is being rewritten. 66.82.9.69 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the end, it isn't wide vs 4:3, but I believe it is important to note that this is what lead to this being an "issue" (people demanded reconciliation for Kline's statement, leading to the discovery of it being an FOV issue instead of letterboxing), and we have the documented verification of what lead this to this case. --Masem 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that BioShock was released the way it was intended for the longest time. The ONLY thing done here was an extension of the 4:3, which caused -mass hysteria among a handful of forum posters and blog sites- The wiki needs to eventually lessen this NOT into a full paragraph, blowing this thing up as if every buyer of BioShock has a problem with the intended FOV/feel of the game, but a simple sentence or two basically saying "Some people want a larger screen than the intended FOV". That's all that has happened with the FOV "issue".

Fanatics jumped the gun, its an "issue" thousands of BioShock players are unaware of nor find fault with the intended version of the game. Much like the issue with Twilight Princess last year which caused the SAME jumping to conclusions, it is now a minor footnote and apparently, the mirroring of an -entire game and changing its intended vision- did not hamper the enjoyment of the game or become something that is an actual "issue" for even left-handed players, yet the wiki maintains a neutral and factual point, not citing self discovery and forum debates as "proof" there is a problem. Again, if this is the maturity of approaching encyclopedia quality articles, all we need do is scour forums for "Facts" and "neutrality", correct? Citing Forums and self-discovered realizations that (especially prior to 2k's statements) held more theory and gossip (again, which heightened this problem in and of itself) against the actual facts of the game/"issue". In other words, I'm hoping we can reach a point where this becomes as mentioned, a simple sentence or two of "negative criticism", and less addressing it as some massive "technical issue". 67.142.130.42 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I myself could care less as a game player on the FOV issue as it doesn't bother me; I'm not trying to force it into the article because I feel slighted by it or the like and I agree that most gamers blew this out of proportion to a good extent. I am trying to state how the FOV issue factually came about. Unbiasly, it is important to note that other (non-verifiable) gamers discovered widescreen appeared letterboxed; this lead to (reliable/verifiable) gaming news sites to confirm the issue, in turn which lead to the discovery of (verifiable) Kline's statement when specifically asked about widescreen in the forums. This lead to 2K's (verifiable) double response: that it's FOV and FOV as intended, and that a patch would be out to support FOV changing for those that need to.

All this is (at least to me) currently being reported unbiasedly using verifiable reliable sources.

The main reason why its necessary to go into certain detail now is that this FOV issue may be a notable game development problem industry-wide, much like the small text in Dead Rising or the problems with the Church of England with Resistance: Fall of Man. Many people can get sick if the FOV is set inappropriately, and not giving the players the ability to adjust this can lead to motion sickness (This is a big problem with Marathon: Durandal on XBL, among other games). I don't believe we need to go into any more detail (Beyond noting when such a patch comes out), and the SecuROM issue overshadows this even more so, so I think what's stated is sufficient and necessary. --Masem 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Endings

I added the Endings , Please correct them if i'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.218.142 (talk • contribs)

Is it really necessary to have them listed? 24.127.184.64 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge and Bioshock seems to be an important cultural work, it seems natural to have a fairly complete description of its content. Please don't bring up spoilers, as wikipedia contains spoilers, and also some people (like me) can never play the game to see for ourselves since we have epilepsy. 69.120.2.231 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Slow down there, don't let your personal opinion get in the way, pages should outline the plot but theres a difference between "plot" and what some put in. Every single detail is considered overlly long and is really not required. Stabby Joe 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reception section revisited

I noticed that it was ranked 1 on Game Rankings in the opening which it is not. Please do realise that regardless if you like the game and it so far has great reviews, such information is subject to change so much it shouldn't be in the opening paragraphs. Plus like I've said, it isn't ranked yet due to a small number of reviews. I know there are plenty of new edittors since its realesed and most of you here who will love the game and do everything to make it look good here but this is wiki, at it is neutral so do make sure such claim are real and not what you "predict". Stabby Joe 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of "Southpaw" controls criticism

I feel fairly strongly that this section should be removed. It's given undue weight based upon a few forum posts. Comments? Docta247 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just done it. Parjay ► Talk 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. It was not only a lengthy thread on the BioShock forum, it also spawned the Southpaw Manifesto. Just because it may seem trivial to you, it mattered to a lot of gamers. --Dark54555 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

A blog post with one comment? I hardly think that meets the notability bar... Achromatic 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of comments is a pretty crappy barometer for the popularity of a blog entry. It's had a few thousand hits. --Dark54555 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. People comment on things they feel strongly about. People will read a whole forum as a matter of course and that is in no way an agreement. Docta247 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rapture - Dystopia or Utopia

