Bounteous Bioshock Bonuses

Bioshock’s very much back in the news at the moment. And goodness, what a lot of people seem to hate it all of a sudden, if folk in our comments threads are to be believed. You big sillies.

Would being able to play it with new Plasmids help? What about in proper widescreen? Or, and I suspect this will be the clincher, what about with those controversial insta-respawn Vita Chambers turned off?

Yes, the Bioshock patch, promised back in August, is coming at last, and it brings with it free extra stuff. The delay might be more than a little insulting, but nevertheless: celebrate! Sounds as though there’ll be other fixes and additions in there too, but no news on what, exactly. I strongly doubt there’ll be an option to make the final stage any good whatsoever, unfortunately.

I guess some folk will immediately see the option to deactivate the Vita whotsits as some kind of admission of failure – certainly, they were the element of the game that its critics tended to dole out the most vicious pummeling to. Made it too easy, they said. Not fair for you to come back to life on the spot, but for the bad that’d just killed you to still be missing whatever of his health you’d chipped away first, they whined. One suspension of disbelief too far, they gibbered.

I was fine with it though – better than a gameover or a quickload – and I doubt the option to remove them is any kind of mea culpa. I would imagine it’s more to do with introducing a purpose to play through the game again. Once its tale is told, the (faintly disappointingly) linear nature of Bioshock isn’t something there’s much drive to rush back to, and the as-yet-unnamed new Plasmids wouldn’t change that on their own. Without Vita Chambers, it’ll be a significantly different experience, I suspect.


  1. Turin Turambar says:

    It’s not hate, the game just was a bit overhyped. It was a very good game, but not a 9.5 or 10/10 game.

    (omg score discussion! :P)

  2. Leeks! says:

    That screenshot reminds me of the first time I watched that sequence, and realized just what incredible care went into the creation of the game’s aesthetic. I think it was actually at this point that I realized this was a game made by people who love games–and gamers. They wanted you to have /fun/, and while challenge was a part of that, it wasn’t an end of itself (hence the vita chambers, I think). Sure, I was disappointed I couldn’t freeze the water or construct a robot out of clothespins, but Bioshock gave me the tinglies more than any other game in recent memory–which is a sensation usually reserved for novels, films and Grant Morrison comics. In fact, I’m thinking of booting it up right now. So you can guess where I stand on it :P

    That said, I’m actually very interested to know what the retrospective backlash is based on. So far, I haven’t seen anything but blanket statements and extremely vague criticism (not saying the intelligent stuff doesn’t exist, just haven’t come across it yet). This probably isn’t the place for it, but if anyone wanted to toss up a link to a well-reasoned critique, I’d be positively delighted.

  3. Theory says:

    I hardly ever died anyway…

  4. Tom Lillis says:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t get up-in-arms over a game’s lack of difficulty? How hard a game is or isn’t plays very little role in how much I like or dislike it–quality of game play and overall presentation are overwhelmingly more important in my book.

    I mean, really, how often do you finish a campaign and find yourself thinking, “Gee, I didn’t die NEARLY enough here.” I mean, it’s one thing when the lack of difficulty is because t game mechanics are repetitive and uninspired–and therefore too easily mastered–but I don’t feel that to be the case with BioShock. The game offered plenty of interesting ways to kill the baddies–discovering and perfecting them was where the challenge was to be found.

    In any event, if the Vitachambers were what ruined someone’s suspension of disbelief, then that someone has a pretty bizarre threshold for immersion. “Well, I am fine with this technically impossible underwater city, and summoning a swarm of attack bees to do my bidding seems reasonable, but instant cloning? Preposterous!” It struck me as a much more “in-universe” solution to death mechanics than simply reloading at the last checkpoint, in any event.

  5. Low Key says:

    This is pretty nice, actually. I was planning on replaying the game for fun pretty soon and now I have a reason to do so. Of course it would have been nice if the Vitachamber option would have been available on release.

    But better late than never, eh?

  6. Leeks! says:

    Tom: WORD.

  7. Janek says:

    Yeah it’s not hate, but there always seems to be a bit of a kneejerk over-reaction just after these big releases. I guess it can be attributed to people having very high expectations, then being disappointed when it turns out to not be omgbestgameever, even if it is a good game.

    Which it is in this case. Albeit with little replay value, even with added shinies.

