--First and foremost I loved the game that was Bioshock, it was probably one of my favorite games of 2008; this is not a hate piece towards the Bioshock franchise. It is a deep look at one of the biggest problems in the video game industry right now, sequels and how they kill originality/creativity. I would like to personally thank Ken Levine for creating such an amazing piece of entertainment in Bioshock and I would ask him to continue making such original pieces of work; for that reason I beg you...."Please Cancel Bioshock 2".
--
I have a two question quiz. First, list some of the most popular games of 2008 for the Xbox 360. Go! Gears of War 2, Fallout 3, Fable II, Prince of Persia, and Call of Duty: World at War. Second question: what do all of these titles have in common? Whether the number is part of the title, or implied; each of these games is a sequel. There isn’t an entertainment medium thriving today that isn’t plagued with the beating of dead horses. This is not a blanket judgment declaring all sequels are inferior; however, this focus on “franchising” ideas makes for a copy of a copy of a copy industry. It has also trained gamers to be prepared to interact with the same worlds and characters until they have to use their toes to count. This isn’t something that we always complain about. The titles listed above are good, even great, games. However, this industry and gamer routine has made tending the IP farm less fruitful. And now, Bioshock promises to get pregnant and have offspring.
Some games pull it off. Gears of War introduced electrifying multiplayer and action game play that desperately needed a story. They delivered in the second installment. The last Fallout was published a decade ago and the sequel was a painstaking revitalization of the core concepts with new age capability. As you move further down the list, however, the justifications for sequels become more like the proverbial, “Because that’s the way it’s done.” Why make a sequel for Prince of Persia? Because we can is the most popular answer; or more importantly, because it sells tons of copies. Even if sequels are exceptionally better than their predecessors, it doesn’t change the reality that the industry is addicted to developing old tricks new ways, or in some situations, old tricks bad ways. It’s like watching a magician make progressively bigger things disappear. After a certain point, I don’t care where the elephant went; I’m tired of the act all together.
Bioshock 2 has been slated for 2009. Bioshock 3 has been announced and is supposedly going to coincide with the release of a movie adaptation. I’m simply asking, “Why do we need another one?” This might start out sounding like a tirade from a critic of the game. However, let me clarify. Bioshock is one of my favorite gaming experiences of ALL TIME. I’m not talking 2007 pick, or best game of the decade, but one of the best games ever developed, played, period. And I do not want a sequel.
I guess one can start to rationalize a sequel with discussing what was missing from Bioshock. Where can we go from here? The vita chamber system was rather silly and made dying more of a mild nuisance than an actual threat, and enemies’ health did not regenerate while you got your free pass so it felt like coming back to kill someone in the hospital after they’ve been run over by your car. Big Daddies became too easy to kill in the last half of the game due to weapon upgrades. These are really patching kind of issues. It claimed to have RPG elements but you ended up with enough ADAM whether you harvested or rescued the little girls to buy all the plasmids you needed and your only decision was how to accessorize for the evening. That’s a result of marketing though.
Still thinking, time’s up. 2K Marin, a joint venture between 2K Australia and some of the creative team from 2K Boston (developers of Bioshock), are going to be working to make a sequel to a game that doesn’t need one. To quote 2K president Christopher Harmann, “If we spin it the right way, and get the right twist of innovation, we can make six parts of it, as Star Wars did.” My first question is: what does Star Wars have to do with Rapture? He has an answer, “It’s [Star Wars] a fight between good and evil, just like Bioshock.” Unfortunately, it’s the wrong answer. The one thing that Star Wars and Bioshock have in common is commercial and critical success. The one IMPORTANT thing they don’t have in common is that the Star Wars universe has 16, 891* games and 7 movies to its name (*hyperbole) and Bioshock has one.
Saying that six parts may work for Bioshock because it worked for Star Wars is like putting the three bears into Super Mario Bros. because it worked so well for that Goldie Locks story. Levine’s speech at GDC 2008 extrapolated on his ideas about storytelling and game play. Bioshock is a game of immersion. Levine describes his idea that the gamer should have to “pull” the story from the environment and character interactions. Bioshock was devoid of cut scenes for this very reason. With cut scenes, the player is “pushed” along the game’s direction and the rope tying story to game play is temporarily severed. Not only does Levine’s method make the gaming experience seamless, it provides something for everyone. Those gamers bent on meticulous detail can find as much story as they’re willing to look for, more casual gamers can choose when they want to get picky, and that third action-oriented group can cause chaos and mayhem. The intricacies of this kind of approach are what make Bioshock. With this kind of deep seeded game design, what can a sequel really do? There’s talk about the idea that Rapture is too beautiful and interesting place to let go to waste on one story. But Rapture isn’t what made the first Bioshock. Trying to take just Rapture, or just big daddies, or any couple of elements out for other installments will ruin the integrity of the game’s idea.
With Bioshock’s meticulous integration of environment, story, and game play, removing elements feels a lot like removing ingredients from a cookie recipe and expecting to get the same result. If you try and pull too many spades from a house of cards, the house won’t stand. The story in Bioshock was thorough, the world and history made sense, and the moral dilemmas were new takes on the idea of free will, rational self-interest, and objectivism. Contrary to Harmann’s statement, the story isn’t about good and evil. But these are the kind of generalities that will weaken Bioshock’s soul in an attempt to “spin” and “twist” more stories out of this world.
No sources have yet discussed exactly what Levine’s role in Bioshock 2 will be, but 2K assures everyone that he will be filling some capacity. This may be the cynic in me, but it sounds like marketing. If Levine was said to be completely off the project, we’d all have reason to worry. Don’t get me wrong, a sequel might be excellent. I would love to play another game as beautifully executed as Bioshock, but take the important cue from the game to make another: the design. Levine and the 2K Boston team were on to something and mimicking their brand of storytelling will lead to better, more engrossing, games. This doesn’t require us to go back to Rapture, however. Take what we’ve learned from Rapture and travel to another place we haven’t seen, with characters we’ve never met, and ensure that we are as trapped, enraptured, and enamored as we were with an underwater city and its mask-wearing inhabitants.
