Talk:BioShock/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)

Wasn't it somehow a novel? Perhaps this was the first game that required activation or something? I can't quite remember what it was. Please help me. 85.77.170.106 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Engine

I hope this will be the end of incessant undo's and flaming: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/08/29/bioshocks-helping-hand-to-unreal-engine-3s-image/ 70.41.204.97 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Even the official unreal technology page says the game was developed using a modified UE2 and was then ported into UE3. I think those game test pages are not a better source than the official ut-page, are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.210.191 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Both BioShock 1 and 2 use modified Unreal Engine 2 Build 3369. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.81.203 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some sources that say it uses 3, and some that say it uses 2.5. I am about 95% sure that it uses 2.5, because some of the effects and features of 3.0 are not visible in the BioShock games, but unless you have a better source than the one currently referenced, please do not change it. — FatalError 18:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It's Unreal Engine 3. This is obvious by the fact that AA does not work in DX9 mode due to the use of a deferred renderer. Only UE3 has a deferred renderer, UE 1 and 2 use a standard forward renderer. - Damicatz (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Epic's "showcase" site: http://www.unrealengine.com/showcase/bioshock/ states "Unreal Engine 3." However, as I recall when development started on Bioshock it was Unreal Engine 2 then as release neared major pieces from Unreal Engine 3 were grafted into the code-base which is where the "2.5" references are coming from. Doing this let development proceed faster and at the end put in the pretty parts too. Headkase (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice acting cast

I'm a bit surprised, and perhaps I'm missing something here, but why isn't there a cast section for this game? I would've thought a featured article, to be considered comprehensive, would have to include that type of information. —Torchiest talkedits 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless the voice casting is actually discussed, and not just listing who did what, these are generally left out of game articles. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
heh, I was just wondering the same thing in 2020! I do find it a bit annoying a simple cast isn't added know! I often find that annoying with game bio's know! Govvy (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up my reference link.

I'll admit right off the bat that I'm a n00b trying to edit Wikipedia here. I am also headkase on the official 2K Forums and have spent much time within those forums getting around technical issues with Bioshock for people. I got the link working right as a reference but I just don't have the wiki-fu to clean it up. I'd appreciate if someone did and then perhaps just delete what I've written here in the talk-page once it's done. The list of known issues I linked to is a permanent and stickied thread on 2k forums. It's all present in the latest version of Bioshock (1.1) and Bioshock will likely never get another patch. That known issues post does not include just "general crashing" as that has so many different causes and could be the game and then might not be either. Headkase (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Second try, got the link good enough for me. ;) I don't see a "delete this section" so, again, weak-fu - could someone delete this section for me? Thank you. Headkase (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts here. <ref> syntax isn't the easiest thing. Best thing is to look at articles that do things you want to emulate and see how they do it.
<ref> needs two things to make it work:
  • Firstly <ref> ... </ref> marks out a citation to a reference. It's used for each citation.
  • Secondly {{Reflist}} displays the list. It's usually used once, towards the foot of the page. If you omit this, nothing appears and you get a red error message at the bottom of the page.
If you're writing on a talk: page, there isn't usually a {{Reflist}} and so <ref> ... </ref> doesn't show up. You can either remove the <ref> tags and leave the content (as you did) or else add {{Reflist}} to the bottom of your section. This can get a little awkward. Usually adding the citation content to a bulleted list ("*" at the start of a line) is simplest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) I picked up a bit and the most difficult part was that "previewing" my changes wouldn't show me what the citation actually "looked like." The reference was all nice in the preview but the preview page didn't show the list of references so it was trial and error *and* committing each change to see that changes until I got it right. Well, chalk one up for experience - I am still so n00bish with the wiki that I could probably drop a ref tag on my foot and have it blow off the whole leg! ;0 :D Headkase (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're editing a section in isolation, the easiest way is sometimes to paste a spare {{Reflist}} at the bottom of it while you're previewing, then remove it just before you save.
There's also the use of <ref name="Bloggs, 1998" > ... </ref> and <ref name="Bloggs, 1998" /> to give multiple cites to the same ref. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable Information.

