I dunno if it was just me, but this whole article seems redundant. The word "failure" seems to be rephrased many times.

BlackPawn

@aldo_14: Oh, just ignore him. Poke him too much and he'll just start ranting and raving, randomly calling you a noob in between bouts of tourettes-like idiocy.

JustThisGuy

@Sainted: Not to me they won't be.

Thorax

@Sainted:
Er, what?

aldo_14

All good things with time

yashichi8bit

In the 21st century games without multiplayer are failures no matter how successful they were.

Sainted

@GDW1017: I think 10 years sounds about right. Too Human didn't look too good at first at least on the Xbox, then the 360 didn't show much promise with the choppy framerate, but that damn Etheral Bear made things all better, well with the way it looks now I'm definitely picking it up. It sucks how they took away 4-player co-op, but 2-player is good too.

@D-Sovereignty: And you beat me to the punch of what I was going to say next... haha

Trowble (XBL/PSN)

Problem.
Bioshock felt like it wanted to be Shock 2 isntead of its inbred run and gun fps love child.

muscrat_01

Spore started development in 2000. And now, people are pleased as punch* just to be playing with the Creature Creator now!

Delays are annoying, sure, but it's better to delay than rush out a poor game.

*NOTE: Please kill me if I ever say that again

BPMλ

@D-Sovereignty: It will be the Holy Grail, of that I'm 50% positively sure.

FlashIV

By this reasoning Duke Nukem Forever will be the single greatest contribution to human culture.

Gouki4u

so I guess this means Duke Nukem Forever is going to be the best game ever then.

D-Sovereignty

@Trowble (XBL/PSN): Dang, forgot about Too Human.

Man, what has it been, 10 years? With that much time Too Human should at least be within the Quintuple title range.

GDW1017

Just look at Nintendo, and Miyamato with Zelda, bitch pushes that back all the time.

nyaz

Well I was excited for the years that I waited for it... and the game didn't disappoint to me, I think the atmosphere was excellent and got me playing it twice for the endings, and again on hard for the achievements (Bringing in more replay)

Kaizuden

I only hate when anticipation is running high and the expected due date draws near, but he does seem to have a point (i.e. Too Human).

Trowble (XBL/PSN)

If the same can be applied elsewhere, then Home is going to be F**KING AMAZING!!!!!!111!!!

...

Though, being punctual might be worth a deficiency or two...

GDW1017

Well, whatever works for them. Hearing the tale behind the game, Bioshock really should have failed--or would have, if it was in the hands of lesser developers. While I have my own issues with BS, I will be the first to admit that 2k Boston nee Irrational has one of the best development teams in the business. Seriously: have they ever put out a bad game*?

*On that note, I would really love to hear from someone who has actually played The Lost.

JustThisGuy

What's that saying of Miyamoto's? "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever."

Green-clad Gamer Dude

@Sainted:

I don't understand how anyone with a brain can believe this. MP does not make or break a game. If you spend enough time with detail, quality, and narrative the way 2K did with Bioshock, who needs multiplayer? I'd much rather have an incredible experience than a mindless clusterfuck anyday.

T3KK9

The key to success is to keep slipping your dates until you're the first AAA title to ship for the next year's game season.

GenericKen

@Gouki4u:
God willing, it damn well will be. Parades will be had and songs will be fucking sung when DNF ships.

Oh, and Blizzard Entertainment will come out of the closet, revealing that they've only been fronting for an underground league of sad clowns, who's only form of entertainment consists of fighting in giant mechs with icecream.

i_9

Well, consider yourself lucky, Kline. You coulda been like Shiny and been forced to push Enter the Matrix out to match up with a film release. Or you coulda been forced to push out Extreme Paintball... for whatever reason.

As I understand it, devs are lucky if they can extend their time on a game and give it a good polish. That normally only comes when you've gathered enough clout as a house, no?

I recall talking to a Sierra rep way back in the day where she was talking about how Blizzard was doing very little, but sitting around discussing stuff (this was pre-WoW) and how very badly Sierra wanted to stop them from doing it; had they succeeded, we might have been given a very shitty Ghost and no megahit MMO.

So yeah, I agree.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

@D-Sovereignty: @Gouki4u: @NoBullet:
Dammit, you so beat me to that joke. Really, what else can anyone say?

supercrap

@NoBullet: Sadness: 2nd best game EVAR!!!1!!1

MPgmr

Duke Nukem Forever confirmed best game ever.

NoBullet

@Sainted: By your definition Bioshock,Mass Effect,etc are failures? If that's the case, most companies and gamers would want these failures to propagate the industry then.

Not everyone loves going online,playing MP and screaming obscenities at each other. And what you think doesn't really equate to what EVERYONE thinks/wants. I have no idea why some people think their taste should be the only one the market panders to.

@T3KK9: Exactly! That or maybe he was trolling?