  8. Pidesco says:

    The problem with the vitae chambers wasn’t that they were there, but rather that they had no cost associated, they healed half your life, and there were way too many of them.

  9. Sombrero says:

    a loading screen is the biggest killer of disbelief suspension.

    the only way to do death without destroying the players imersion is to keep them dead! force them to stare at a black screen for the rest of the level, that’s shit.
    The ideal dificulty level is that the player NEVER dies, just almost dies often at stratigic points, Irational i think recognised this and said design the game so the player never dies but if he does die we justshove him back in the ame straight away.
    there’s actually no Commandment that says you MUST punnish the player for doing badly

  10. Thomas says:

    To little, to late.

    They didn’t even remove the stupid protection they said they would be removing.

  11. Bob Arctor says:

    I have noticed the Bioshock backlash, and I think it’s daft. Maybe the end stage soured the experience for everyone.

    Looking at that screenshot all I think is how I want to play it again with a new PC one day. All of those highlights and detail!

  12. Frosty840 says:

    Sombrero has a good point, there.

    Creating a believably dynamic difficulty level which would allow for the player to edge towards defeat but never actually reach it sounds utterly impossible to me, simply because any attempt to show it up for what it was would succeed, breaking the suspension of disbelief rather horribly, but it’s a very nice idea.

    Game Over screens were okay when games were in their highly abstract infancy, and in the more abstracted games we still have, they still have a place. In games which are so deeply concerned with the telling of a story, though, any game-ending condition is neccessarily the end of a story, and from that point of view, the vita-chambers served to preserve the continuity of the player character without forcing them into (the more immersion-breaking, IMO) quickload hell.

    Having been a gamer for far too long now, I happen to prefer quickload hell to the vita-chambers, but I nevertheless prefer the vita-chambers to checkpoints.

    Bioshock wasn’t a challenge-based game in the same way that, say, Operation Flashpoint was, and I think that the Game Over mechanic definitely works for OF and games of a similar type, but it would be interesting to see vita-chambers modded into something like Halo or Gears of War.

    Anyone else got a decent idea on how to make the player functionally immortal while still retaining some sense of vulnerability?

  13. Alec Meer says:

    I always liked Republic Commando’s approach – you can get revived by your NPC squadmates as often as you like, but be too needy and stoopid about it and eventually the entire team’s killed whilst trying to help you. When you get the game over screen, you actually felt like you deserved it, for being so reckless with other people’s lives.

    Hardly applicable to a wide range of games, of course.

  14. says:

    Maybe we need another year of WWII/sci-fi/militaristic shooters. Then people will realize Bioshock’s merits. Yes it’s linear. So what? Half-life 2 is very linear and fairly easy too (with much less creative ways of killing baddies) but no-one complains. Vita chambers are a bit silly, but nothing prevents you from reloading and approaching the fight experimenting different tactics.

  15. Andrew says:

    HL2 may be linear, but I had a drive to replay it upon completion in a way that I didn’t get at all with Bioshock, no matter how much I enjoyed it. And I did enjoy it, quite a lot, up until the last act, anyway.

    The only replaying I did of Bioshock was playing the opening again simply because it’s so masterful.

  16. Muscrat says:

    Well I was blown away from the demo, and absolutley loved it… But the hype kinda killed it a little. I was expecting it to be the next best linear FPS since HL2 – and well… It wasent. It just became a bit ‘rinse and reapeat’ repedative half way through.

    HL2 really kicked up a huge variety, in combat, locations, and sequences, wheras Bioshocks enviroments did change to a degree (limited by the games location obviusly), as did the enimies – not huge variations though – but yes it wasent to the quality of HL2 imo.

    It was nice to see a completely original location, and AWESOME art style though. Probably my most favourite yet.

    Another issue is that the game went down the path of a shooter, rather than a survival horror like Shock 2. Sometimes I feel like the game could have been better if it was more true to the gameplay in Shock 2 – rather than giving the player a huge assortment of weapons at once.

    Oh and the Vita chambers. I thought they were a GREAT idea – rather than quicksave, quicksave – though I think there should have been a bit more of penalty.

  17. Tom says:

    I thought BioShock was brilliant personally. All the little touches, of which there were millions. When have we ever had the pleasure of diving in to a game world as richly fleshed out a Bioshocks? For me I’d have to name the Thief series, or SysShock 1/2. Deus Ex anyone? The game itself has real character, which imo is something painfully lacking in modern games.
    I’ve just dipped in Penumbra: Overteur and loving it. Another game full of character… know what i mean…?

  18. Pidesco says:

    It’s like Bioshock is being give a free pass just because the current competition is so dire.

  19. Ben Hazell says:

    I’m just not sure about going back and adding new abilities to a largely linear game. I’m trying to think of when else this happens. I don’t see Valve dropping a new weapon into Ep 2 with a patch. This isn’t an objection, but i wonder why they decided to do it.

  20. Lachlan says:

    Bioshock was a reasonably good attempt at making a Shock-style immersive world accessible to paying audiences. The result was a fun, well-written, somewhat dumbed-down game. The hatred we see here is unfortunate – now Bioshock has proven this kind of game can be a financial success, hopefully we’ll begin to see more Looking Glass-style master-crafted game worlds again as publishers realise there’s money in this.

    But without Bioshock, not a hope. It has made the FPS/RPG a viable concept again.

  21. Cigol says:

    There has been no backlash – it’s just that the marketing bods are no longer getting paid to publicise it and drown out the negativity.

  22. Kast says:

    Can’t see any reason to go back and play through BioShock again. First time was interesting and enjoyable, second time was rather more yawn-worthy. So a few more plasmids and vitae-chambers off (which, incidentally, I never had used in the first place even on Hard mode) are hardly enough to make up for fighting through the lackluster environments one more time.

    I can’t formulate any convincing argument as to why I can play through the entire H-L saga again and again but one more slog through Rapture seems like five years hard labour.

    Perhaps it’s the variety of environments. Perhaps it’s the range of enemies. Maybe the characterisation. Or the musical score. Or perhaps, I suspect, it’s that H-L games are simply superior.

  23. James says:

    How can anyone claim HL2 has more replay value than Bioshock? Yeah, there’s the train ride and waiting-in-line simulator, but you can just watch that on YouTube.

    Give it up.

  24. Stew says:

    I liked vita-chambers. Reminded me of System Shock and System Shock 2, the (IMO superior) spiritual prequels.

  25. Andrew says:

    When Bioshock ended, I was tired of its game mechanics. The shine had worn off.

    When HL2 ended, I wanted to replay it and experience the set pieces again. And I have done many times.

    I can’t see me playing Bioshock again except maybe in a year or two when I’ve mostly forgotten it and decide to indulge the nostalgia for the smoke that comes out of the pistol when you fire, or something like that.

  26. Matt aka ntwrock says:

    This was my most anticipated game of 2007; but the whole game for me was a little underwhelming. I’m thinking this is because I got caught in the hype a little too much and read a few too many good reviews of it and so thought it would blow me away. That, and the game would cause my computer to crash every 30 minutes when the ‘high detail shaders’ were switched on.

    Saying that, it’s my favorite game of recent times in terms of art direction. I have much fondness towards the art deco style of that era. Fort Frolic, as I’m sure many of you will agree is one of the greatest levels this year.

    I have only gone back to it once since completion, and that was following the installation of a beta nvidia driver as I wanted to see if it fixed the random crashing (it did). But that was a month ago, and I haven’t had an urge to go back since. Shame really.

    Nothing will take away the fact that I love how it looks mind. I really enjoy taking screenshots in game and am quite interested in this month’s ‘How to…’ in PC Gamer. I may revisit it and put that into action and take some (hopefully awesome) shots.

  27. Solario says:

    Well I still love it and plan to replay it when the patch is out.

  28. Dracko says:

    The Vita-Chambers were never the problem. Reviving in System Shock 2 didn’t take away from its atmosphere or the gameplay. The difference being, it worked on them. Not to say that BioShock is without appeal, because that is an argument that simply doesn’t stand, but consider this: The hype was one of moral choices, which were under-delivered, and a real world at our fingertips. In the end, what we got was a series of disconnected levels that you had to transit between with a loading screen, not a bathysphere ride or even working through it all, and every single character you encountered that wasn’t behind a pane a of glass was out to get you, and eventually they all looked alike. In SS2, that worked, as you were dealing with warping alien infestations that dehumanised their hosts yet still left enough of the underlying humanity under it all to affect you. Here, it’s simply a bunch of loonies who you have to gun down perpetually. The only other time that didn’t happen was with Cohen, the dancing Splicers and the Big Daddies. What ever atmosphere there was was undermined by the nature of your foes. The Big Daddies and Little Sisters had paths and goals in the game, to an extent. All the Splicers ever did was roam around looking to kill you, not fighting over things or with themselves, as we had been told. It was more of a corridor shooter than it claimed to be.

    And I’m still pissed off about the map. You tap a key to get an overly detailed one, yet, in an environment where they’d be totally in place, there’s none to be seen. I remember being in Fort Frolic, finding a map and looking it, but the texture was muddied and didn’t represent the level at all.

    And they should have beefed up the Big Daddies, damn it. They were the only things I cared for. The Little Sisters were boring, annoying and just a question of tapping one button or the other, when a clear moral bias is present (You get more rewards out of saving them than you do slaying them, contrarily to what you’re told).

    BioShock‘s major problem is that it is wildly inconsistent, and the last third of the game does everything to remind you of this fact. Half-Life 2 is enduring and a brilliant example of the genre and its potential because every single element works together to profit to the experience. It’s that simple.

  29. Faust says:

    Going back to the problem of death, I think it’s been handled well in a variety of games. One popular choice is the ‘hell’ route, where the player gets send to an ‘underworld’ when he dies, with the ability to fight/escape back to living. ‘Prey’ did this particularly well, I think, as you arrived floating in this weird gray rocky island with blue and red spirits floating around you. You shoot the spirits, and you get health and power back. Shoot enough and you get back to full health, but if you miss them all you respawn with almost nothing. I think one of the Wario games did something similar.

    The other is the ‘near-death’ dying, such as in Republic Commando and Gears of War (if playing with a friend). You go down, and your men have to get you back up. It makes sense, because of the sheer number of games that allow you to revive your teammates. I don’t see why it’s any different for them to revive you, but obviously it is, as many games don’t allow it when it’s the player that goes down (Ghost Recon). This is probably the more viable mechanic, as it’s closer to ‘real’ life, in that if a man goes down, you sometimes have the ability to save him. The whole underworld thing usually only works in fantastical environments, such as sci-fi, fantasy and surrealism.

  30. Kast says:

    James said: “How can anyone claim HL2 has more replay value than Bioshock? Yeah, there’s the train ride and waiting-in-line simulator, but you can just watch that on YouTube. Give it up.”

    It’s the difference between a summer blockbuster you enjoy once at the movies and a 5-star movie classic you get on DVD and watch again and again and again.

    True every time you watch a movie it’s the same experience but some have the sheer quality and depth that even though you know how it all turns out you are kept on the edge of your seat. BioShock doesn’t – its shocks and atmosphere are lost after the first run.

  31. Kast says:

    (Sorry for double post)

    My favourite way of handling death was in Medal of Honour: Pacific Assault. When you ‘died’, your hearing was muffled and your vision dimmed. The medic loomed over you, scattering morphine powder over your wounds and retching into the grass beside you. He is shillouetted in the flickering light of gunfire and artillary exploding overhead.

    Over the course of the game, your medic buddy’s animations change and you witness his change from a green-looking rookie to a hardened combat-medic. Rather than being cause to beat your head on the desk in frustration, dying in MoH:PA was oppertunity to take a quick breather while remaining immersed in the game.

  32. Muscrat says:


    yea MoHPA did a great job of handling death as you say. What I liked the most of it, was not when a medic revived you, but if a Japanese soldier was near, he’d spear you with his bayonet – while you were on the ground. Very Cool.

    On the topic of replayability – indeed HL2 does feel like more of a replayable game – because the sheer varation in setpeices – every moment feels ‘fresh’ and individual (not to mention so well done) – you keep comming back to experience them again. Hell Crysis has more replayability – the non linear missions, and the massive setpieces keep you comming back. Bioshock does to an extent – but as I said, the forumla feels a bit strained at the end.

    Methinks if they introduced plasmids a bit later – while you had to fend off splicers with normal weapons at the start, progression would have been a tad better.

    Oh and the moral choices with the little sisters was a bit weak. I mean Good vs. Evil – what about the grey inbetween?

