Slashdot Log In
The Making of Bioshock
Posted by
Soulskill
on Tue Sep 02, 2008 05:41 PM
from the is-a-man-not-entitled-etc dept.
from the is-a-man-not-entitled-etc dept.
Gamasutra is running a feature from Game Developer magazine in which Bioshock's project leader writes about what went right and what went wrong making last year's award-winning shooter, Bioshock. He talks about what the developers learned from fans and focus groups, how long it took them to firmly define what the game was supposed to be, and how they tried to reconcile their ideas with their capabilities. Quoting:
"...just after the first beta, the entire design team plus a contingent of 2K producers headed off to see how a group that knew nothing about our company or BioShock would react to the first level. It was brutal. The first level, they said, was overly dense, confusing, and not particularly engaging. Players would acquire new powers but not know how to use them, so they stuck to using more traditional weapons and became frustrated. They didn't interact with the Big Daddies, and they didn't understand (or care) how to modify their characters. They were so overwhelmed by dialogue and backstory that they missed key information. A few of the players did start to see the possible depth of the game, but even they were frustrated by the difficulty of actually using the systems we had created."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Market research!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great to see them actually test out a product, and further, fix their product before launching it.
Surely it's a joke (was:Market research!?) (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're actually paying attention to market research, they would've known that DRM completely kills it for a lot of (otherwise) PAYING customers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or losing customers who was able to get a copy off a torrent and never bothered to buy it even though she/he thoroughly enjoyed it?
It's not to stop the torrents, there will always be torrents as it only takes one skilled person to crack it, it only stops people copying a cd and handing it to a friend really, which in todays land is a lot less common than torrenting.
True, & sad what other games could have been (Score:3)
One company that just doesn't get it is Novalogic. Their Black Hawk Down franchise was groundbreaking and had some serious potential, but they just never solicited or even listened to feedback. A potentially great game with some easily-fixed flaws, but they just don't listen.
EA is the same way. All the cheating that still goes on with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm under the impression that it's not *that* unusual for game developers to bring testers in. I seem to remember mention of it in the Portal commentary. Getting an audience to test you game seems easy and obvious. It seems like the hard thing would be knowing what to do when your audience tells you the game isn't fun.
You're correct. For most substantially-sized game I've been involved with, testers were brought in to provide feedback near alpha and beta stages of the project, which is when a lot of gameplay balancing occurs. It would be sort of insane not to get outside opinions of your potential customers given the time and effort spent on a modern game. At my current company, we would bring in new groups of testers on a weekly basis, and one of our internal QA folk's full time job was organizing and managing the pl
that's nice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:that's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
I think DRM has been covered extensively enough about this game, and has little to do with the topic at hand. There's a lot more lessons here for game developers than DRM issues. Sure that seems to have killed it for this crowd, but there's no arguing that the game had a significant impact seperately from that.
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
Parent
Re:that's nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:that's nice (Score:5, Funny)
I'll one up you: I'm waiting for Spore to be cracked, because there is no way I'm going to tolerate that ridiculous 10-day reactivation DRM. I'll gladly buy the game, but only if I can play it without being encumbered with SecuROM, which is the most invasive piece of filth ever coded. It is like an executable goatse.cx
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
What about people such as myself that missed out on the whining the first time round, you insensitive clod?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You get to whine about not being able to whine :-P
Re:that's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I think DRM has been covered extensively enough about this game,
Has it been removed?
No? Then it hasn't been covered extensively enough.
focus on what they did RIGHT?
Unfortunately, because of the DRM, at least one customer won't be able to see what they did right. I know I would have loved to play the game, but I flat refuse to buy it because of that DRM -- so that's another potential customer, ready to pay full price ($60 even), but I don't know what they did right, because of the DRM.
Hear that, developers? It doesn't matter how hard you work, or how many long hours and weekends you put in. It doesn't matter how much you love your project, or how much of a piece of art it is. None of that matters if people actually avoid playing your game because of the DRM on it.
Life is too short, and there are too many games that don't treat me like a criminal for me to waste my time on yours.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
None of that matters if people actually avoid playing your game because of the DRM on it.