I've made a few changes in the "PC Technical issues and DRM" section and I have a question or two about verifiability. I will state right away that I have performed extensive technical support for Bioshock on the official forums and just browsing in Bioshock's technical support sub-forum will show that. I added a sentence and a link to the known Bioshock issues and felt comfortable doing that as all those issues are verifiable if you search the forum for them one by one. Going onwards, I added some information that related to why "activation" is still required: basically, some files needed to play the game are not on the disc. The closest I could get to verifying that is on SecuROM's Bioshock site which touches on that information in the context of when it doesn't work. Ok, that's "verified", but, I'd like to add the "why" that was done. It was done to prevent 0-day piracy. When the disc was sent to manufacturing that is a possible vector to leak the image to piracy groups who then remove the copy-protection and release a cracked version the same day it hits the stores. I *know* this is *why* but I don't know of a link to provide "verification" for it. I know it! I was there! But, how "tight" are the rules here for stating that? Headkase (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominating the article for FAR

This article is not up to current Featured Article standards, in my opinion: citations in the lead, a dozen dead links, one-sentence paragraphs, overly detailed plot section (too long), too many non-free images etc.; th article hasn't been taken good care of since it was promoted to FA, and I'm thinking of putting this article up for FAR-SCB '92 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no restrictions against citations in the lead - its optional if one wants to include them, as long as they are consistent. I think we can cut at least two of the images out (the pipe game, and the image of Rapture since Rapture has its own article); the cover and FOV comparison are necessary but this could leave the other gameplay shot unnecessary too.
As with Rapture having its own article, that section could be trimmed and the plot tightened.
The 5-6 dead links (not a dozen) I can fix (I've found replacements via linkchecker but its acting slow)
There is the post-stuff that has happened with release that does need to be trimmed up but that is fixable. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there's 13 dead links, and a lot of unsourced material in the article now, and looks like an article to go up for FAR-SCB '92 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Checklinks only showed about 5 or 6 and I have since fixed them (the rest are redirects) and dealt with the only 2 cn tags in the article, so if there's something "unsourced" you need to be more specific about it. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia frowns upon tag bombing, but I guess I had to; and if you scroll down to references section, it shows the (now 9) links that have a {dead link} tag on them, and if you click on it, it'll go to a 404 error page-SCB '92 (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think some of what you cn'ed is appropriate - but you have a few that are clearly referenced by the immediately preceeding sentence/reference. We don't require citations after every sentence or paragraph, especially if several sentences come from the same source. Also, there are plainly obvious, easily verified facts (like Bioshock's 2 release date) that do not need citation.
I do see the dead links, which checklinks isn't marking correctly, but I can repair those - some are even marked incorrectly for this. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So all of what you had CN'd, and the rest of the apparent dead links are fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs fixing

I don't know how to use Wikipedia, so I am writing this here. Cite note 155 is linking to a page that doesn't exist anymore. 82.77.146.10 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly postive reviews

The lead says "The game received overwhelmingly positive reviews, which praised its "morality-based" storyline, immersive environment and its unique setting, inspired by Objectivist philosophy and rhetoric". But this is all based on one article, and one article can't be the source for such a claim, particularly one that says all these reviews praised its ""morality-based" storyline, immersive environment and its unique setting, inspired by Objectivist philosophy and rhetoric." I find that very unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A sentence isn't necessarily sourced only by the reference immediately appearing after it, and not every detail needs a direct citation. If you jump from the lead to the reception section though, you will find numerous other references to support the lead. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The reference should probably be dropped. Overwhelmingly appears to be someone's interpretation, and although I agree the reviews were generally very positive, the reception section shows some criticism. What I don't see at all is support for the entire claim "The game received overwhelmingly positive reviews, which praised its "morality-based" storyline, immersive environment and its unique setting, inspired by Objectivist philosophy and rhetoric." It suggests that most of the reviews praises its objectivist philosopy, morality-based storyline, etc for which I submit there is not sufficient evidence. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems like what you'd like to see is for the sentence to be worded differently. All of those things are true, but not necessarily for every review. A bit of rewording should fix it, such as "including praise for" instead of "which praised its". That bit of wording changes the tone quite a bit. -- ferret (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of game taking place in an "alternative" 1960