    Still its up the with some of my favourite games no doubt. I just cant see myself comming back to play through the whole thing again. Unlike HL2 Episode 2 – which I have decided to play again (not to mention done the final strider battle multiple times over)

  33. Leeks! says:

    Reading everyone’s respawn suggestions, I can’t help but remember the first time I was taken out by guards in Thief: Deadly Shadows, and wound up in prison. It made perfect sense within that universe, and it was only a punishment insofar as it derailed you from whatever objective you happened to be working on beforehand. In and of itself, the prison level was actually very fun (as was billy clubbing the warden everyone seemed to be so afraid of). And I remember thinking when I played it “why don’t more games do this?”

    Well, cost and time are obvious factors, but I actually can’t think of a more recent game that’s attempted anything similar.

  34. Icarus says:

    BioShock rocks the rock. My friend recently finished it, and talking about it with him made me feel like going back and replaying it, focusing on different plasmids this time around.

  35. Ian Dorsch says:

    I don’t care what anyone says, Bioshock is great. It’s easily one of the best FPS games of the last five years and one of my all time favorites. I look forward to the update.

  36. Caiman says:

    I had a curious change of heart with Bioshock. I was enjoying it immensely up to “the big reveal” but then I had to leave it be for a couple of weeks due to work. When I returned, the magic bubble had gone “poof” and I was left feeling very frustrated by the game. It didn’t help that Olympic Heights was perhaps the worst place I could have stopped, especially as it removed my ability to select plasmids. This made the process of reminding myself how to play the game vastly more infuriating. I blasted through the last couple of levels hardly caring anymore, just wanting it to finish so I could start playing Portal, and ultimately I ended up with a very soured experience. Of course, this is a similar reaction to watching the last 20 minutes of your favourite movie two weeks later. All the more reason, I realise, that I need shorter games these days.

    Incidentally, I was also infuriated like no game before it that I’d made the wrong moral choice earlier in the game. You know the one. It really hit me hard. And suddenly I glimpsed a little of that magic once more.

  37. Dracko says:

    The one where you help them out? That was certainly insulting, yes.

  38. Muzman says:

    Yeah, they wanted to make a bit deal out of that first one, but you don’t see what happens. Suppose I could live with that (I think the POV should just look away a la Reservoir Dogs meself), but afterwards you’ve got no indication of what happened. If after the screen goes haywire and there’s some slug clutching there was a dead little girl on the ground, Tennenbaum’s subsequent lecture would actually have meant something to me. You know, cause and effect and all that. Maybe it’s because they were trying to save it up for later when you meet them (A bunch of little girls tending to the corpses of their dead friends they have retrieved then? Probably would have knocked me on my arse, Other’sMMV), or worried about ratings or whatever. It didn’t work very well is all I’m saying. Pity.

    The Vita-Chambers were never the problem. Reviving in System Shock 2 didn’t take away from its atmosphere or the gameplay.

    Others might have mentioned this, but they had to be activated and they cost you. And that was the initial plan with Bioshock as well it seems. That works perfectly anyway. Bioshock, like the other Shocks before it is mostly about mastering a given space. Without a respawn chamber branching out into a new area becomes more tense. You’re flying without a parachute for a while in an unfamiliar area. You really don’t want to nerf death in your immersive horror game. That makes sense to me, and I did feel that I was just going through the motions thanks to those things after a “dying” a couple of times, though people keep telling me it doesn’t matter.

  39. malkav11 says:

    *shrugs* I was expecting Bioshock to be amazing. It was amazing. It’s easily my favorite singleplayer game this year. Things did fall off a bit after the big reveal, but not that much, I thought.

    My only real beef is the complete lack of moral complexity with the Little Sisters. I was expecting a little more there. (In fact, I was expecting a route where you just left them alone, as all the previews had suggested you could. And I didn’t want to kill the Big Daddies, as they were rather endearing. No such luck.)

    And yes, they talked a bigger game than they wound up delivering, but I really hate it when people judge a game based on how it compares to what was promised in earlier development. Previews are always exciting and pie-in-the-sky big talk. The reality, usually less so. But as long as the game is still a good game, who cares if it’s not the second coming of Christ like they said it would be?

  40. Crispy says:

    I have to disagree on the argument that ‘dying destroys the suspension of disbelief’. In my opinion it positively contributes towards it.

    If I have no fear and no challenge I just feel like I’m playing a game which someone has made easier to keep more people happy and sell more copies. Without the fear of death I don’t have to strategise, I don’t have take care, I don’t need to use cover; I can just deathmatch through everything like some sort of superhuman.

