Today, we were shocked to learn that Irrational is soon to be gone. Even the numerous detractors of the game, and its most recent release, Bioshock Infinite, have been surprised, as Bioshock has sold amazingly well ever since the first game was released, and maybe even since the day the first one was available for pre-order.
Today, I will be giving a rather spurious and ill-researched analysis of why I think this has happened, and what I think has went wrong. I don't think anyone will be surprised when I say a lot of this has to do with Ken Levine.
You see, from what I know about the industry (a lot) and Mr. Levine (not that much,) is that he's a lot like Quentin Tarantino. Both men seem to feel that their duty as both artists and public personaes (something that they see is inextricably tied) is not done until they provoke a strong reaction out of their audience. Maybe they would prefer that his audience likes his game, but the goal seems to be to get people talking. It should be noted that this is an unusual attitude when you notice that these artists are surrounded by so much dull.
Another thing that Levine has in common with Tarantino is a somewhat frightening ability to make enemies. Tarantino has long been surrounded by accusations of racism and has always been one of the first directors singled out after a mass shooting.
Levine, on the other hand, is different. Many people have accused him of "taking all the credit" for games made by Irrational while his employees "do all the work." This kind of logic confuses me. I have never once heard anyone say "oh I hate that politician/movie director/CEO! His/her employees do all the work while s/he takes all the credit!" Part of this is because this is usually false in some respects, especially in the case of Ken Levine. A person in Levine's position is supposed to do several things. First off, they have to find the money to make the game. Levine did that. It can't have been easy to get 2K to risk that much on the original Bioshock, but he did. Secondly, you need to be able to keep everyone on the same page. Third, and I think this is where some people tend to resent him, is that you have to promote your game. A lot. Levine went around talking up his games so much that he became, for better or worse, the face of Irrational.
The fourth and possibly most important thing a lead game designer needs, and yet somehow forgotten by many companies, is vision. Bioshock was actually pretty different for its time. It was a game with many survival elements in 2006, about six-seven years before the survival craze began to hit in full force. It was one of the first games to prove that you didn't really need to talk down to console players (something many of my fellow PC gamers need to learn.) Most important, however, was it was a game that's main premise was a brutal attack on Objectivism, combined with a subtle deconstruction of linear gameplay. In more erudite terms: EPIC COMBO! FATALITY!
If it can be argued that an idea like Bioshock could be published without Ken Levine, then I'll take back all the nice things I've said about him. However, I seriously don't believe that's possible.
Now, back on topic. Levine is the one who decided to shut down the studio. His reasoning, from what I gather, was this: "Triple-A games are becoming too bloated. As they can't support their own weight anymore, publishers will crack down on their developers to make a bunch of same-y titles that look more and more like COD every year. I do not want to make COD, therefore I will shut down Irrational and take fifteen or so of my best employees with me to my next job."
Wait... Mr. Levine, did you just kill your company and leave a lot of people with no job whatsoever because you were done with the company? Do you have any idea how many people would want to be in that position?
Let me explain something: while I liked Bioshock Infinite, I did not like it as much as most of its other fans. It was a good game, and there were parts of it that actually provoked reactions in me but I still like other games better. What I liked about it the most though, is that it takes risks. That was very brave.
However, dissolving your company in this way smacks of cowardice and greed. There is just no other way to put it. It seems like if you could not find someone to take over your company when you were done, then why didn't you decide to do one more project to train a protege? You had a really unique opportunity to create one more lead designer who cares about their work and the public knows about. Such a shame.
