|
Some
people argue very passionately for having your own tech, completely, and
totally owning it, but I guess it's a big difference if you have a completely
dedicated tech division or something like that.
CK: Yeah. Well, it's also -- What are you
selling your game on? What's the thing you really want people to get excited
about in your game? Do you want them to get excited about the fact that you
have your own physics engine? Well, we don't; we want them to be excited about
the fact that you can do all these cool things with physics, in the world.
So, for us, we would rather spend our time
doing awesome gameplay, awesome narrative, awesome visuals, rather than spending
two years just trying to get something that's not even barely equivalent to the
kind of middleware that's out on the market right now.
Yeah,
I think the rationale is, customizing it to specifically what you need, but
then the danger is that you don't always know what you need until you need it,
so...
CK: Well the thing that we learned is, you
definitely have to take it and run with it; not be afraid to change it. And the
critical thing is that you really need -- middleware is not an excuse to skimp
on hiring a core technology team.
You still need those hardcore, low-level
guys, who can get in there and do what needs to be done to make and support
your kind of game. And, luckily, at 2K Australia,
we have some of the best guys in the business, and they did a lot of the heavy lifting
on BioShock, and that was critical
for us.
For
you, building this game over multiple years, how did you have to work, with the
kind of technology changes that were going on? Because, obviously, you built it
as high spec as possible, but over three years, that changes a lot, and
expectations change a lot. How much did that influence what you had to do?
CK: Well, luckily, we set our sights pretty
high when we started out on BioShock,
and we designed our technology assuming that we would be working on a next-gen
console of some kind -- and also on PC. Fairly high on PC, because we were
starting early, we knew hardware would catch up.
There were some difficulties
-- moving towards a multi-core, heavily multi-threaded game engine is a
challenge. Even if you use middleware, trying to find the right way to maximize
that, on a console and on a PC, is a difficult challenge. And that's why you
need some core tech guys who can help you with that.
And there were other curveballs that were
thrown our way, like DirectX 10 coming out, and we wanted to show support for
that. I think, overall, the challenges were the same challenges as any other
project, just different -- like they are every time.

2K Boston/2K Australia's BioShock
In
terms of the multi-threading and multi-core stuff, how do you think that you
fared? Do you think that there's a long way to go for you guys, in your tech?
CK: Well I think we totally maxed out what
we could eke out of our tech on the Xbox 360. There's probably still some room in
there, by changing the way that we do things -- and that's what we're working
on, on the next title -- but we're pretty happy with what we got working on the
360.
On the PC side... PC is so difficult,
because you have to -- everything you design, you have to say, "OK, here's
this great, awesome thing we can do, and we can put that in multi-core...
Unless the consumer doesn't have that."
So it's like, you always have to be coming
up with these awesome visions, and then figure out how you're going to scale
them down. That's frustrating. It's liberating, because you know the PC's going
to have the top hardware out there at the time, but it introduces a lot of time
into the development process, and it can also be a frustrating effort, as well,
trying to figure out how to make it scale, so you can hit the whole audience.
Moving
Toward a True Shared Medium
While
it is indeed true that middleware helps you get started, and that you have to
bolt on your own stuff, it does feel like a lot of people are solving the same
problems independently. Like, it would be really nice if, at some point -- like
with movies, you've got a camera, you've got editing tools, you've got, like, known
quantities that anyone that makes movies can use. Do you think that we'll ever
get to that stage for games?
CK: You think everyone will be on the same
game engine or something?
Not
necessarily the same game engine -- well, yeah, I guess, essentially, like,
"Alright, this is how my lighting engine will work, because this is how
those work."
CK: I think that eventually the technology
is going to get to the point where engines can provide enough flexibility to
let people work the way they want to work, and people are going to stop
worrying as much about the details, and start focusing on the art and the
artifice of game development.
And that's really critical; we're going to
move more toward what the movies have, where they have one game engine, and it's
called "the camera and the editing suite", and what they focus on is
creating these emotional experiences. And that's what we should be doing, as
developers, is not creating a technological experience, and creating a
menu-driven experience; what we want to be doing is creating an emotional
experience for the player.
|
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.
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.
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.