With the recent Bioshock: Heavy Hitters series came the typical concerns one could expect with a new game being included in such an established and renowned franchise. I can't say all concerns related to Bioshock: Infinite are unfounded. But there is one in particular that strikes me as odd.

Some people hold the belief that Infinite is straying away from the somewhat believable world of the first game.


I just realized what I said...some people actually hold the belief that the first Bioshock was somewhat believable and, with all the Kenny and company is doing in Infinite, these people believe that Infinite is bordering upon the fantastic.

Okay nothing against anyone who believes that, but seriously?

I loved the first game. It is undoubtedly in my top five experiences in video gaming ever. But to consider elements of the first to be anymore believable than what we're seeing in Infinite is somewhat...baffling. So let's take some things into consideration here because really, the two of them have far more in common than Infinite is being given credit for.


1. Do you believe in ghosts?

Infinite's latest heavy hitter is an apparition with the ability to sort of raise the dead. When people essentially read this to be ghosts, some Bioshock fans cried foul. Uh...why? Ghosts were in the first as well.


"Seems like some poor blighters have started seeing ghosts. Ghosts! Ryan tells me it's a side effect of this Plasmid business. One poor sod's memories getting passed on to another through genetic sampling. Leaks. Lunatics. Rebellion. And now bleeding ghosts. Ain't life in Rapture grand?"

―Bill McDonagh


Granted, in the first it was a less interactive experience. But clearly, ghosts have been a part of Bioshock since the beginning.


2. One extreme to the next

The original was done in an underwater dystopia. Is that really anymore believably that a city in the sky? Consider this: Water can weigh a crap ton. A city under tons of water pressure is actually pretty hard to believe. So if they can do that in the first one, whose to say we can't have a city in the sky essentially supported by a bunch of balloons? No one, that's who.

Both settings were carefully chosen to convey a sort of message, if you think about it. The developers weren't just thinking "Hey...what's a cool setting for a game?" Think of the metaphorical implications of using the elements of water and air in both games and it'll give you a better appreciation of why they chose the settings they did.

That kind of thinking is practically a necessity given the symbolic nature of the Bioshock games. They aren't meant to be entirely taken at face-value, which is what makes these games especially great and transcends mere fun into a genuinely thought-provoking experience into human nature and fallacious human ideologies of a "perfect" society.


3. Time for bed children

The Boys of Silence might not be a direct throwback to the Little Sisters of the previous games, but it does highlight yet another established aspect of the Bioshock games-- children.

Lol...what? Where did you think I was going with that?

The concept isn't exactly mind-bending. The presence of these children in such horrific environments is meant to be moral catalysts in just how you interact and go about surviving. Sure, you could just take them out, but here's hoping there's some sort of moral implications to that like in the first.


4. Because bees swarming out of the palms of your hands is just sooooo believable...

I love how one comment in particular on the most recent Infinite article made the claim that plasmids were somewhat rooted in science. Really now...

Hate to break it to you, but swarms of insects shooting from your hands sounds more like an act of God than some scientific possibility. The same can be said for calling down a flock of killer birds (Hitchcock would be proud).

This issue in particular has me a bit peeved because it's beginning to sound like some people are allowing themselves to focus on the wrong things. If you want the believable, Bioshock was never the right game for you. seriously, I can already see now how some of these same people are going to play the game and review it poorly on the grounds that it wasn't as "believable" as the first.

What it all comes down to is this: Some are forgetting that this is not a matter of forcing your own perspectives on the creations of others. For games like Bioshock, what is believable is relative to what was created into the game. NOT what you think should be there or shouldn't. It isn't your world. You didn't create it. And therefore, you forfeit the right to critique what is believable and what isn't in games where little girls are carriers of a mutagenic agent and giant mechanized birds hunt you in a floating civilization.

To enjoy such games, you do have to give yourself up into the belief of that world. And when we have game worlds that are so lovingly crafted and realized like that of the original Bioshock that's an easy task. I have no doubt in my mind that Infinite will be just as realized and alive...err....dying...as the first.


The most important point in all of this boils down to just how much of a good time we all end up having with the game though, right? We shouldn't be so quick to give into skepticism when Irrational has proven time and again that they are filled with competent and creative video game developers. Seriously, have a little faith lol


Also...if anyone uses the phrase "But what about Bioshock 2" in why they should be skeptical, I'ma just slap you and let someone else explain why I did.