I have changed 'dystopia' to 'utopia' in the opening paragraph. Please see the wikipedia page on utopia for clarification. A utopia may refer to a society attempting to achieve perfection while a dystopia never claims to be the ideal society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.50.182 (talk) 03:59, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

"Dystopia" is what numerous reviews call it. Maybe Rapture was set up to be a utopia, but as it ended up in the present of the game it does qualify as a dystopia. Eg, from dystopia: "Many dystopias, found in fictional and artistic works, can be described as an utopian society with at least one fatal flaw." --in this case, ADAM. --Masem 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

-SERIOUS- SecuROM problem

I refer to the issue that can be read on here and here. Long story short, the retail PC edition apparently is limited to a grand total of two installs, due to the intentional design of the SecuROM authentication scheme. Needless to say, this is a very serious problem with the product that should be mentioned in the article. Any ideas on how to best incorporate it while being neutral on the issue? CABAL 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them next to criticism section. Not quite sure who will delete them. They is lot of deletions and merge going on in wikipedia. Best of Luck. --SkyWalker 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to mention, under reception, that the game uses SecuROM (which has a host of its own problems), and then to include specifics at the SecuROM article. However, I'd wait until at least some good gaming source provides this news, instead of relying on forum posts. --Masem 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aight, I'll hold out. Frankly, its just idiotic to hear of something like this occurring, especially when I'm planning to grab a copy myself this Friday. CABAL 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with Windows Vista, I believe. Parjay ► Talk 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd still use discretion here (lets see what 2K says), but Firing Squad's validated the 2-install issue. Oh wait, I see that 2K's Elizabeth's commented on it, that if you don't uninstall correctly, you may have to call SecuROM to ask for a deactivation. Unless there's more to this, I would say this is a non-issue (unlike the Widescreen thing at the moment) --Masem 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for the curious, then: How does it know if you've uninstalled? Does it notify the SecuROM server when that occurs? Anyone care to confirm? CABAL 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is stored on Registry. If you happened to have one copy and then install one more copy upon that the registry would be same and it activates Securom anti-piracy. --SkyWalker 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And how is that going to work across more than one system? CABAL 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple, You need a net to activate the copy right?. You enter the first cd-key and then the cd-key of the different system. The CD-Key will be registered on the server. Once the servers receive third request for the third copy it denies the request. The cd-key is encrypted when sent to the servers. Overall this sort of protection can be cracked by people who have knowledge of this. It will take weeks,month or years depending on the knowledge they have. --SkyWalker 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And how does the server know its the third system? Say I have it installed on two machines, and the first one dies from a hard-drive failure. That leaves me with one working installation. However, I can't install a replacement third copy on another machine because their server would assume the dead copy is still working. CABAL 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Iam not sure about how this work. I think the hardware info be sent to the server?. It takes hardly 1 or 2 kb to sent to server about hardware config. Dont buy this game now. If there is enough of outcry about this. 2K game may remove this sort of CP from bioshock. It will be worth the wait. Personally i wont be buying this game until next year. --SkyWalker 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a pretty easy fix. Ghost your second machine, uninstall the game, restore the ghost image. You have a working bioshock install on your second machine and you are no longer using up one of your activations. --chutzpah 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone still cares, but here goes. To add insult to injury, the SecuROM nonsense apparently resorts to stealthily lodging a rootkit in your system. You can check for yourself using Microsoft's own utility here, if you have the game installed. Furthermore, in a stunning display of idiocy, key reactivation apparently requires that, in at least some cases, you send them a photo of your CD and manual to them via email, something which even Microsoft doesn't require for its considerably more expensive software products. See for yourself here. CABAL 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Starforce got into this trouble that is why most companies stopped using it because of customers outcry. If 2k games get enough of outcry they will remove it after sometime. The main reason of this copy protection is because of piracy. Many of them would pirate it. --SkyWalker 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I've tweaked the wording of this issue to (hopefully) be more understandable and reflect the latest state of affairs regarding SecuROM. There were also some things that I couldn't find in the references, specifically about how the activation scheme wasn't included in some methods of delivery of the software (it's in all methods, including Steam, retail disc, etc.), and how uninstalling the software refunds one of the activations (it doesn't; according to the FAQ, the only way to reclaim an activation is to run a special-purpose utility that 2K Games/SecuROM hasn't even developed or released yet). I tried to be as objective as I can, but obviously, this is totally unacceptable to me, and I highly recommend that everyone avoid this game. --TonyV 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SecuROM is not included in the Steam demo. I searched through the registry (in a fresh install of Windows XP) and didn't find that entry (…\Software\SecuROM\!CAUTION! NEVER DELETE OR CHANGE ANY KEY*). Corky842 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Over-criticism?