Thought experiment: What if the DRM was "perfect?" That is, somehow, through magic, completely unobtrusive. The only thing it did (again, through magic) was keep you from installing the game on computers you didn't own.
Would the situation be the same? That is, if this (non-existing), magic type of DRM existed that hindered only pirates and torrent leeches, would people still be against it? If one really has no pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thought experiment: What if the DRM was "perfect?" That is, somehow, through magic, completely unobtrusive. The only thing it did (again, through magic) was keep you from installing the game on computers you didn't own.
...and thus, not completely unobtrusive.
You see, growing up, I shared a computer with my brother. I would think "perfect" DRM would allow him to buy his own games, and install them on this computer, even though the computer was actually mine. Why shouldn't that be allowed?
And, while using this computer, we only ever bought one copy of any given game, since, after all, only one of us could play it at a time. If the "perfect" DRM were able to magically distinguish which user was using the game, whoever bought
Even magic DRM has its limits (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if a DRM was magically unobtrusive, you'll still have lots of complex corner cases.
What if two different persons own the same computer (the family's computer) should they both be allowed to play (DRM restricts per computer) or should only the owner of the game ? But then how should it function for people with several computers (laptops on the move, desktop at home) ? And what about two kids who pool money to be able to buy together an otherwise too expensive game ? (I've actually done it when I was you
Re:that's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I said it many times. I boycotted this game due to drm, same with orange box and the like.
I bought Orange Box, mostly because Steam is a known animal, and I know it doesn't fuck up my computer. The only thing it requires from me is an Internet connection, and not even all the time. And on top of that, it provides a feature rare (especially among DRM-free games) -- I can download the game and install it as many times as I want, on as many computers as I want.
SecuROM, on the other hand, has a very good chance of fucking up your computer, and it's even being done on top of Steam (meaning no physical disc), which is already plenty of DRM. When there is a physical disc, it requires that disc to be present -- or so I assume, given the ROM in its name. And it limits the total number of installs to some ridiculously small number.
I can understand why people don't like Steam and its DRM, though, and that's just as sad -- Portal is the best game I've played in years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could take credit for this, but it comes from this post [2kgames.com] on the 2K Froums in the thread about removing the install limits, but not the DRM [2kgames.com], and I think it's pretty applicable here:
Re:that's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
What everyone seems to forget is that consoles are the ultimate in DRM. In fact, controlling both the hardware AND the software is the only time that one can actually consider it to be doing the job DRM is claimed to do.
Sell the hardware for the games, sometimes at a loss,instead of selling the games for the hardware. Getting a console may not be a bad thing in and of itself, but keep in mind that thats where the games publishers want you. Less possible spec differences, less piracy, less risk of some draconian control feature screwing up something third party (IE: the OS or some other applications you're running).
Sure that can be a solution, but in the end who is that a solution for? Granted this isn't saying owning a console is horrible and evil, it's just a good point to keep in mind if you're purchasing a console to play a game that is already available for a platform you have.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the company needs an e-mail reminder to remove the SecuROM.
I thought part of the point of Steam was that Steam itself is the copy protection. Steam happens to be DRM that I can live with.
Re:that's nice (Score:5, Interesting)
I just pirated the damned thing.
Spent the money I was going to spend on it on STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl instead. Bioshock deserved the money more, but I won't pay to fuck up my machine, ESPECIALLY when the game's already on Steam. I also won't miss an opportunity to play a (reputedly) great game over principles, and paying money for a legit copy while having to pirate it anyway just to make it usable is retarded.. *shrug*
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My brother had a pirate copy of GTA3 before, and he liked it so much that he wanted to buy it, but he couldn't get an original copy - nobody sold it, he even went to a neighbouring country. I think it was banned in both countries - but naturally the "unauthorized distributors" didn't
What I found odd... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What I found odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The first time I had a Big Daddy come after me, something happened that I had never before experienced by playing a mere computer game: I ran and hid (in the game) not to avoid the annoyance of having my character get killed and having to respawn or reload, but just out of simple raw terror.
