Publishers = bad RPGs?

[Red Russian]

Publishers get blamed for fucking over RPGs in general simply 'cause they're after l00t. It's understandable if they are since they are likely business oriented and will do the "right" thing to ensure business is successful.

The thing is, is it the developer that comes up with a shitty RPG (according to Kodexian standards) and presents it to the publisher in exchange for phat l00t, or is it the publisher telling another developer (that brought something else to the table) to make something else instead which, ofcourse, ends up being a shitty RPG?

Dragon Age: Origins might be plain shit according to the Kodexian Standards but it is still a decent step in the right direction when compared to other more... INfamous RPGs, right? And this was published by EA! Which begs the question: Did Bioware just design a better RPG this time round, or did EA pull the strings in the back in the right direction? I'm sure EA could have saved money by making the plot linear. Why didn't they? And what happened to that other nutcase who said something about "its stupid to make stories have different paths, because of moar work and less laziness"? I THINK it was the guy who made Deus Ex.

Sequels is another matter (or the same, I guess. Fuck, I'm just winging this post as I type). Look at the Gothic series. There wasn't much change from Gothic to Gothic as far I can tell. Graphics changed, they tried to make the combat system more accessible, but generally kept it true to the original Gothic (bar atmosphere. It felt different in Gothic 2). So in this case the publisher kept the game the same.

So I'm asking, is it really fair to attack publishers for shitty RPGs when in reality it might be developers making shitty RPGs and presenting them to publishers? To be fair, Bioware will most likely have "collar grabbed" EA due to their already standing background in RPGs and thus have pursuaded them in publishing with minimal inteference.

I'm sure that if Spiderweb were to actually attempt something like Dragon Age only with Vogel's flair, that publishers might look at it.

 

[Squeek]

Instead of asking who's to blame, it might be better to ask: Who is the real developer of these games?. One party creates them and the other funds that project, but which one is doing true development? Based on what I've read on forums like these, I would be tempted to say game publishers are doing the true development.

In any project-based business, the true developer will be responsible for things like these: He will come up with the good idea, obtain financing for it, address legal issues pertaining to it, hire and manage individuals or businesses to build it (or create it), and then market it (or sometimes own and manage it).

How much of that is being decided and/or done by game developers today? And how much of it is being decided and/or done by publishers?

 

[Melcar]

Publishers in the end decide the direction a particular game takes. It's their money, so developers end up having to play by their rules.

 

[Red Russian]

And just what are those rules?

The fact is that games like Dragon Age, Gothic and Witcher end up being very time consuming to produce. Extra content that only gets experienced by the player when he/she goes through a second time. You'd think with all the short, concentrated and simple games being put out on the market, and the fact l00t was on the line, publishers would cut down on these C&C with non-linear story designs.

I know I'm banging on Dragon Age here the whole time and that's probably gonna be the only one for awhile from publies like EA, but it does seem to deviate from the norm of shit RPGs.

Basically what I'm saying is that publishers don't get alot of offers from developers to make RPGs like Dragon Age/Gothic/Wither simply because the developers find it intimidating to make something similar. Not necessarily because they're not l00t-giving games. I'm gonna go on a whim and say dungeon crawler "inspired" RPGs are easier to make then say, Gothic. The filler combat that plagues Dragon Age might be evidence of Bioware realizing the difficulty in taking on this project which resulted in them changing complex content for easier ones. HELL, isn't that what happened in one of the KOTORs? (can't remember which one). Content that never made it. Sure it wasn't great, but the signs were there of developing something over your head. Ofcourse the publisher might have decided to stop development as well.


At the very least, EA publishing a RPG like Dragon Age might atleast give other publishers a reason to second look similar offers if they come. Or it might inspire developers to make something similar.

 

[Dnny]

HELL, isn't that what happened in one of the KOTORs? (can't remember which one).

No. It was KOTOR 2 that was released unfinished, it was because the publisher wanted it done for christmas and rushed the developers schedule. It doesn't have shit to do with being "unable" to do it. It *had* to be done for *christmas* 2004 no matter wut.

 

[GarfunkeL]

EA published DA:O only because it bought Bioware, not because they suddenly were interested in RPG's. Bioware was apparently a logical choice for EA to buy.