It seems that in an attempt to remove the excess of positivity previously present in the Reception section, certain people have gone overboard in listing the flaws of the game. All but ONE PARAGRAPH of the entire reception section describes problems with Bioshock. While describing negatively-received aspects of a game is perfectly fine, more detail should be given to why its such a WELL-received game. Ultimately, it seems some people have gone overboard in removing positive hype from the Reception section. This should be fixed. Qwo 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit to cutting down the positive reviews, because people were just quoting praise, repeating the same praise stated a different way in other reviews. However, with the 3 paragraphs, I made sure to address: the positives of the game; the negatives of the game; and any noted differences between PC and 360 versions (which isn't really positive or negative, just to note that reviews did see differences between these).

But again, we're an encyclopedia, not a review summary site. The reception section should be outlining what critics liked, what critics didn't like, and any other notable issues (pro or against) for the game. --Masem 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if a game has strong reviews, wiki pages must remain neutral. A featured article, Shadow of the Colossus seems to have a fair balance of pros and cons. Stabby Joe 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now the section has over-criticism... either crop it or expand the pros which there are more of it seems so far review wise. Stabby Joe 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will argue that the widescreen issue and the SecuROM issue are "special" cases; one doesn't break gameplay at all, the other one is technical and once overcome, doesn't touch gameplay. Eg, they are what Small Text is to Dead Rising: notable problems but don't change how the game is received. Also, since both have yet to be fully resolved but will be resolved based on 5x5 patch, these are only transient problems. If we need to put them into a special section as to not make the Reception look unbalanced, then that's fine. (Remember, we haven't added any GOTY or GOTM awards this game is likely to be getting). --Masem 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ps3 rumors... commented out until better confirmation

To whom added the PS3 rumors.. I'd argue that none of these are actually sufficiently strong confirmation to include. They're speculation on their own by lack of certain statements from 2K, which is just as bad if we were speculating. Now, mind you, if there is a PS3 announcement, these become valid, so I've commented them out until such a point may happen. --Masem 05:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This just in: [2] Parjay ► Talk 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions

How about a section about the early Nazi-zombie-mutants and really-bio games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talk • contribs) 05:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Intro spoiler

"The architecture and society of Rapture was strongly inspired by the works of Ayn Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged"

This reveals the relationship between the "good" Atlas and "bad" Andrew Ryan when that is meant to be revealed after playing the game for a while. It was a spoiler to me when I read it but I've only played the demo so far so mabye I'm wrong (comes out tomorrow in Australia). ShadowUnseen 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SM2.0 Patch

Should the link be removed as a moderator has posted that workarounds are not covered in Bioshock's T&C? http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132192&postcount=367

Broken Figurine in CE/LTD Problems

Having just received the CE/LTD with a broken figurine, I think it's worth noting in the CE/LTD section the reports of the broken Big Daddy figurines that people have been receiving. [link] 2K will be sending a printed version of the free artbook to customers with a broken figurine. Parjay ► Talk 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shader 2.0 problems

Removed from article:-

“ The problem however in this issue is that ATI were slower to adopt their cards to SM 3.0 which means their later cards barely two years old are three times as powerful as Nvidia equivelent versions and are still unable to run the game while the Nvidia cards can. So users with Radeon cards that could up to now play games at high settings are suddenly unable to play Bioshock at all. Bioshock is currently one of a very small number of games that is NOT SM 2.0 compatible out of the box while games such as Crysis will be. This is one if the issues that has caused a large public outcry and a petition is ongoing to convince them to patch the game. ”

I think this needs to be rewritten to make it more encyclopaedic and neutral in tone before it should be included in the article. The most glaring issues I can see are...

• "The problem however" (see WP:WTA)
• "three times as powerful as ... equivelent (sic)" inherent contradiction - or poor wording - and this is original research
• "suddenly unable to play" who could play this game, say, in July 2007?
• "large public outcry" WP:PEACOCK and WP:V both apply
• "going to convince them" WP:CRYSTAL

I would say there is perhaps a short sentence that can be salvaged from this paragraph, assuming the petition has sufficient notability, but what do other editors think? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears other articles that highlight such technical issues are minor within their articles. Considering such issues are fixed it would be subject to change and highlighting the history of such an error is overlly long and drags out the page to long. While it should be included, a major cropping should be in order. Stabby Joe 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can this even be considered a "technical problem"? The minimum requirements do not state shader 2.0, hence it is unsupported rather than technical problem. Should we also start listing all the other old hardware that doesn't work with this game? Of course not. Parjay ► Talk 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fallout references.