I also found it pretty difficult to "game" the AI. You know how you can exploit the computer's tendency to do dumb things so you can wipe out your enemies effortlessly? I didn't find many weaknesses in this game's AI. About the best I could do was set them on fire from afar and then hide until the fire went out, then repeat or do a normal frontal assault after they were weakened enough. Any other cheap tactics were pretty much intended by the game designers, like zap'n'whack or hacking security systems. And the Big Daddy AI was pretty tenacious; even if you ran through multiple doors, no matter where you tried to hide, they would pursue you relentlessly. This actually worked to your advantage if you set traps for them, but otherwise made them pretty tough to beat without lots of med kits and big weapons.
I should also mention that I appreciated the fact that the beginning weapon, the pipe wrench, remained a viable weapon (with upgrades) right up to the final boss.
Exploring was fun too. If you went through each level completing only the necessary objectives, you'd miss about half of the map. Lots of hidey holes with powerups, and many of them nonobvious. I liked the subtlety -- it was refreshing not to have the game designers hit me over the head to show off everything they did, instead I had to go looking.
Aside from the DRM, it's hard to point out where Bioshock went wrong. Yes, the supposed "choices" (rescue or harvest the Little Sisters) were somewhat limited, but the other complexities like gathering scrap for the U-Invent, the variety of widely disparate Plasmids, and the variety of methods for dispatching enemies (brute force, hacking, or sneaky tactics) still made it interesting.
Parent
Re:What I found odd... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bioshock was beautiful, but in the end it left me unsatisfied. I was hoping for less linearity (yes, you _can_ travel between levels at will, but why would you want to?), and more distinct levels. Not graphically, that was fine; but every level had the same set of enemies, the same set of power ups, vending machines, etc.
Compare this to System Shock 2 (hey, the developers did!): in SS2 you _have_ to backtrack to earlier levels (and doing so isn't a chore at all thanks to some brilliant level design), and each area has its own level of threat: some are swarming with enemies, some are eerily quiet, some have lots of useful goodies, and in some you have to carefully hoard your possessions.
To me it made a lot of difference: the Von Braun was a real place, but Rapture eventually just blurred out. Yes, it is pretty, but there is no emotion associated with any of the locations. It is all just some place you run past while killing baddies. If you need health, it is always less than a hundred meters away. If you need to change your skills, you can do it at any time - no need to carefully think about what you want before you start.
This is the uncanny valley all over again: the various Bioshock levels are so much alike in terms of what you can do, that in the end they all look the same, and wrong.
Parent
What went BADLY wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
SecureROM.
I really want this game. I've wanted it since before release, I've played the demo on an old machine, and it reminds me enough of System Shock (I and II both) that I really really want it!
However, it uses SecureROM. I contacted the company to see if this bug had been fixed yet, and they confirmed that no, it hadn't. As such, they're not getting my money. I can live without this game, if they're going to infect my computer in order to let me play it.
It's very simple:
If you're going to harm my computer, you don't get my money.
If you're going to require internet access/activation for a standalone game, you don't get my money.
If you're going to treat me like a criminal, you don't get my money.
Developers, it really is that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
SecureROM
Agreed - there's no way I'm going to buy this game.
Re:What went BADLY wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad you aren't as important as you think you are.
Parent
Re:What went BADLY wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What went BADLY wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
On my pc now I play emulators, old games (thank you dosbox) and small, independent games. It's sad, but I'm probably going to play only the console version of Fallout III.
Parent
Re:What went BADLY wrong (Score:4, Informative)
EA's sales numbers for the last year show PC gaming as their largest market. The same is true at a lot of other publishers. Things are looking up, financially, for PC gaming. The memes are looking down, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I really wanted to play Bioshock, but the DRM prevented me from making the purchase. I was gutted when I learned of the DRM they'd employed, because I enjoyed system shock, and I was really keen to play its successor.
If they relent and release a patch that kills the DRM, or someone releases a crack that kills it, then I'll buy the game in a hot second. If not then forget it, I don't want that secureRom crap on my computer as a 'reward' for paying for the game.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm friends with a designer from the Australian office and I talked with him about the development of Bioshock since it was made public (at least about the bits he could tell me before release). Believe me when I say I wanted this game - I wanted it bad, 'cus it looked cool, I'd followed it since the beginning and I wanted to support my friend's hard work.
However, the moment I heard it had activation/Securerom/crap I refused to touch it. it's a matter of principle.
