Fan feedback prompts BioShock Infinite 1999 Mode

By Tom Phillips Published 19 January, 2012

A more "demanding" experience with "irreversible" choices.

BioShock Infinite will include "1999 Mode", a harder version of the game where your characters' choices have "irreversible implications", developer Irrational Games has announced.

Irrational's decision to include the feature was prompted in part by feedback in a recent fan survey undertaken by the developer.

Irrational Games already harboured a "hunch" about including the mode, community manager Eduardo Vasconcellos explained on the company's blog. The feedback received by the studio would confirmed Irrational's decision.

1999 Mode is designed to be more than a simple 'hard mode', Vasconcellos explained. Instead, the feature will give players an "especially demanding gaming experience forcing you to examine your decisions while going through your adventure in Columbia".

"With every choice you make, there are irreversible implications, and if your choices guide you down a path not suited to your play style, you will suffer for it."

Resource planning and the need to specialise your combat will also be vital.

"There are game saves, and you're gonna f***ing need them," Irrational head Ken Levine stated.

"We want to give our oldest and most committed fans an option to go back to our roots," Levine continued. "In 1999 Mode, gamers face more of the permanent consequences of their gameplay decisions.

"I'm an old school gamer. We wanted to make sure we were taking into account the play styles of gamers like me. So we went straight to the horse's mouth by asking them, on our website, a series of questions about how they play our games. 94.6 percent of respondents indicated that upgrade choices enhanced their BioShock gameplay experience; however, 56.8 percent indicated that being required to make permanent decisions about their character would have made the game even better.

"In BioShock Infinite, gamers will have to sweat out the results of their actions. In addition, 1999 Mode will demand that players pick specialisations, and focus on them."

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Phillips

Tom joined Eurogamer in 2010 and has quickly made his mark writing news and columns and coming up with puntastic straplines. Questionable beard. @TomPhillips151 on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Phillips archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (57) Latest comment 4 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • syra #1 4 months ago

    why the date of release of system shock 2?

  • rashes #2 4 months ago

    I like the idea of irreversible decisions and specialisations. I would rather they weren't only accessible through the 'insane' difficulty setting, which is how this article reads.

  • Kami #3 4 months ago

    Now that is interesting. And makes me want Infinite even more!

    To use a cliche... "Is it out yet? Is it out yet? Is it out yet? Is it out yet?..."

  • Lexx87 #4 4 months ago

    That sounds excellent.

  • retr0gamer #5 4 months ago

    1999 mode sounds like the game it should be in the first place?

  • seeafish #6 4 months ago

    I love Ken Levigne. He's cool...

  • WJF #7 4 months ago

    "why the date of release of system shock 2?"

    I would guess it's because SS2 didn't allow you to learn all the skills/abilities to be a perfect hacker/gunner/thief etc. during gameplay (iirc).

    Whereas Bioshock just kept giving players all the Adam they needed to get most, if not all, skills no matter if you picked the 'good' or 'bad' option, thus making the choice of abilities and the direction of your character fairly arbitrary.

  • Rack #8 4 months ago

    @rashes Likewise, though the optimist in me is imagining that consequences and specialisations are a part of the fundamental game design, 1999 mode just enforces them through raised difficulty and save game management.

  • RNX-Lanky #9 4 months ago

    @Lexx87 - at first glance , your avatar pic always makes me think that its a lovely pair of lady legs. Then it turns out to ba a cat on some bongos and I feel ashamed. So thanks for that.

    It does sound like a great addition to the game, will certainly make me party like the date in a certain Prince song. Until it infuriates me that is (in a good way, of course).

  • Golgo #10 4 months ago

    I hope the decisions here are rather more morally perplexing (and more consequential in gameplay terms) than the 'do I slaughter children because some strange bloke just told me too' of Bioshock.

    (Bit of spoiler-tag over-precaution there, just in case)

  • Darren #11 4 months ago

    This is potentially the most interesting game of 2012 for me as the footage I've seen looks amazing and seems to capture the same awe I felt when I saw BioShock for the first time. Shame about the samey BioShock 2 though (oh what a bitter disappointment that was) but I'm happy to forget that in favour of this game being BioShock's true sequel.

    Please be good, oh please be good!

  • RedSparrows #12 4 months ago

    I like it when games do this. I see absolutely no problem with attempting to broaden a games appeal (not necessarily in this case, but generally) as long as there's a 'hardcore' mode too.

  • Whatascoop #13 4 months ago

    Does 1999 mode have an interesting, fun multiplayer, no dlc and free mod tools?

