Connect with us

Editorials

10 Years Ago Today, ‘Bioshock 2’ Returned to Rapture With Greater Depth

Published

on

Bioshock 2 had an uphill battle from the start. Normally, a sequel seems to have an easier time building hype, but due to the critical acclaim that the first game received, it seemed there was skepticism in the air about whether or not they could capture lightning in a bottle twice. 

Different developers, unnecessary multiplayer, and the strange hook of letting you play as a Big Daddy, the previous game’s iconic set of minibosses, all tempered expectations from fans. Critics ended up treating the game rather favorably, but it failed to exceed the sales of the original. Now, 10 years after its release, it might be time for Bioshock 2 to finally get its due as the most satisfying game in the series.

One of the biggest disadvantages that Bioshock 2 has compared to the original is it doesn’t have that same wow factor. Bioshock has one of the all-time great openings, slowly showing you the beautiful, decaying city of Rapture, throwing you into the deep end and filling in details bit by bit. The first time you fight a Big Daddy is such a memorable combat encounter with one of the most iconic enemies in video games. Not to say that the second game doesn’t have great art design, but it just doesn’t have the same wonder seeing it the second time around. 

Another controversial choice that turned off some was casting the player as a Big Daddy, but this turns out to be one of the game’s strongest assets. I always have to think a bit to remember any details about Jack, the first game’s protagonist, but I always can quickly remember that Bioshock 2 casts you as a Big Daddy named Subject Delta who is trying to find your Little Sister. 

Since we already have been introduced to the world, the game instead tries to expand on that mythology and create a more personal story.  When Bioshock came out, it was heavily praised for its story, with emphasis on the big “Would you kindly” twist of the game and what it says about the nature of the medium. Bioshock 2 doesn’t try to work on a metatextual level in that regard, instead, reigning in the focus and telling a much more emotional tale. 

The way Bioshock 2 changes your relationship with the Little Sisters is also another significant thing to come out playing as a Big Daddy. In the first game, after defeating a Big Daddy you were given the option to either free the Little Sister from their horrific duty or harvest them, killing them to recover more of their precious ADAM. Many critics praised this choice, saying that it gave moral weight to an already philosophical game, but in retrospect, the choice wasn’t all that deep. Do you murder the innocent girl or not isn’t exactly the trolley problem, and there didn’t really end up being that much of a discrepancy between the two paths because you receive a bonus for saving all the sisters, evening out anything you would gain from harvesting. 

The sequel adds a wrinkle that not only complicates the moral choice, but also adds an incredibly thematic mode of play. After rescuing a Little Sister, you are given the option to harvest or adopt them. Adopting them gives you an almost tower defense-like experience where you try to protect the Little Sister while she goes about her duty of harvesting ADAM from nearby corpses. Afterward, you are again presented with the option to harvest or save the Little Sister and will be rewarded in a similar manner to the first game. It’s a smart way to use the already established lore (this is the role of the Big Daddy) to create a gameplay section that takes advantage of the trap-based arsenal that the player builds throughout the game. 

This option to allow the Little Sister to go about her duty also complicates the game morally, making the “good” decision of adopting then freeing the Little Sister actually more work gameplay-wise. If you truly want to add an ethical dilemma to the game, it shouldn’t be something that’s balanced and optimized to make sure both paths get even resources, but rather should have more work or less reward for doing the “right” thing, to truly test the player. 

This morality test carries over smartly to the multiple endings of the game as well. The first game featured this as well, but much of the impact of the finale of the game was overshadowed by the famous “Would you kindly?” twist that happens prior to the end. Since Bioshock 2 features more of an emotional core, the multiple endings have a stronger resonance. Not to spoil anything, but your choices end up directly influencing the behavior of the Little Sister you are rescuing, making important points about the nature of legacy and how we learn from the behavior of mentors and parents in our lives. 

On top of this improved emotional core to the story, there are also many quality of life improvements made to the combat in the game that make it feel tighter than the first one. Players can dual wield a plasmid power alongside a gun, giving you more tools to mix and match your attacks in interesting ways. The wide variety of plasmids, weapons and enhancement tonics you can mix allows you to create proper builds for your character with meaningfully different tactics in combat.

Do you focus on upgrading your melee skill and doing area of effect damage to be a close-range fighter? Do you upgrade your weapons to focus on traps and equip the more stealthy enhancements allowing you to fight from the shadows? This variety of choice empowers the player to play the game how they would like to, making for a compelling combat experience that refines what was strong about the original. 

Sometimes I think putting two in the title was one of the things that set up the expectations to be too high. Giving it a number makes people think that it’s going to be a substantial iteration on the core game, but what was given was more of substantial expansion. At one point, it was going to be called Bioshock 2: Sea of Dreams, and maybe going with just that subtitle would have set up expectations better. Bioshock: Sea of Dreams communicates more clearly that it’s not going to be a radical shift enough to be a sequel, but rather another story set in the world players are familiar with, with some key quality of life improvements made to the gameplay.

Much like how Silent Hill 2 took what worked about the first one and added more polish and emotional depth in a familiar but no longer surprising setting, Bioshock 2 refined the first game and made something that, while not as much of a sea change (pun intended), is likely an overall better experience. 

Game Designer, Tabletop RPG GM, and comic book aficionado.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading