|
The
HUD was pretty well integrated. Somehow, I think it was the graphic design of
it, really, that made it feel like it was part of things. Like it was part of
that world. It didn't wind up being, like, "It's me! The Game!
Hello!"
CK: Yeah, yeah. We spent a lot of time on
the HUD. Jake Etgeton was our UI programmer, and he was on the entire project. I
think we went through, probably... oh man, there had to be upwards of eight
different versions of the HUD.
And it's one of those things that you just
absolutely have to get right. And it seems so simple, like when you start out,
we'll put a health bar there, and put some text here... But it's always much
more complicated than you think.
The
Emotional Experience... Elsewhere
In
terms of these "emotional experience" type games, are you going to
continue being large scale? Or are you also looking at small scale stuff, like
downloadable or anything?
CK: We're looking at everything right now.
I think we do like the freedom of a large-scale experience, because our visions
are big, and in order to convey them, we need the space to develop freely
around them.
But I also think there's a huge opportunity there to provide much
smaller experiences, especially with downloadable content. I'm sure a lot of
people would like to come back to BioShock,
and maybe have an extra hour of content on that. I certainly would. And I think
it's cool that it seems like the industry is moving in that direction -- not
only for economics, but for the player experience.
I
was wondering if you think that with a large-scale title, you can make it more
mass-market in a way, but it's still for five hundred thousand to a million
people. Do you have the desire to go bigger than that? Because, obviously,
games like what Ben Cousins was talking about, with Battlefield Heroes' potential, if it goes the route of these free
MMOs, it could reach the tens of millions. Is that something that is meaningful
for you?
CK: Are you asking if we prefer to sell our
games to fewer people? (laughs)
I'm
saying, do you prefer to have a targeted, "These are the kind of players
that we want," or do you want it to be truly, truly, "everyone can
pick that up" type of game?
CK: Well, we want to sell our game to as
many people as possible, because we don't believe that the game has to be
brought down to any particular group of people; we believe that all gamers are
intelligent, and all gamers want an exciting, mature, intellectual, and deep
gaming experience.
The big question is, you've got to figure out how you are
going to present that to them, and bring them. You have to lift your audience
up to that level, and that's often just a matter of presentation. So that's
what we're focusing on.
Do
you feel that that can really be done in the console space? Because that does
limit who is picking up the game to begin with, and then you get a fraction of
that audience that's picked up the console.
CK: I think it has been a limitation in the
past, but I think you're seeing console audiences really growing; not only
because you're having different demographics entering that market, especially
with stuff like the Wii, but also, you know, gamers are aging, and they have less
time to muck around.
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.
Do
you think the Wii crowd has an appetite for a BioShock-like game?
CK: I think yeah; I think there is an
appetite out there; it's just a matter of finding the right way to bring it to
them.
It
seems like, on the Wii, there's some education necessary for a large part of
that demographic, in terms of, like, "Here's why you should want to play
this game, instead of Wii Fit."
CK: Well, you know, I don't think that
those aren't real games. What Nintendo has figured out is that it's all about
accessibility, and finding ways to get people to enjoy your game without having
to jump through fifty-million hoops, you know?
Even me, as a gamer, every time I pick up a
new game, I'm like, "Oh my god, they've changed the controller mappings
again," and now I've got to, you know, reconfigure my head, just so I can
start to enjoy this game. And with something like the Wii? You just pick it up,
and it's natural. I don't think there's anything preventing the game complexity
of BioShock from being 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.
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.