Throughout the game I've found quite a few references to Fallout (I.E. Bathroom symbols, mentioning of 'Eden'.). I guess at this point its just speculation, but is this set within the Fallout world? It takes place before Fallout does. Was Rapture the first attempt at a Garden of Eden Creation Kit? Could the Splicers be considered the first of the mutants from Fallout 1? Is Andrew Ryan the beginning to it all maybe? Ryan starting Rapture seems a bit like the Unity from Fallout 1.

Maybe I'm reaching a bit but it seems to me as if this falls before the first Fallout game. I guess if enough people agree, it should be added to the article. Maybe as nothing more then speculation of its connection to the Fallout world.--Rainalor 01:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Also, why would this game have anything to do with Fallout in the first place? And no. Parjay ► Talk 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into adding "this game is like that game" thoughts to the article - not without reliable sources at designer, programmer or producer level. Humans are very good at finding similarities. Unfortunately such observations tend to fall under the heading of original research rather than notable facts. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, agreed; the only game that absolutely needs to be talked about besides BioShock is System Shock 2, given the number of times Levine has mentioned this as a basis for this game. Unless you get an article where a developer says "Oh yea, we threw in a Fallout references, just cause", its OR. --Masem 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has ink spots music in it. WOOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.120.147.237 (talk) 10:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The Ink Spots were a popular group in the 40s. dethtoll 08:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived 50 posts of this page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The POVness of the Reception lead

I know people want to say how well this game was received, but we need to watch out for violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and avoiding WP:WEASEL.

The current form that is being added:

• "BioShock has received, to date, universal acclaim from critics, repeatedly garnering perfect scores. "

Has several problems that I see:

• A ten out of ten rating does not necessarily equal "perfect scores". It means its one of their top rating games, but unless the reviewer says "perfect", it's not perfect. Case in point IGN's rating system, where a 10 is "Virtually flawless. No game is absolutely perfect, but 10s represent the pinnacle of gaming brilliance. It doesn't get any better than this."
• "repeatedly garnering" implies that the same mags/websites are reviewing the game over and over.
• "universal acclaim" is a bit loaded. "universal" edges on a weasel word or peacock term, and given that there's a 8/10 in the table, plus the addition of what several people are finding upset with widescreen and securom (even though I don't think these are big issues), its very hard to support this term.

I would also say that, depending on how well these fixes come out, there may be some retraction in the acclaim. All the pre-release views are super positive, but the post release ones are less than that.

My suggestion: "BioShock has received a positive response from critics" is exactly the way it should read until, say, a month from now, when all reviews are pretty much in and stable. Then we can reassess and come up with a better statement. Now, on the other hand, if you can find a citation that says "BioShock has universal acclaim from credits", taking it out of the NOR/NPOV field, we can then say that. --Masem 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Parjay ► Talk 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you f***ing serious? How about Metacritic, which specifically uses the words "universal acclaim" [3]. By the way, it's tied for the second-best reviewed game- among all systems- on MC's database. It's the fourth-ranked game of all-time on GameRankings [4]. The fact that the "reception" section is only two paragraphs, one of positives and one of negatives, is absolutely ludicrous. The game has received not good reviews, not great reviews, but incredible reviews. There should be at least three paragraphs of positive notes, especially in comparison to the length of the section on issues- a game average 96%-97% from critics does not have many negatives that need to be spotlighted. (Or is it spotlit?) And as far as the "wait until all reviews are in" thing above... how many more reviews do you need? Metacritic has 41 and GameRankings has 36. I can't possibly imagine there are any important reviewers, aside from a stray magazine or two with odd street dates, that hasn't already put out their review of a highly-anticipated twenty-hour game (as opposed to, say, an MMORPG). Currently, the reviews section is appalling, plain and simple. -- Kicking222 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

HL2 has 80-some, Gears of War has 80-some. There's a load of print journals that can't run as fast as web sources to help fill those spaces in, and it may be that the widescreen/DRM issues will affect their reviews. The game got released in the other major English market yesterday, so all I am saying is, let us wait a couple weeks for both the reviews to fill up and the issues with widescreen and DRM to settle down, and then we can tackle and improve the section. However, do compare this section as it is to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion reception section, which is really tight.

Also, the Widescreen and DRM issues are not BioShock negatives; they are industry issues, much like the small text issue in Dead Rising. These have to be noted because 1) they're notable in verifiable sources including those outside major gaming rags and 2) likely will change what developers do in the future with regards to both. I don't consider these criticisms that need to be counterbalanced by good points. But remember, at least right now, I see nothing preventing this game from getting a buttload of GotY awards (well, maybe Mass Effect, but that's neither here nor there) that will make it a lot more impressive positive response.

