BioShock Developer Slams Electronic Arts
Ken Levine claims ‘EA didn't give a shit about System Shock 3’.
2K/ Irrational Games’ forthcoming BioShock – the ‘spiritual successor’ to one of the most genuinely frightening games ever, System Shock 2 – is without a doubt one of SPOnG’s most anticipated next-gen titles for 2007.
You may have read our recent preview on BioShock, in which case you’ll know a little bit more about why we are already wetting ourselves in anticipation of playing this truly unique game.
So it was with some interest that we read in PC Gamer this month the following harsh-but-fair words about Electronic Arts, coming from none other than Ken Levine, bossman at Irrational Games and the creative force behind System Shock 2 and BioShock.
Speaking about System Shock 3, Levine told the mag: "One of the reasons I wasn't interested is EA just didn't give a shit about that game. I think if EA were to do it, it would've been just a regular first-person shooter with a boss monster at the end. They didn't see it as big brand and I didn't want that uphill battle."
Bigging up his current publishing partner, 2K Games, Levine continued: "We have a publisher who cares about this game, and they believe in this kind of game. 2K Games is the company that helped reinvigorate Elder Scrolls and Civilization. They believe in core games."
Electronic Arts is of course more than used to being criticised for lack of innovation in games, but it still must sting a little when a developer of Levine’s stature sticks the knife in like this.
Whatever, providing Levine and his team at Irrational deliver on the so-far beautiful and sublime looking BioShock, SPOnG will be more than happy come spring 2007.
You may have read our recent preview on BioShock, in which case you’ll know a little bit more about why we are already wetting ourselves in anticipation of playing this truly unique game.
So it was with some interest that we read in PC Gamer this month the following harsh-but-fair words about Electronic Arts, coming from none other than Ken Levine, bossman at Irrational Games and the creative force behind System Shock 2 and BioShock.
Speaking about System Shock 3, Levine told the mag: "One of the reasons I wasn't interested is EA just didn't give a shit about that game. I think if EA were to do it, it would've been just a regular first-person shooter with a boss monster at the end. They didn't see it as big brand and I didn't want that uphill battle."
Bigging up his current publishing partner, 2K Games, Levine continued: "We have a publisher who cares about this game, and they believe in this kind of game. 2K Games is the company that helped reinvigorate Elder Scrolls and Civilization. They believe in core games."
Electronic Arts is of course more than used to being criticised for lack of innovation in games, but it still must sting a little when a developer of Levine’s stature sticks the knife in like this.
Whatever, providing Levine and his team at Irrational deliver on the so-far beautiful and sublime looking BioShock, SPOnG will be more than happy come spring 2007.
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 31 Jul 2006 18:26
1/4
Levine shouldn't be afraid to voice his opinion against EA.
We all know when EA grows and absorbs developers, like dead rapper Biggie once notoroiusly quoted, 'Mo money, mo problems.
A good thing he's moved to somewhere he feels Bioshock will benefit from. Good luck to him.
We all know when EA grows and absorbs developers, like dead rapper Biggie once notoroiusly quoted, 'Mo money, mo problems.
A good thing he's moved to somewhere he feels Bioshock will benefit from. Good luck to him.
RiseFromYourGrave 31 Jul 2006 19:12
2/4
further sentiment that EA is a wing of the devil's own soul crushing army.
man i hate ea
go that man! cant wait for bioshock
man i hate ea
go that man! cant wait for bioshock
more comments below our sponsor's message
soanso 1 Aug 2006 02:29
3/4
I wish we could get away from brands.
Wouldn't it be great if games were more like music in the way that bands have a following.
Wouldn't it be better if the games creators had the following rather than the publisher or the brand.
Wouldn't it be great if games were more like music in the way that bands have a following.
Wouldn't it be better if the games creators had the following rather than the publisher or the brand.
thane_jaw 1 Aug 2006 09:41
4/4
soanso wrote:
I wish we could get away from brands.
Wouldn't it be great if games were more like music in the way that bands have a following.
Wouldn't it be better if the games creators had the following rather than the publisher or the brand.
Wouldn't it be great if games were more like music in the way that bands have a following.
Wouldn't it be better if the games creators had the following rather than the publisher or the brand.
But (hardcore) fans of bands are blind sheep generally. To the point that they buy s**t albums because they like the band. They become blinkered to opposing views.
I can't say I know anyone who buys an EA game because its from EA, or indeed any other publisher. That would be like buying only Sony published music. There's a lot of it out there, but all of varying quality. Again rabidly buying development team X's new game because they made it will ultimately lead to a few disapointments (having said that I am generally anamoured with anything that Rockstar makes)
I don't think that its possible to make development teams a selling point of games, because I don't enough people care or even know who makes the game until they're hammering on the X button to skip that first bloody cutscene everytime it loads up. And unless its explicitly pointed out (e.g. Freedom Fighters had "from the makers of Hitman 2 on the front) then casual shoppers will buy it because of the screenshots and the blurb on the back.
Brands sell because people can expect (or at least think they can) a similar and familiar quality of experience to the previous iteration.