I'm taking out the "alternate" reference when saying the game takes place in 1960. Since all the technology, both hardware and plasmid, was created in the secret confines of Rapture, it doesn't necessarily mean the outside world is also that alien. In fact the writers go to great lengths to make it clear anything "otherworldly" is unique to Rapture only. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Did the events in Bioshock happen? no then it's an alternative to the reality of 1960, maybe a better word would be fictitious but alternate still works where it was 86.179.38.15 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


ha ha lol, that isn't what deprogramers do, his example is more what the cult side uses, to following his example's vein make an isolated half starved thralled straight girl act as the lesbian when she isn't because it suited leader's wishes, or brainwash somebody into spending their days making jelly eating rice and saying they are all named jane. Or being a scientologist after waterboarding and starvation and eventually giving all their money to the cult and willing to kill to defend it. the deprogramer is the guy hired to kidnap the brainwashed cult member and fixes the cult's damage not brainwash into some third thing. his prototype was a cult programer, not a deprogramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.235.96 (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Budget

I found what the game's budget was but I'm not sure where exactly to put it in the article. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/05/08/ken-levine-next-project-will-cost-a-fair-amount-of-money/ --Mika1h (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Politics

"and was based on the ideas of Objectivism as highlighted by Ayn Rand,"

very loosely as Randian Objectivism has a society with laws and a government to enforce them

"No Laws" is anarchy and hardly an environment where anything as complex as a city could be built, let alone last for ~15 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.141.144 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a work of art, it's fiction. In what way the game corresponds to the actual Randian politics and philosophy is not important for this article, but thanks for your input. --Soetermans. T / C 06:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Speculative fiction?

Why is this article connected to the Speculative fiction portal? Yes it has a plotline, but so does every other video game in existence. (Apart from Quake, obviously.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Academic piece

Hey pagewatchers—I happened upon this academic piece on BioShock, if you'd like to give it a look. czar ♔ 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks Czar Vertisis (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

FAR?

JimmyBlackwing and I have both noticed that this article has not stood the test of time too well since it passed FAC in 2007. The main issues are:

  • Many, many unreliable-looking sources.
  • There are several in-depth sources about the game, mainly in its development, that are not used and would be helpful for completeness; these are listed earlier on this talk page.
  • Reception prioritizes number of sources over depth of each one - I mean, look at it. Most of the review comments are about how great BioShock is in general, not about specific aspects. Even if the reviewers in the table were the only ones covered, 11 would still be on the large side.

