|
How
is that going to happen when everybody's working so separately?
CK: Well, that's why we have events like
GDC; we have books out there; you actually see some companies in the industry,
now, looking at sharing technologies, and saying, "Hey, this is not
critical intellectual property! Let's just give it to you guys; we want to see
better games, too!"
I
hope that starts happening more.
CK: I think that's one of the big things
I've learned in the games industry: that it's really not about the technology,
it's about execution.
And so, one of the great things is that at 2K Boston,
we have people who've been working together for upwards of 11 years now, and we
have people who are really good at what they do, so we can take our time, and
focus on executing. And that's where we really want to stand out from the
crowd.
I
keep wondering if we're finally going to get to that place where we could stop
worrying so much about graphics, and the tech, and eventually -- I mean,
getting to that place where it's like, "OK, now, really, finally, yes, we
have to make the gameplay be the primary thing." It felt like in BioShock there was less emphasis on "everything
has to have a billion polygons", versus "the universe has to feel
like a place that you can be". So it felt like one of those games that was
going in that direction. Do you think that we're getting there?
CK: I think we have to get there; that's
the direction you have to go in. People are reaching that plane... You can
always push technology further and further, but I think people are getting
tired of shelling out money for something that can push a couple extra
polygons. What they're excited about is giving them those new kinds of
emotional experiences, that they haven't been able to have before.
So [that's] what we're excited about, and
we're starting on our follow-up project, which unfortunately I can't tell you
about, but... On the record, I guess what I'll say is, we were really excited
about how we were able to take a really deep and complicated and mature style
of gameplay, and bring it to a much wider audience, and we're thinking, now, on
the next title, maybe we can push it a little farther.
Like, now that we've figured out how to
introduce complex concepts in game style and player growth issues, why don't we
start introducing more depth? Can we make these games deeper, and keep the
universe as engrossing and enveloping as BioShock
was, but give people more choice, and even more freedom? That's our challenge,
and I can't wait to show you guys.
Making
a Game Work for Multiple Players
Can
you do that without alienating people like me?
CK: Well, I think it goes back to what we
tried to do on BioShock, which was: provide
a path for every style of gamer. Or as many as you can... You know, something
that Ken talked about at his GDC talk in San
Francisco, was that everything
has to work on multiple levels.
So, you need something there for the
hardcore story nerd who's going to be picking up every audio diary, and piecing
together the back story; and then people like my friend, who I watched play,
and he missed almost all of the audio logs, missed everything.
But he was
having a wonderful time just going around and looking at everything, and
getting into crazy encounters. It's a challenge. It's a challenge to focus and
drive the gameplay forward, but it's a challenge we embrace.
I
think the danger is with the slightly more casual player not knowing that
casual path is. I'm walking by, and I see a grate, and I see an audio thing
back there, it's like, "Oh, I've got to get that thing! How do I get
there?" And then I'll spend a while figuring that out. And if those options
are presented, I think it's quite difficult to know, whether I am biting off
more than I can chew, by going after this thing that I can see. Or by trying to
mix and match plasmids, and stuff like that.
CK: Well I think another thing you'll see...
We have an engineer, working for a long time, like a year, on the system.
Something that we designed from the start on BioShock is something that we call the Adaptive Training System;
this is a system, it's almost like a mini AI in itself, and it sits there and
it knows the things you can do in the world.
More importantly, it has a concept of what
it thinks you should know how to do. And it watches you as you're playing, so
say, you know, you don't know how to jump, so it says, "OK, by this time,
the player should know how to jump. If he doesn't, prompt him. But if he does,
don't waste his time."
And that watches you throughout the whole
game, because -- frankly, these games are long, and people don't have a lot of
time. You play it, you put it down, and some people can't remember the
controls; a system should be there to help you move forward in that kind of
situation. Or you forgot that you could hide from security cameras, or
something like that.
We really don't like tutorials at all; we
don't want some space marine saying, "ALRIGHT, LISTEN UP! THIS IS HOW
YOU'RE GOING TO WALK!" I think people are tired of that.
What they want is
to jump in, start playing, and have a little system that's there, a little
friend that says, "Hey! I bet you didn't know about this... Or, you used
to know about it! You could use it in this situation, and I notice that you
haven't used it in the last twenty times you could, so I'm just going to give
you a quick reminder."
|
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.