Box Art


  • zombi3grim - December 3, 2012 6:36 a.m.

    Im somewhere in the middle. I could really do without the American flag burning in the background. As someone who fought for this country and has a brother currently in Afghanistan, it is a little disrespectfull. Go ahead and bash me about it. You guys wont understand unless you lived the life.
  • winner2 - December 3, 2012 7 a.m.

    If it makes you feel any better, I don't think they intended the flag burning to show any kind of disrespect toward the country, but rather to give a sense of the chaos that you'll find in game.
  • zombi3grim - December 3, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    I know WHY the flag is burning. But to feature it prominently on the cover of the box to me is disrespectfull. I get you want to draw attention to your game. But men have died for that flag. REAL men, not call of duty players. People have been shot at and went through hell for what that flag represents. It was in poor taste, regardless of why its there. Those are my feelings on it anyways.
  • bass88 - December 3, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    While I respect your opinion but I don't agree that it is in poor taste. I feel that the burning flag represents the destruction of American values - a theme that the game explores (well, it's supposed to - we can't comment until it's released). So I believe it is justified in its appearence. Sorry. And may your brother remain safe.
  • zombi3grim - December 3, 2012 4:21 p.m.

    Like I said, I understand WHY its there. I get it. I know the developers did not intentionally mean to disrespect the flag or our country. BUT if you have never served in the military and have never seen people close to you get wounded or die for that flag, you wont get it. Show this cover to a combat vet and the burning flag will be the first thing they notice.
  • bass88 - December 4, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    I understand that you get it. I'm merely offering my viewpoint. No, I have never fought for my country. I considered enrolling but the Iraq war left a sour taste in my mouth. And while I don't buy into the idea that only those who fight for their country "get it" (because it implies the invalid have no concept of patriotism), I decided to ask some soldiers I know (btw, they're British). I showed them (three of them) an image of a UK flag in flames and asked what they thought. They only asked why it is on fire. I said it was no reason in particular to which they responded that they didn't know how to feel. One admitted to feeling shocked at seeing the flag but he didn't find it offensive. I asked them about did it not enrage them to see what they fight for in flames. One quickly responded with (and I quote) "We don't fight for the flag. We fight for what it symbolises. Only an idiot fights for a flag!" When they asked me why I was asking them these questions, I told them about your feelings and showed them the box art. They said they understand you feeling shocked but they didn't consider it offensive. Sorry if I offended you in this post (it wasn't my intention) but I felt I should ask those in the know before I mouth off again.
  • zombi3grim - December 4, 2012 5:54 p.m.

    First of all, Im not "shocked" or "enraged." Im not even pissed off. I just find it disrespectfull. To me, someone who has very recently fought in a war and who has a brother that, right now, is fighting in a war, its disrespectfull. And its not the flag itself, it IS what it symolizes. Of course, I dont give a fuck about a flag. But I DO care about what it means. Those Marines who raised it in Iwo Jima did not do that just to see it burned in artistic representations of entertainment. Yes, in America, you need to serve and protect your country if you value any sort of patriotism. Otherwise, you come across as a hypocrite. I dont know how it is over there in Europe. I know they helped us out a little bit in Iraq, but pulled out as quickly as they could. We're still fighting in Afghanistan and I dont see hide nor hair of them over there. Not saying their deffinition of patriotism is different then ours. Just sayin when shit looks like its getting rough, their quick to leave.
  • bass88 - December 5, 2012 2:33 a.m.

    Please forgive me for sounding dense (I'm slightly autistic). I'm just trying to understand how you find it disrespectful. You said you understand the artistic implications of the image so I'd assume that means you wouldn't find it disrespectful. Look, if I am annoying you constantly with this just tell me to stop (you can private message me if you want) and I will. I'm sincere in these posts and I really don't want to cause offence. P.S. I don't like the flag burning either. It comes across as a.lazy way of saying "Oh, look, America is falling." It may have worked better if it simply wasn't behind a generic action pose. P.P.S The UK is still in Afghanistan, but not for long: And the families of these people will be sure glad to know that their efforts were insignificant in comparison to the US efforts:
  • zombi3grim - December 5, 2012 8:38 a.m.

