Irrational boss: EA didn't give a sh-t about System Shock 3
by Joystiq Staff 
{ Jul 31st 2006 at 11:25AM }
In an article from PC Gamer, Irrational boss Ken Levine had some pretty choice words for über publisher Electronic Arts and their relationship with the groundbreaking System Shock franchise. In reference to System Shock 3, Levine said:
"One of the reasons I wasn't interested [in System Shock 3] is EA just didn't give a sh-t 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 [EA] didn't see it as big brand and I didn't want that uphill battle."
Currently developing the heavily-anticipated BioShock, Levine says new publisher 2K Games is more of the nurturing type:
"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 [with The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion] and Civilization. They believe in core games."
So, is this just bitterness talking or was EA more concerned with gettin' that paper and not unique games? Well, with games like Army of Two and Spore on the horizon, maybe bitterness is the answer.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt @ Jul 31st 2006 11:31AM
Army of Two doesn't look that good actually. I am, in fact, offended that you would use that game's name in the same sentence as that of Spore's.
Rask @ Jul 31st 2006 11:33AM
EA doesn't give a sh!t about many things.
Staff, gamers, anthing not pro-sports related.
I usually tend to avoid their games for a reason.
Alex P @ Jul 31st 2006 11:35AM
Having dealt with both EA and 2K, I can honestly say that the latter is more caring about its developers and gaming as an artform. Everyone I've worked with at 2K has been knowledgeable and helpful, whereas EA...not so much.
I think Levine made the right move here. While it doesn't bear the System Shock 3 name, its the next best thing. And having seen the game at E3, believe me when I say that fans of the series will be more than satisfied.
Izuna Drop @ Jul 31st 2006 11:36AM
Good for Ken. EA publishes, as do many publishers, a huge amount of games in the hopes of a hit. It also publishes franchises to extremes. BioShock looks to be amazing and it's good to see it being developed at a studio that believes in it.
Good on you Irrational and 2K.
Bob the Builder @ Jul 31st 2006 11:36AM
http://www.clubskill.com/Game_Previews/4000/Bioshock%20First%20Look
Just on a sidenote, Club Skill has an exclusive First Look on it =)
And @ #1, Army of Two does look awesome. If you subscribe to EGM, the August issue has a lot of awesome info on it. I'm actually looking forward to it.
Bob the Builder @ Jul 31st 2006 11:38AM
Oh and by the way. EA sucks, it milks franchises it as long as it remains 'alive'. They don't give a crap about Battlefield 2 (see: patch issues).
localpirate @ Jul 31st 2006 11:42AM
Army of Two? Please. That's just the same ole shit.
polly @ Jul 31st 2006 11:46AM
Bob the Builder,
That EGM was crap. They should have titled it "The 49 most anticipated games, and a big advertisement for 'Army of Two.'" Honestly I hadn't even heard of that game before that issue came out and the idea that it beat out Gears of War is ridiculous.
Markster @ Jul 31st 2006 11:47AM
Freankly, EA *is* concerned more with "that paper". AND Levine.
If you look at it from a business standpoint, System Shock 2 was hardly a spectacular seller. If EA were to invest in a sequel they would have certainly budgeted it based on past returns (i.e. 'low') and a small budget is surely not what Levine was hoping for.
His options would be to take the hit and work with a low budget and high pressure to make a "mainstream" game, or to jump ship, and hope another publisher has more faith in his ability.
As for the examples of Spore and Army of Two...
1) Spore = Maxis. Maxis = Sims. Sims = Money.
therefore: Spore = Money.
2) Army of Two is a *bit* of a new, different game format. However, it is hardly groudbreaking. More of a further twist on the existing 3rd person shooter market. (The hot new thing used to be "squad tactics", now it is "co-op singleplayer")
Even then, it's easier to try out new things in a new franchise than to take a low selling franchise and try to make it popular.
Now I'm not saying EA is evil for caring about money. I'm just saying that they *do* care about money, and their decisions are based on that. As a business, that's what they're supposed to do. Gamers may dislike that, but it's the terrible truth.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Jul 31st 2006 12:16PM
How wonderful to hear 2K is very supportive towards developers.
