Over the course of the last few weeks, a lot of bloggers have been absolutely gushing about Bioshock, and as much as it pains me to jump on that wagon, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to.
Bioshock is a game blogger's wet dream; Art deco, deep and ammo for the dreaded and somewhat tiresome "games-as-art" debate. But with a game so richly dunked and deep fried in symbolism, you got to be careful that you aren't readin' too much into it. Otherwise you start to write posts like "The usage of the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical in Shadow of the Colossus" or "The Post-Rock zeitgeist as it applies to Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty" and disappear quickly up your own asshole.
Which is why I tread this ground very cautiously when I ask this question: Is Bioshock trying to say something concrete about Stem Cell research?
Let's take a look at the game's primary morality mechanic that makes the whole crux of the game. You can either "Harvest" the children that wander around the world or "Rescue" them. Killing them makes you genetically stronger and more powerful, while saving them lets them keep on living and gives 'em a chance at life.
Sound familiar?
What complicates the issue further is that the game itself tells you that ADAM is actually a type of unstable stem cell produced by a breed of Sea Slug, "the Gatherer", that exists within the little sisters themselves. The result of ADAM? Brothers killing brothers, babies stragled in their cribs and a bunch of freaky deeky, ugly-as-the-devil's-asshole splicers in cute little bunny masks swinging pipes and on the whole being a bunch of dicks to everyone.
Could Irrational be making
a concrete statement that Stem Cell research is evil and that the extracting of stem cells is tantamount to killing children, or is it merely coincidence? Or could it be that the theme is merely window dressing that exists somewhere in-between; a specter of the modern age meant only to cause fear, doubt, and set the mood.
I could go on. I could make connections that aren't there ("Clearly, the Big Daddies are representative of the Religious Right and the game is an attack on Richard Dawkins and amoral, godless, libertarian Atheists!") but the point has been made and the question has been asked.
What do you think?
Papapishu's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
"In the realm of current events, Levine has also mentioned an interest in "stem cell research and the moral issues that go around".[18] However, while stem cells and genetics are indeed part of the setting of Bioshock, they seem more plot devices than actual influences, as the in-game conflicts bear little resemblance to modern debates in bioethics."
Link
And I'm sure as games countinue to evolve and become a more known as a mainstream form of media, more and more games will also put their own take and form their own opinions on world issues.
Hell, we're already there with war games, I'm sure other forms of games will take on certain other issues. But none the less, if the game does demote stem cell research, then it can be argued, at least it has a good message, a good moral.
I'm actually not making any argument; I'm trying to see if Levine is. I fully support stem cell research, I'm just trying to get a gauge on what the game is saying. And let's face it, I wouldn't put it past a game based on the ethics of objectivism.
@Gomeja
Although the IGN article that the Wikipedia article quotes Ken Levine as having been influenced by the stem cell issue, there isn't a quote regarding weather or not it was an intentional tirade or just window dressing.