  • kassmageant #14 4 months ago

    1999 eh? and maybe they'll replace songibrd with shodan : )

  • Eraser #15 4 months ago

    Why don't they force you to examine your decisions in the normal game mode? Don't want to be a negative bitch, but this reads more like the normal game modes will allow you to go through the game without having to make choices that have great implications on the rest of the game.

  • Cjail #16 4 months ago

    Play like it's 1999!

  • BigDannyH #17 4 months ago

    He's just made an already exciting release sound more awesome!

    I really hope it's even half as good as I'm imagining.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #18 4 months ago

    Yes, it's 1999 again, right down to the idea that "Game Over" somehow makes for a harder or more compelling game.

    Don't be toothless, Irrational. Don't become modern day Konami, who place all their neat ideas and challenges for Castlevania in optional modes so the people looking for games first have to play the game as it was designed for fetishists or the stunted manchildren reviewers, then thrawl through the Hard Mode.

  • Eraysor #19 4 months ago

    Brilliant idea. Cannot argue with more choice. One of the reasons I loved Fallout: New Vegas so much was Hardcore mode, and this seems like the evolution of that.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #20 4 months ago

    If you think your ideas for irreversible choices and consequences are good, make them available from the start. I want to be challenged, not dangled a carrot. It's like all the neat ideas they have for the game are optional. Seriously, man up. And kisses, because I'm being harsh because I care.
    Edited by Diogo_Ribeiro at 19/01/12 @ 14:17

  • DefendoCroc #21 4 months ago

    Love the way Levine thinks, harder the better thanx :)

  • MattEdWithCheese #22 4 months ago

    The Hardcore mode in New Vegas was part of the reason why I loved the game so much, same with Bioshock's "Disable Vita-Chambers" option. I think that variable depth is the best way to appeal to a broad audience without creating a game that bores the more traditional gaming audience!

  • -cerberus- #23 4 months ago

    This Levine guy, I think I want him for World President.

  • Nico4 #24 4 months ago

    Sounds pretty bloody excellent.

  • Fruit-Salad #25 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 01:35:51 08-02-2012

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #26 4 months ago

    interesting !

  • apoc_reg #27 4 months ago

    love the idea, always been an advicate for allowing more casual options BUT as an option and not at the expense of the experienced gamer.

    Im hoping thats what Bioware have also done with these modes that were leaked for Mass 3.

  • Fruit-Salad #28 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 01:35:51 08-02-2012

  • Arsecake_Baker #29 4 months ago

    I am also a gamer from the old old old school, and i welcome this brilliant decision from Irrational.

    Kids today don't know they're born!
    Edited by Arsecake_Baker at 19/01/12 @ 15:02

  • DUFFKING #30 4 months ago

    Nice to see more games embracing difficulty.

    I don't see where the need for games to handhold so much has come from. Back when Doom released most people hadn't played an FPS before but I doubt they had any trouble picking it up, and Doom looks sophisticated by comparison to some shooters today. At least it had you look for keycards. Developers need to credit players with a little more intelligence.

  • DAN.E.B #31 4 months ago

    If only more developers thought the same way!
    The amount of franchises that are ruined by making them more accessable this gen is ridiculous.

    Maybe IO will do something similiar with Hitman
    And Ubisoft with.....well pretty much all their IPs
    And Ninja Gaiden

    the list is endless:(
    Edited by DAN.E.B at 19/01/12 @ 15:16

  • abigsmurf #32 4 months ago

    This would be neat but they need to balance the game for this mode.

    It shouldn't be an ultra hard, hardcore mode, it should be an alternative to the 'modern' mode. Older games like SS2 weren't especially harder, they were just more in depth.

  • Kostas #33 4 months ago

    Thats what we need, options, options and more options. Give the players enough of a choice to play how they like.

  • SG #34 4 months ago

    Being open-ended is good, but I'm not sure that I like the 'irreversible' part - as he says, "...if your choices guide you down a path not suited to your play style, you will suffer for it".

  • spekkeh #35 4 months ago

    I read the article, but I'm still not sure what he means. If it's consequences tied to the story, or the roleplay of your character, oh yes please! But then they hardly had branching storylines and player agency back in 1999. If it's 'oh no I used all my health packs and saved while I'm almost dead, now I'm screwed and have to try this sequence 300 times over', as did frequently happen in 1999, then please by all means get it the hell out of here.
    Edited by spekkeh at 19/01/12 @ 15:42

  • dagas #36 4 months ago

    I'm all for irreversible decisions when it comes to story, but not so much when it comes to gameplay.

