Wow that interview was great. That guy just hyped BioShock ten times more for me.

I find it interesting that they're trying to categorise it as an FPS, while also suggesting that they aim to redefine the genre in the same way Half-life did. FPSs are primarily about action and combat, in the same way that RTSs focus on strategy or management games concentrate on, well, management. Judging by the information made available thus far, much of Bioshock seems to be centred on the evasion of combat, with substantial focus also on exploration, scene setting and driving of the plot, and character development. In other words, it seems you could spend much of the game not fighting at all. Thus i really find it hard to believe that people who have previously had FPSs as their genre of choice will view Bioshock as a new paradigm for this area of gaming, since they've come to the genre for what it has typically offered in the past - linear, action oriented gameplay.

Even if Bioshock does have a lot of gunplay, the fact that it's non-linear and allows players to approach conflict at their own pace and using their own methods always leaves open the possibility that it'll be bland for many players. A game like Half-life 2 focuses on choreographing each battle in an incredibly precise way to ensure that it's staged in the most exciting and dramatic fashion. In a less linear game, the player essentially has the ability to make things less fun for themselves, because they control how each scenario unfolds. Emergent games are the opposite of set-piece driven gameplay, since they're generally about developing a range of interesting AI behaviours and letting them act autonomously, with the player left to exploit those behaviours to drive gameplay themselves. It's a really tall order to get combat to pan out in a consistently enjoyable way with that approach, and i don't think it's been done successfully yet; certainly not on a par with the more scripted, linear games anyway. I suppose I'm more sceptical of Irrational's ability to pull of good combat in a game of this type because of the the incredible blandness of the shooting in System Shock 2.

I find it more likely that, rather than redefining the FPS, Bioshock will just be another game catering to the tastes of those who like Deus Ex-style gameplay; ie a genre-blurring offering that isn't going to supercede the leading lights in any particular existing category of gaming.

Anyone else besides me think System Shock 1 is superior to System Shock 2 in almost every way imaginable?

Levine probably shouldn't have said this in case the game doesn;t pan out: BioShock is a tragedy. Should be that the Bioshock story is about tragedy.

Sounds like Deus Ex type stuff, as far as raising the bar of what a fps can be.

yay. though the "PC/xbox" thing always worries me. here's hoping for no consolitis.

I would have liked some questions regarding their decision to do a 360 port, because IIRC they claimed last year that such a port might cheapen the game (or sth. to that effect).

Still, very nice interview.

I am happy that they're making graphics a priority, right up there with gameplay. One of the reasons SS2 didn't do that well was that the graphics were subpar for the time it was released. Having better graphics, along with awesome gameplay, can only attract more people to the game.

I have been waiting a long time for this game. And still have to. :/

So I have to pretend to be a little sister so a big daddie will protect me? My therapist isn't going to like that.

who's david and what does he do?

Please God.....don't let this game suck.

Thanks for asking some serious questions. I'd like to see shacknews interview a world leader next, and ask similarly insightful questions.

i want a sugar daddy =-(