Anyhow, publishers do market research, have test audiences, follow demographics and whatthefuckelse, meaning that when Troika tried to sell them an idea about a turn-based RPG with loads of dialogue, content and whatelse, no-one gave a shit. When they changed their pitch into a real-time 3D first-person vampire ACTION-rpg with tits and blood, publishers were interested, all of a sudden.

So yes - if publishers only want to support the development of certain games, games which are safe bets to maximize their profits, it is fair enough to blame them for the suffocation of our genre.

 

[GarfunkeL]

HELL, isn't that what happened in one of the KOTORs? (can't remember which one).

No. It was KOTOR 2 that was released unfinished, it was because the publisher wanted it done for christmas and rushed the developers schedule. It doesn't have shit to do with being "unable" to do it. It *had* to be done for *christmas* 2004 no matter wut.

Though wasn't that the case where Feargus was insanely ambitious and promised Lucasarts that they would get it done by X-mas to start with?

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

EA published DA:O only because it bought Bioware, not because they suddenly were interested in RPG's. Bioware was apparently a logical choice for EA to buy.

Yes because they were suddenly intrested in RPGs after games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Fable, KOTOR 1&2, Mass Effect, and JE sold like they did.

 

[Volourn]

"Though wasn't that the case where Feargus was insanely ambitious and promised Lucasarts that they would get it done by X-mas to start with?"

Yup. Release date was Christmas to start THEN it got opushed back a couple of months then it got pushed up again to Christmas. This isn't a case where they were told x date and it got changed to y randomly.

 

[Zomg]

There aren't really that many non-publisher non- wholly owned subsidiary devs anymore (meaning like Obsidian).

Anyway, NP-NWOS developers are the side that's small enough to get strangled by gambler's ruin, therefore I don't assign them much responsibility for shit. They get a polite clap when they play the game perfectly and live one more day.

 

[.Sigurd]

Sega demanded that Obsidian must make Alpha Protocol more easy and simplier.
Think about it.

 

[Grunker]

Atari is notorious for its impact on RPG. When once there was a suggestion to make BG3, it was Atari themselves that published a design document, story ideas, and gameplay and graphics-requirements.

Not surprisingly, they found no developers willing to pick up the project.

The idea was to make a pre-quel in full 3D, featuring an ancestor of Minsc which suffered from the same mental problem, and of course, had a miniture giant space weasel.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Atari is notorious for its impact on RPG. When once there was a suggestion to make BG3, it was Atari themselves that published a design document, story ideas, and gameplay and graphics-requirements.

Not surprisingly, they found no developers willing to pick up the project.

The idea was to make a pre-quel in full 3D, featuring an ancestor of Minsc which suffered from the same mental problem, and of course, had a miniture giant space weasel.

Where did you hear that? BG 3 was in the works before Atari got the license and afterwards. It was already going to be 3D but a very slow paced roleplaying heavy game.

With anything related to D&D Atari is a clown on the world stage but this even seems beyond their measure.

 

[Grunker]

Atari is notorious for its impact on RPG. When once there was a suggestion to make BG3, it was Atari themselves that published a design document, story ideas, and gameplay and graphics-requirements.

Not surprisingly, they found no developers willing to pick up the project.

The idea was to make a pre-quel in full 3D, featuring an ancestor of Minsc which suffered from the same mental problem, and of course, had a miniture giant space weasel.

Where did you hear that? BG 3 was in the works before Atari got the license and afterwards. It was already going to be 3D but a very slow paced roleplaying heavy game.

With anything related to D&D Atari is a clown on the world stage but this even seems beyond their measure.

The only official article I know of, which discussed BG3 at length, was in an 03 or 04 issue of PC Gamer UK. It was first put online back at Glory of Istar's (Dragonlance TC for Baldur's Gate II) forums, and I later put it up on Spellhold Studios (I'm having some trouble finding it at the moment though).

The article was an interview with an Atari official, who spoke about their ideas for launching Baldur's Gate 3. At that time, there was no "real" developer yet.

EDIT: On a completely irrelevant note, Glory of Istar's homepage, http://www.dragonlancetc.com/, now shows a poster for "BRUTAL TEEN PORN."

 

[Volourn]

"The idea was to make a pre-quel in full 3D, featuring an ancestor of Minsc which suffered from the same mental problem, and of course, had a miniture giant space weasel."