    In a first-person shooter (or anything with a first-person combat dynamic), I need to know I can die and that it poses a consequence in order to understand my own (character’s) mortality. Without a real and authentic portrayal of death a game for me will just play out like a dream sequence.

  41. Kieron Gillen says:

    I think it’s probably more the loading pause destroys the suspension of disbelief.


  42. Caiman says:

    What’s really interesting about what Crispy says is that while Vita-Chambers also reduce the fear of dying and tension for me, the alternative (reloading after I’ve died) doesn’t kill the suspense. Is that odd, or is it just me?

  43. n3utr0n says:

    I pretty much agree with Crispy here (and am going to completely repeat him now :P). Most people seem to justify the Vita Chambers from a gameplay perspective, but the problem I have with it is simply that if the character I am playing as cannot actually die within the continuity of the game world (y’know, on his side of the fourth wall, or something), then the character himself has no reason to fear death. Hence I, the player, feel no tension or fear on behalf of the character.

    I know that the game explains the Vita Chambers and integrates them into the plot, but when mortality and the fear of it is removed in a game of this type then everything degenerates into gameplay mechanics, chipping off health bars and legging it from the respawn point back to the last place you died. A deathmatch rather than an immersive simulated world.

  44. n3utr0n says:

    Caiman nope it’s not odd at all. I think the difference between reloading and respawning is that reloading happens outside the “game world” (whatever that means). This is going to sound contrived but when you pause/exit the game and go for a piss, the suspense isn’t killed because the game world is separate from our world, it’s on a different timeline. So when you die and reload, you’re essentially ignoring the timeline where you die and dipping back into an earlier one and continuing on a different route. Suspense isn’t killed with reloading because as far as the game character is concerned (whoa weird) the timeline in which he died has never happened. Prince Of Persia The Sands of Time really went with this idea :P

  45. Rockeye says:

    If the patch makes it more stable on my pc so that I don’t have to disable specific graphics options before loading a game to avoid it crashing, I’ll be pleased. It’s the game I’ve had the most trouble getting to work in a long time. I had thought the days of fighting with a PC game to actually get it to run were over, and I nearly didn’t have the patience to get Bioshock running. After all, I have the Orange Box which runs perfectly well without me messing about.

  46. R. says:

    I’ll hold my hands up and say I found it one of the most tiresome and dull gaming experiences in recent memory. I’ve no technical complaints, it ran fine for me and the atmosphere, the art deco design of Rapture, the story told through the recorder tapes dotted about and the character of Sander Cohen were wonderfully done but the gameplay was mediocre in the extreme and ultimately, that’s what matters to me. The combat with the splicers and Big Daddies was mind-numbingly dull, the plasmids felt like little more than an afterthought and the absurdly hyped moral quandry with the Little Sisters was extremely disappointing, as was the scene with Ryan and the subsequent convoluted reveal. Worst of all, it felt like at least 50% of the game was spent playing bloody Pipemania.

    I don’t know, the whole thing with its absurdly positive reviews smacked of something so many were pinning their hopes on for revitalising the scene that they all just blindly told themselves it was this incredible masterpiece than face up to the unpleasant truth of what a massive letdown it was. I persevered as far as I could but once Portal showed up, it didn’t get another look-in. It may be a mere fraction of the length but it squeezed in more charm, atmosphere, excellent storytelling *and* gameplay in that time than Bioshock managed in more than twice the time.

  47. Piratepete says:

    Personally I am a bugger for ‘holes’ in a story. How come if you could use a Vita chamber the splicers couldn’t? Why build these hundreds of Vita chambers (and advertise them on posters) if none of the citizenship of rapture could use them, but the player. Thats the problem I have with them. They could have even avoided that but having the occasional splicer or even Big Daddy use it to revive after you killed them. For a game that tried so hard to hide its mechanics in its plot, and 95% of the time did it remarkably well, the Vita chambers just ruined it for me.

  48. Dexton says:

    It’s cool to hate popular things, this is where I think the backlash is coming from.

    Personally I like Bioshock and will reserve my anti-popularist hate for teh Haloz.

  49. ShineDog says:

    “How come if you could use a Vita chamber the splicers couldn’t?”

    Uh, this is quite clearly addressed in the game, although i did wonder in the run up to that.

  50. Piratepete says:

    Is it? Where? How does that work then?