Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Base under the waves Vs. Base in the sky (1 Viewer)

Stormcat

Senior Member
I'm a gamer as well as a writer, and one of my all-time favorite game series is BioShock. It's truly a masterful series, bringing in philosophical questions, moral choices, and top-notch art, gameplay, and music. But what has inspired me most is the settings of the games

The first two games took place in an underwater city called "Rapture". No, this place wasn't populated with fish people, it was populated by regular, air-breathing humans. The city was completely self-contained and self-sufficient, at least until the whole civil war starts. The third game in the series takes place in a floating sky city called "Columbia". Like Rapture, it was self-contained and self-sufficient, at least until the whole civil war starts. However, Columbia had the ability to travel all around the world thanks to some fancy handwavium technology.

These settings inspired my own writing in a way. I want to construct a base for the rebel alliance based on either "Rapture" or "Columbia". Problem is, I can only build one base and I can't decide which one to pick. I'll try to list out the pros and cons from a strategical as well as a writing perspective, but I could use some other people to bounce ideas off of.

"Rapture"/ Underwater base"Columbia"/ Flying Sky base
Pros-Harder to find
-Unlikely to be damaged by inclement weather
-No fuel cost is needed to keep operational
-Can move about when needed
-easier transportation of goods/people
Cons-Harder to maintain from an engineering perspective/ corrosion due to seawater
-cannot easily transport supplies/people to the surface or back down
-If discovered, cannot be relocated
-Anybody with a pilot's license has a chance of accidentally discovering it.
-It'll be easier to destroy with missiles or crashes
-May require more fuel/energy to keep in the air
-Possibly at greater risk of damage from inclement weather
 

K.S. Crooks

Senior Member
Rapture- use geothermal or tidal energy, people become stronger and have denser bones due to living under greater pressure

Columbia- use solar or wind energy, people develop greater lung capacity and efficiency due to living at higher altitude.
 

Stormcat

Senior Member
Rapture- use geothermal or tidal energy, people become stronger and have denser bones due to living under greater pressure

Columbia- use solar or wind energy, people develop greater lung capacity and efficiency due to living at higher altitude.
But people won't be living there long enough for those changes to take effect. Unlike these cities, people on the base, wherever it is built, will be able to come and go as needed.
 

Just_Phil

Senior Member
I personally prefer Columbia. Something about Rapture seems so stagnant. Like, coming and going from the base would be much ado, and if the location is ever discovered thats it. Columbia has a freedom to it that I enjoy. But this may be because I'm biased to skyfleets and skypirates myself lol
 

Travalgar

Senior Member
Nah, I skimmed past your pros and cons. Rebel base floating in the sky just seemed cooler. Structures underwater can never beat the glamor, freedom, and prestige of a flying castle!
 
Top