As a gamer, I wish they'd extend the same courtesy towards their paying customers. Especially since we're forced to QA every title of theirs with no bug fixes in sight.
Ive Been Jipped @ Jul 31st 2006 12:16PM
Was that last sentence really necessary?
"So, is this just bitterness talking or was EA more concerned with gettin' that paper and not unique games?"
A nice starting point for debate... but no! Wait!
"Well, with games like Army of Two and Spore on the horizon, maybe bitterness is the answer."
Right, okay. So basically, you have no idea either and you're taking a guess at a surface level as to what the answer is (which no-one in the comments section even seems to agree with). Saying Levine is bitter based on EA's release schedule is no way to justify an argument.
lionzub @ Jul 31st 2006 12:24PM
A lot of people look at me like I am nuts when I tell them I boycott EA and VU Games. I just don't believe in their business practice. 2K Games has come out with some great games and soon enough they will be up there with Activision (if they already aren't).
Dignan17 @ Jul 31st 2006 12:43PM
Have to agree with #11 there. So you're saying the guy is bitter just because of two innovative titles being released by the biggest game publisher in the world? That's a terrible argument. Besides, do you really think EA has say over what Will does? He could make a sim game about a colony of flies on dog poo and they'd publish it.
OGHowie @ Jul 31st 2006 1:05PM
I totally agree with #8.
How could Army of Two be the most anticipated game when nobody heard of it before the magazine came out? I'm sure EA's money is what got it into that #1 spot.
WizarDru @ Jul 31st 2006 1:32PM
Army of Two looks OK. A solid performer, perhaps...but the latest EGM's touting of it as the game everyone's been waiting for? Was it even AT E3 this year? No one had heard of it prior to this article...and let's be honest here: it may be good, but it looks an awful lot like Splinter Cell, to me. Nothing wrong with that...but in a discussion of upcoming games, having this game beat out something like Heavenly Sword, Gears of War, Alan Wake, Dead Rising or Assassin's Creed seems...dubious.
Considering that System Shock 2 is still a game people talk about since it won so many awards back in 1999, I think it's not bitterness. EA had some great properties in 1999...and they ran many of them into the ground, like the Medal of Honor series, the Sims and C&C, for example. I think everyone would hate to see a System Shock 3 shoved out the door in the same fashion as something like Command&Conquer:Renegade or Medal of Honor: European Assualt.
Robert Summa @ Jul 31st 2006 1:36PM
For those bashing Army of Two based on one magazine appearance, I was referencing the game based on my experience at E3 with it.
In the closed door press viewing, I got to see the game. I can tell you, it is all that and it is different then what EA usually spews out.
It's definitely one of those games you have to see and experience to believe. Who knows, the game could end up to be pure crap, but from what we were shown and promised, you'll want it.
mjsmitho @ Jul 31st 2006 3:39PM
Well I can't get angry at a company wanting to make money and successful games, but I do disagree with some of EA's practices.
As for Army of Two I really like what I have seen, but as it just looks like a game to compete with Gears of War and later Kane and Lynch, it is hardly unique, it's just EA trying to compete in the markets that will make them "paper".
It seems that is the only way to get EA to make games with fresh ideas, other companies publish successful innovative EA will follow.
calthaer. @ Jul 31st 2006 11:02PM
Summa seems to forget the supreme suckitude that EA made out of Origin and Westwood.
Bitterness? Sure - EA has certainly ruined enough great gaming legacies to justify it. And I'll take tangible history over their smoke-and-mirrors marketing hype for a game that isn't out yet any day of the week.
aemorfmi @ Aug 5th 2006 3:27AM
I think that #8 is a bit mislead here. Army of Two was a game shown behind closed doors to the media at e3 2006, and since e3 coverage is more about boobs and flash, that's why there was no fanfare clamoring about it. Keep in mind that Army of Two is being developed by a small, new-from-the-ground-up-and-unspoiled EA studio in Montreal, led by a couple of Splinter Cell's masterminds. EA corporates might not want to completely to force too much of their old mentality on it since it's actually a very innovative game.