Hmm this is Nintendo's way of making games no? They revise the ship dates over and over. But most of the time the ends justifies the means. Most developers find it easier to get the sympathy of people when their games are good. If it's late and it's also crappy, then that's a different thing altogether.

excaliburps

The way I see it, how good a title is in relation to delays works on a parabola of sorts. No delays at all probably means that the game will suck majorly, and one or two delays gets you average, though two might get you something good. Around 3 or 4 delays is about the sweet spot, but any more than that starts pushing it. Then when you get ridiculous amounts of delays, it's completely up in the air. On one hand, we have Team Fortress 2, on the other hand...Kirby Air Ride.

GyrFal

it's not LIKE System Shock 2. It IS System Shock 2.

Gunhaver

I see, well at least it's comforting to know there's more who know better than those who need to pull their head out of their ass. :D

T3KK9

@T3KK9: Don't mind him. It's the usual trolling 'MP = Win.' statement that's brought up in several big game categories. I think we had people bring it up in Mass Effect and Metroid Prime 3 topics prior. Most intelligent people around these parts know better than to paint everything with a huge, broad, entirely incorrect brush.

Ampillion = That Man.

Oh goody, double post. What a fantastic commenting system Gawker uses. Html tags instead of bbcode, no ability to edit or delete our own posts, and what appears to be exceptionally long caching. I refreshed the page about 5 times to make sure the first time I posted didn't go through.

*sigh*

Atheist Jew

BioShock could have been a true spiritual successor to its predecessor, but unfortunately it was so dumbed down for the console platforms that it lost any chance of being as good as System Shock 2. Too many excellent gameplay mechanics removed, too many bad ideas implemented (don't get me started on the vita-chambers), and it was far too easy.

Don't get me wrong, these changes didn't make the game bad. BioShock was an achievement to be sure. Simplifying the game like it was just robbed it of any chance of being one of the best games ever made, and it certainly didn't deserve the 9/10 scores it got from just about every publication.

Atheist Jew

BioShock could have been a true successor to its spiritual predecessor, but unfortunately it was so dumbed down for the console platforms that it lost any chance of being as good as System Shock 2. Too many excellent gameplay mechanics removed, too many bad ideas implemented (don't get me started on the vita-chambers), and it was far too easy.

Don't get me wrong, this didn't make the game bad at all. BioShock was great. But being as simplified as it was, stripped of all the fantastic RPG mechanics of SS2, it was just robbed of any chance of being one of the best games ever made, and it certainly didn't deserve the 9/10 scores it got from just about every publication.

Atheist Jew

@MPgmr: What's the first #1 game of all time? Fantasy World Dizzy?

Salen

@Llost:
1) Pawns? Is that the new cool "owns" for the pre-e-teens now?

2) You have no idea what you are talking about. In the gaming world, Crysis came out long after HL:2. Half Life 2 was top of the graphical crop when it came out as well. Plus, it led to an updated Counter Strike, excellent episode follow-up games, re-imagined TF. Oh...and a little game called Portal.

vagrantwade

A bad game can be delayed and made better. A good game may be pushed back to improved. A bad game released before it's finished just to meet a deadline (or be shown at E3), will only ever be that.

Delays won't make every bad game good, but it can produce a few diamonds in the rough.

Kenofthedead

@Atheist Jew:
Bioshock deserved every praise it got. I have never played a game with a more amazing feel and environment to it. The story telling with it was very well done, and left us with some pretty awesome quotes via Mr. Ryan. The graphics were great, the in-game sounds were great. The game was just great. You would have to have some sort of stemmed bias to not agree.

vagrantwade

@muscrat_01:
@Atheist Jew:

Agreed. I still haven't finished BioShock, and when I read articles about it, I think "I want to go back and finish BioShock!". But then, when I load it up, I feel that it's just too boorish, if you know what I mean. When I first saw shots of BioShock, and read the description of "a spiritual successor to System Shock", I imagined it going deeper into the world interaction mechanics and the non-linear story exposition. But each time I load it up, it's a combination of "too scared" and "I don't care", similar to the Doom 3 Syndrome.

BioShock simplifies the story exposition, to the extent that it is in recorded tapes that after being picked up (sometimes forced), can be played. Most interactions with Rapture inhabitants are limited to weapons fire in their general direction. I understand now that Irrational eventually designed for a linear "level" based design, with non-linear play inside.

My opinion of the game, BioShock, is hampered by my initial expectations based upon first renders and breathy previews two years prior to release. In light of this article, I willing to give it another shot!

Scipher

Delays don't really help that much in my opinion. Bioshock was a short game and it had no multiplayer, the story they had was probably already available so they only managed to pull off what was expected. Look at Half life 2, 7 years in the making and Crysis pawns it not long down the with a shorter and on time development cycle. if you do it right you can do it right ON TIME. I agree some titles need a little time to work out the problems but my point is that most of the time they use to get the title back on track will merely be used to fix problems which shouldn't be there anyway (glitches, bad design etc.).

Llost

Duke Nu... nah, forget it!

... here's to 10 more years in development! ;)

haggis

*Offer not valid for Alone In The Dark.

