If you harvest a lil sister, you get twice as much Adam than if you were let her live- but if you let her live, a doc who cares for the lil sisters will give you a gift every 3 or 4 you've saved- andthing from new ammo and health to abilities you simply cannot purchase.

Adam is basically points you get to buy or upgrade abilities, or purchase more "slots" so you can have more abilities overall.(whereas Eve is like Mana)

As for how many there are, theres at least 15 in the entire game, with each level having 2 or 3 sisters in each waiting to be harvested or rescued.

What is this ADAM that you speak of and how many youths must I slay upon the altar of progress in order to get it?!

I mean, not that I would...

I harvest the little sisters mainly because I need that ADAM. The precious, precious ADAM. There's nothing sadistic about it, I simply MUST HAVE ADAM.

Personally, I find it alot easier(and less terrible feeling) to save the little sisters......

Did you please the Big Daddys?

Wow, what a surprising turn of events.

Yay! Now...bout that picnic....

"Yes maybe you can choose to save her instead, but a good game would ONLY allow you to save her."

What defines a "good" game, in your opinion? Or more specifically, what excuses Pokemon from being a "bad" game, according to the above quote?Are there specific actions which you consider "okay" for a game to include, where other, similar actions are "bad"? For example - trapping animals for personal gain = morally fine? But how does one defend the morality of an activity recognized in the real world as animal cruelty? And how can that same person then make judgements on the morality of other violence-based gaming entertainment and not, technically, contradict his own moral stance?

I am not calling you a hypocrite - I merely think your opinion is a little confused and ill-thought out - but you are in danger of being branded one if you continue to stick by the doomed Pokemon argument without acknowledging its obvious flaws. Or simply conceed that just because you find one small aspect of a game morally objectional does not mean the entire game "sucks" as a result.

This isn't simply a case of fanboys/girls defending a title they would proudly have sex with if they could. People like Jack Thompson crusade to ban games with content he personally finds objectional, even when those games are clearly marked as unsuitable for children and are not marketed towards them. Having one JT running around on Earth banning games he hates is enough, thanks..! We don't need more people with this close-minded outlook ruining the games industry by forcing their opinions on the rest of us. This kind of thinking leads to no good.

So... I'm just trying to help. I think the best thing for you to do at this point would just be to drop the discussion altogether. You have a right to your opinion, and if you stop arguing it, you'll no longer be in conflict with other people. You can keep your opinions, we can keep ours, the industry moves on, we all get the games we enjoy. Everyone goes home happy! :)

To end the discussion about Pokemon, simply answer this question (which you can't): In what way is the trainer and pokemon a team?

To reiterate (without the game's jargon), a person goes out into the wild and finds an animal and decides they want it - regardless of the intentions it is a horrible thing to do; by forcibly taking a animal and trapping it into a device to brainwash "its" mind to be more acceptable to do your bidding in today's world would be considered a crime (Animal Protection/Rights anyone?). Then the next thing you do with it is beyond horror, since you go out and have it fight for your own personal gain, to gather and collect badges to feed your ego.

Now, where does the trainer get into this equation (aside from ordering the animal around)? It isn't a team effort, it is slavery. The most ethical presentation of this abuse is Ash (in the anime) where he actualy seems to love his Pikichu so much that he'll risk his life for it (ex: 1st movie); however, that still doesn't justify Ash's actions on brainwashing the Pikichu into wanting to be his pet (though correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps the only Pokemon that isn't brainwashed is Pikichu? *shrugs*). In the end, it all boils down to Ash telling/ordering his Pokemon to fight for his/the-peoples/other-pokemon behalf.

--------

Now, to finish this debate, simply read my post in this thread: http://forums.greatgamesexperiment.com/thread/view/1886

...is it cool if I bring a copy of Bioshock along? For old times sake?

I'll bring Ham Sandwiches.....

Goodie ^.^ I wanna come!

Time for a group hug! Or a picnic at the beach maybe...

Oh please- other than the fact the the TV show has obviously zero canon on the games(Pikachu kicking the ass of a ground Pokemon? It shouldn't even be effective, period), there are numerous examples on why Pokemon has questionable morals- as brought up by Sampapa, whats up with capturing wild animals and storing them in a computer, forced to do your bidding? Would it be moral for me to take a Tiger, beat the crap out of it, and stick it in a cage smaller than my fist?

What about when the Pokemon resist your commands and does whatever they like- when you don't have the right gym badges- can you honestly claim its moral to keep this Pokemon when it resists you? How is this anything but the trainer forcing the animal to fight against its own will, the complete opposite of what you claim?

What about when you poison other peoples Pokemon- is that expected to be fun for that Pokemon? Or when you beat up a Pokemon while they're sleeping or Paralyzed? Is that ethical?

Or what about simply questioning the wording itself- How is claiming that its morally acceptable to allow your Pokemon to passout because it was kicked in the face one too many times because the game developers use the word "Fainted" rather than "Die", but its completely immoral when 2KGames use the word "Harvest" rather than "Kill" in Bioshock?

My point isn't that Pokemon is immoral, mind you, but that nearly any game can have questionable morality, and its a slippery slope when you start banning games- If you find the idea of a glorified cock-fight for a game unethical, then you should not play the game- that doesn't mean you should demand it gets ripped from the shelves because you don't like the game concept, and your opinion should be law. Morals are different for every person, and only through freedom of choice can we possibly expect to please everyone.

