The muzzle isnt for the kids benefit, its for the rest of us!

Yep, that is why the plot of Infinite was to me more a bunch of not fully thought through but cool sounding concepts instead of a proper and fully consistent story and world. I like the game for its art style, game play and atmosphere, but it is 100 % not making sense.

And now that you spell it out to me, I never realized before how directly contradicting that ending was to the whole concept of Bioshock 1.

Because to me it lost the point at the moment where they said:

Thanks for explaining it to me in more detail.

While I understand what you mean and agree that Infinite and its DLCs throws everything before out the window, I would argue that Fontaine was just the first bullet that killed Rapture but there were many more bullets waiting in the magazine, so to say. The oppression and inherent wrongness of Rapture, including the addictive behaviour of Adam combined with the inherent and even desired power structures would have driven it down the drain either way. Probably later than the New Years Eve party, but it was in my mind always on a path of self destruction.

And yeah, BioShock 2 was done without the involvement of Ken Levine, so he sadly didn’t really saw it as part of “his baby”. I liked BioShock 2 and Infinite, but Infinite felt more like an alternate canon spin off than part of the main series. For me they are simply similar but different beings, not of the same continuity.

So is it like saying

non-greek polytheistic pantheons didnt have Zeus

?

Can you explain it to me inside a spoiler? I played all from BioShock till BioShock Infinite & its DLCs years ago and can’t remember how it directly justifies Ryan?

Push to talk isn’t an option?

The text directly above it says Noworossiya, so something like New Russia.

After checking wikipedia: its the flag of the New Russia party in the Russian occupied regions of Ukraine.

No, not really.

Because if you do think about it, you would realize that a wide variety of species shows a wide variety of different behaviours. Which in turn means that all these opposing ways of behaviour are indeed natural, but not necessary natural for humans, as they are contradictory to each other. Or if you want to follow your proposed line of thought to the logical end, I await your proof of human males attaching to the much bigger female and atrophying to a simple ball of sacks for insemination as angler fishes are proven to do.

Or to make the point even more direct: the whole concept of laws to give or take ownership is in itself so counter to all other animals behaviour that it is ludicrous to try and argue any part of that is in any kind of way natural. Or by definition of ‘humans as animals’ would mean any political system we adopt is natural by design.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

There are special subdivisions with certain extra features, but the bare bones definition is just that.