In an interview with gamesindustry.biz, the acclaimed developer also discusses his next game, ‘Judas’, generative AI and why it “wasn’t easy to step away from BioShock”
No offense Ken, but you’ve been making the same game since 1999. And I want you to do it again.
There were several deviations from System Shock 2 along the way. And even if this one plays like that, I hope they nail the story stuff they’re going for. Previews have seemed impressed.
Quick Question : What does it mean when they write like this?
Brackets in a quote denote a change to what was actually said. In a perfect world, with quality journalism, they’re used to summarize or make the quote flow better in the piece without changing the intent or meaning of the quote
In this case, they very well could’ve changed “won’t be” to “will be”
I don’t expect that to be the case here, but it’s possible.
Also, using an ellipsis inside brackets like this: “[…]” Is an intentional omission by the author of the piece.
Usually, the brackets include a part of the sentence that wasn’t said but the interviewer believes the speaker meant or was implied.
In cases like this, maybe the speaker was speaking quickly (and, so, didn’t say the words during the interview) or were dropping implied parts is the sentence (like we all sometimes do when speaking casually; like if I say, “Quick thinking,” to someone. It’s implied that I was saying, “[That was] quick thinking”).
This also gets used often if the interviewee is talking about someone they know personally but we don’t so they’re usually just using the first name (e.g. “Yeah; me and [General] Howard [Zimmerman] go way back”).
Your explanation is good and thorough.
I always struggle to know when to use the square brackets. The straightforward answer is to just quote directly where possible. But especially in interviews, someone’s answer may be jumbly, so the most honourable thing to do may be to use square brackets to make it easier for the reader to understand the speaker’s point, but you’re not being misleading.
For example, maybe this interviewee said something like “in the future, it — we might come to see that game development, and games overall, will end up turning out to be player-driven”, which could be straightforwardly shortened to what we see in the screenshot: “in the future, it [will be] player driven”. Square brackets, in the hands of a skilled journalist, can be used to manipulate a narrative through selectively quoting people, but they can also represent a speaker’s point far more authentically and cogently than the literal words.
"in the future, it will be player-driven
There’s also just grammatical stuff that looks better in text. “In the future, it’s player driven” would conversationally flow perfectly well, but as written text the tense of “it’s” doesn’t line up with the statement being about the future. Hence the present tense being corrected to future tense.
They’re editing the quote to add information they think is relevant. Ken Levine didn’t say “will be”.
Exceot this quote makes no sense without these 2 words. Did Ken just accidentally words?
We generally don’t notice, but normal speech is basically a broken mess for anyone, with ahs and uhms, and sentences that keep enveloping other sentences, and you never get back to the point you were making in the first place. It’s a basic part of a journalist’s job to filter the word soup that you end up with from a face-to-face interview - in an honest way, that truthfully reflects the points and opinions that were stated, of course. Usually, we have no problem understanding each others’ jumbled verbal messes, when we’re right there, and have context, tone, body language, etc., to make up for when the words are lacking - but those things obviously don’t translate to written interviews.
In all likelihood, what Ken Levine “really” said was probably something along the lines of:
In the future, it will be - you know, what we really want to do, and now we have the technology, and because, BioShock really showed that there’s an real desire among gamers for immersive experiences like this, so we’re actually now fully able to to really realise that full, ahead-of-its-time vision we had with the original BioShock, it’s about agency, player agency, that’s really what it’s about, you know, it’s player driven - that’s where we want to go. Because that’s what makes our medium unique.
Or they replaced words. It’s possible he said “It’s” but since it’s not currently true, they changed it to [will be] but I’m just speculating.
Man I had so much hope for infinite, remember when Elizabeth opens a year for that dying horse and they’re accidentally on a rain-soaked street in the 80s?
There should have been more secret tears for you to find throughout the game with all kinds of Easter eggs and shit.
The one you brought up, if I remember correctly, was supposed to be Paris in the 80s, because there’s a movie theater in the frame that says something about Star Wars.
Yeah, that was it. I dug up the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=attvYJb6xn8
The only one I hadn’t played thru completely was System Shock 1. Love the Shock games
I would encourage you and others to give SS1 remake by Nightdive Studios a go. It was well worth the money imo.