And, once again, you dodged the question- Why do you believe I am incapable of deciding for myself my own morals? Moreover, why should I not be allowed the freedom to question my morals in a imaginary setting?

The bottom line is, you don't like the idea that people have the freedom to decide, and you are demanding the right to control people-that my and millions of other peoples tax dollars should go towards protecting people from themselves.

You may not like the concept of Bioshock- but theres alot of people who don't like the concept of Pokemon- why should your opinion be law on Bioshock, but if other people feel the same way about Pokemon, they're being silly, and their opinion doesn't matter?

Ok....Im pretty sure pokemans dont like to be placed in very small balls called Pokeman balls.

Eh...well... I think this is going to far, so ima just lurk the debate now.

You have a possiblity of killing a child? Are you kidding me? Its a game!

I think you have problems with the concept of reality- When I turn on Morrowind and take things from peoples homes and sell them someplace else, I don't feel wrong because it's stealing- Because I understand that games are not reality. Just like how, seeing that you're a fan of Pokemon, you don't cringe in horror of the reality that what you're playing is a glorified animal abuse game no different than what Mike Vicks is currently in the news about- you force animals to fight each other till they cannot stand anymore and pass out - how is that game any better? And given your love of this game, how can your opinion be viewed as a moral compass?

Morality and Ethics are not an absolute- its a discussion, open for debate for each and every person- you aren't asking for that- you're asking to force everyone to do as you say or be arrested. Hell, you're not even debating the morals properly by posting it in a review, since you are misconstruing the purpose of reviews. You want to debate the morality of this game thats perfectly fine, and given that this is the internet there are countless places to do so- Hell, theres a place for it in the forums, but you don't seem interested in debating morality like equals- your only interest is to control people.

And that is far more immoral than killing imaginary girls in an imaginary world.

Reading is different then Playing. Take Skydiving. You can read all you want about it, but you will never feel the excitement, the thrill of actually doing it.

Imagine a world where you only have one path. You can choose to cross bridge 1 or bridge 2. But suddenly you cannot cross bridge two because it dosnt seem "Right." Sorry to say, but games that only have one path get really annoying and boring fast.

Bioshock ends this. You get the since of freedom in Bioshock, Like Oblivion. If you were stuck in an under water city would you want to live there? With random creatures attacking you plenty? or would you want to try to escape, even if it means going to extremes.

Its funny. You feel that is it sick that you can kill these "Little Sisters." But when it comes to the "Little Sisters" Probing other beings to get "Atoms" or what ever they extract, you absolutely have no comment.

Im sorry to say, World life has always had violence, and wont stop soon. Get used to it.

lol, I think Jiperly just won that argument.

Wait wait wait- You haven't even played it, but you're perfectly okay with decreeing that your opinion should be law, and you should have the right to protect me from it?

You still haven't explained to me why I or any Adult is incapable of deciding for ourselves if I want to play this game? I don't like Dragon Ball Z games- but I don't decree that my opinion should be forced on people and that the game should be ripped from the shelves!

I'm going to forward these comments to the Administrators- reviewing your opinion on how the game is is one thing- giving a game a poor rating because you find the CONCEPT offensive, though, is completely contrary to the purpose of reviews- you have to play the game first and go, wow, that game was crap. You didn't do that- you announced that no one should be allowed to play a game that you haven't even given the chance to play, because the CONCEPT of the game offends you

Ironically, if you had played the game, you would have met with an explanation on why your opinion is wrong;

What is the Difference between a man and a slave? A man can choose- a slave obeys.
~Andrew Ryan, Bioshock

And you clearly wish to make slaves of us all, since we are incapable of making decisions for ourselves , and must be protected from ourselves.

Hay guyz! BioShocks Sux! I mean comon, it ONLY got 100/100 on 3+ gaming websites. GEEZ it sux! [/sarcasm]
Really....Who cares if Bioshock is out? It is fun....creepy...but fun!

Also, I'm curious- have you played the game?

I frankly am more offended by your stance that the game should be banned.

Please, give me one good reason why I, as a mature adult, cannot be expected to have enough sound mind to decide for myself if I want to play this game or not? Why do you believe it is your right to protect me from myself?

You're judging a FPS on its violence quota. It's a First-Person-SHOOTER - what do you expect!? You've conveniently disregarded the games stunningly realized artistic element and game design, just to further you're own hate mongering. Hypocrite.


Replace "reviews' with "games". Pot, meet Kettle...

Happy trolling, Trolly McTroll!

My, what well thought out and completely unbiased opinions you have...What the hell is a "violent game fan" supposed to mean? Someone who would turn down a good game of Tetris or Gran Turismo just because it lacks an appropriate amount of blood and horrible child murder action? You're confusing gamers with psychopaths. Grow up. Some games feature violence, and guess what? So does real life - QUICK! Ban teh life! For the children's sake!!!

Next time post that crap in the comments, not as a review. In fact, you should not be writing reviews - ever.

You know that EA is coming out with the Golden Compass game in December? Supposed to be released at the same time as the movie.

I hope they don't screw it up!

If you're going to effectively dissuade people from playing a game like UT 2004, you'd have to do better than a review with all caps and +500 exclamation points. Your review probably made people want to play it.

Ha! His Dark Materials fan! Welcome!