Short answer: it is too good to write this section effectively. In 2 weeks to a month, we can; right now it's futile. --Masem 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you stopped making sense. This is an objectively oriented website with the goal being all-encompassing encyclopedic data; if the game has received universal acclaim to date I believe it should be noted. Also I've reasoned a bit of a problem with your argument over your use of the word "perfect," the context in which I used it did not imply it was the perfect game (which would be entirely subjective and obviously an opinion) but that it had received several perfect scores (which a 10 / 10, seeing as how it can get no better, obviously is). If I decide to change the section back to my satisfaction (which I consider an objective and acceptable change) I don't expect Parjay to engage me in a series of reversions without first taking it to the talk section where we can have a logical discussion about it. I think enough good points and not enough logical negatives have been raised by now that its safe to say my edits were sound.

Pyrogenix 12:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A 10 of 10 is not a "perfect" score, it's the best possible rating. There is a subtle but important difference. In any case, I did modify what you put to this:

"BioShock has received, to date, "universal acclaim" from critics and has received some of the industries' highest ratings."

This 1) gets the issue of "universal acclaim" out of the way, as that's exactly a quote from what Metacritic ranks it as, so we keep WP objectivity, and 2) outlines that the game has received the best-possible ratings out there without calling them perfect. I think we're still jumping the gun here because within a week this could change, but if you insist on having it now, there's ways to make it factually correct, sufficiently NPOV for WP, and yet still infer that its getting strong reviews all over. --Masem 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea is, according to your argument, a 10/10 may be considered "virtually flawless," but this is only in relation to the quality of the game. A game can have a perfect score without being a perfect game, there is a very large distinction between the two things and it is ultimately up to the reviewer or website. However, I refer you to the way you worded it: "A 10 of 10 is not a "perfect" score, it's the best possible rating." Definition of perfect, according to webster: "entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime." A 10/10 can not be improved upon, it is a perfect score, unless eclipsed by an 11 / 10, which does not exist in any rating system and is not mathematically possible. It is a perfect score. While 10/10 may never mean, unless the reviewer decides, that the game is absolutely perfect, the score, as I originally stated, is.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we're now working towards a middle ground, which repeated revisions certainly does not.

Pyrogenix 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more the problem with semantics of game ratings. A 10 out of 10 is the "best possible" rating for many gaming reviews, but this does not assure that a game is "perfect". This, for the game reviewers benefit, is their fudge factor; if a review came out and said the game is "perfect", only to have a significant flaw show up later (which, incidentally, happened here with BioShock), that could hurt their reputation. That's why the best possible score on these review sites always use a term less than "perfect": "prime" (gamespot), "excellent" (1up), "virtually flawless"(IGN), etc. None of these review systems allow for a "perfect" game rating, and if such a case was needed, they would find a way to make that clear.

So for WP to say that these are "perfect" scores are overstating what the reviews have said, and thus adding OR to the article. "Top rated", "best possible", "maximum" - these are all correct within the reviewing context because, as you said, you can't best a 10 out of 10.--Masem 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That covers it I would think.

This user has visited Rapture

BURNyA 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exaclly and I do think that certain reviews in the table should be cut. However one problem is at the moment the large amount of PC issues seems to imply this game is bad even though its one of the best reviewed games recently. Nice User Box by the way. Stabby Joe 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot analysis & literary criticism

This section is reserved for discussing the actual story and plot and further defining the Plot section of the page, as well as relating Objectivist ideas to the game as Ken Levine has clearly indicated Ayn Rand as his source of inspiration. Book report time! Big Head Zach 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, talk pages are not a forum for the material, they are here to help improve the article. I understand these themes exist, and there's likely Levine interviews out there that suggest these, but 1) anything we alone come up with here is OR and not valid and 2) this is not a forum for discussing these points.

Also, the plot section is about as long as you want it, but what you're suggesting is "Themes", which is typically done in a movie article. As this isn't a movie, I would still include this, but under Development (because you need to have 2K Bo/Au saying they includes those as they built the story) I would be very careful about adding such until you have a good deal of references, otherwise, you're going to get the anon IPs and newer editors adding their own unsourced theories and then we'll suddenly have a trivia section, and... well, it'll take a while to get the article back to GA quality that way (I'm hoping that once the reviews have stabilized out, we can get this article there). --Masem 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Just got excited over the fact that the game plot is worth discussing in such a fashion - my intent here was just to get some clarification on the motivations of Ryan, and the extent to which Rand is referenced in the story text/action. Big Head Zach 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness Influence?