BtownDesignGuy

@vagrantwade: I'm 19 so past the pre-teen part, I just used the word pawns to get across an obvious message. Stop caring so much about word choice cos that's where the real pre-teen faggotry comes from. Have to say the 'cool' words.

I agree it was top of the crop but all that effort was wasted in my opinion. 7 years in the making to be surpassed in around 2 or 3 years is not a good idea in my opinion. By *re-imagined* you mean slightly tweaked and cartoony graphics chucked on top.
How does portal count for shit? Portal wouldn't even take 2 years in the making, it was short as crap and no I've not played it so I'm not going to comment on the story or gameplay but puzzle style play meets the grav gun could've been done by anyone.

Llost

correction, all of those mistakes made it mostly a good game with a crummy ending arc.

tetracycloide

Bioshock did nothing for me, there I said it. I found it quite like how I find pretentious art students.

Fallible

thats a bad business model for gaming.

what they should do is release a game when its not finished, and patch the crap out of it till it works properly.

Peter-Moore

@T3KK9: I do see a bit of a double standard. Games like Bioshock and Mass Effect were very good single player games, but they took no criticism whatsoever for not having a multiplayer component.

Then you have a game like Shadowrun. It was universally trashed by reviewers because it was multiplayer only. The problem with that is that it is one of the best multiplayer shooters that you can play. It has EXCELLENT balance and innovative gameplay. Over a year after release it still has a very loyal following. People will drift off to play the must have game of the moment (Halo 3, GTA IV, COD4) but invariably return to Shadowrun a few days/weeks later when they realize the other games just aren't as *fun.*

robinandtami

bioshock was a decent game....not the best gave i've ever played....by far....however, i also don't have a problem with the shipping dates

the only thing is, if they're going to push stuff back, it had better be one hell of a polished game by the time i get it on launch day (assuming that i would have) otherwise what was the sense of pushing back the launch if it's still broken? (just a general observation - not necessarily saying bioshock was broken from the start)

drlard

@T3KK9: That's the thing about Shadowrun. It's not one of those games that you can pick up and start "pwning neubs" in 15 minutes. It takes at least a couple of weeks to really learn how all of the races, magics and techs interact with each other. But once you do learn all of those things, you can create a character that is really suited to your personal play style, and actually maximizes the potential of your personal play style. Yeah, you get your ass handed to you until you get past the learning curve; but once you do get past the learning curve, it is a highly competitive multiplayer game.

"Not to mention I paid about $60 for what was basically half a game."

And there again comes the double standard. Do you feel like Bioshock and Mass Effect were a waste at $60 because they were "half a game?" For me it is the opposite. I played through Bioshock once, so I paid $60 for what? 8-10 hours of gameplay? Whereas I've probably put a 4-5 hundred hours into Shadowrun. A decent multiplayer always has more playability than even the best of single player campaigns. You can only go through the same campaign so many times without getting bored with it.

robinandtami

I gave up on shadowrun after a day or two . I hated the gameplay, it felt like I was getting my ass handed to me every few seconds. Not to mention I paid about $60 for what was basically half a game.

T3KK9

Too Human, haters. Here's to hoping.

@GDW1017:
It hasn't really been 10 years of active development. Dyack commented on this recently. The project has just been on a slow simmer for years before full development took off on the 360.

DARTH_TIGRIS

Making the gameplay more like SS2 would have made it way more compelling :(

GhaleonUnlimited

Well look at games like HL2, where it took them years and years to make it, and it came out, and now it's rated up with some of the best games of all time. Look at duke nuke'em, they've managed to skip at LEAST an entire generation of consoles and hardware, so when it comes out they'd better include a hooker with it for it to qualify for the 10 years or so in development.

Talleh

my problem with buying a multiplayer only game is what happens when there is no one else to play with? your game has now been rendered useless.

it really is a tough call, but games like Knights of the Old Republic, they have tremendous replay value, so I don't have a problem with it being singleplayer only...

for a FPS to be online only can be a good thing as well, if it's done well enough (HUGE fan of BF2)...but with that being said, I have been disappointed that I can't play a singleplayer story mode in the game...

certain genre's are just going to have more multiplayer focus than others. The problem is finding a good balance between single and multiplayer modes (depending on the genre), because no one likes buying a game only to find out of it sucks ass because they couldn't get either part right!

drlard

Screw that guy. Lack of planning makes a good game? Yeah right. It's not "the only way to make a good game", it's just the only way anyone IS making games. Well, feels that way sometimes.

Nakko

imo it did fail, at least in terms of gameplay. Lack of replayability and the fact that it was just too dumbed down for consoles (I played it on the PC) really hurt it.

Rajolae

At the boardroom:

Ken Levine: I heard about what you said to a bunch of idiot journalists.

Chris Kline: Well, uh...

Ken Levine: I hereby sentence you to five hours in the toilet of doom down the corridor, and then I will force you to become the lead programmer of...The Legend of Zelda: Faces of Evil 2.

Chris Kline: NOOOOOOOOOOO!

michaelleung