I used to pay for game
Re:What went BADLY wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
In the interest of fairness, as my designer friend told me, it's not the developers who want DRM and activation (most hate it) it's the publishers.
Given that Valve has gone independent, Steam is quite obviously a development shop's idea of what DRM should be.
I actually don't have a problem with Steam, since at least it seems to work, and after playing through single-player, I'm going to mostly want it for Internet-enabled games, like Counter-Strike.
And then there's things like playgreenhouse.com, which seems to need single-activation. I really could care less, then -- I'm going to be online at least once to patch it, adding an activation step is pretty harmless.
No, where I draw the line is adding a layer on top of Steam -- and having that layer actually damage your OS.
I would say, don't boycott all DRM. Instead, boycott the truly damaging DRM in favor of stuff you can live with.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I would say, don't boycott all DRM. Instead, boycott the truly damaging DRM in favor of stuff you can live with."
Y'know, there was a time when I would have agreed with this statement. But I'm old and bitter, and tired of this crap.
DRM hurts sales. DRM annoys people. DRM treats customers like criminals. DRM usually does NOT prevent anyone from pirating your game, but even if it does, it's only the people who wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.
I remember reading matte red codes on glossy red paper,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, where the DRM is built into the HARDWARE.
Talk about boiling the frog slowly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think I found it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, nothing like developing for the lowest common denominator to screw potential!
Look at System Shock 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Every feature they didn't remove is taken straight from it, except easier and with more limited options. The hacking, research, vending machines, character customisation, one-time upgrade points, upgradeable weapons, psychic powers, the ghosts, the logs, the plot... It's all basically the same, but simpler. Even the big plot revelation is the same.
The whole thing stood to gain a lot from a little more sophistication in the gameplay; I think SS2 is the better game despite its dated graphics. I know what you're thinking - I'm some old fogey gamer with rose-tinted glasses - but I only got SS2 about six months before Bioshock.
Parent
THANK YOU (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably what went wrong with it. The fact that they went to a group with 0 knowledge about them probably meant they also had 0 interest in games. They didn't even develop for LCD, they made up a whole new denomination to develop for!
This is becoming an increasing problem for games and movies. Early 90s when it just cost a few hundred grand to put out a game (if that), you could stick to how you liked it, shoot it through Q&A, and have at it. They didn't put games in front of large groups and a
Bioshock was way overrated (Score:4, Interesting)
Over-rated? Depends .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought Bioshock about a week after it was first released (largely because I found a $10 off sale on it at a local Circuit City, and figured all the hype plus the discount made it worth grabbing).
I have to agree that it could have been more compelling. To this day, I've never finished the game. I enjoyed it for a few hours, but ultimately, I felt like the mechanics made it too similar to many other 3D shooter type games I've played before. The graphics and sound f/x are outstanding. The concepts in the
Re:Bioshock was way overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll avoid DRM for this post (seeing as I bought the game in a Bangkok market and avoided DRM completely) and just focus on the game.
Yes Bioshock was overrated, seriously overrated. It was extremely linear and scripted compared to its "spiritual predecessor" System Shock. Bioshock made Half-life look like an open world. Playing Bioshock was like walking through a movie, albeit a very well directed movie with excellent sets and a great story but there was absoluely no deviation from the path set by the developers. They may as well have made a rail shooter.
Also my favourite parts of System Shock were removed, Inventory management. The game didn't force you to make choices about what weapons and equipment you were going to keep and what to leave behind because you didn't have room for it. This add's an imperial buttload of variety and re-playability into the game. Even the acute linear-ness of the game would have been offset if you needed to make a choice about how you were going to play, so the number of weapons and inventory items was limited, ammo was plentiful, all weapons were available all the time, plasmids were useless (you would either use lightning or freeze unless the story required telekinesis or fire) and above all else you couldn't die. What were they thinking when they made it impossible to die (I know that System Shock had a reincarnation system too but it needed to be activated before use meaning that you had that window of complete vulnerability).
