The Making of Bioshock

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."

Comments

Market research!?

[teh moges]

Here I thought market research died with the invention of mass-advertising.

Great to see them actually test out a product, and further, fix their product before launching it.

that's nice

[gEvil (beta)]

Funny. I recently bought Bioshock on Steam (when they were running their $15 special a month or two ago). I only had a chance to play it for a few hours (not much time for games these days). However, in the past week my system's gone completely crazy. Turned out it was due to SecuROM. I found the uninstaller utility and removed it, and now my system is behaving perfectly normally again. I liked what I managed to play of Bioshock, but unfortunately I'm not going to reinstall it again. It's a shame, really, because it seemed like a good game.

Re:that's nice

[philspear]

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?

Re:that's nice

[gEvil (beta)]

Sorry, I literally got control back of my system about 30 minutes ago, so it's fresh in my mind (why my post starts with 'Funny'). And sorry, but not being able to use my computer thanks to a game I paid for is a serious WRONG in my book. If they remove the protection I'll reinstall it and pick up where I left off, and then maybe I might be able to tell you what they did "right" in the game. I'm sure there're plenty of good things there.

Re:that's nice

[Fallingcow]

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*

Re:that's nice

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:that's nice

[Jesterboy]

I wish I could take credit for this, but it comes from this post on the 2K Froums in the thread about removing the install limits, but not the DRM, and I think it's pretty applicable here:

Is a man not entitled to the game he purchased?
No says the man at 2K, he may be a thief.
No says the man at Sony, he may be a pirate.
No says the pirate, I'll give it to you free...
I rejected all those answers and did what many should do.... .... I ...purchased..... a XBOX 360, and never worried again.

Re:that's nice

[Adambomb]

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.

Re:that's nice

[billcopc]

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

Re:that's nice

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

What I found odd...

[polyomninym]

I have almost beaten this game on the PC, and I must say that I truly love it. It's creepy, weird and under the ocean, so I've gotta give 2K some props for the concept. Those Big Daddies are horrifying tankers, loved'em to bits! The thing that I find most odd about this game is the text during loading screens. they were supposed to be quotes of various citizens talking about how things of gone down the tubes. I know that they were trying to capture some old-style slangy ways of talkin' , but damn the quoted text was so riddled with bad English that it sort of undermined the whole creepy feel of the game. I didn't let it get to me, but wow, it sure feels nice to share that with ya'll ;) Please reply if you felt the same way about those quotes. Great game IMHO!

Re:What I found odd...

[tylernt]

It's creepy, weird and under the ocean, so I've gotta give 2K some props for the concept. Those Big Daddies are horrifying tankers, loved'em to bits!

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.

Re:What I found odd...

[johannesg]

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.

What went BADLY wrong

[swordgeek]

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:What went BADLY wrong

[The End Of Days]

Too bad you aren't as important as you think you are.

Re:What went BADLY wrong

[gEvil (beta)]

I thought the horror stories about SecuROM were overblown, like most things online are. Now that I've actually been through them myself (see my post above), I'm sad to say that they're not. I'm fully joining the boycott of any game or game company that utilizes this "protection scheme". The only thing it's protecting them from is my money. Sorry game developers and publishers, but it's the truth.

Re:What went BADLY wrong

[Toonol]

I think the DRM is the major factor that is killing PC gaming. I know, PC gaming has been predicted to die every year for the last ten; but the difference now is that it really seems to be happening.

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.

Re:What went BADLY wrong

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:What went BADLY wrong

[Colonel Korn]

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.

I think I found it!

[soupforare]

...what went wrong...focus groups...

Ah, nothing like developing for the lowest common denominator to screw potential!

Bioshock was way overrated

[pumpkinempanada]

I just finished it last week. It looked cool but even that was overrated. After you've seen the basic lighting/color scheme and art-deco look they're going to use, it doesn't vary a whole lot. All those mods and junk you could do to yourself was just boring, there was never a compelling reason to mess with any of it. Beyond that it was just the same game mechanic over and over again until it's over -- not even a good ending to the story they seemed so proud of! just my opinion, but overall in the year I've had an XBox, gears of war and portal have been the best games.

Re:Bioshock was way overrated

[mjwx]

I think it was overrated. I *liked* it and the drm didn't cause me any problems, althought I oppose it in principle. The problem was just what you said - the same game mechanic over and over. I had NO desire to replay. Don't think I ever got to the end - it just wasn't interesting enough. Shame because it really was a game with a lot of promise.

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

Re:Bioshock was way overrated

[mjwx]

In short, it's a good movie with some audience participation?

Pretty much.

Most FPSes are like that though.

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.

In Crysis - I've found you can't jump on to certain rocks (invisible barrier) just to take a different way, and some doors open and close "just because".

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.

I can understand why choice is limited in some cases - it keeps the amount of content required to be created from growing exponentially. But in the other cases I find it annoying.

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

Surely it's a joke (was:Market research!?)

[Lead Butthead]

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.

Re:Sigh. Here we go...

[c0d3g33k]

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.

Look at System Shock 2

[Spatial]

It's really evident if you've played System Shock 2 beforehand. Bioshock is basically SS2: Simple Underwater Edition With Shit-Hot Graphics.

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.

Re:The Tommy Gun

[Kozz]

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.