  • abigsmurf #37 4 months ago

    @spekkeh

    In my case it was "I'm lost and not sure where to do. As I wander around aimlessly for the next 30 mins the respawning monsters will whittle away my ammo and money"

  • Koozer #38 4 months ago

    @Kami That's what she said.

  • Gecks #39 4 months ago

    it's a sad indictment of today's gaming industry when game balancing is a bonus 'mode'. i realise the industry has taken some turns since 1999, but i don't know how people can be satisfied with the end game of titles like fallout 3, oblivion and bioshock, where you are feasibly a master of all trades, and all enemies are but a dalliance, chipping away at your stacks of HP like pedicure fish in a shopping-centre. it's just really tedious!

  • TheGuvernor #40 4 months ago

    My specialisation - cleavage ogling.

  • DaemonSpawn #41 4 months ago

    @spekkeh
    'oh no I used all my health packs and saved while I'm almost dead, now I'm screwed and have to try this sequence 300 times over', as did frequently happen in 1999, then please by all means get it the hell out of here.

    I hope it's EXACTLY this, because nowadays no matter how much you fuck up you can always progress. Didn't save ammo? Ok, here's some. Attacked the enemies head on and used up all the health packs? You poor baby, here's regeneration for you.

    This is great for passing through the sequence of slightly interactive cut-scenes like in Call Of Duty, and this allows any player to progress. This is good thing. I like to play accessible games, because I have very little spare time.

    But this leads to no planning and no consequences whatsoever - no matter how stupid you are in your choices, you will progress. Some people don't like it, and if game designers can provide optional old-school mode where you have to think beforehand, it's a good thing for everybody - no one's forcing you to turn it on after all.

  • jimr9999us #42 4 months ago

    @seeafish
    "There are game saves, and you're gonna f***ing need them,"

  • Kanjin #43 4 months ago

    1999 mode? You mean bad animation, stupid glitches, one-dimensional characters, appalling voice acting and a blatantly cheating AI? Wow, a lots changed since... then...!

    Er...

    Joking aside this sounds excellent. Possibly for a 2nd playthrough to get used to what works well etc. As usual IG going the step further.

  • BiscuitPowered #44 4 months ago

    So, like Dark Souls then

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #45 4 months ago

    @DaemonSpawn "if game designers can provide optional old-school mode where you have to think beforehand"

    I'd love to see your design doc for Portal 3. I'm guessing in normal mode players just use the gun to cross walls, while puzzles are only available in hard mode. Y'know, for people that optionally like to think beforehand.

    10/10 IGN.

  • omniscient #46 4 months ago

    it's better a choice. For a game like Bioshock I'd rather they didn't listen to feedback.

  • Unknown27 #47 4 months ago

    @Eraser Because this way if you're someone who wants the more challenging gaming experience, you can have it. Or If you're someone who wants something a bit more casual and to just enjoy the story, you're catered for as well. To have only one option will be forcing one of these types of players into an experience they won't enjoy to the fullest. I really don't understand why giving people the option is a bad thing?

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #48 4 months ago

    @Unknown27 "To have only one option will be forcing one of these types of players into an experience they won't enjoy to the fullest."

    Well, see, the problem aren't more options. It's assuming that more options just for the sake of more options is a better idea than, say, designing a game that's neither a harsh mistress nor a walk in the park. Difficulty levels have almost always been a decoy because of this: developers couldn't think of any better way to challenge players than adding more hit points to enemies.

    And this is precisely the same problem now. Game Over isn't "hardcore" because there is no penalty another than reloading. This doesn't make for a more compelling game; just longer tedium and busywork. Which is why Vita Chambers were a good idea: they hit players in the gut of self-confidence, because even if they were no game over, they were a constant reminder of a player's lack of preparation, awareness and general failure to keep up. The challenge was not to so much killing enemies, as it was to prove to yourself you didn't need the chambers; and hey, if you "lost", they were there anyway.

    Did anyone enjoy System Shock 2 because spirit manifestation and weapon downgrading were optional, or because they were inexorably a part of the experience?

  • Scarmath #49 4 months ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro Actually, I though the Vita Chambers in Bioshock destroyed the tension of most of the fighting. Playing the game without Vita Chambers (which was an option added by a patch) practically changed it into a different game. You could no longer count on whittling away a big daddy's defenses, or engaging a large group of enemies without losing progress.

    Taking away the vita chambers turned Bioshock into a better game.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #50 4 months ago

    @Scarmath

    I disagree, but that's to be expected considering what else I've said previously.

    Tension in videogames is often down to tricking players into thinking they'll lose but to not let that materialize. Dying isn't tense; it's the possibility of it happening creeping up on you. Being repeatedly killed in a game is frustrating, and a waste of time. A Game Over is trial and error at its worst, with the added (abrupt) conclusion that you're not performing what the designer wants. Vita Chambers aren't an optimal solution; but neither is replacing them with a Game Over. The former directly and indirectly appels to divergent players, the one that is only in it for the experience (and don't mind "losing" ) and the one looking for the challenge (actively avoid getting killed; besides, it's nothing short of mind boggling that hardcore players criticized the chambers - if they're so hardcore, they shouldn't have to resort to them, would they?). The latter is just Pavlovian conditioning: it's the designer's boot stamping on your face forever until you "get it right".

    Edit: tl;dr: once again, I'm fine with options. Just not at the expense of meaningful choice and consequence. Good design isn't just understanding that there are different players, it's also understanding that you don't have to create separate experiences for them. There's nothing preventing Irrational from realizing their ideas without sacrificing challenge and without shafting people just looking for an "experience".
    Edited by Diogo_Ribeiro at 19/01/12 @ 20:09

  • desomondo #51 4 months ago

    Probably the best gaming news I've heard in ages. As a fan of System Shock 2, anything that moves the shallow Bioshock series closer in that direction can only be a good thing. And by making this mode optional they won't alienate all the new fans they gathered with the much more forgiving Bioshock games.

    I hope this idea is taken up by other developers. Imagine if Doom 4 for instance has an optional "1993" mode that quadruples the demons, ammo and running speed, ditches the health regen (come on, it will surely have it, just like Rage), and lets us kick arse old-school style. It'd beat monster closets in the dark any day of the week.
    Edited by desomondo at 20/01/12 @ 03:00

  • Chaud #52 4 months ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro [" Good design isn't just understanding that there are different players, it's also understanding that you don't have to create separate experiences for them. There's nothing preventing Irrational from realizing their ideas without sacrificing challenge and without shafting people just looking for an "experience"."]

    The thing is... There is.

    The problem is that there is a huge group of players who simply don't enjoy certain features of what can reasonably be considered as "good design". It's literally like trying to please both fans of funk and classical music: they have absurdly different visions of the thing, if not even opposed. It's impossible to please both fans at the same time, precisely because the expectations of the two groups are irreconcilable.

    You may notice that in even the smallest and simple changes that occur in certain series. Things that many people wouldn't actually notice, but to others are glaring and intolerable. One example among many is the way that Mass Effect 2 dealt with the ammunition of the weapons. Something that for me didn't make the slightest difference, but for some players was absurd, and generated huge threads of hatred within the Bioware forums.

    So what prevents the Irrational do this is simple common sense. Coupled with their own practical experience gained by watching the players. It's innocent to think that it's enough to "have good design". People like things for different reasons, things that can be argued as a good design decicions "rationally" may have unforeseeable implications in the experience of certain players.

    Although it's an anecdotal evidence, I can cite myself as an example: I love platform games, but I think Braid completely intolerable, though I can see great merit in the way it was built. I cannot point exactly any defect in the control, gameplay, or even the mechanics of time management (which I loved in POP: Sands of Time). But I simply hated it. "Good design" isn't enough to make anyone enjoy a game, strange as it may seem.

    That's why they created a separate mode. And that's why they needed to.
    Edited by Chaud at 20/01/12 @ 20:10

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #53 4 months ago

    @Chaud

    I think you misunderstood me. I didn't single out X or Y features as good design. I said good design isn't just adapting do different needs of different players but also achieving a common ground that does not compromise the end result.

    To cite "common sense" doesn't sound particularly useful, because by your logic, since any feature can be potentially off putting, we'd have different game modes for every such feature. Difficulty, consequences, weight limits, universal ammunition, save points, etc. Another different way to look at what Irrational is doing is... Looking at what they're actually doing: only focusing on one or two things, despite the fact that any game, inevitably, will disppoint some people over more than one or two things.

    Whatever you or me may feel is "good design" isn't really the issue. I certainly enjoy games which many others would describe as having "bad design". The issue is that Irrational believes what they did in the first Bioshock is now "bad", on accounts of criticism levelled by people who wanted to play a game other than Bioshock, but were playing Bioshock regardless. Which is to say, much like other games - Bionic Commando Rearmed comes to mind, to name but one - people assume that their playstyle is right and what the developer does is wrong. Games are not about this, or shouldn't be about this, in the slightest. That's the whole point of different games, play mechanics, genres. Out of many possible examples, there's Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, which had a clear target demographic in mind, and found critical and commercial success regardless of not creating a mode where people wouldn't die as often nor where their choices could be retconned.

