Alma from fear, anyone?

I love how all these people trying to create different theses on different parts of the game, actually think what they are typing is something original.

@Karttikeya:
What?

I'll bet Bethesda wishes they'd have gone ahead and added children to Oblivion. Remember how they said they wouldn't put them in the game so people couldn't kill them? Well looks like they could have gotten a ton of press had they done it anyway.

@Mr.Waffleton:

Oblivion had enough bad press with the PC nude hack.
Which gave the completely unnecessary Mature rating.

@Mr.Waffleton: GTA does it too, along with animals. Other games actually allow you to kill children/animals (but very few... Deus Ex springs to mind), but for GTA to do it would be suicide on their part. Double standard? Yes.

I don't even know why it's such a big deal. Children = little humans. Humans = Frequent targets in games.

If this gen is going to be "realistic", we've got to address real issues, child killing among them.

What I don't understand or like is how mainstream media tries to put a face on video games that give you an option as far as killing and not. It is a game, you have options get over it. For me, I have killed all the girls I have come across. Go me.

@Scruss:
Go you.

"look mister bubbles adam" Why doesn't the media rag on movie violence? Why'd video games become such a trend. I'm all about getting immersed in my game i don't want the experienced ruined by censorship. Anyways there is somethign scary about little girls isn't there? If anyones ever seen pet cemetary that movie used to scare me. Now i see it as just plain a good movie. It makes me sad when he has to kill his son i get a little teary eyed

Little girls are quite scary, true, but they don't hold a candle to the harmless lookin fuzzy old santa lookalike who turns out to be a psychotic lawyer hellbent on banning videogames. Now thats scary as hell.

the girls in bioshock aren't even that bad though. You don't see anything. you pick them up, then it goes all fuzzy. there isn't even a dead body left over (so what happens to it?)

imo, they have pussyfooted around the whole thing, kind of hinting you get to kill the girls, then actually showing nothing of it.

Haven't played Bioshock, but what I dislike about the concept is that what you're basically choosing between is a: doing what you'd do in real life, thus immersing you further in the game and b: distancing yourself from the game by thinking "she's just a bunch of math" or something along those lines.

It's good as long as long as people choose "a" (unless they're psychopaths and "a" means killing the little girls) - but having a gameplay mechanic ruin immersion seems kind of like a bad idea...

Any input from people who played the game? :/

@NoMorePuppies: There have been unwritten (and sometimes written) rules of what to show and what not in movie industry. And shooting little girls is something you will most likely will not find in Hollywood movies. And now a "new" media stands up and starts to roll those "forbidden" themes to the screen with interactivity. It's not surprising at all that some will stand on the barricades. I too, hate censorship, but only if it's applied to already finished product. If it's planned from the beginning there is really nothing to miss.

@NoMorePuppies: I think your post is part of the reason why all the media attention is on videogames. In a movie, you're watching these horrible things. In a game, because you get so immersed in them, you're doing them. For less mature people, the effects are even greater, and I can easily see how it would be hard for children to separate the game from reality.

Blame bad parenting all you want (I would certainly never let my kids play Bioshock until I know they are old enough to know better), but bad parents can't pay lawyer fees and expensive legal settlements like game producers, so it's more lucrative to cast blame on 2K than on little Billy's mom and dad when he shoots up his school.

Back on topic though, I agree, little girls (especially with glowing eyes) can be extremely creepy.

People are making way to big of a deal out of this game play feature...

Any game with decisions like this presents a pretty obvious "do this for the bad ending" vibe. All three of you who played Dark Messiah of Might & Magic know what I mean. I haven't completed Bioshock, so I don't know for certain, but it seems pretty obvious to me that there's ultimately a negative consequence for doing it, as with numerous other games that present you the "take the power for yourself" type decision.

It's actually poor strategy in the game to kill the Little Sisters. You get the shitty ending and you actually get more out of saving them (every third one gives you a bonus). You get 40 less Adam overall saving them as opposed to harvesting them, but it's not worth losing the other bonuses.

