(I should probably have drafted this and given it a rewrite, but I'm on limited time right now, and I want to get this done before I have to go out of town and Bioshock Infinite ships)
This is... weird.
If there's one person in the industry whose games I will buy, it's probably Ken Levine. I find him a fascinating, intelligent person, with a lot of cool things to say. Truth be told, if my game design degree hadn't been a colossal waste of time spent in AutoCAD and Second Life, and if I wasn't getting into film school because it was one of a few options I had available to me as a career, I would be doing everything in my power to get a job working for him.
We've been promised a great deal of things for Bioshock Infinite. It's taking inspiration from some fascinating sources. Ken Levine has demonstrated his capabilities with games like Thief and System Shock 2.
...but then there's Bioshock.
When I first played it, I was blown away. The setting was fantastic. The world felt so good to explore. I loved listening to the game's lush soundscape... and yet... hm. Not sure how to put this.
When people really like a game, they always--and I do mean always--get excited about its successor. Interactivity, the thing that makes video games special, is also a big part of why we buy games. If we enjoyed the gameplay in one game, chances are, we'll want to experience that again, and since it's very rare that a developer will transpose their mechanical style over to another game, that means we tend to want sequels.
Bioshock didn't do that.
Yes, we all felt really smart when the game smashed us in the face with "Would You Kindly," and yes, those of us who had never experienced the glory of System Shock 2 thought it was one of the greatest video games ever made, but... when Bioshock 2 came around, we most of us weren't that excited.
If you talk with people about Bioshock now, you'll hear a degree of negativity creep into their speech. You'll hear a disproportionate amount of people shrug and say it didn't really grab them. "Yeah," some will say, "it was smart, but the gameplay wasn't really that good, and honestly, some parts were kind of boring." They've been saying it with increasing frequency.
It's funny, because on the whole, I think Bioshock 2 was the better game. Yes, I know, that's a pretty controversial position to take, but bear with me.
Yes, the game made mistakes. One failing was in the art for each level, which never quite managed to have the same degree of personality present in Bioshock. Some have mentioned that it was too linear, but its predecessor had never really provided much of a reason to backtrack, so it wasn't really that big a deal.
Bioshock 2's biggest shortcoming was that the player was a Big Daddy. Rumor has it that the player was originally going to be Mark Meltzer, rather than Delta. This would have presented a more vulnerable character than the one we played as, which would have been a great deal more fun to play. I'll delve into this more later on.
From a mechanical standpoint, Bioshock 2 had by far the better gunplay, more ways to do things, more enemy types to fight, and all the general polish you expect in a sequel. Likewise, it had the better story, not just because it tried new things (like playing as a Little Sister), or because the final act didn't bog down the way Levine's games seem to (hi, Body of The Many!), but because the game never spat in the player's face like Bioshock.
In a way, Bioshock 2 seems to be an answer to Bioshock. The first game's "Would You Kindly" moment only works if you accept that the game experience is completely within the control of the designer. If you've played games such as STALKER or Deus Ex, you know that isn't true: emergent stories happen. Things the designers could have never expected or anticipated come out of the rules they've created. Games can be more than designer-limited experiences--designers can create frameworks for experiences, rather than hand-craft the entirety of the experience.
Bioshock's first two thirds establish a world and an experience where the player is, more or less, free to challenge the world as they saw fit. Yes, the major objectives were still up to the player, but Bioshock layered a degree of choice and consequence that made the experience worth having, despite the authored events that guided the player's general direction.
"Would You Kindly" is the part where the game goes downhill. It's where the game reveals its hand, and to make its point, it removes freedom from the game, turning it into a lengthy corridor crawl.
Bioshock 2, on the other hand, never does that. It recognizes that there are limits to the experience, but it still provides choice. It's a counterpoint. If Bioshock's claim is that every experience is inherently controlled by someone else, Bioshock 2's point is that, even as someone as controlled as Delta--a man forced into being a monster symbiotically tied to an imprisoned girl, driven to do nothing but find her--people still have choices.
Personally, I find it to be the more inspiring narrative, not only from a human standpoint, but also from a game design standpoint. No matter the limitations, the player can still have the freedom to choose. It's not all an illusion. It doesn't all have to be button prompts. It can be something as simple as walking away from someone who deserves to die.
Sadly, people saw Bioshock's "BY THE WAY, IT'S ALL FAKE" as a revolution (we should already KNOW that it's fake, but when we play immersive sims like Bioshock, we want to be involved anyway; immersive sims are human-constructed, artificial realities), and ignored Bioshock 2's subtler, alternative take on things.
So... I've got a lot of worries.
