Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ken Levine On The Background of Bioshock

Posted by Zonk on from the please-keep-ayn-rand-in-non-zombie-format dept.

GameSpy has up an interview with Ken Levine of Irrational Games. While Levine has spoken previously about Bioshock's ideology, this piece discusses a number of the elements that went into creating the game. He touches again on objectivism, but expands on the title's connection to its spiritual predecessor System Shock 2 and the process of actual developing the game. "Sterling: Segueing away from storyline a little, what sorts of hardware limits did the team encounter from pre-production leading up to this point of near-completion? Ken Levine: As a credit to my programming team, honestly, I didn't hear much about them. There was some hesitation on the part of some of programming team in pushing a level of physical simulation in the world, in part because they knew how much work that was. To their credit, I'll say, not only did they do it, they knocked it out of the park, because I've never seen this level of simulation ever in a shooter."

4 of 23 comments (clear)

  1. What I hope for from Bioshock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm encouraged by Ken Levine's response to the "indictment of objectivist ideology" question. It's good for a game to invoke matters of belief and opinion, but in a complex way. It's far better to be provocative and open-ended at the same time than to just come down on one side in some simple, idealistic way.

    That kind of complexity is one of the things I really loved about Thief: The Dark Project. [Spoilers follow.] In Thief TDP, the Hammerites are a bunch of oppressive fundamentalist assholes. The main character hates them, and rightfully so. But, as the plot progresses, it turns out that at least one of the Hammers' wackier beliefs is in fact quite real, and that they are quite essential in protecting the people of the City from a rather nasty fate.

    Deus Ex was also, of course, quite good with this stuff. You've got layer upon layer of conspiracies, whether true or false, deliberate hoaxes, elaborate cover-ups, etc., leading up to opposing ideals of world government vs. anarchy; humanism vs. trans-humanism; open society vs. secret rule; none of which is presented in a wholly good light.

    I liked System Shock 2, but not for those reasons. It's pretty hard to sympathize with Shodan or The Many... or those freaky monkeys, for that matter. What was great about System Shock 2 was the off-balancing level design and the set-piece hallucination. There were some real classic moments there, like the apparition in the Bon Chance lounge (should've been "Bonne Chance", but that's Tri-Optimum for you...) and the tunnels in the Garden. I hope that Bioshock is able to provide some of those elements... but even if it doesn't, I'm still definitely going to get it.

    1. Re:What I hope for from Bioshock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Levine sez:

      I like that sort of opaqueness in storytelling, because I don't think there are black and whites.

      And then the parent admires his new clothes:

      I'm encouraged by Ken Levine's response to the "indictment of objectivist ideology" question. It's good for a game to invoke matters of belief and opinion, but in a complex way. It's far better to be provocative and open-ended at the same time than to just come down on one side in some simple, idealistic way.

      That only works if you still have something to say. Being ambiguous or "opaque" (and equating ambiguity/opacity as somehow "sophisticated") usually means you don't, but want to be seen as though you do. It's about right; no one who actually read *all* of Rand would ever posit, as Bioshock does, that zero-sum is laissez-faire's Achilles heel.

      So ultimately, the storyline behind Bioshock is just like that of most FPS games; substanceless. No big shocka there. It's Levine's pretensions to substance and having something "deep" to say, that set this one apart. As such, Bioshock may therefore be the first truly modern-art FPS.

      (OMFG, the captcha for this post is "nihilism". That's rather perceptive as captchas go...)

  2. Re:Bioshock vs. Halo 3 by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, I am pretty damn stoked! I played System Shock 2 and LOVED it. I haven't been this excited for a game since Myth: The Fallen Lords came out (that was in 1997)! Here's hoping it's every bit as great as I'm anticipating, and then some! ;) Concur, although I have to say that I'm absolutely terrified that having a console version will screw up the UI/control scheme. I know, I know, consoles are great and I'm a PC fanboi, but the travesty that was Oblivion (in terms of the UI) has really made me headshy. Hope springs eternal, however, so with luck the PC version of Bioshock will have an appropriately tight control scheme and solid UI.
    --
    P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
  3. Re:Bioshock vs. Halo 3 by Wicko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Definitely Bioshock. All this marketing for Halo 3 is making me NOT want to get it. They aren't doing a very good job of grabbing my attention with their viral marketing attempt. They did a MUCH better job with the Nine Inch Nails album that just came out. Perhaps that's because they actually have something good to work with, unlike this Halo 3 "storyline". They market it too openly for all ages that it just turns me off. Bioshock is giving me exactly what I want: a mature themed game with unique environments and story, not to mention a sweet evolution of the psionic attacks in SS2. And from the sounds of it, choice. Something you probably will find scarce in Halo 3.