Don't they give you things necessary for plasmids after dying? Why would anyone choose to free them?

@xINTRINSICALLY_PWNINGx:

Uh you get Adam for saving them, too - just less. Every third one you save also gives you a bonus of more adam and other items. As I already said, you only get 40 more Adam for harvesting three Little Sisters rather than saving them. Losing the prize for saving them is not worth the 40 Adam.

First: Little Sisters technically aren't "real" girls in the game.
Second: Saving them is actually more beneficial to you then harvesting(killing).
Third: If you want the best or better ending, IMO, then you better save all of the little brats.

@xINTRINSICALLY_PWNINGx: Plus, killing little girls is fuckin' messed up.

@xINTRINSICALLY_PWNINGx: This is actually a very fitting question, given the nature of the game.

@arashi:

Pan's labyrinth, the little girl gets shot, so there's on Hollywood movie with it. There are also a ton of high budget blockbusters which feature killing civilians, women and children among them.

BioShock is a horror game, and with the horror genre comes creepy demonic little girls. Why do people not understand this yet? Children of the Corn is a classic, an OLD classic, and it had creepy boys and girls.

@Zeni: Haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth, but that is surprising info. And for every high budget blockbuster that I remember where lots of civilians are killed they don't really show anything, it's just like blowing up some building or car or people falling down without actual hit indicated. Getting camera close in and shooting a child is something they rarely do, if ever. You can do that kind of stuff tastefully, you can imply much without actually showing anything.

Now I'm not calling a band for Bioshock or F.E.A.R. or any game, I'm with Gamemaster here, when graphics get really realistic this gen, developers need to take more issues like this in consideration. It's impossible for one media to start acting outside of the generally accepted guidelines without being backslashed. I personally think Bioshock is marvelous and see nothing wrong it the little sisters, but some people surely will and they are not completely off base.

@Zeni: Pan's Labyrinth was not Hollywood.

The difference with movies and video games is that in the video games, the developers have provided the player with the ability to kill a little girl (in as much a reality as in the film, since we're talking relative), and may even provide incentives to do so (i.e. immediate Adam).

Pan's Labyrinth is a good example, even though it's not Hollywood- yes, a little girl gets shot. But the audience isn't asked to shoot her, nor even is the protagonist. It is the villain of the film, who is depicted as an absolute evil all throughout.

I promise you, if a movie came out (maybe based on Bioshock, maybe not) where the protagonist murdered little girls as progression towards his goal, there would be some hubbub.

What got me with the Harvest vs Rescue choice is that the person arguing for you to rescue the little sisters is someone you meet at your first real encounter with a little sister, and the person who wants you to harvest is the guy who's been guiding you through the city and is begging and pleading you to help him save his family.

Clearly, because this is a game, Harvesting is the Dark Side choice and Rescuing is the Ligh Side choice, but, you gotta admit, the way Atlas is asking you to harvest and what's at stake for him doesn't make Harvesting seem like that horrible of a choice.

Or, to put succinctly, (paraphrased) "Are you willing to put the life of that thing over the lives of my wife and child?"

@Zeni: Dude, be more careful about spilling info about that. That's an important and dramatic part of the movie, which is very much worth seeing. I hope you didn't go around gushing about how Bruce Willis was a ghost the whole time back in the day. This isn't on that level, but still...

@arashi: You can't actually shoot the Little Sisters. Well, you can, but it doesn't do anything. The game explains that away by saying that the little girls are genetically manipulated to regenerate tissue at an astonishing rate. You kill them by removing a symbiotic creature from them in a semi-cutscene type deal. Nothing gruesome.

I guess it's not an issue if you're killing girls or boys, or full-grown predators. Killing is in human nature because it's one of means of survival. We, as humans, kill in wars and during fights - not because we are so blood-greedy, just because it's our or their survival.

