http://www.irrationalgames.com/
huh.. That was unexpected.
For those of you who want tl;dr, basically Ken Levine wants to make a smaller game with 15 or so people next under the Take Two umbrella.
Printable View
http://www.irrationalgames.com/
huh.. That was unexpected.
For those of you who want tl;dr, basically Ken Levine wants to make a smaller game with 15 or so people next under the Take Two umbrella.
:(
No more Bioshock? Oh well, maybe Activision or Ubisoft can take it up and we can get yearly releases!
. .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali_Star
Quote:
Thanks to Irrational and 2K’s passion in developing the games, and the fans who believe in it, BioShock has generated retail revenues of over a half billion dollars and secured an iconic place in gaming. I’m handing the reins of our creation, the BioShock universe, to 2K so our new venture can focus entirely on replayable narrative. If we’re lucky, we’ll build something half as memorable as BioShock.
It's a shame about Irrational but I highly doubt we have seen the last of Bioshock. Begs the question why Levine didn't just leave the studio while leaving someone else in charge... there is more to this story than has been revealed I think.
@Rabid
Your signature fits perfectly. I can't explain it but I can feel it.
A real shame, these news, though. I can say without hesitation that "Bioshock: Infinite" was the third best game of last year, but certainly the new creative team will make something that's at least great, right?
1st and 2nd The Last of Us and GTAV?Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
I just wonder why he shut down the company and laid everyone off so he could go fake-indie instead of handing over the reigns. Hm.
That's kinda surprising. While I haven't played much of Infinite, I do find it to be pretty solid so far. Hopefully we get another game as good soon.
I'll be completely honest, this may be for the best. Infinite really was a horrid game, compared to it's predecessors. Inconsistently linear; a convoluted story that literally only existed due to Ken's fascinations with things that he quite honestly doesn't understand, and an unhealthy amount of pandering. I honestly loved System Shock 1/2, and even Bioshock 1/2... but Infinite was a disgrace, and shows how far Irrational has fallen in the main aspect of game making; the gameplay.
It's such a shame, too... the original trailers for Infinite show a much, much greater game.
Out of topic, but 1st would be Tomb Raider and 2nd would be GTA V. Bioshock: Infinite would be third.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali_Star
However, to call the story in Infinite convoluted is like calling a buffet table convoluted for having too many options. Yes, it was linear and the plot was complex, but it was also very intelligent with its themes and characters. I payed attention all the way through and I honestly got the entire plot. I also get that it's not the point of the plot to make actual sense.
I honestly don't get how somebody would hate it. It seems people can't have a mild reaction to anything nowadays, but in this case it's at least understandable, as the game is so self-centered (in a good way) and has so many things going on that it is impossible to not have many different feelings raised by it. I for one love it, it has great, imaginative and fun gameplay and it is actually a very thought-provoking experience.
I especially love the ending. Love it to death. It's big, bold, ambitious and it's utterly honest with itself and simply committing to being as nuts and crazy as it is. The story actually gives an illusion of coherence early on, but plays a sleight-of-hand trick on the players. I'd actually say it's an even better game than the original Bioshock game.
Then again, whenever a game plays the "dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, SURPRISE! It's actually an elephant!" trick on the players, there will always be at least one person who hates it. Much like the other big twist of the year (Iron Man 3) people hate it for making them feel like their intelligence is being mocked by being completely surprised. It seems that the modern concept of plot-twists is that they either have to be obvious (Star Trek Into Darkness) and they can't carry any weight or be in any way relevant (Star Trek Into Darkness) and the game or the movie must be entirely centered around the twist (Star Trek Into Darkness) to be good.
Plot twists that don't mean anything and can easily be foreseen are not plot-twists, people!
Ugh.
Anyway, the game is designed to surprise people who expect it to be like the earlier Bioshocks. It throws many great themes right off the bat, like racism, xenophobia, classism and other things like that, while in reality being something else entirely.
And I think that is genius.