While playing the game I noticed the plot takes a somewhat striking resemblance to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. While the developers never mentioned it, I think it warrants further inspection. Going on a quest to find Ryan (Kurtz)? Upon arrival in Ryan's section of the building there are bodies on the walls (the heads on pikes in HoD)? It just makes me too curious to leave it alone. (Nbmatt 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

If you can find information on 2K Bo/Au using that as a source of inspiration, it certainly can be added. As it is, that is currently WP:OR and can't be used as such. --Masem 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, leaving impaled corpses outside the (figurative) gates is a time-honored means of scaring your enemies, both in history and fiction. CABAL 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I started a thread at the 2k Forums to see if I can get some closure on the matter. Only time will tell from now, I guess. Thread URL. (Nbmatt 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Ryan's death scene and the nature of Jack's purpose

Been trying to wrap my brain around what Levine's intent is with having Ryan go so quietly once Jack reaches him. Going to restore an old save game and play the scene back again, but it appears he is either:

• Welcoming death, having tried to destroy Rapture and failed, and now he's mocking Jack (and Fontaine) by repeatedly telling him he's a slave to his programming (and the plasmids), and that he's never been a true man (in the Objectivist sense that he is not actively choosing a path that is in his best self-interest, but rather doing it for someone else), or

• He's trying to use some trigger phrase "A man chooses, a slave obeys" to get Jack to stop, which also fails.

Has anyone tried to get a screen cap of the intro, when Jack looks at the gift in his hand? I really want there to be a clue or message there that says, "Would you kindly hijack this plane and ditch it at these coordinates"?

Also, the achievement icon for killing Ryan being a dripping golf club is full of lulz. Big Head Zach 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a screenshot of that bit, I can oblige. The writing is in the top-left of the package. CABAL 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

The name of the book refers to the idea that the people responsible for making the world work - the scientists, businessmen, and the movers and shakers - what if they decided not to do their jobs anymore? What if Atlas, the man who mythologically held up the world, shrugged his shoulders? He isn't doing it for his own benefit, which is a key "gripe" that Rand illustrates, and one that Ryan discusses in his opening monologue.

Fontaine using the name "Atlas" seems to indicate that he feels he is truly the one running Rapture, as he is a smuggler and all-around fixer. It follows that a mobster/gangster would be the one to undermine Ryan's authority as his philosophy is generally flawed, because it requires everyone else to play by the same rules; we clearly see in the likes of Sander Cohen and Dr. Steinman that once the humanity is stripped from oneself due to the plasmids, the whole "right to pursue what is in my best interest without denying others that same right" goes out the window, and everything starts to collapse.

So, was Fontaine's smuggling operation truly what "held up the world" of Rapture? Does he see Ryan as an idealist that trusted way too much in those he invited to live there? Keep in mind that Fontaine is, while opportunistic, completely free of plasmid taint until the final scene, so his head is clear. Big Head Zach 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a note on the package saying 'Would you kindly-', but the lower half seems to be blocked from view.--86.145.136.200 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a note about ken levine's stupidity and ignorance

I posted a small entry about the Ken Levine post that was deleted from the Bioshock forums, i don't know if it's entirely appropiate, but i don't know the entire story about the thread, perhaps someone could expand? Tlarsen 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is important, yet. If this turns out to actually have significant effect, then we can figure out how to add it, but right now, including it (particularly calling it "stupidity and ignorance", is slanderous and approaches violating the biography of living persons standards. --Masem 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the title is one he wrote himself, so i didn't consider it slanderous, i've removed my re-added section as well, but if needed be we could change the title, although we might wait until we also have the posts itself, i think he posted about 15 posts in the topic before it was deleted Tlarsen 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, may not be slander, but still, I'm not seeing how this directly relates to BioShock, or if it will in the long term. Keep the link handy, should this become of newsworthiness, we can add it back (and likely will need a separate subpage if it is a big issue). --Masem 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some forum-users have posted this as being the original message, i'll just leave it here in case some other wikipedians have something to add about it:

“ Hey all-

I'm really trying to answer every PM I get, both here, on TTLG, on Live and a couple of other sites I post on. Since BioShock has made the splash it has, this takes up a bunch of my time. In the interest of saving everybody's time, here's a little FAQ about things I can and cannot answer for you.

Things I can answer:

-Story questions -Voice acting questions (If you hate that damn circus of values clown, you got me to thank!) -Interface question -Gameplay questions -Art direction questions -Other aesthetic questions (you hate that Perry Como track, I'm your man!) -Widescreen questions (i.e. WHY THE HELL DID YOU DO IT THAT WAY, DICKHEAD! etc.)

I take responsiblity for all decisions made by my team at IG/2K Boston/Australia. I won't be able to answer the more technical questions (I love it when people write to me as if I've even heard of shader 2.0! I'm a technological moron.), but I can try to point you in the right direction (which is generally the tech support forums). I do have a huge amount of say as to what goes into patches, given budgetary limitations coming from 2K, however, so feel free to make your voices heard.

