What Went Wrong
1. Evolving Product Positioning.
The spec of BioShock changed so much
over the course of development that we spent the majority of the time
making the wrong game- an extremely deep game, and at times an
interesting one, but it was not a groundbreaking game that would appeal
to a wide audience.
We knew from the start that we'd have to make late
changes to really bring the game to life-we had even built our original
schedule to allow for six months of finalizing-but the amount of change
that we ended up needing seriously exceeded our remaining schedule.
Ultimately, we were very lucky to get an extension in the eleventh hour.
Part of the reason for the late course change came from not having
our internal product message clear from the beginning. BioShock had
initially been positioned as a hybrid RPG FPS. The decision to
reposition the game as a focused FPS came later, after our initial
production phase in summer of 2006. Had we been working with an FPS
mentality earlier, we could have made better use of our time.
Another contributing factor to the late switch was that the game had
been more or less proceeding according to plan throughout development,
so there didn't seem to be any emergencies that needed intervention
from higher levels of management. Milestones were completed, goals were
met, development seemed to be proceeding uneventfully. But as the game
neared alpha, key people began looked more closely and saw that
BioShock wasn't on track to become an accessible and marketable game.
As mentioned in the first What Went Right point, the real turning
point for BioShock came when we had to present the game to the outside
world, which forced us to carefully consider the story and takeaway
message. In retrospect, we should have tried to develop some of that
thinking sooner.
2. Narrative content development happened late.
We had many drafts of
the story over the course of development, but the final draft turned
out to be an almost complete rewrite. To make matters worse, we failed
to fully exercise the narrative production path in early versions, so
once the final draft was complete and recorded, many implementation and
pipeline problems appeared for the first time that should have been
caught and resolved earlier.
The core issue was that a giant pile of content came online well
past beta, and the team had to scramble to get that content correctly
installed while also fixing bugs. Competing demands for time and
resources meant that, unfortunately, some of the important narrative
details of the game weren't created until the final rewrite, and
therefore required quite a bit of work to retrofit them into an
existing game.
To add to our woes, the first focus test feedback on the narrator's
voice came back extremely negative. People found the character
extremely off-putting, so we recast the part at the last possible
moment. On the positive side, this allowed us to refine several areas
of the game (including the intro sequence) to ensure that the player
knew what to do at the right time. On the other hand, it was difficult
to get all the content in, debugged, and polished in the remaining
timeframe.
3. Scaling vision to team size.
Our goals and vision pretty
consistently overreached our production capacity. Ideas that started
out small turned out to require a tremendous amount of coordinated
support to reach a polished state. Although we were able to add
resources regularly and make some cuts late in the game, our ability to
plan for how much work it would take to bring any single idea or space
from concept to completion was poor.
In addition, we didn't have an effective internal review process set
up until very late in the development cycle. We would work on levels to
the definition of a milestone, get feedback, and then set it all aside
for a while or leave it in the designer's hands to polish. It wasn't
until we created a more regular review cycle, where all the key players
sat in one room and watched the gameplay session and someone logged all
the bugs, that we were really able to define the amount of remaining
work to bring a feature or level to completion.
The ultimate reason we were able to pull off the game we made to the
level of polish we did, was the sheer dedication of the team working on
it. Even though we had padded the finalizing schedule, we still far
exceeded it.
It's to the team's credit that they stepped up to the
challenge with incredible dedication. The final crunch period on
BioShock was long and hard. People who had been pacing themselves for
six more weeks of work had to reset to three more months of work rather
suddenly. Had we understood our polish cycle requirements sooner, or
had known about the additional time earlier, we could have paced
ourselves better.
|
The liberty about what and how to do is the best in the whole game... that`s really an action RPG like I was missing for years...
Good job!
DRM junk is not really interesting from a post-mortem standpoint. This is all about the game design and the process of making the game which is very difficult and hard to get right.
DRM is tacked on publisher junk and not really interesting. It's also very easy to tack on after the fact and the real developers don't ever even see it. This is about the team that makes the game, not the DRM policy decisions. Totally different set of people calling shots for totally different things.
