Levine says devs must amaze people

By Games Industry.biz Published 11 February, 2008

Talks about BioShock mistakes.

Speaking as part of an impromptu panel at the DICE Summit 2008, BioShock creative director Ken Levine sought to remind developers what they were really meant to be doing, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

"It is easy to forget that your job is to amaze people," he said. "If you amaze people, they will buy the thing."

"Are people going to look at this and say 'Omigod! That's awesome!'?"

BioShock won five Interactive Achievement Awards - including the award for outstanding achievement in game design - after which spoke on the importance of narrative.

"Games are about a core fantasy," he said.

"That was a problem with BioShock. What exactly is the core fantasy of BioShock? Who is this guy?"

Levine admitted that the reason that the main character ended up being a sort of cipher was partly because he didn't take the time to fully develop him.

"Who doesn't want to be a rockstar?" he asked. "Who doesn't want to be a tool in an objectivist, failed utopia?" he said, to laughter from the crowd.

In hindsight, if he had to change one thing about BioShock it would be to end the game closer to the revelation of the main character's nature. Levine said he underestimated how strongly players would react to that moment, and felt that the game continued on too long after hitting that high point.

While the summit focused on innovation, creativity and narrative, Levine didn't discount the financial realities.

"At the end of the day, when somebody is handing you USD 15 to 20 million, you have a serious responsibility to help them earn their money back."

"You have to sell games when it comes down to it."

He said that he takes his fiduciary responsibility very seriously, finding it empowering because it requires developers to be honest about the value of their work.

In addition to BioShock's multiple awards, its sales are evidence that it has, indeed, amazed people.

"When two million people buy your game, it says something about your game that is hard to refute."

Read GamesIndustry.biz daily so that we don't have to cut up Phil and use him as firewood.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (17) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bulbatron #1 4 years ago

    First!

    BioShock was a great game. I think I'm the only person who was glad of the vita-chambers though. I therefore wasn't glad of the new achievement, but never mind. BioShock is still awesome.

  • menage #2 4 years ago

    Didn't mind the anonimity of the main person. Rapture and it's citizens where the main star in my book. It made it less Hollywood and far more interesting in my book. Added to the mystery.

  • NickNack #3 4 years ago

    I would rather watch paint dry than replay Bioshock. One of the most over rated boring slow paced piles of trash released in years. You spend 90% of the time switching between plasmids, ammo, guns, just so you can shoot dumb looking characters who run straight at you like morons. Plus the actual shooting bit is boring and unsatisying. Plus the last boss and endings are shit.

    If you can''t make a FPS with decent guns just effin forget about it and start again. Bioshock sure is one shitty game, people are just afraid to say it because so many reviewers shot their load over it on release day.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/08 @ 10:02

  • GordonCaladan #4 4 years ago

    I thought the revelation of the lack of self-determination of the main character in Bioshock was a comment on the illusion of free will created throughout the game, the FPS genre on the whole, and by proxy, life.

    Disappointed to hear from Levine that Bioshock's depth is just sloppy craftsmanship.

  • Tiel #5 4 years ago

    Can't this guy learn from Criterion and say that anyone who doesn't like any aspect of their game is wrong.

    What does he mean it must entertain.

    I'm with Criterion. I think *we* should be made to be entertained, and if we aren't then it is us that should be given 7/10/

  • PlugMonkey #6 4 years ago

    I liked the fact that I had no idea who my character was or what their motives were. It was a very interesting type of narrative suspense. Books and films have often asked me to work out whodunnit, whoamI was a fairly new one on me.

    When the game first came out I read a lot of comments along the lines of "Bioshock completely shattered my suspension of disbelief in the first 10 minutes. Why would I climb into a bathysphere for no reason? Why would I inject myself with a load of gunk when I don't know what it is? This game's dumb!"

    I was left thinking 'Hang on a sec. You have no idea who your character is, or why they're there. What makes you think you climbed into the bathysphere for no reason? There was clearly some reason, you just don't know what it is yet.'

    It's a very interesting means of story telling. As long as you can keep the character and the player's ambitions and actions roughly in line, you don't need to reveal the character's true motives straight away. And that's why the big revelation at the end is so powerful, because it's about YOU, not some other 3rd party.