I believe you are making up shit. The Atari version of BG3 talk was basically about it going 1st person, and the huge quote wa s'seeing the fear in the orc's eyes.".

Stop the shit, or post the proofs.

 

[Grunker]

My, I was a sharp-sounding fellow back in my youth. Wasn't too good at the spelling-part though. Anyways:

http://www.shsforums.net/topic/14668-false/

The links will direct you to some BRUTAL TEEN PORN though, so I'm guessing it doesn't constitute very good evidence. Can't find the article anywhere else though.

EDIT: Ugh, I was horrible when I was 17... I mean damn. At least I'm sticking up for Bloodlines in that thread, and sticking it to the man (Bioware) for NWN. The rest? Not so redeemable.

 

[Volourn]

Not clicking the link. Rather not ruin my new computer, already. If what you say is accurate I'm surprised I missed it or did I just conviently forget it to save myself? LOL

 

[Grunker]

Not clicking the link. Rather not ruin my new computer, already. If what you say is accurate I'm surprised I missed it or did I just conviently forget it to save myself? LOL

The link in my posts links to Spellhold Studios. It's the links in the post my link links to (...) that show nice young ladies being brutally fucked. So just don't click them.

 

[Jaesun]

HELL, isn't that what happened in one of the KOTORs? (can't remember which one).

No. It was KOTOR 2 that was released unfinished, it was because the publisher wanted it done for christmas and rushed the developers schedule. It doesn't have shit to do with being "unable" to do it. It *had* to be done for *christmas* 2004 no matter wut.

As a gigantic unabashed Obsidian Fanboy, the onus of KotOR II was on Obsidian, which failed to finish the product in the contracted and agreed upon time.

 

[mondblut]

The thing is, is it the developer that comes up with a shitty RPG (according to Kodexian standards) and presents it to the publisher in exchange for phat l00t, or is it the publisher telling another developer (that brought something else to the table) to make something else instead which, ofcourse, ends up being a shitty RPG?

Every developer dreams of outdoing Fallout. I mean, *every single one*. And then they come to a publisher asking for 10 millions the project demands, and a publisher sayeth, "no, I will not give 10 millions to fund this project. But I might consider giving 200k". And so the developer sits down and cuts out everything that would overtax the 200k budget, and the world ends up with another piece of shit, which, naturally, achieves 200k of returns at best. The question is, whether a 10m project in its original vision would achieve any more returns. You can't blame people for being unwilling to dump 9m 800k of their cash, can you?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Developers have to do what publishers want, because they have to deliver what players want. The only one to blame for shitty games is the player.

Which is why I don't hate beth or bio, they are only giving most players what they want / accept.

 

[janjetina]

The thing is, is it the developer that comes up with a shitty RPG (according to Kodexian standards) and presents it to the publisher in exchange for phat l00t, or is it the publisher telling another developer (that brought something else to the table) to make something else instead which, ofcourse, ends up being a shitty RPG?

Every developer dreams of outdoing Fallout. I mean, *every single one*. And then they come to a publisher asking for 10 millions the project demands, and a publisher sayeth, "no, I will not give 10 millions to fund this project. But I might consider giving 200k". And so the developer sits down and cuts out everything that would overtax the 200k budget, and the world ends up with another piece of shit, which, naturally, achieves 200k of returns at best. The question is, whether a 10m project in its original vision would achieve any more returns. You can't blame people for being unwilling to dump 9m 800k of their cash, can you?

Did Fallout have a 10 million dollar budget?

 

[Emotional Vampire]

We live in era of modern 3d grafix.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

We also live in an era where customizing your character (roleplaying lol) is very important, so a kickass facegen to fiddle around with is mandatory too.

 

[Norfleet]

Let's be honest: Gamers don't give a rat's ass whether a game has "3D graphics" or not. They want a game that has GOOD graphics, and they don't care how it happens. The even bigger truth is that gamers don't actually even really demand GOOD graphics, they demand the appearance of good graphics. This means with the right trickery, it is possible to pass off really crap graphics as looking good, if you put the thing together right, while tons of money dumped into 3D can still produce ugly crap that looks like shit. Look at PvZ. Graphics technology circa 1990. The graphics are crap. But it LOOKS really good, and it sold.