It's fun. I like to shoot things and blow shit up and hit people with swords.
Very rarely do I find the story in a game good enough to care about some neologism like "ludonarrative dissonance".
I find these "important" games like Bioshock to be pretty embarrassing and childish in the story department. Ken Levine is not the first person to take on Ayn Rand. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. The pretentiousness of that game is just over the top. But it's a lot of fun, because they nailed the blowing shit up part.
I'm not suggesting that combat-based games aren't fun. I've spent countless hours playing first-person shooters and the like, and they can be absolutely wonderful. However, I am also interested in video games as an artistic (not -commercial) medium, and I think that going to combat as the core mechanic just by reflex can limit games in that respect.
As far as Bioshock is concerned, I think it does a decent job with the story, but more importantly I think it represented just another step forward for video games as an artistic medium. It showed that games with a concept or philosophical point could have market appeal, and it paved the way for greater interest in such games down the road. There are stories and ideas that video games, through their interactivity, are uniquely suited to tell, and as a relatively new medium people are still figuring out what its strengths are, and how to make real art with it.
You may not care for video games as an art form. You may only be interested in them as a source of entertainment. That's fine! That's wonderful! We can have both! I am simply happy to see increased interest in video games as art, and I think that something as simple as moving beyond the idea of combat as the core mechanic is an important step toward realizing all that video games can be.
I am interested in games as an art form. But a lot of these "artistic" darlings strike me as pretentious drivel. To me, Portal was much more successful than Bioshock as an art piece. It wasn't dancing around trying to tell me how important it is.
I also happen to think the mechanics of a shooter can be art.
I also think that. The problem is that most people focus on the "meaning", "emotion", "philosofical" aspect when making these "art games". That mostly involves the game's story and narrative, and that is only a subset of game design/development.
I consider something artistic when it displays the creator's mastery of the craft. So yeah, Portal is art. Dear Esther? Pretentious drivel, without a doubt!
If you want a great art game, that was made to BE an art game and is not a deep philosofical piece try The Marriage [1]. This game actually disturbed me, as I considered Rod Humble to have achieved IT, to have created the first PURE videogame. Give it a try.
If you thought Bioshock or infinite were simply indictments on Ayn Rand or American Exceptionalism, then you must've also thought Grapes of Wrath was just about a family's migration from the dustbowl to California.
Bioshock frames its story with the ideas of Ayn Rand, but is actually a story about objective goodness, family and love.
Infinite is a story about stories and about the cyclical nature of everything.
I'm not sure Bioshock Infinite was really about one thing. Only about 5% of the game is a story about stories. Most of it is a story about a woman learning to be her own agent rather than a means to other people's ends, and after that it's about the question of self-determination versus fate (this is pretty much the Lutece Twins' entire role). It begins and ends on the note you're talking about here, but those themes don't really seem to be as pervasive as the themes of The Grapes of Wrath.
That's fair. Both games were a bit ephemeral regarding their themes (which were numerous), but it certainly isn't fair to say they're derivative because they "tackled Ayn Rand".
Very rarely do I find the story in a game good enough to care about some neologism like "ludonarrative dissonance".
I find these "important" games like Bioshock to be pretty embarrassing and childish in the story department. Ken Levine is not the first person to take on Ayn Rand. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. The pretentiousness of that game is just over the top. But it's a lot of fun, because they nailed the blowing shit up part.