I was about 20 minutes into 2K Games and Irrational Games’ new release “BioShock Infinite” when I realized the ice cream I had grabbed from the fridge had completely melted while I was absorbed in the game. While the graphics and game play are both stunning, what really makes “BioShock Infinite” stand out for me is the storyline.
It reminds me of a really engrossing book, and it makes the game thoroughly enjoyable. But it seems like this kind of story-driven game is becoming less desirable for game studios as publishers rely more and more on old standbys rather than innovative story directions.
Certain video game series have a built-in fan base, which guarantees revenue for publishers. Nintendo’s “New Super Mario Bros. Wii” generated $1.2 billion in sales and Rockstar Games’ “Grand Theft Auto IV” topped that with $1.35 billion.
Nevertheless, Irrational Games spent about six years developing “BioShock Infinite,” which reportedly had a production budget upward of $100 million. The release date was pushed back several times to finish production.
So even though “BioShock Infinite” is a triumph in cinematic storytelling, and even though it’s making top 10 lists everywhere, it still can’t financially compete with a game like Treyarch’s “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” The military shooter video game took about a year to produce, still has mass appeal and a relatively simple concept, and raked in $500 million in the first 24 hours it was available.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the “Call of Duty” series, but the story doesn’t exactly provoke intellectual discussion.
Some of the first video games had extremely simple plots: get coins, knock back enemy aliens, jump over crocodiles, etc. Then graphics started to get a lot better, and with that came the idea that games should tell a cohesive story, along with being fun and entertaining.
In 1989, Sega’s “Phantasy Star” was released in the United States, and it was one of the first games to be driven by a central storyline. It told a story of fanatical religion, rebellion and familial revenge that resonated with players.
Since then, many games have followed suit. Notably, the choose-your-own-moral setup started to become prevalent. These are games that not only tell an intriguing story, but also let the player choose his or her own path, changing the elements with each new decision until the player achieves a unique ending.
But it seems as if game publishers don’t completely trust the consumers. Or at least, their interest in story-driven games. They’re hesitant to gamble on a psychological storyline that some people might not even connect with.
And let’s be honest, video games aren’t exactly known for their transcendent philosophical thinking. But occasionally you’ll get a hit. Something that breaks rules and burrows itself into your mind so completely it’ll stick with you for a long time.
I know it’s a risk to go with a story-driven game, but risk is how you find the next big thing. Without risk, and occasional failure, nothing can progress, nothing can get better. We will be left with games that are safe, tested, a sure-thing, but may lack heart. Sure, there’s a chance that the game will fail, but usually this is not the case.
Big-budget games that push the proverbial envelope are somewhat rare. So here’s to the risk takers, the pioneers, the free-thinkers. The ones who gamble and lose, and the ones whose gambles pay off. Here’s to the ones who bare their ideas for all to see, for better or for worse.
I don’t think you specifically mentioned Ready Player One except in title, but the novel by Ernest Cline of the same name would be a perfect marriage of a novel like video game. I hope someone at Irrational thinks this as well,
I named the column partly after Cline’s book. One of my favorites.