Things I can't answer:

These are some of the aspects of the BioShock experience that aren't under my control:

-Customer Service Policies and procedures- I don't have any control over customer service budget or decision making. Like...Zero. You may think I'm some kind of important dude, but at the end of the day we make the games, 2K New York publishes them, does customer support, etc. I've been heavily involved all week trying to get things improved for people, but at the end of the day, I can't take credit or blame for any changes to customer service.

-Copy Protection. Copy protection calls are all made in New York by Technical Director Tim Perry. Our job is to implement what he decides. If he's not a member of these forums, I'll suggest to Elizabeth that he gets active in them. The only thing I know about Securom is I've got about 1000 games with some version of it on my shelf. The tech that I know is limited to my experience many years ago as Macintosh computer consultant- in the days before the tubes of the interweb. All that stuff is entirely out of my hands and frankly a bit beyond my understanding.

My understanding is 2k has hired or is about to hire 24 hour a day support for the forums, amongst other things. I think we were all surprised by what a hit BioShock has been. I expect things to keep getting better. I'll try to help where I can, but there's a large organization above me that I have only marginal input into.

Thanks for listening. If we can direct PM-informed traffic to the most appropriate people everybody can get better and more timely answers to their questions.

”

Tlarsen 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Endings

Exactly how do you get the second bad ending. is it random? and (it is possible) what if you NEVER killed a Big Daddy, and the only the LS you saved is the one that you are forced to ineract with. It is possible with the Vita-Cahmbers and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.25.23 (talk) 06:34, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The second "bad" ending is likely to be a developer leftover, in the beginning you killed little sisters, this was later changed to harvesting little sisters, the filenames should be pretty self-explanatory, there's "SavedGatherers.bik" "HarvestedGatherers.bik" and "KilledGatherers.bik", the last obviously being a reference back to when the game had you kill little sisters instead. Tlarsen 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anagram" reference

I took out a piece in the Influences section about Andrew Ryan being an anagram for "new Ayn Rand," because it's not-- the closest you can get is "rew Ayn Rand". 67.86.1.247 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that post was in violation of our guideline on bad original research. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still Irrational

Irrational's official website does NOT say anything about it being renamed. There is NO reference at all to 2K Boston/2K Australia as mentioned. They might have been acquired by Take-Two, but that's a different story altogether. speaks rohith 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The official game website has logos for 2K Boston/2K Australia and nothing for Irrational Games.
• The publisher's website announces the availability of BioShock in a press release containing the phrase "Developed by 2K Boston and 2K Australia..."
• Meanwhile, over at Irrational's website, the front page has a piece of news dated 22 May 2006.

Hope this helps. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry boy-o it's the same story altogether. The company is in transition. Its name is legally 2KBoston/2KAustralia. Would you Kindly see the credits on the BioShock packaging and at the begining of the game. BURNyA 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see it's been cleared up... nevermind. BURNyA 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say "Would You Kindly" BURNyA 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting up Andrew Ryan (BioShock) for Speedy Deletion

Someone created a page for Andrew Ryan (BioShock). Given recent changes to notability particularly in fictional works, there is no need for this page to exist (all information about Ryan is primarily in universe), the connection to Ayn Rand is indicative of the whole game itself.) --Masem 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

There is no word in the article that several recent stabbing deaths in Britain have been linked to Bioshock addicted perpetrators! 82.131.210.162 07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be self-censorship on the part of some editors; wikipedia is officially not censored. More likely, though, it's just that no editor has added anything to the article. Please go ahead and find a reliable source that makes the link you described. All are welcome, and encouraged, to edit here - just try to keep within wikipedia's principles and we will all be happy. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Enemies" section

This read like a game guide, telling the reader the different types of creatures fight and a lot of original research about how "the player" can counteract them. The section is not encyclopaedic, and has been removed; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a game guide. Neil ム 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the content of the enemies section (as with the expanding setting, most of the details can be left there without game-guiding them); I'd just note that there were a few good references and an image in that section and deleting without warning could have affected other references in the article, I would have put a clean up template tag on the section to give time to recover the key parts (eg {{unencyclopedic}} or another appropriate one off WP:TC. I did go back and recover those in this case. --Masem 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that wikipedia is not a game guide. However, I believe it would be benificial to add a more descriptive entry of the enemies other then the one that is in the intro, in order to give readers a good feel for what the game makes you feel when you play it. In my opinion, the details of a game are some of the best parts of it.Paulysan 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge push on WP overall to make sure articles on fictional works are kept to the points necessary for notability. This cuts a lot of stuff in video game article. As we've got the opportunity to keep the BioShock article above the bar, we need to be careful what to add.

