GAME JOBS
Contents
Thinking BioShock: From Tech to Philosophy
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Sledgehammer Games / Activision
Level Designer (Temporary)
 
High Moon / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [1]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [3]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Thinking BioShock: From Tech to Philosophy
by Brandon Sheffield [Design, Interview, North America]
3 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
August 8, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 5 Next
 

The State of the Hardcore Market

It seems to me, in terms of the packaged PC market, the hardcore-oriented stuff is going to have to not be as big budget as it used to be; you can't really make Crysis and expect people to play it. Did you see Ben Cousins' Battlefield Heroes talk? That's definitely a direction that PC gaming is going to get bigger, but I think the hardcore is going to have to shrink or change.

CK: I don't see the hardcore going away... I think there is still going to be a market for that audience, 'til the end of time. What we tried to do on BioShock was say that, "OK, here's this kind of game, that we love playing..." We know gamers are intelligent, we know that they want a game that's complex, with a mature story, and complicated gameplay that's very empowering.



We said to ourselves, "OK, well that's the kind of game that we made, with System Shock 2, and critics loved it, so why didn't it sell well?" And we don't think it was because the gameplay was very deep; we thought it was, really, just that it wasn't presented very well.

And so I think that's what you're seeing with stuff like Battlefield Heroes, is that people are trying to say -- this is fun gameplay, right? And there's a huge market for it on the hardcore side, but there must be an even bigger market, if you can take that kind of fun and bring it to a more casual audience.

And it's really all in presentation; that's something that we spent a lot of time on in BioShock, to try and present these very complicated ideas to the player in the right way, so that they understood it, and they enjoyed it. It's all about presentation.

It seems it's like a good thing to do, and also a difficult thing to do, in the way that it was done, because you've got all of your messaging going through the hardcore gamer channel. In the case of marketing the game as a shooter, since you're going through the hardcore channels, there are going to be people who remember how you were marketing it before, and be like, "What's the deal?" So it seems like a difficult balance...

CK: You know, we have to rely on our hardcore audience, and expand that to a bigger audience. So, you don't want to alienate your hardcore audience. And, often, the hardest thing for us is... we always hit this thing, we're like, "Oh, these guys are dumbing it down for the console gamers!"

And that's not what we're doing; getting that message across is very difficult, to the hardcore audience; we're not trying to make the game any less complicated. If anything, BioShock, in many ways, was deeper than System Shock 2, and it was just all about trying to find a right way to present it, so that more people could enjoy it.

I mean, I'm not a super hardcore player; I'm very much in the arcade style of games. I really enjoyed BioShock, because it had these really great moments, and it had awesome visuals, and scenario design, and great moments. But I stopped at hour twelve, because it took too long, there were getting to be too many plasmids, and I was going to have to make my own weapons, and it just... the slope got too high for me.

CK: Well I'm sorry you stopped, but I'm glad you were able to enjoy it, nonetheless. That was one thing we really tried to do, is try to make a game that is very complex, and with a lot of player choice, and a lot of combat choice, and emergence -- but also make it work on a lot of different levels.

If you're a guy who likes to run through and shoot things with a gun, you can play the game that way; if you're someone who wants to manipulate the world, and trick creatures into doing things for you, you can do things that way as well. So we tried to provide an experience that was narratively guided, but allowed you to branch out into whatever direction really got you excited.

The Best Way to Use Tech

You developed it, basically, on Unreal Engine 2, and do you, in retrospect, think that it was a better choice to do that, versus to completely roll your own engine?

CK: It was the right choice for us. Middleware is, I think, a critical component of any big title, going forward, because, you know, people can't afford to spend the time writing all that stuff, if you want to compete. And those guys do their job better than we do, in a lot of ways.

But at the time, we were really new into the console cycle, and we were just very worried that -- we had very specific goals, in terms of gameplay, and also in terms of schedule, and we didn't want to be stuck waiting around for middleware to catch up. I think it was the right decision for us -- on the next title, maybe we'll make a different decision, but I think it was the right one at the right time.

 
Article Start Previous Page 2 of 5 Next
 
Top Stories

image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
Comments

Chris Melby
profile image
I could not finish this game on the PC, but would do so on the Wii.



System Shock is the best single-player gaming experiences I've had. It's the most immersive and terrifying game I've played. SS2 was somewhat of a let down -- it was unbalanced and incomplete, but BioShock, well this was a blow to the Shock lineage. It felt like I was on a Disney ride and there's only so many times one can sit through Mr. Toad before they get bored. There was never any real concern with this game. It felt like an ordinary FPS.



This is a game I wish had only been made for the PC, then later ported to the 360/consoles.



When you guys develop games for a PlaySkool controller, there are compromises that have to be made that effect the game-play way more than visuals. No amount of eye-candy can cover up the games underlying lack of complexity.



All of the sophistication of the previous Shocks had been ripped to accommodate a thumb-stick. BioShock was nothing more than a Disney FPS. Having no menu system was a poor decision, more so than the super-fragile weapons in SS2.



I'm serious about the Wii comment. I have lots of fun with its controls for FPS games like MOH2, or games like RE4. It would add that extra something to BioShock that would at least make the experience new -- if done right, so not tacked on -- that will get me to finish it. Then just maybe I'll forget about this game's shortcomings when compared to its predecessors and see its ending on my TV, instead of on YouTube.



If you guys are making console games first, I'd rather it be built to the Wii's strenghts, because at least its controls are better suited for PC games than the 360 or PS3's default option. At least support the mouse on the PS3. Graphics can always come second in my book, since they attribute the least to what makes a game great.

Steve Roach
profile image
"You know, I just threw away my desktop at home, because I was tired of trying to get my hard drive to work, or figuring out my power supply... It's nice to come home and just have a console, power it on, and enjoy gaming. I don't think you need to limit your audience or your style of game, based on what you're developing for."



You know, we PC Gamers are not stupid. We all get that you'd like everyone to throw out their Desktop PCs and buy a console, but we are not buying into that. Some of us take pride in our gaming rigs, and our ability to troubleshoot our PC problems.



Some of us remember the glory days of pc gaming, and don't care for dumbed-down console offerings.

Peter Park
profile image
It seems like people are over-stressing "freedom." It must be noted that more choice does not directly translate into players' satisfaction, as some psychologists found out--less choice actually gives us more happiness, not more choice.



So, instead of overloading players with choices, give them only the ones that are really important. Give them choices how to look at events, choices on how to react to events in game. Don't give them more weapons, more magic, more items, choice to slash or shoot.



If there's one lesson to be learned from Mass Effect, it's that we can give players ability to *customize* story-telling; player can influence actors to have certain attitudes, even if it's not really story-changing. This is surprisingly satisfying. I would have loved it so much more, if it was more of an interactive-novel where it's loaded with dialogues and more interesting plot and events san run-and-gun segments where no character development (meaningful one, not level-up) takes place.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech