The Instigator
gaarafan15
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Angeles
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bioshock 3 would be a bad idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 11806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

gaarafan15

Pro

I shall be arguing that created a bioshock 3 would be a bad idea. First, let me explain a little about Bioshock, for those who do not know what it is.

Bioshock is a video games series for PS3, Xbox 360, and PC, and takes place in the mid 1900's. Bioshock 3 takes place in the underwater city of Rapture, a "utopia" free of governmet, created by a name named Andrew Ryan. To make a long story short, the people of Rapture found a way to modify their genes using a certain type of sea slug found near Rapture to give them amazing abilities, from burning things with a snap of your fingers, to using telekinisis. The only downside: It deterierorates their minds and bodies. Rapture is a ruined shadow of what it once was, and combined with the inhabitans (dubbed splicers) the game is truly a interesting and terrifying game.

Now, I am a huge fan of Bioshock 1 and 2, but their are problems with number 2. First off, Bioshock two was far too familiar, taking away the "scare" factor. We've been to Rapture before, so, yeah. Been there, done that. If this problem arrises in only the second game, what about the third? Bioshock 2 couldn't possibly take place any where else then Rapture, then it wouldn;t be Bioshock. Another problem is the villians. Bioshock 1 contained truly contained some disturbed and ruthless people, while number 2, lacked that. Again, What could number 3 possibly bring that the other 2 didn't?

I await my oppoent, and wish them luck.
Angeles

Con

Fallout 3.
Debate Round No. 1
gaarafan15

Pro

I'm not sure what my opponent means by Fallout 3, as this debate is about Bioshock, not Fallout.
Angeles

Con

Angeles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
gaarafan15

Pro

gaarafan15 forfeited this round.
Angeles

Con

Angeles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
i still havent finished the first bioshock its just sitting on top of my other games
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
gaarafan15AngelesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked the simplicity of con's rebuttal, yet he failed to answer the cross examination.