When I said convoluted, I had a **** good reason for saying so. Ken literally said during a reddit ama that the ending didn't even make sense to himself; and he wrote it precisely for that reason. That's a bad story if it's literally supposed to be 2deep4u.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Apparently you just ignored everything I said with my post. That is nice. Therefore, I see it as a privilege of mine to ignore your comment. But I won't, because I am a nice guy and if there is something you don't understand, I am willing to explain it for you the best I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by theswweet
I never said the ending made complete sense leaving no threads hanging or everyone who doesn't get it is automatically wrong and their opinion don't count. When a game goes out of its way to make an insane, scientific mumble jumble ending, trying to break it down into equations would feel like a disservice to the game and its attempts to make an impacting finale. All I can tell you in my comments is my honest thoughts of a game and its story and to me, when a game goes out of its way to do something as big and bold as this one, I can ignore if there are a few minor plotholes opened along the way.
What I am saying is that not everything has to always make perfect sense in every conceivable way. Sometimes it is the player who is responsible putting one and one together. In Pacific Rim, which is one of my favourite movies of all time the main characters controlling Gipsy Danger don't use their most effective weapon, the sword, before they are put into situation where it is the only remaining option. Do I think that the rest of the movie suffers from it? Do I think that sort of thing should ultimately matter, when the fact that a movie like this even exists is a miracle and the fact that it's good is phenomenal?
Do I really complain when there is personality put into a movie or a game? No. No I don't. Even if not everything comes together smoothly like in a spy-thriller, the fact that the game like this went out of its way to commit to being as insane, as ambitious, as big and as bold as this one, it is literally the last thing I care about. I understand not everyone views the situation the same way as I do and some people really don't give a crap about any of the qualities I find important.
I find important for any piece of entertainment to have personality to begin with. All the landscape shots and grotesque monsters in Peter Jackson's movies, the detailed worlds in Guillermo Del Toro's movies, the fun, though ultimately pointless (and arguably awesome) moments like the dancing in Sam Raimi's Spider-man 3. The same goes with games. Personality and innovation over proven, working formula any day.
From where I sit, when a story is culminating into something that is, in your fascinating words "2deep4u", it depends on the execution whether I love it or hate it. Bioshock: Infinite builds up to its crazy ending with amazing visuals, stunning, action-packed and fun gameplay and great sleight-of-hand-style of misdirection in its story and actually pulls it off with roses. To me, that means much more than whether or not there were a bruise or two in the fabric of the story along the way.
Ad Hominem and Personal Incredulity. I understand perfectly what Ken and Irrational tried to showcase with their story; I just disagree that it's a good story. It is inconsistent,Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
I can understand that; it is your opinion, after all. I just disagree that a story can be good with so many plotholes in the first place - especially with some so major. I won't spoil the ending, but I think we both know exactly which part I'm talking about. It reeks of little planning and a desire that mimics those of a summer blockbuster movie; it put too much emphasis on "Shock Value" without letting the player gain it on their own. An example that isn't part of the ending itself was when you climbed up the tower to get Elizabeth in the first place. There was "tense" music while you climbed; and Booker continues to exclaim how sacred he was of falling, despite there being no way of you actually dying. Earlier, you're forced into two choices with the same outcome with the interracial couple. Considering this was a game foremost... situations like this greatly hampered my ability to enjoy the game. There was no freedom. It was a rollercoaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
If I were to be honest, the story is only the icing on the cake for my feelings on the subject; let's focus on the differences between a game, and a movie. In fact, let's delve into what made Pacific Rim a great movie, and Bioshock Infinite a bad game.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Pacific Rim's story of course was NOT the main point of the movie. Bioshock Infinite however, like a lot of modern AAA games, did have an emphasis on it's story. Pacific Rim from the get go was advertised as a crazy mech movie about fighting monsters and being campy as hell. It's along the lines of Sucker Punch with it's campy over the top action. It doesn't take itself seriously, and the creators of the film made it very clear.
Bioshock Infinite however, does attempt to have it's story taken seriously... now, that's fine, but that makes it's story right up there with it's gameplay for the way it should be judged. I find it's story juvenile and not nearly as smart as some made it out to be. That's my opinion, and that would have been fine if the gameplay was fine... and not linear. But, although Infinite's maps still had a good deal of secrets... they still only have one way forward. Unlike the previous entries, you didn't have a truly free-roaming map.
