I really thought Bioshock will be critically praised but commercially failure. But hey, I was proven wrong, and I'm happy with it. But it was before the demo came out.

I would like to know this too. Its very telling of the game industry when even a critically acclaimed darling like this has people working on it who were miserable.

I am probably committing some kind of sacrilege here when I say this, but...

...I really don't see what the big deal about Bioshock was. Don't mistake me, it was a solid, fun game, but it wasn't anything terribly revolutionary. It had great atmosphere, too, but I've played other games with great atmosphere. I don't think the game should've failed, but much like Halo, I don't understand the enthusiasm surrounding it.

Well, every story I've seen with people talking about Ken Levine were all unnamed sources which basically means they didn't exist. From what I've read, the guys who broke off to form 2K Marin just did so because Take-Two offered them the chance to start their own team and they jumped at it. Ken Levine is supposed to be heavily involved in the next BioShock title. You also see a lot of stuff like this from developers (all those post-mortems on Gamasutra are like this.) When you spend years having a title consume your life, it's very easy to see and focus on all the things you wish you had done better, especially if it wasn't a commercial success. In the case of BioShock, everyone from the press to the community to Ken himself said that he expected this game said it would be much like System Shock 2, a critical darling but lucky if it made back what it cost. I was very happy to see it did so much better. I'm curious if future ones will be as successful though.

It seems imprudent to generalize about all creative people from a dude who cut his ear off.

(warning: there's probably a very slight hint of spoilerishness here. I don't think it will bother anyone, but there's just a whiff. If you haven't played Bioshock yet, stop right now, and go buy it. When you're done, come back to the thread. It will still be here. )

nsmike: I think of it as being a greater-than-sum-of-parts game, where the individual bits are just good, but ALL of them are good. It reminds me a bit of Star Control 2, lo these many years ago, in that SC2 stole from everything; it had ideas from many different games. Arguably, none of them were truly great, but taken as a synthesis, the game was amazing. I STILL play it, every once in awhile, fifteen years later.

I think of Bioshock in the same way. No individual thing was wildly groundbreaking, except possibly the graphics, but there's nothing about it that sucks. Every piece, every part, is at least good. It's a highly detailed world, with loads of atmosphere, and a really interesting story that will be remembered for a long, long time.

Think back, quick: how many games can you remember the plot to? SiN? (on my part, all I remember is some lady with big tits.) Quake? Uh, kill stuff. Half-Life I can certainly remember, but I remember Bioshock even more clearly. And I bet, if you were to poll gamers that completed it, there wouldn't be one that had forgotten the plot. Further, were you to hold that poll in twenty years, I don't think that percentage would drop much, if at all.

Now, it didn't hurt that the graphics were so extraordinary and immersive. I think they'll still be immersive even after the technology passes it by, because it's so stylized. I'm sure that was a magnifier on the impact of the excellent voicing, characterization, and plotline. But I think, ultimately, what catapulted Bioshock from a good, highly competent game to being downright great was that one section of the story. All of the rest of the game is a foundation to carry that one idea, and that foundation is strong enough, and the presentation is powerful enough, to sear it into your brain forever if you play it. What more could a game deliver?

And, of course, think about it from this perspective: how many games are still generating brand-new threads more than a year after release?

As someone that adores System Shock 2, I'm also a little cool on Bioshock, but for a different reason. It's a gorgeous game, but I had a hard time getting fully engrossed in the story. Instead, I kept waiting for the Big Reveal. Because I knew it was coming. This game was a veritable clone of Shock 2, so there was going to be a Reveal. I kept skipping through the logs, not caring enough to follow their stories. When I finally got to it, I watched it devoid of any passion, instead going, "I like what they've done here. Yes, that's very good." So actually, I managed to kill any enjoyment I could have gotten from the game due to my own internal hype machine. It sits on the computer unfinished.

After another upgrade, I'm going to play it from scratch and just try to enjoy the ride instead of trying to re-experience Shock 2.

I hate Kotaku so much.

Suggesting that his work has had global impact, 1UP freelancer, Rabbit, claims to have read Elysium's articles, going so far as to even suggest that he is "personally responsible" for issues of international relations. High praise, indeed.

I'm sensing we're going to have a very catty Conference Call this week.

Yeah, I think there is a misinterpretation what Chris Kline said. The full quote from Kotaku explains what he actually meant.

I actually caught that article right before I checked the forums this morning. I just wanted to know if anyone else had picked up on some of the negativity rumors going around.

Ohhhhh Rabbit I'll be laughing about that one for the rest of the day.

On a side note I vote for Gamers With Jobs to finally assert their solid game review authority with a rating system.

I give Bioshock 5 nipple rubs!

Where is the legendary thread image when you need it. Stat!

Too busy waiting in line with those hundred dollar bills, no doubt.