BioShock Postmortem Discusses The Good And Bad Of Game Development

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
BioShock Postmortem Discusses The Good And Bad Of Game Development


A new GamaSutra [http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/] offers some interesting insights into the development of the game, including what went wrong, what went right and how the process unfolded from the earliest demos in 2006 to the final release version of the hit FPS.

Written by project lead Alyssa Finley, the article describes the development of BioShock as "epic," involving changes in the game, the development team, the company and even the focus of the game, from "RPG hybrid to shooter." While the processes behind the development are relatively easy to describe, she said, the "creative spark" that led the game to such great success is much harder to nail down. "It took a visionary to make the creative choices to guide the game, and an incredibly talented and hardworking team to bring that vision to life," she said.

Finley cites early demos for the game as being critical to its eventual success, going as far back as the 2006 E3 [http://www.e3expo.com/], when the game was shown publicly for the first time. Each public display of the game was intended to present a certain message about the game, with narrative built around that message in order to create a "vibe" that would generate interest in the potential audience. "Since BioShock was a relatively unknown IP outside the game development community, the public's impression of it would be critical to building the buzz we needed to make it a commercial success," she said. "As a result, every time we took the game out in public, we put great thought into the message we wanted the demo to deliver and the level of polish of the presentation."

Other facets of development, including a willingness to make changes to the core gameplay when necessary and to seek opinions from outside the development team were also major factors in shaping the game. The implementation of small, "multidisciplinary strike teams" to address problems in the game had a big impact on troubleshooting over the course of the development process. "One of the most visible successes of the strike team system is the tuning of the weapons of the game. All the weapons had been in and working for several months, but as the game got closer to content lock, they still weren't feeling as good as they should," Finley said.

"To tune each weapon, a team consisting of one designer, an animator, a modeler, a programmer, the effects specialist and an audio designer held a kickoff meeting where they analyzed and brainstormed about each aspect of a single weapon," she continued. "They came up with a task list for each team member, went off to work for a day or two on their tasks, then came [and] reviewed all the results. When they were satisfied, they moved on to the next weapon."

Still, there were problems with the process that could not be overcome, not least of which was the "evolving product positioning" of the game itself. "The spec of BioShock changed so much over the course of development that we spent the majority of the game making the wrong game - an extremely deep game, and at times an interesting one, but it was not a groundbreaking game that would appeal to a wide audience," Finley said.

"Part of the reason for the late course change came from not having our internal product message clear from the beginning," she added. "BioShock had initially been positioned as a hybrid RPG FPS. The decision to reposition the game as a focused FPS came later, after our initial production phase in summer of 2006. Had we been working with an FPS mentality earlier, we could have made better use of our time."

Despite these and other problems, BioShock was released to widespread critical acclaim and commercial success, regarded as one of the finest games of 2007, and Finley seems largely satisfied with the processes employed by 2K Australia [http://www.2kboston.com/] to get the job done. "If there's an over-arching theme of our development, it's that we, like many other developers, believe that ultimate success in this industry comes from iteration," she said. "You have to build, evaluate (and have others evaluate) and be prepared to throw things away and rebuild. The products we make are just too complex and our industry reinvents itself too rapidly to do anything else. But we believe that if you are truly prepared to turn a critical eye on your own product and honestly respond to that criticism you'll get quality at the end. As to whether you get a blockbuster, only time will tell."

Alyssa Finley's BioShock postmortem can be read in full at GamaSutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3774/postmortem_2k_boston2k_.php].


Permalink
 

Giftmacher

New member
Jul 22, 2008
137
0
0
Interesting, but I cringe every time I see Bioshock referred to as "a groundbreaking game" or similar. Sorry but no, good as Bioshock was, System Shock 1 and 2 were the ground breaking games (Bioshock owes a lot to the latter in particular).

Gift.
 

DamienHell

New member
Oct 17, 2007
656
0
0
Yah I found the execution of plasmids to be poor, I would charge into battle, barely survive, be out of ammo in 3 guns, look up and have max EVE and go "oh yah, forgot about that" Psi Ops did an amazing job of mixing powers with guns, cause you used them at the same time. With bioshock you have to switch which makes it annoying
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
I made a HUGE mistake with BioShock: I had a start-to-finish replay of System Shock 2 about two months before I played it. And as good as BioShock was - and let's be fair, it was awfully damned good - it pales in comparison. I absolutely agree that it wasn't groundbreaking in any way whatsoever; if anything, it was a stripped-down retread, a "System Shock Lite," and while I have no regrets about buying it (and waiting several months before I could play it), given the choice of replaying only one of them there's no question it would be SS2.

One of the big flaws in the game for me had to do with plasmids and ADAM. (Spoilers ahead, btw.) Both were just too plentiful. I liked the powers the plasmids gave me, but I never felt pressured about which ones I should use because they were all so easily available. In SS2 it just about killed me trying to decide where to put my upgrade modules; in BioShock, it felt more like I was the only one in line for the Going Out Of Business Plasmid Blowout Sale. But what really didn't sit right was ADAM. The big moral choice we were led to believe would accompany our interactions with the Little Sisters just never panned out. The original idea was that we could either save the girls and suffer without ADAM, or snuff them and become godlike in our powers, but the reality was far less interesting: Kill them and get all their ADAM, or save them and get just a wee little bit less than all of it. I rescued every last Little Sister in the game and was hip-deep in the stuff by mid-point. It was disappointing. It was a very pretty FPS with a hell of a story, but compared to what a lot of us were expecting, it was a letdown.

On the other hand, it was also a huge hit, while System Shock 2 is more of a respected cult classic. So ultimately, who's right?
 

Jordan Deam

New member
Jan 11, 2008
697
0
0
Say what you will about the gameplay, but they really did something unique with the script, level design and art. Remember how quickly you were pulled in by the demo? The overall story may have been shit, but they really knew how to pace the narrative and put you in unique situations. And the voice acting was better than nearly any game I've played to date. It may have ultimately just been another FPS, but the aesthetics made it a lot more compelling than your typical Halo/Haze/FarCry fare.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
I agree with you completely in that regard, BioShock was far superior to the vast majority of mainstream hit FPSes. The design was brilliant, the production qualities were second-to-none, it was far and away one of the slickest games I've ever played and I have no doubt I'll play it again someday.

But it weren't no System Shock 2.

(And I never played the demo.)
 

Frederf

New member
Nov 5, 2007
74
0
0
' the focus of the game, from "RPG hybrid to shooter." '
Read: Dumbed down to appeal to Xbox 360 boys.

Bioshock's success is taking a game that was known to be brilliant (System Shock 2), dumbing it down so consolers can play it, polishing the bejebus out of it, and then delivering it as a groundbreaking game (which it is, if you've never played a PC game before) to aforementioned consolers.

Bioshock is not a new game. Bioshock is a classic 1990 video game done again in the modern era. This is why it is so likable; it is squarely within the comfort zone of any gamer born before 1988.

I mean kudos to the developers for having these action teams and mental togetherness to aggressively review and change their own work.