I'm a bit worried that Bioshock Infinite will return to the ideas of Bioshock, of the designer's rigid control. I'm worried that Bioshock Infinite will lack the mechanical advances in Bioshock 2 (and that crafting, which I loved, will fail to return). I'm worried that the story will lack the humanity present in Bioshock 2 (it's a great exploration of parenthood, love, redemption/vengeance/forgiveness, slavery, freedom, family, ambition, etc, contrasted with Bioshock's straw Randians).
But... I'm also worried that I won't get to have a great deal of alone time.
Earlier, I mentioned that one of Bioshock 2's biggest failings was that the player was a Big Daddy, lacking in vulnerability. Irrational has promised us, in Infinite, something called 1999 mode, and I fear it may be off the mark.
Do you know why shooters from the late 90s and early 00s are great?
It's not because of how often players died.
It's because they were often focused on solitude and mobility. Go back and play System Shock 2. Why does that game still resonate to this day? Because the player is alone. The game's big twist hits hard because it makes the player feel more alone. The enemies are scary because the player's alone. The highs of victory are higher because the player did it alone. Every emotion the player feels in the game (and I'd argue that 'shaping player emotion' should be an important element of game design) is heightened by the fact that the player is alone.
The same is true for Unreal, for Half-Life, for Thief, for Marathon, for Halo's best levels, for No One Lives Forever, for Aliens vs Predator 2... pretty much any great shooter of the era.
The player is always alone.
Bioshock Infinite appears to be spending a great deal of time with someone. Now, this could be amazing. I'm somewhat wary, because allied AI almost universally sucks, but the real root of my worry is that 1999 mode won't feel like a 1999 game because of the amount of time I spend with someone else. I'm worried that all the increased difficulty will do is make me spend less time in the game because I'll just have significantly less health and will have to reload every time I do.
So... there you have it.
Bioshock Infinite looks like it will be memorable. The skyhook system looks fantastic. Both sides in the story seem exaggerated, but that's cool. The art design looks superb. Hopefully the importance of sound (which was better in Bioshock than in Bioshock 2, in my opinion) will remain intact.
But will it bog down in the final act? Will 1999 mode really feel like a game from 1999, or will it just have me dying a lot? Will the game be as rigidly controlled as Irrational's last? Will I enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Bioshock 2 (or, hopefully, Minerva's Den?).
I'm getting Bioshock Infinite. But "what ifs" have been creeping into my head the past week or two, and I can't swat them away.
This is... weird.
If there's one person in the industry whose games I will buy, it's probably Ken Levine. I find him a fascinating, intelligent person, with a lot of cool things to say. Truth be told, if my game design degree hadn't been a colossal waste of time spent in AutoCAD and Second Life, and if I wasn't getting into film school because it was one of a few options I had available to me as a career, I would be doing everything in my power to get a job working for him.
We've been promised a great deal of things for Bioshock Infinite. It's taking inspiration from some fascinating sources. Ken Levine has demonstrated his capabilities with games like Thief and System Shock 2.
...but then there's Bioshock.
When I first played it, I was blown away. The setting was fantastic. The world felt so good to explore. I loved listening to the game's lush soundscape... and yet... hm. Not sure how to put this.
When people really like a game, they always--and I do mean always--get excited about its successor. Interactivity, the thing that makes video games special, is also a big part of why we buy games. If we enjoyed the gameplay in one game, chances are, we'll want to experience that again, and since it's very rare that a developer will transpose their mechanical style over to another game, that means we tend to want sequels.
Bioshock didn't do that.
Yes, we all felt really smart when the game smashed us in the face with "Would You Kindly," and yes, those of us who had never experienced the glory of System Shock 2 thought it was one of the greatest video games ever made, but... when Bioshock 2 came around, we most of us weren't that excited.
If you talk with people about Bioshock now, you'll hear a degree of negativity creep into their speech. You'll hear a disproportionate amount of people shrug and say it didn't really grab them. "Yeah," some will say, "it was smart, but the gameplay wasn't really that good, and honestly, some parts were kind of boring." They've been saying it with increasing frequency.
It's funny, because on the whole, I think Bioshock 2 was the better game. Yes, I know, that's a pretty controversial position to take, but bear with me.
Yes, the game made mistakes. One failing was in the art for each level, which never quite managed to have the same degree of personality present in Bioshock. Some have mentioned that it was too linear, but its predecessor had never really provided much of a reason to backtrack, so it wasn't really that big a deal.
Bioshock 2's biggest shortcoming was that the player was a Big Daddy. Rumor has it that the player was originally going to be Mark Meltzer, rather than Delta. This would have presented a more vulnerable character than the one we played as, which would have been a great deal more fun to play. I'll delve into this more later on.
