T w e n t y S i d e d

Wherein Atlas continues to guide us through the zany madcap world of “BoyoShock”.

I think it’s really interesting how Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite both have the same trouble with the hint system, which is that you’ll be 80% of the way through the game and you’re stilling getting messages explaining how to switch weapons or reload. Sometimes the game would even explain how to do something just after you finished doing it.

On one hand, I’m in favor of games that are accessible. It’s bad when games assume that you’re a master of all mechanics once you leave the tutorial area. It’s also bad when games simply take concepts for granted. For game designers, its important to remember that for some small percentage of players out there your AAA shooter will be their first AAA shooter. Crouching, jumping, and using cover are obvious to most players but can be completely mysterious to a newbie. If game designers take too much for granted then they run the risk of making their games too insular. Even if the player knows about all of the mechanics, they might forget which buttons do which things if they step away from the game for a while.

On the other hand, randomly throwing up tutorial messages at all players at random intervals and telling players how to do things they’ve long mastered is an ugly, brute-force solution to the problem. It breaks immersion, clutters the screen, and distracts the player.

It’s really strange that this design decision persisted throughout the entire Bioshock series. (I’m assuming it was in Bioshock 2 as well.)

Shamus Young is a programmer, an author, and nearly a composer. He works on this site full time. If you'd like to support him, you can do so via Patreon or PayPal.

We make fun of the game here for having a situation where somebody dies just as you’re about to meet them face-to-face. I don’t know if there’s a trope for this; it would need to be specific to videogames. Of course, this is done because having two characters meet creates immense and ever-expanding design problems.

1. If we don’t have anyone else alive in the world, then the game feels “empty”.
2. If we have other people alive but kill them off (or trap them away from the player’s reach) then it feels contrived.
3. If we let the player meet them then the player will expect them to have something to say.
4. If we let them speak, then players will inevitably demand that their character be able to reply. (See the comments of my defense of silent protagonists.)
5. If the protagonist speaks, players will inevitably find some kind of disconnect between how they view the game world and how their character views it. They will want the option to say different things.
6. If we give them different things to say, then players will get irritated when they discover the choices don’t “do anything”. If they’re making choices, they want those choices to have consequences.
7. If we give them short-term or isolated consequences (save the life of this nameless NPC you’ll never see again) then players will complain that the choices offered in the game are empty.
8. If we give them meaningful, long-term choices then we run into multiplicative outcomes. If choices impact each other and branch off in meaningful ways, then we end up with rapidly escalating design costs. If all choices are binary, then the number of outcomes we have to write, script, animate, code, and test is 2ⁿ where n is the number of choices in the game. And players will complain because all outcomes are binary and don’t allow for shades of grey. (How come I can only murder this villain or let him go without harm? Why can’t I break his legs or something to make sure he doesn’t cause any more trouble?)
9. And if you want offer the player multiple long-term choices with divergent outcomes and shades-of-grey decisions, then you are probably crazy. And players will still complain because it’s impossible to get all those systems working just right. Mass Effect and Alpha Protocol come to mind.

This isn’t because players are unreasonable and entitled. Well, it is, but when a player asks for the first item on this list it’s not because they plan to drag you all the way to the end. They’re not really demanding an RPG. It’s just that we get frustrated when the systems of a videogame break down, and interpersonal stuff is something videogames are really bad at.

It’s not like there are players who complain at every point in the list, either. (Well, aside from me. If anyone else wants to own up to it that’s your business.) Every player has their own little sticking point on the list. One person says “If my character is going to talk, I should be able to control what they say.” Another player will say, “I don’t mind not having dialog choices, but if the game does make me pick what to say then those choices need to matter.”

You can end up spending a ton of money without improving a game at all – you’ll just move the point of failure a couple of bullet points down the list.

Shamus Young is a programmer, an author, and nearly a composer. He works on this site full time. If you'd like to support him, you can do so via Patreon or PayPal.

As part of my ongoing effort to repeat mistakes of the past, here is the Spoiler Warning where we we talked about both Objectivism and religion.

About four years ago we had a thread where an Objectivist weighed in on Objectivism in BioShock. It made for an interesting thread and was surprisingly civil, given the subject matter. At some point (and I can’t find it now) I said that it’s not at all clear what property anyone owns in Rapture. If Ryan owns everything, then he didn’t build an Objectivist society, he built an Objectivist house and invited a bunch of assholes to live with him.

I mean: Ryan is a totalitarian thug. If they really wanted to explore with the ideas of Objectivism then they ought to have messed around with the classic conflict between individual liberty and the common good. It’s like if I wanted to make a game about (say) environmentalists, so I fill the gameworld with standard mooks who talk about trees a lot. And then their leader loves pollution because ENVIRONMENTULISM!

The further I get from this game, the more childish and sophomoric its handling of Objectivism seems. There doesn’t seem to be anything of the philosophy in the characters, in their discussions, or in how they relate to one another. The game comes off like a college senior who just got done reading Atlas Shrugged and is looking for a way to work bits of it into conversation.

Related: thecitizenkaneofvideogames.tumblr.com

ON THE OTHER HAND…

I have to give the game credit for at least having the ideas on the canvas. I suppose I’d rather a game fumble philosophical themes than have another macho melodrama. And getting the gameplay and the themes lined up is something few games attempt and fewer still pull off. BioShock fell down, but at least it fell down trying.

Shamus Young is a programmer, an author, and nearly a composer. He works on this site full time. If you'd like to support him, you can do so via Patreon or PayPal.