What went right: #1 is atmosphere. The Randian utopia is completely unique in gaming. The Fort Frolic level with the plaster statues was especially brilliant. #2 is AI and characterization. The way the splicers behaved made them feel very alive. There are still so many games still coming out where the enemies have perfect knowledge of your location at all times and follow a simple script of "move towards the player and fire" - not here.
What went wrong: Lack of choice. This was particularly galling for a game hyped as offering a "groundbreaking" level of choice. There are a lot of kinds of choice so let me break it down further. There's freedom of tactics, freedom of moral choice, and freedom of goals.
First, freedom of tactics assumes a set micro-goal and allows several methods to achieve it (such as force, stealth, diplomacy.) Bioshock offers pretty much the minimum standard options you'd expect in any shooter. Tripwires, exploding barrels, and hackable turrets are not groundbreaking. There are no situations to apply diplomacy. Very few locations have multiple points of entry. The other games in the Looking Glass tradition (System Shock, Thief, Deus Ex) set a standard for tactical choice that Bioshock makes no effort to approach.
Second, moral choice. To slaughter little girls or not is not a sophisticaed moral dilemma compared to say, evaluating the source of legitimacy of governments as it relates to the use of lethal force in a civil society. And yes, the latter can be the subject of an exciting and compelling game: Deus Ex. Bioshock presents similar social issues through the lens of its Randian utopia, but never invites the player to define their own position or choose their own goal until the final moments.
Finally, there is freedom of movement. Bioshock's interpretation of freedom of movement is that there are some shops you don't have to go in. On the macro scale, you follow a set sequence of levels. The levels are nonlinear compared to Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, but then Tom Cruise is tall compared to Verne Troyer. The reasons for visiting levels in a particular order were fairly arbitrary and could have been dispensed with, so that apart from a tutorial and coda the player would have been free to roam Rapture.
It's certainly not a requirement that every AAA game have the tactical options of Thief, the moral choice of Knights of the Old Republic, and the freedom of movement of GTA, but if the hype of your game is going to be about freedom, you should make a game that actually excels in offering some type of freedom. I don't know whether the focus grouping helped unit sales, but it certainly hurt any claims to originality or ground-breaking. If you make a game for the common denominator, your game will be the common denominator.
I don't want to sound completely down on Bioshock. It's a solid game, fun, and a moneymaker, but I think its destined to be a footnote to the greatness of the Looking Glass tradition, not the genre-defining experience its predecessors were. The official post-mortem here makes it clear that, hype aside, thats what its creators wanted.
Unfortunately, there's NOTHING that tells you whether you were thinking TOO MUCH about how to make a game accessible to a wide variety of players.
Ken Levine seems really empty eyed when he talks about his initial visions for the game, the things that he's capable of and how little he actually got to put into the game because of the reactionary handling of focus-group testing.
The games business starts to strangle its greatest visionaries and celebrates the (obviously commercially successful) results in post mortems. In the end, I think 2K was lucky. This could have ended in a "Deux Ex: Invisible War".
I couldent agree more on your points, concerning Bioshock.
The previews made the game sound like a sandbox-type FPS where the narrative unfolded by observing the occupants of Rapture, whom operate independent of the protagonist, and where each area was patrolled by a unique Big Daddy/Little sister. Upon playing the game, it was just a linear, scripted, FPS. While I was satisfied with the art direction, level design, and voice acting, I was completely disappointed with the gameplay.
Of course, teams like Valve and 2K will sing the praises of focus groups and how instrumental they were in the success of their game -- Portal and, now, Bioshock -- but there has to be a point where you have to consider the passion and enthusiasm of the development team over the reviews of a focus group.
Would Bioshock have been better if they stuck to their guns and ignored the negative feedback? I'd insert Frost's The Road Not Taken here.