    The fact is, you didn't get into the bathysphere for no reason, you did it because you wanted to go to Rapture. So did your character. But you don't actually need to know all of the background information up front as to why that is, and quite a lot of people didn't seem to be ready for that.

  • Grim... #7 4 years ago

    He's right about the fact that the game should have ended earlier, but that's because the last quarter where you were dressing up as a big daddy was dull, dull, dull.

  • Bezzy #8 4 years ago

    Definitely agree that the reveal wanted to be closer to the end.

    The second half had other problems which are worth noting for the sequel, though.

    There's a definite sense of "impatience" about these levels, since you're chasing down Fontaine, even though it's an illusion and you can take as much time as you like. Being rushed through a game which is at its best when you are allowed time to plan your attacks like Wylie Coyote is, in hindsight, an obvious mistake.

    Still, it's hard to see it as a problem when you're deeply involved in developing it. I wish people would cut a bit of slack in that respect. Trying to do new things (which Bioshock does in spades) is one of the hardest things to do in games, and ought to be appreciated a lot more when it's pulled off properly.

    As for the idea that our character wasn't well enough defined... well, my rule is that so long as the line between the character and the player's expression is well drawn, there shouldn't be a problem. The problem is, how do you define that line? At what point should you, as a player, be dictating a character's reaction, and at what point is a character's reaction defined by the character and his circumstances? Back-characterization is fine in my book, but once that didactic character starts imposing on our moment to moment choices, as a player, I start to feel put-out.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/08 @ 11:40

  • mkreku #9 4 years ago

    "When two million people buy your game, it says something about your game that is hard to refute."

    Does it, really? What does 20 million people buying the latest Britney Spears album tell you then?

  • Bezzy #10 4 years ago

    Good marketing. Quality irrelevant.

  • muscleblade #11 4 years ago

    Checkpoints would have been better than the Vita chambers and save feature. I didnt care wether i died or not taking away all the thrill from the game. Dying should always give the gamer some penalty. The Brass balls achievement didnt help because of the save/load feature.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/08 @ 13:03

  • thewolfiv #12 4 years ago

    "When two million people buy your game, it says something about your game that is hard to refute."

    Does it, really? What does 20 million people buying the latest Britney Spears album tell you then?

    i think you gotta look at the price 20 million x 10 dollars or 2 million x 60 dollars people are more weary of putting a lot of money down, the price of a cd is next to nothing compared to a game.

  • Bulbatron #13 4 years ago

    I hate checkpoints. Much prefer being able to save whenever. You never know when you're going to be called away from the game, and it is good to just be able to save on the spot if that happens.

  • kangarootoo #14 4 years ago

    I'm not quite sure I agree with him, and it seems like half this thread feel the same.

    I never had an issue with the characterless protagonist, it left space for me to fill the role in my own head. And it never harmed Gordon Freeman that we never really knew anything about him other than he had a beard and glasses.

    For me, the low points of Bioshock (of which there were few, imo) were down to level design and pacing near the end. It had that age old "these were clearly the last levels they made, and they just needed to wrap things up" kind of feel about it.


    On the whole save v checkpoint situation, I shall summarise my strong feelings on this as concisely as possible (as I've said the same thing numerous times on these pages) and in no particular order.

    1. Checkpoints are good because if I forget to save I am not screwed.
    2. Save anywhere is good because my house might catch fire and I would quite like to leave immediately if that happens.
    3. Being able to save current progress is a basic feature of software, be it a game or a word processor. It is not a gameplay mechanic and should not be treated as such.
    4. Repetition is not the same thing as fun and it is NOT the same thing as tension. If being able to save anywhere takes the tension out of your scary game, your tension generating mechanics are broken and they needs fixing properly at the source.

    That is all I have to say on the matter.... unless prompted by flaming :)

  • PCRist #15 4 years ago

    Fifa 99 sold millions of copies, too.

  • miiiguel #16 4 years ago

    BioShock has no mistakes.

    While I prefer checkpoints, Vita Chambers can be ignored, so it's not realy a mistake.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/08 @ 14:15

  • GordonCaladan #17 4 years ago

    If you don't like Vita Chambers, just don't die.

  • kangarootoo #18 4 years ago

    "BioShock has no mistakes"

    This is all semantics. Bioshock is not perfect, so it has imperfections whatever you call them.