I don't think you understand what ambition means for a game. I may be wrong, but may I ask you a question? Are you a programmer? Have you spent any amount of time working on a video game? I have and am. One thing that is the easiest to do with a game, is to have scripted sequences. It is very hard to have dynamic AI or gameplay; I know of few examples that aren't simply scripted to behave on some very simple factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Bioshock Infinite's original trailers showed some very ambitious ideas; tears where abundant, and there was a supposedly constant moving Songbird. The arena's for these battles were much more open; and you could be attacked and attack from much farther distances. Were they still somewhat scripted? No doubt, but they had put much, much more work into having them blend together into a much more dynamic way of playing the game.
I like Del Toro's personality, and I was excited for Bioshock Infinite's as well. Bioshock 1 and 2's were wonderful.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Let me link you to some removed content for Bioshock Infinite; let's see how much of it you actually recognize.
http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/BioSh...emoved_Content
I won't go through all of it; but many of these removed enemies or gameplay elements oozed character. The boy's of silence completely lost it in the full game... not relying on their hearing, but rather... sight? You can see my other complaints about tears and the skylines more clearly too.
It is well documented fact that Infinite did lose a lot of it's "charm" from it's BETA stage, and it's my right to be angered by the blatant bait and switch. As a consumer I find it unethicial.
I'd say that whether or not it has plotholes has a great deal to do with execution. I've already said what I have to say about it's gameplay and plot twists. I would rather derive my excitement by having the consequences in the story be my fault, and not handed to me by the narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Thank you for that comment that was completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
Now, there is such things as giving the players a choice, but there is also giving the players the illusion of choice. This game does the latter. And it's awesome that way. However, I am incapable of watching beyond your complete misunderstanding of Pacific Rim, because it does in fact take itself and its story very seriously. So, I won't comment further on that.
About the ideas the earlier trailers presented not being true goes into the other point I have been trying to make: misdirection. That is the single source of vividness and life for this game. However, moving on, I don't deal with "facts" or the illusion of objectivity when it comes to personal preferences. The reason for this is that when talking about stories and vibes of games like Bioshock: Infinite, very few facts can be told about whether its story is bad or good. Oh, yes, game can still be objectively bad, as in it has bad AI, looks terrible, controls suck... those kinds of things exist, but story is another thing entirely. Only thing what can be considered a factfully bad in a game's story is its pacing, but even that can be argued, since people seem to have no concept of what good pacing is in the first place.
Anyway, wrapping up, I would like to say that I will no longer be participating in this conversation here, since we are derailing a little bit from the main focus. Overall, I do understand where you come from. And I don't say that out of concept of having to say so, I really do. I work as a movie critic in a young people's magazine in Finland and I have, over time, learned that there is no one correct way of seeing anything when it comes to movies or games. Objectivity? Doesn't exist. Normal? Doesn't exist. All I can promise when I say I understand where you are coming from is to understand that you come from an entirely different world of norms. Since we are on the internet, we both sort of have to deal with that, but it also lights up why continuing this argument (not the bad kind of argument, but the good kind of one where people bring their baggage to discuss about a subject rather than each other) would be pointless. Because we are not going to change those norms.
Also, I did say that the thing about your signature is irrelevant, or I actually said it was unrelated. I still, however, think that having your own quote in your signature is boosting your ego and status for simply doing so. Especially when the quote is just as insightful and deep as: "Everybody's naked underneath."
Please... on topic. This is not. You even agree it isn't, so please drop it. From this perspective it seems like a cheap shot. ..and if you disagree, pm me. DO NOT continue bout it here. :hatsack:Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeAim
You may continue with your disagreement. :)
That probably ties into why they're being shut down, the previous scrapped versions of the game and the 6 year development time.Quote:
Originally Posted by theswweet
Yes, I would imagine Ken doesn't want to spend years developing a game that requires input from maybe a hundred people, and there's nothing wrong with pursuing other projects that don't demand such a lengthy and arduous development, but still disappointing.
I was really sad when I heard this. I want to bake them a cake and go to their boston office (not far from where I live) saying best of luck or something. :)
-hyper