Issue is wrong moralizing over killing. Liberal - or I would say politically sided - thinking is too simplistic: killing is bad. It's bad for chickens, ants, flies, cows and moscitoes. (Nobody mentions viruses though). In any case killing is definitely bad for humans and especially human women - girls.

Problem is that biological survival of species depends sometimes on ability to kill (or to flee if fleeing is an option). Unfortunately in real life we can't flee always - we have to make tough decisions, like to "to be or not to be". And if some wild or alien creature, even if of our species, is asking us this question, probably only future can give sensible answer if "yes" or "no" is right. Just like in real life.

Second issue is motivation. If killing girls is the only way to success, probably something is wrong with general concept of future society. I say this only because game developers are same humans (I hope) like me. Girls are ultimately mothers and their existence ensures human existence after all current a-males die.

So, I think the initial question is out of whack - it's not immoral to kill, it's immoral to kill for a wrong purpose. If the difference between dumb (for pleasure) killing and justified killing is clear enough and brings related consequences, I would never question ethics or moral of such game. It's game. but any game is reflecting real life. Reflection might be not absolutely correct, but it's the reflection which can't be ignored. Developers and designers are part of our society, so you can't ignore trends and inclinations brewing inside them. If final result bothers or makes you uncomfortable you must think first of all why society produces such people, ideas and designs and not about any specific game atory.

By the way, in Morrowinf or Obliviion you can kill anybody. All of them. You'll finsh in empty world where you can meet only randomle spawning dangerous monsters. Is that the future you would like to see?

As a final remark, I would ask - what would you do if you see ebola virus shaped as a little girl? Flee or kill?

Oh man, just saw this one gamefaqs.com and nearly died.... too bad the topic is gone:
Topic name:
So when the big daddy is banging a little sisters hole...
Post:
do the little sisters always come? Because one time I was watching a big daddy (the one with the huge drill) bang a little sister's hole and she didn't come and he just walked away.

Yeah we are all going to hell, but its hilarious...

@Scazza: Goddamnit, now my keyboard is filled with coke from my nose, damn you.

"It's not really like killing someone, it's more like removing a terminal patient from life support" - In Game Diary

Of all the talk about morality, I've yet to really feel an "experience" from healing or killing the little girls. By fading to black when you kill them and leaving no corpse, you don't see the aftermath of your actions, so it kind of seems like nothing happened. When you heal them, they thank you and run away. Later in the game there's a part where you'll be scolded or praised depending on your actions, but that doesn't have much of an impact either. Harvest vs. Save is a poor gimmick.

Press should focus on the other immersive parts of the game. There's an off-the-path room with two corpses and a bottle of pills and a diary/suicide note when the father and mother see what's become of their little girl (when she becomes a little sister). That was pretty moving to me, to incorporate suicide into a video game in such a realistic way is pretty far beyond most games, especially seeing as how it isn't a plot device.

@Scazza: hahahaha best find of the day yet!

@Toasticus: It's not a new movie, and there's a point when spoilers aren't really spoilers anymore. Hell, someone could post the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows right now and there wouldn't be much uproar, given the fact that it's been out for over a month, and everyone who wanted to read it has already done so. Pan's Labyrinth came out what? A year ago? Hardly spoiling anything, if you haven't seen it yet, then chances are you never really wanted to.

Also, The Last Samurai, Tom Cruise shoots a woman and a baby. Pathfinder, Vikings slaughter children and women. Hidalgo, Americans shoot an entire camp of unarmed Indians, and that wasn't an adult movie. Killing demonic/mutant little girls is no where near as bad as some of the shit I've seen in Oscar nominated movies.

@Verum:

I actually feel good when they become normal girls again.

And yeah, the suicide room was great (plus you get a tonic).

The past couple of times this discussion has come up, I keep seeing the whole "but children = young human and young human = human and killing a human = okay"

This is the sort of thinking that pedophiles use to reassure themselves that what they are doing is okay and acceptable (My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there).