    Considering the "choice and consequence" bit of this news, let's assume two distinct possibilities.

    One, is that Irrational's decision to shift irreversible consequences to a harder mode is taking into account narrative. This is... Wierd, considering how Bioshock was critically praised for its choices and consequences, regardless of them being quite binary. Doubly weird when they depended on players' choices and consequences to work - had they not been so, I very much doubt they'd be praised at all. It's like retroactively declaring Bioshock - otherwise a game that Levine so fervently defended as different from other then contemporaries, and one that was all about free will - unapproachable, user unfriendly, badly designed. Considering that sales are still seen as a sign of quality, it's basically saying Bioshock is good *and* bad (not as vocal or almost offensive as a Molyneux, but still).

    Two, Irrational are only considering this in regards to play mechanics, specifically Plasmid acquisition and selection, presumably because some players don't like being stuck with the same Plasmid selection during the entire game. But this doesn't quite make sense either because everything that can be said regarding the reception of its narrative can be said of its play mechanics. Also, there wasn't much of a point to retconning Plasmids in Bioshock - barring different names, their uses were largely similar, and level design wasn't diverse enough to justify taking different Plasmids (a kinder way to say this is that level design was diverse "just enough" to cater to more than one approach, but not diverse enough to make every enemy encounter terribly different from the previous one).

    Novelty, or seeing "everything" in the game might be a factor, sure, but it's not a factor espoused by Levine or Irrational, at least not at this time. And if it is, they might as well make "normal mode" give every ending to a player. I mean, not everyone likes having to replay games to see them.

    And if what this means, in the greater scheme of things, is that players will be able to retool their Plasmid selection, then all a different mode is doing is wasting my time because this can be worked into the default mode. Like many other options in Bioshock, it can be delegated to an Option Mode (see: disabling Vita Chambers). I hardly think this requires incredibly large amounts of code, so effectively splicing an overall experience in two seems excessive. And like the chambers, a simple toggle already can provide different experiences to the two most significant types of players.

    But even moreso: calling it 1999 Mode is conceptually self-defeating, because in 1999, we were playing games now held by the mainstream public and many reviewers as having "bad design": no recharging health, no leaning instead of third-person cameras, no unlimited ammo, etc. If nostalgia for people who though 1999 was great is their goal, hey, it doesn't bother me. But saying that it goes back "to their roots" is ironic, considering that games like System Shock 2 did not place weapon degradation, for instance, was present on all play modes, not just the harder ones - and that's a highly divise play mechanic.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #54 4 months ago

    PS: I'm long winded and harsh because I care ;)

  • Gecks #55 4 months ago

    @Diogo_Ribeiro whilst i agree with you that separate modes aren't really the answer, i disagree with some of the detail:

    - vita chambers were an issue because they allowed consequence-free respawning, but game assets remained in the state you left them in. to wit, i could go hit a big daddy twice with the wrench, die in the process, repeat that 20 times and he's dead, and all i've wasted is time. system shock 2 charged you nanites (money) every time you respawned, so there was a severe consequence, and that balanced that mechanic.

    - weapon degradation was frustrating in system shock 2, but i don't think it's an intrinsically bad idea; it works fine in dark/demon souls. i quite liked having to keep a cache of scavanged weapons, just in case my current one died; it makes it more a 'survival horror' type experience.

    - i think what they are alluding to about 'permanent choices' is more to do with with your character's spec; in system shock 2 you can't be a master of all trades, so you have to specialise. in bioshock, you would likely have maxed all your powers by the end of the game. of course it's nice to have choices, but that presumes that all powers are useful. in bioshock, there were a few clear standout powers that you used in favour of everything else, but in system shock you had to work with what you had gone for. personally i prefer the latter, as i feel it makes the game more interesting, as you have to really consider your options.

    i don't want to do an entire post-mortem of bioshock, but generally speaking: any area the game differed from system shock 2 was largely to its cost. they were bad game-design in place of good. if 1999 mode means 'more like system shock 2' as is seemingly the implication by their choice of year, then i'm all for it. it's just a shame that has to be a 'mode'.

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #56 4 months ago

    The bad ending is when Elizabeth deflates when you forgot to blow air into her blowhole.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #57 4 months ago

    @Gecks

    Well, that's my main point - "it's a shame it has to be a mode".

    I'm not criticizing the idea of a harder difficulty, or added challenge, or irreversible choice and consequence. On the contrary, I wish these were more rampant, and beyond the "higher difficulty? just make that guy take 200 rockets to the face as if they were mojitos".

    The way it's being handled, however, just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I just need a good rub, but I'm not going there.