From a mechanical standpoint, Bioshock 2 had by far the better gunplay, more ways to do things, more enemy types to fight, and all the general polish you expect in a sequel. Likewise, it had the better story, not just because it tried new things (like playing as a Little Sister), or because the final act didn't bog down the way Levine's games seem to (hi, Body of The Many!), but because the game never spat in the player's face like Bioshock.
In a way, Bioshock 2 seems to be an answer to Bioshock. The first game's "Would You Kindly" moment only works if you accept that the game experience is completely within the control of the designer. If you've played games such as STALKER or Deus Ex, you know that isn't true: emergent stories happen. Things the designers could have never expected or anticipated come out of the rules they've created. Games can be more than designer-limited experiences--designers can create frameworks for experiences, rather than hand-craft the entirety of the experience.
Bioshock's first two thirds establish a world and an experience where the player is, more or less, free to challenge the world as they saw fit. Yes, the major objectives were still up to the player, but Bioshock layered a degree of choice and consequence that made the experience worth having, despite the authored events that guided the player's general direction.
"Would You Kindly" is the part where the game goes downhill. It's where the game reveals its hand, and to make its point, it removes freedom from the game, turning it into a lengthy corridor crawl.
Bioshock 2, on the other hand, never does that. It recognizes that there are limits to the experience, but it still provides choice. It's a counterpoint. If Bioshock's claim is that every experience is inherently controlled by someone else, Bioshock 2's point is that, even as someone as controlled as Delta--a man forced into being a monster symbiotically tied to an imprisoned girl, driven to do nothing but find her--people still have choices.
Personally, I find it to be the more inspiring narrative, not only from a human standpoint, but also from a game design standpoint. No matter the limitations, the player can still have the freedom to choose. It's not all an illusion. It doesn't all have to be button prompts. It can be something as simple as walking away from someone who deserves to die.
Sadly, people saw Bioshock's "BY THE WAY, IT'S ALL FAKE" as a revolution (we should already KNOW that it's fake, but when we play immersive sims like Bioshock, we want to be involved anyway; immersive sims are human-constructed, artificial realities), and ignored Bioshock 2's subtler, alternative take on things.
So... I've got a lot of worries.
I'm a bit worried that Bioshock Infinite will return to the ideas of Bioshock, of the designer's rigid control. I'm worried that Bioshock Infinite will lack the mechanical advances in Bioshock 2 (and that crafting, which I loved, will fail to return). I'm worried that the story will lack the humanity present in Bioshock 2 (it's a great exploration of parenthood, love, redemption/vengeance/forgiveness, slavery, freedom, family, ambition, etc, contrasted with Bioshock's straw Randians).
But... I'm also worried that I won't get to have a great deal of alone time.
Earlier, I mentioned that one of Bioshock 2's biggest failings was that the player was a Big Daddy, lacking in vulnerability. Irrational has promised us, in Infinite, something called 1999 mode, and I fear it may be off the mark.
Do you know why shooters from the late 90s and early 00s are great?
It's not because of how often players died.
It's because they were often focused on solitude and mobility. Go back and play System Shock 2. Why does that game still resonate to this day? Because the player is alone. The game's big twist hits hard because it makes the player feel more alone. The enemies are scary because the player's alone. The highs of victory are higher because the player did it alone. Every emotion the player feels in the game (and I'd argue that 'shaping player emotion' should be an important element of game design) is heightened by the fact that the player is alone.
The same is true for Unreal, for Half-Life, for Thief, for Marathon, for Halo's best levels, for No One Lives Forever, for Aliens vs Predator 2... pretty much any great shooter of the era.
The player is always alone.
Bioshock Infinite appears to be spending a great deal of time with someone. Now, this could be amazing. I'm somewhat wary, because allied AI almost universally sucks, but the real root of my worry is that 1999 mode won't feel like a 1999 game because of the amount of time I spend with someone else. I'm worried that all the increased difficulty will do is make me spend less time in the game because I'll just have significantly less health and will have to reload every time I do.
So... there you have it.
Bioshock Infinite looks like it will be memorable. The skyhook system looks fantastic. Both sides in the story seem exaggerated, but that's cool. The art design looks superb. Hopefully the importance of sound (which was better in Bioshock than in Bioshock 2, in my opinion) will remain intact.
But will it bog down in the final act? Will 1999 mode really feel like a game from 1999, or will it just have me dying a lot? Will the game be as rigidly controlled as Irrational's last? Will I enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Bioshock 2 (or, hopefully, Minerva's Den?).
I'm getting Bioshock Infinite. But "what ifs" have been creeping into my head the past week or two, and I can't swat them away.