    Its very hard to explain why it bothers me. You really have to serve to understand it. When I said I get WHY they did it, I didnt mean they SHOULD have done it. They could have put a little more thought, especially featuring that prominently on the cover of their game. As far as the UK being in Afghanistan, I know their still there. You just dont see them. They stay in the green zone and are basically the USA's secretaries. They really dont do any combat now over there. And for their families, hey, Im sorry, but it seemed to me the entire point of them going over there was just so they could say they went and not to really DO anything.
  • bass88 - December 5, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    Thanks for your response. I'll leave it at that. I'm sure you're sick of talking about it now. As for British soldiers, I'm sure they're just hiding from the US troops in case this happens again: P.S. Best wishes to your brother.
  • zombi3grim - December 5, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    No problem. Take it from someone who has been there. Half of what the media says about shit overseas is not true and exageratted.
  • wesley-simmons - December 3, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    It's impossible to bring up a subject like this without stepping on a few toes. It sucks that you're offended, but they're not condoning the burning of American flags or siding with any terrorists. The studio is merely trying to bring attention to a particular issue.
  • alex-roy-bristol - December 3, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    That's a legit complaint, and I would also like to personally thank you for your and your family's contribution to our freedom! Thanks bro! :J
  • patbateman17 - December 3, 2012 7:03 a.m.

    I was more excited by the "Includes the Original Bioshock!" on the PS3 version, but yeah this is a bit derivative off of the Uncharted 1 cover. Not that it makes much difference either way really.
  • pl4y4h - December 3, 2012 7:25 a.m.

    It's so..........plain. It's like a sleeper car: Boring on the outside, powerful (and in this case entertaining) on the inside.
  • bamit11 - December 3, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    To tell the truth, I would like it better with just the logo, and that's what I thought it was going to be.
  • Luchalma - December 3, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    It's generic, which is something we don't think of when we think Bioshock. I'm just disappointed that with the level of art design we know this series is capable of we couldn't get much more than a guy with a gun. It gets points for being colorful though.
  • bedelicious - December 3, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    I like it, it has character :D
  • chazzy_chef - December 3, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Why is the lead being played by Crispin Glover?
  • BladedFalcon - December 3, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    Could have been more original, certainly, but as it is, the composition is still pretty cool, very colorful, and Booker looks bad-ass. It doesn't break the mold, but I like it, specially since indicates that this time they are treating the main protagonist as, y'know, the MAIN protagonist. Unlike the first Bioshock in which the protagonist was so devoid of character that they instead put a random big daddy in the cover XD
  • Commmand0Brand0 - December 3, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    He wasn't devoid of character. YOU were the character. Everything you thought or said was what he said. Not to mention *SPOILER* that you were brainwashed the whole time.
  • BladedFalcon - December 3, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    "He wasn't devoid of character. YOU were the character. Everything you thought or said was what he said." No he didn't, and no he wasn't me. And yes, i get that's the entire point of the narrative structure, and it works pretty well for the game. But he's still a game character that I controlled, and the brainwashing thing if anything only explains the meta aspect of why gamers HAVE to do what the game demands them to do in order to proceed. But that in itself didn't imbue Jack with any of my personality. Basically, what i tried to say earlier, is that I like that this time around, the main protagonist does seem to have a proper personality of it's own. Like I said, the experiment with Jack in the first Bioshock worked well because one didn't expect it. But I'm glad they are taking a different approach this time around.
  • ObliqueZombie - December 3, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    While no where as moody or foreboding as its predecessor's, I can still come to like it. Booker DeWitt, from what I've seen, is going to be an awesome character backed by the stellar Troy Baker, so I can't fault them for using him on the cover. The burning American flag is a nice touch. It does, however, flare on the side of generic. With the brooding protagonist shouldering his gun after a supposedly bad day, they could've done something more with his pose. But, great coloring, great composition, crisp pictures, and overall great. I like it!
  • nintendo365 - December 3, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    Looks too similar to the MW2 box art. Single guy, long barreled weapon, spark effects. I dont think it really shows the madness of this game, it makes it look like just another shooter. Now if it had the GW mech thing or showed the city, itd be great.
  • MyCoolWhiteLies - December 3, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    Someone pointed out that it looks like the reverse image from the Uncharted 1 box art, which is strangely accurate. Overall, I think it's pretty underwhelming, considering the amazing content they have to pull from. I think the design of the Songbird is amazing, and it's a shame they feel they can't feature it. It seems really obvious to me that someone up high decided that they needed to have a cover that looked similar to all the most popular shooters out there today.

Showing 21-40 of 64 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.