What has been added (including spelling out what all the Splicers are) has been too much game guide material OR material that is better described in the setting. Describing characters based only on in-universe details (game itself, game manuals) needs to be kept to a bare minimum for understanding. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a game review site. If the appearance and behavior of the enemies is part of what sets the mood of the game, this better set as a quote from a game review rather than trying to imply it with WP:OR. --Masem 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER: Plot hole - Little Sister choice

The Plot Holes section of this article mentions that it's up to the player wether or not he harvests a Little Sister despite being under Atlas/Fontaine's mind control at that point of the game, so he shouldn't really have that choice at all.

But perhaps not. Atlas doesn't say "would you kindly" when prompting the player to harvest the little girl, now does he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.99.213 (talk) 18:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I believe that atlas wanted to "test" Jack in a way, trying to see if he was truly a passively aggressive person, or if he was only aggressive because he was forced to be. I have no proof of this though...

The real plot hole is this: How did Fontaine's order get onto the present int he first place? Jack was the only survivor on the plane, and it's not like Fontaine would have had access to the gift or anything...so wtf? 72.241.165.155 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the note on the present, you can see the words 'would you kindly'. So the present came from Fontaine in the first place, containing the pistol and the orders to hijack the plan. Ninjoc 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the little sister plot hole, Atlas just wanted you to get adam, so it didn't really matter if you rescued or harvested them. 68.248.236.54 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that he COULD have said would you kindly, but chose not to. We were still under his spell at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

cite for "u-invent"

I removed the {{fact}} tag after the name "U-Invent" because it seemed pretty uncontroversial that such is the name of the machine. If anyone particularly feels that a reference needs to be cited for this, here's one: [5]. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to cite the game manual for some of the "new" terms that exist in the gameplay section - otherwise it could appear as OR. --Masem 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite for stuff that's in the game like that is not needed. There was only a fact tag on it due to the game not being out when it was added, thus it couldn't be confirmed if it really was called this by playing the game at that time. Parjay ► Talk 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it's not; the fact a "u-invent" is in the game is an incontrovertible fact. However, if we were to get this article as a Good Article or better, it helps to have a game manual citation for such items. It's easy to get this , not a big issue to worry about. --Masem 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Verification of the third ending

Can anyone else to collaborate (beyond just their personal experience with the game) on the existence of the third ending? If it does exist, there's an easier way to write it into the plot, but I want to make sure that it does before doing so (and we should be pretty confident about the conditions to achieve it too.) --Masem 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can find all 3 on Youtube already. Far as I can tell, there are only 2 endings graphically, the "good" one and the "bad" one. The "third" ending is really just the "bad" one with a different tone of voice used for the voiceover. I don't think there's even a change in dialogue. 38.112.96.194 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Plot Holes Section

It is bothersome that people unnecessarily remove valuable information from Wikipedia simply because it doesn't suit their style or taste. My section on plot holes regarding the Little Sister choice being under the spell of Fontaine as well as the issue regarding the player being able to respawn in vitachambers, while Ryan cannot, despite the fact that the player is given the ability to use the vitachamber by having part of Ryan's DNA was removed in such a manner. If the section contained spoilers one need only to tag it as such, rather than removing it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really encyclopedia-suitable information though. If the plot holes had a significant impact on the reception or public opinion of the game, or if they were a major point of discussion in many different places, it might be worthy of being on the page. But that sort of stuff is better suited to game-specific webpages. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, sections like plot holes that aren't collaborated by secondary sources is original research and that is not allowed by WP:NOR. --Masem 11:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind this is that, unless you cite a source with directly verifiable information (such as a quote from 2k / irrational), whos to say that it IS a plot hole? Maybe Ryan DID get revived? There is nothing to the contrary; personally it seems like a good premise for a sequel. But that is more or less irrelevant, any edit must adhere to wikipedia standards and policies, which this did not.

Pyrogenix 13:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of citing the source of each and every bit of information is ludicrous when considering something like the storyline of a game. The section on the plot makes many assumptions that according to Pyrogenix could be considered "original research", such as the assumption that the player takes over Rapture and sends the splicers to the surface. This was never directly stated, and like the plot holes cannot be collaborated by evidence because it is simply a logical assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger97882 (talk • contribs)

Parts of the story line that have been speculation have long been removed; what remains is factual and as we work to improve the article, can be supported (such as the bits from a Levine interview I found. Everything on WP must, at the end of the day, be verifiable. We can't do that with plot holes. --Masem 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor can one verify that the player does indeed send splicers to the surface to attack the sub. Is that piece of unverifiable information OK?