The other argument that I'm sick of hearing about, is "But it's only a video game! There have been creepy children etc. etc. in movies for decades!" which may definitely be the case, but a lot of the people who raise this argument are missing the main point -- the fact that video games are interactive.

It's one thing to watch an execution happen on TV or even in real life, but it's another thing to actually have to pull down the lever that sends the electricity to the chair.

There is a reason why games SHOULD have certain boundaries, because unlike movies which are linear and you only see what they want you to see, when it comes to video games, if things become more and more realistic, then there is no way to stop people from seeing things or perhaps doing things that weren't originally intended.

All I'm saying is that while I'm all for immersion and realism in video games, perhaps some of us (I'd go as far as saying the vast majority) just aren't ready yet.

So far, I'm actually a little more weirded out by killing the Big Daddy. It's the Sister's only protector, after all. All the freaky splicers who want to kill you want to kill her even more. There could be a real moral dilemma swirling around that: leave them in what seems like a sort of benign slavery, or free them into the wild, dangerous world?

@nickaix:

I actually feel bad about killing the Big Daddies. They seem so big and cuddly, I just want them to be my friends. Alas, 'tis not to be.

I haven't gotten particularly far in the game, only on the 3rd or 4th level, but I remember finding an audio log around the first little sister/big daddy encounter that basically stated that the little sisters die no matter what you do. If you chose to "save" them, they just die a slower death since they cannot function without their adam-guzzling symbiote. I still saved all but one of the little sisters, but I actually feel worse killing the big daddies than I do the little sisters, since it seems that they'll die no matter what course you take. And those daddies are just doing their jobs... poor hulking diving men-things.

Despite all the hype the simple truth is that in the game you do not at any time kill a child. You make a choice between good and evil and the game fades to black. There is no simulated killing, just a cross roads in a story.

Games are a high form of media we've only begun to explore. Its only natural we use virtual story telling to explore elements of morality we can not explore in real life. Those that are uncomfortable with exploring these darker themes will of course be uncomfortable with being presented the choice.

But really, whats the big deal? I'm presented daily with the choice not to go butcher small children aren't I? We all are, and thankfully few of us even realize we make the choice because the choice is so natural and "Right"

I think what it comes down to is those that are yelling screaming about this are worried they might find a part of them tempted to hit the "Harvest" option.

Was i tempted? Hell ya, easy power. Who wasn't? Personally, i couldnt do it though, and i probably wont ever see the "evil" ending of the game.

@Defenestrated:

Believe me, they don't die if you save them.

@Americana: Damn, I'm actually a little disappointed by this. It would have been a great opportunity to explore objectivist morality on an even deeper level. Oh well.

Remember how everyone flipped out in the media because Anakin Skywalker slaughtered all those children with his lightsaber? That was crazy, oh wait.. No one said anything... Guess people only care when it's a slow news week. I Also love how the news acts like when an event occurs, that it's new and shocking and it's the only time that event has happened, when it has happened a lot before. Like now with the tiles coming off the space shuttle, that used to happen on every flight back when the program started in the 80s and people back then were reporting it on the news but now they act like it's an amazing and new occurrence. Like that sketch that Jimmy Fallon did on Saturday Night live news about the reporters who were making a big deal story out of winter or a storm or something, like it's never happened.

Hmm... Bioshock should be a Kotaku Game Club subject :)

@Zeni: Yes, giving spoilers is definitely A-OK when something is no longer brand new because everyone immediately reads any book or sees any movie only when it first comes out. /sarcasm

and @Americana: It could be argued that telling people what you get for saving the Little Sisters is a spoiler too. The whole point of offering the choice, as we read in every other article posted on Kotaku these days, is to offer a challenging moral question, and it also makes you think about who you trust in the game as Wraithfighter pointed out. When you break it down to the base numbers and rewards, you're exposing the raw game mechanics and ruining the immersion.