Comparing BioShock to what it "could have been" is a bit of a stretch. I'm certain it "could have been" the best game ever given clairvoyance and unlimited time and resources, but the reality is the guys were running way over on schedule and expenses.
The BioShock that we got was a fun game. Not a long game, or an overly complicated game, but enjoyable. I remember playing the demo on X360 and saying "Wow. This is awesome." The game was compelling and fun.
When I read books, I typically don't choose them solely because they are literary masterpieces. Nor do I blame the author for not creating something as robust or intricate as War and Peace. As long as the setting is right, the plot is decent, and the story takes me on an enjoyable ride, I've received what I set out to get.
What bothers me about this postmortem is not only that focus groups had a strong affect on the overall design of Bioshock -- even Ken Levine was quoted to say that the endings were not his plan -- but that what started out as a truly ground-breaking event ended up a (pardon the pun) watered-down experience. This is not a case of "coulda-shoulda-woulda" but a case of "didn't-because-someone-said-so." In other words, it clearly demonstrates how marketability trumps game design/narrative. It's a very worrying trend in this industry, and it made me feel like a sucker in the end.
If there will ever be a "director's cut" of Bioshock, I would be the first in line to pick it up; THAT would be the masterpiece.
It's not just a case of marketability trumping design and narrative, it's a case of *reality* doing some trumping as well. Games are incredibly expensive to make, and not only that very hard to make. What I mean is, (especially if you are doing something new) there is no standardised way of constructing games, every company does it a little different on every title, and it is a very complex a process involving a lot of people.
Part of what that means is you cannot give over power to one or two individuals, even if you think they are geniuses. People are just too fallible to turn over that much responsilbity to them. At the end of the day, you are responsible not just for a game but for peoples livelihoods, ultimately - something I wish some of the higher level staff in many games companies would realise.
Listening to focus groups *is* a great idea sometimes. They don't always (though often do) produce a diluted, selfish, lowest -common-denominator effect on everything they touch. High quality opinions from other people are worth their weight in gold and listening to others almost always gives a positive result. In this interview he goes over how many things the team initially got wrong and how they were only corrected when outside forces gave some input. The "directors cut" you envisage might have been a whole lot worse than what we got in the end. I thought Bioshock was compelling, interesting and visually brilliant. Yes it could have been better in hindsight, (which is always 20-20) but if you think about the complexity of making a modern AAA game and shaping that experience for the player and all the layers a designer has to go through to convey something effectively, we should be grateful for what we got. I would be extremely happy if there were more games of the quality of Bioshock.
Personlly I think the compexity of making a game (although the number of staff doesn't) sometimes exceeds that of making even a big movie. Game designers have far less control over players and what they see and experience than movie directors. Giving this directorial power to someone in making a game would be very dangerous, I haven't met anyone in the industry myself who I would want to work under in such a role. I'm sure it has been done many times in games in the past - and i'd bet the results were mostly crap.
I've played the game a second time to see the other ending scene, so I've gone through the whole game using only the wrench and telecinetic power, bullet for bigdaddies and one single firstaid in the full game...
The final boss was VERY easy even in the first time, once more in fact that he only repeat tha same things over and over... but, after the great game, the boss feeled to be there just filling the end of the game.
If the game was being made with a strong and deep gameplay style... depending on how that was advanced in development, why just throw the whole work in trash, why do not let the player choose if wanna play the game in basic or advanced mode?
I've showed the game to some friends and they disliked the style how the goals and gameplay works, so they forgave to keep playing (ok, they don't speak english, but can read somethings well), so even the "simple" remade gameplay was considered complex by some players. So the same players that enjoyed the game the way is was released, would probably easely figure out the first game was being made...
So I think, Bioshock is a really cool game. Although I'm really interested now, how the first rpg-like Bioshock would have been :)
Anyway, it's one of those games that I completed in a few marathon sessions, because I couldn't stop.
Then I put it on the shelf, until I have forgotten most of the story, and something like after half a year, play it again ... put it away, wait some months, play again ...
I'd still do that with games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, but think they don't run on Windows XP anymore.