Bioshock creator: Plot has to be f****** stupid
by Terrence Stasse 
{ Apr 3rd 2008 at 11:00AM }
We all know that Bioshock was a widely praised game. We all know that much of that praise was directed at its storytelling and narrative. So then when news like this comes around it makes us look at things a little differently. In an interview with PC Zone, Ken Levine the project lead on Bioshock, was quoted as saying: "If you want people to follow your plot, it has to be really f****** stupid." "What are you doing in Bioshock?" continued Levine, "Act 1: Find the submarine and get out. But, the sub goes down. So, Act 2: You go find and kill Ryan".
He's certainly correct (duh), noting that Bioshock's original story plan involved at least three civil wars and spanned across a total of 70 years (possible Bioshock 2 hints?). Despite lambasting the necessary dumbing down, Levine does praise the gaming medium's ability to immerse the player to whatever degree they choose via player exploration and discovery. With Ken involved, we're not at all worried about 2K Marin, and we have high hopes for whatever new IP he's working on next.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Neon Jebus @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:13AM
I can see his point. Heavy plot twists aren't going to work well in a lot of cases. I think that is why we have two options a lot of the time of playing a 'good' character or a 'bad' character.
Sure you have Mass Effect that allows you to flow and roll your own story but that isn't going to happen with every game.
Where the story is imporant is the dialog (if any).
I think back to Metal Gear Solid 2 and think of the long ending that made no sense. I didn't like it, I didn't understand it, and it really just didn't care about the story anymore.
Terrence Stasse @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:52AM
I know I'm in the minority, but I loved MGS2, story and all. The twists made enough sense to me at the time to put together a basic picture of what was going on, and I later found out ALL of the intricate details.
I think it's a really great example of intricate storytelling woven into great gameplay. Then again I did come into it expecting a Kojima mind-f@&#
James @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:25AM
I think really "intricate" storytelling is pretty much limited to books. The reason becomes apparent when you look through the audiobook section of a library. Most movies run 1.5 - 2 hours. In a game, the player will probably put up with 1-2 hours of "story time", maybe 4 - 8 if it's a story-heavy genre, like an RPG. Books, when read aloud at the same pace as game dialog, last 10-50 hours. In short, books can tell an intricate story with lots of twists and turns where your mind fills in the image detail, while (well-executed) games can tell a simple story with lots of nuance and little details.
Oh, and the Grammar Nazi would like to point out that "its" is possessive, while "it's" means "it is". I'm talking to you, Terrence.
Dick @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:02PM
His post was correct, grammar nazi. Unjust punishment, say I!
elmersglue @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:04PM
I'm assuming the post has been fixed, because I don't see any mistakes...
Mark @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:51PM
James, I know what you're trying to say and I agree with you that books have better stories than games and movies. But I don't think it's really all about the time spent. There's large portions of the book dedicated to description of appearance and action that can be done quickly in a game or movie. So that "a picture is worth a thousand words" thing comes in to play. And then it takes longer to read something out loud than is does to just read it. So books on tape are the longest because they're the most inefficient medium. It's quicker to read the book or watch the movie based on the book than it is to listen to books on tape. They're mostly there so people can get SOMETHING done in the car. In the car in a traffic jam, inefficient book listening is better than nothing.
Neuromancer @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:45AM
Yeah I'd agree with Ken, all you need for a game is a good setting. The more twists and turns and characters developers try to put in, usually end up just being stupid (Rainbow 6 Vegas I'm looking at you.)
Neuromancer @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:46AM
I thought Ken was supposed to be working on a new X-Com...
Terrence Stasse @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:49AM
Grazie, Grammar Nazi, that is by far my most common typo. I'll figure it out sooner or later.
As for the topic, I think Levine is correct in that the medium of games has a ton of unrealized potential. The main difference between intricate book story-telling and intricate game story-telling is that one is active, the other passive.
The author is in full control when you are reading. They determine everything about the world. You have no idea what color shirt the main character is wearing unless you are told. Games are much, much different, and require a wholly different approach, because the player has the most control, not the creator. However I think that has more potential, if only we can find and use it.
Dick @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:59AM
I would say the opposite of what you point out as far as creative control for an author vs a video game creator.
As the author, you put pen to page to communicate what you are hoping to get across to the reader. Of course, you necessarily bring with it your own interpretations of what that message is. Then, the reader is forced to bring their own interpretations to the table when they consume your message.
At this point, it's up to the reader to paint the pictures, make the faces speak, the voices heard, and make the world at large appear to set the stage for the actions in the story, based on the writing they are reading.
Video games can immerse you more completely because of the audio/visual connection. No need to create faces and landscapes to drive the story - its there for you. You have a set of options given to you as a gamer, but in the end, they were given by the creator of the game (just like the BEST books are NOT choose your own adventure style).
In the end, both have ultimate control, but the game creator can more actively tell it by employing more than just pen and page.
JakubK666 (Ninja Defence Force) @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:15PM
And what control do you have in Bioshock? You can kill Sisters or save them, getting just about equal lot of ADAM in both cases.
Even in RPG's that's BS as the only one (I know of) where you can skip the whole game straight ahead to the final boss is Fallout(seen the speedrun).
stinger503 @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:28PM
I think one of the problems of the games industry today is the fact that developers spend all their time trying to find a "new feature" rather than making a decent story.
doug @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:50PM
My wife and I invested hour upon hour in Eternal Sonata, which had a terrible story. The ending is unintelligible. We enjoyed the game play but the complicated story and the even more complicated ending was a bitter note. A simple story would have been more beneficial to the overall experience.