But if it turns out that the reason why a player helps Atlas is not a playful impulse that we graciously accept to enjoy the game, but the story dictated to us, which once caused our alarm, becomes an insult. In the context of the story, if I reject the objective approach, I can help Atlas and confront Ryan and if I choose the objective approach, which is shameful. I can stop playing the game, but that’s all. Because of the contrast between narrative and game elements of the work, the game seems to openly ridicule the player who believes in the fiction of the game in the first place. However, it should be noted that Bioshock goes beyond this and, through the use of Little Sisters, dramatically links this mechanical contract game with history. The “spin” of the story is “Dues ex machina”, which is based on the weaknesses of the game’s plots, and which we, as players, accept to obtain a narrative basis that embellishes our manipulations of the game’s mechanisms. Here lies, at least for me, the real genius of the game. In this scene even the casual player sees one of the most fundamental imaginations in the concept of the game, even if, as they say, the structure of the game could not fully reward the awareness of this imagination. As the development of such games becomes more and more expensive, the “Holy Grail” – a game in which the player can really expand “his” capabilities – should seem even more remote. Thus, the game contract works in the sense that I feel that the themes of the game are expressed through mechanisms. Hence, the range of storytelling options for the player is as linear as in the previous game. To move forward in the game, I must do what the Atlas says, because the game does not give me the freedom to choose my side in the conflict between Ryan and Atlas. Your character in the game never responds emotionally to the Atlas calls for help, so you, as a player, must find your position here.