As it stands, JB and I are planning to nominate this for a featured article review if work on these issues does not begin in the next few days. (Nothing personal, of course; we've just been going through the project's old FAs, some of them worse off than this.) Tezero (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • To expand on Tezero's points, here are a few samples from the article.
Prose
  • "The player takes the role of Jack, who aims to fight his way through Rapture using weapons and plasmids (genetic alterations) in order to complete objectives." — "Jack" total unexplained, abysmal phrasing ("aims to fight his way through"), redundancy ("fight his way through ... in order to complete objectives").
  • "The player can collect and assign a number of plasmids and gene tonics which grant Jack the ability to unleash special attacks or confer passive benefits such as improved health or hacking skills." — Run-on, needless crufty phrasing ("a number of", "grant Jack the ability to unleash"), broken grammar ("which grant Jack the ability to ... confer passive benefits").
  • "Jack is able to beat Fontaine after fighting him and draining his excess ADAM four times, at which time the Little Sisters subdue Fontaine's body to extract the remaining ADAM, eventually killing him." — Ridiculous wording ("able to beat Fontaine after fighting him"), odd grammar ("the remaining ADAM"), more unnecessary words ("eventually").
  • "The idea of the mind control used on Jack was offered by LeBreton, inspired by films like The Manchurian Candidate, as a means to provide a better reason to limit the player's actions as opposed to the traditional use of locked doors to prevent them exploring areas they shouldn't." — The final part of this sentence is a run-on packed with redundant words—and it ends with a contraction.
  • Stringy, badly formatted Plot and Game engine sections; text wall Development section.
Comprehensiveness
  • Per Tezero, the Dev section fails on comprehensiveness. Reams have been written about this game's development—enough to fill a "Development of BioShock" article.
Sourcing
  • References #8, #144 and #172 are dead.
  • Reference #68 is to "Xbox World Australia". Never heard of it.
  • Reference #106 goes to "mygamer". Ditto.
  • Reference #109 is an unformatted link to Clint Hocking's blog. What is this?
  • Reference #114 goes to "Digital Media Wire", which I have never heard of.
  • Reference #130 is a naked link.
  • Reference #138 goes to "El33tonline". What?
  • Reference #141 goes to "BitMob". Reliability?
  • Further down, I see references to "maxconsole.com", Neoseeker, "GamingBOB.com", "Newsvine" and multiple forum posts, among other dodgy sources.

This is easily FAR material. Once the obligatory waiting period is over, I'll be nominating this page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to try to work on improving this, but particularly with the development section it might take time. (And while I don't challenge there is more material on the development of this game, compared with BioShock Infinite, I don't think there is as much as for a separate article. However, I'm not going to step in the way of the FAR if I can't get to this in a reasonable time frame. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, to note, an iOS version was just released today, so I have to work that in too. (it's being critically slammed) --MASEM (t) 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That works. Also, I should be clear that, regarding the prose, those were just a few random selections. They indicate that the article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Please note, as of now: I've reworked all BUT the review section, and I still need to through and purge out the bad sources (many listed above). But I have incorporated the two main development articles into this, stripped out a lot of the "fan complaints" down to core details, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely improved; keep up the good work. I'm not out to reduce our FA list to the 2009-promoted and later; standards have just changed and, to a lesser extent, prose quality can get mucked up over time, though I've never been a huge stickler for perfect prose anyway. There's probably enough (or close to enough) Dev for this to satisfy FA on completeness, unlike Midtown Madness, whose Gameplay section is still not to my liking. Tezero (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I've had the page watchlisted, so I've seen all the great work you've done so far. Very impressive. Once you've completed those final tasks you mentioned, I'd suggest submitting it to the GOCE just for good measure. I'll give it another read after that, but it should be good to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the 3D mobile (Java not iOS) version) version?

I distinctly remember a very graphically reduced 3d version for Verizon mobile phones. looked somewhere in between quake2/3 level of graphical detail. Can't find any info on it, but I remember it was nothing like the iOS port. it only had the first missions of the game, and it also only let one splicer fight you at a time.

The only footage of it i could find labels it as an in progress iphone game from 2008, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX5BeeGUVWU but it wasn't released on ios until much later. I remember it was a verizon V-Cast exclusive, much like the metal gear solid 3d game built on java. 2601:6:3E81:961D:FC4C:D185:36F5:A415 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we can't get a source, and only going off some faint memories, we really can't include that. Particularly as it sounds more like a tech demo rather than a full release. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


– With the fact that there are now 3 games in the video game series, readers are probably looking for the series as a whole when looking up the term "BioShock" rather than specifically the first game in the series. Compare to the precedent set in Assassin's Creed, SimCity and Final Fantasy; each article is about their respective series subject. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a rare case where I think that the game has more approrpiateness of the common name as opposed to the series itself, barring any new BioShock games or media to be developed. If there are more sequels, I would agree but right now the extension of the series is up in the air. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question would a dab need to cover any significant uses of Bio-schock and Bioshock in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per Masem. -- ferret (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BioShock/Archive_5&oldid=1136565152"