The "choice" to kill or save the little sisters that the game was based around was no real choice what so ever and contributed nothing to the story except for a different cut scene at the end. SPOILERS FOLLOW but if you're worried about that get over it, the game has been out for a almost year now. Even if you brutally murdered every little girl you came across "Tennenbaum" would still help you even if you kept on killing them. The much vaunted "choice" did not contribute to the gameplay one iota as every 3 little sisters you saved you would get 200 extra Adam anyway plus an item (which you couldn't sell/recycle if you didn't want it).
Why did all of this happen, for 1 reason gentlemen, Consolization. Typically First Person Shooters have been limited to Half Life style romps and rainbow 6 style tactical shooters that have been made a bit easier and have a generous aim bot. Most of the advanced features from System Shock like inventory management would be frustrating to use with a consoles controller. Also to ensure that it was never too difficult to beat the game they completely removed the previous SS1 and 2 reincarnation system and replaced it with the "you will never die no matter how stupid or crap you are" chambers. The point of consolization is to make the game available to the widest possible audience, the method of consolization is to dumb down the game to its lowest common denominators so that every single console will have no trouble using it. Consolization not only kills the potential for new and interesting ideas in games it also kills the existing features that PC gamers have been enjoying since 1992 (SS1's release). Now some games are born to be consolized, precisely because they are not new or inventive and dont require complex control scheemes, these games are not inherently bad but they are never revolutionary and that is the impression I received from Bioshock which left me somewhat disappointed as I had expected, from various reviews and interviews with Ken Levine that bioshock would be at the least, a worthy successor to System Shock.
Finally I'll say what I did like about it. Artistry, the game was very
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hit the nail on the head with that post. Bioshock came across (to me) as a simplified version of SS2. If you wanted a real spiritual successor to SS2, try Vampire The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Once you've fought the werewolf (almost final boss), nothing in computer games will ever scare you again.
Bioshock had an incredibly cool opening movie, but if choosing whether or not to kill someone makes a game "art", RPGs were art more than a decade ago.
Re:Bioshock was way overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much.
I disagree, most FPS's require input from the player and on occasion require choices to be made by the player that affect the outcome. Deus Ex is a prime example of this; no movie could effectively portray the games story as it changes based on what the player does.
Games need to have barriers and how they display these barriers is very important. Crysis had few invisible walls (quiet a few visible ones though) and did not contain many unopenable doors. Crysis did pretty well compared to may FPS, it gave you a large open space to play in as opposed to something like Half Life which leads you down a set path. My main problem with Bioshock is not that it was partially scripted to progress the story; my issue was that it was entirely scripted to prevent you from leaving the story, this isn't just a few invisible walls or painted doors.
The difference between a good FPS and a bad FPS, in a good FPS you only notice the limitations if you go looking for them; a bad FPS and the limitations are obvious and/or the game couldn't hold your interest long enough that you had to notice them
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
....just after the first beta, the entire design team plus a contingent of 2K producers headed off to see how a group that knew nothing about our company or BioShock would react to the first level.
I think it is safe to say that what they played at that point was not the same game that we played after launch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about whether cracks are available. It's about whether cracks are necessary at all. I will not buy a game with draconian DRM, period. Purchasing the game then applying the crack to make the game playable just validates the habit of releasing defective products. Don't give them money for defective products.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the reviewers just had a different opinion from yours. Mine is about 180 degrees different from yours. I thought it was a fantastic game.
I just wish all the manufacturers would make demos available for all their games so we could each sort out what game we were probably going to enjoy or not before the purchase. You could have played the demo and known it wasn't the game for you, and I would have known it was well worth my money to go ahead and buy it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have a ton of money to spend on making a piece of media which needs to sell a lot of copies in a very short time to break even, then you spend a portion of that ton of money making sure everybody is jumping up and down with anticipation about it.
It's not always strictly true, but in general you won't go too far wrong following this rule of thumb: The bigger the hype, the more middling the game/movie/whatever will be, because BIG money doesn't like to take BIG risks, and so it doesn't. It's that si
Re:The Tommy Gun (Score:4, Insightful)
eh? wtf? Yeah, the name is "Thompson Submachine Gun". And if you look at your own link, submachine guns (full auto, pistol cartridge ammo) are a subset of all machine guns (fully automatic). What are you complaining about?
If you were carping about the differences between "Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon", I could have backed you. But you're not makin' sense, boy.
Parent