Interview Big Bioware Q&A at Eurogamer

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: BioWare; Dragon Age

There's an <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=94820">interview</a> up at <A href="http://www.eurogamer.net/">Eurogamer</a> with <a href="http://www.bioware.com">BioWare</a>'s <b>Matt Atwood</b>. It mostly covers <a href="http://masseffect.bioware.com/">Mass Effect</a> for the PC, but also dips in to other areas such as porting questions, previous titles, and this:
<br>
<blockquote><b>Eurogamer: It first showed its face in 2004. Was it put on hold to pursue things like Mass Effect, or have you been working on it consistently since then?
<br>
<br>
Matt Atwood:</b> Certainly there are times with more resources and [times] with less resources; as you release Mass Effect you use up more of your talent. But it has been consistently worked on. When you make a statement like "this is the RPG that people have been waiting for", then you better back it up and you better spend a hell of a lot of time on it. I think we're going to be extremely proud and our fans are going to be extremely excited. And I think you'll hear more about it pretty quick.</blockquote>
<br>
Wow. I've been trying to figure out what I've been waiting on and now I know! Then again, waiting for something from <a href="http://www.bioware.com">BioWare</a> that isn't a port is probably pretty unique for this decade.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://ve3d.ign.com/">Voodoo Extreme</A>

 

[Andhaira]

You do realize that were it not for bioware you would not have had arcanum?

 

[Rohit_N]

Really?

 

[Volourn]

Really. Or Raw vs. Smackdown 2008.

 

[bat_boro]

And Madonna

 

[The Feral Kid]

"The first thing to establish about Mass Effect on PC is that it's not a port"

Oh really?


"BioWare hates ports"




"Was it put on hold to pursue things like Mass Effect?"

The interviewer seems to understand the concept of rhetorical question very well.


"Certainly there are times with more resources and [times] with less resources"

Pure coincidence of course that these" less resources" are always assigned to PC-only games like DA.


"as you release Mass Effect you use up more of your talent"

Translation: since even way before ME's release there hasn't been any progress in DA, Bio seem to have a shortage in "talent".

 

[Arem]

...But Mass Effect is an experience that is very personal, because you make very personal choices. You choose whether you're going to explore that romance or explore that planet; are you going to save someone's life or are you going to kill them? And these are all things that are really personal.

Amazing.

 

[sabishii]

...But Mass Effect is an experience that is very personal, because you make very personal choices. You choose whether you're going to explore that romance or explore that planet; are you going to save someone's life or are you going to kill them? And these are all things that are really personal.

Amazing.

If you want to make it really personal, mentally fuck with the player as they kill people. It'll be like the opposite of Eternal Darkness.

 

[Volourn]

"always"

Stop lying. Absolutes are retarded.

 

[The Feral Kid]

"always"

Stop lying. Absolutes are retarded.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You do realize that were it not for bioware you would not have had arcanum?

Firstly, that's not a question, that's a statement. Secondly, it's an indefensibly stupid statement.

Troika was founded by people who were annoyed with having to make Fallout 2 so close to finishing Fallout. Baldur's Gate wasn't even released at that point. You can't even make the argument that Arcanum wouldn't have been published by Sierra since Sierra published Diablo in 1996 and Hellfire in 1997.

Do you realize this is why you're the village idiot?

 

[Andhaira]

You do realize that were it not for bioware you would not have had arcanum?

Firstly, that's not a question, that's a statement. Secondly, it's an indefensibly stupid statement.

It doesn't need to be defended. Thing is BG heralded in "The Great Revival' ofcrpg's. It renewed interest in a dying genre. Raised it from the dead, or so to speak. (this is also why Xzar, the first npc you encounter is a necromancer...its an inside joke in the industry) Were it not for BG, there may not even be any true crpg's in the new millenium; we would only have had action-rpgs.

Troika was founded by people who were annoyed with having to make Fallout 2 so close to finishing Fallout. Baldur's Gate wasn't even released at that point. You can't even make the argument that Arcanum wouldn't have been published by Sierra since Sierra published Diablo in 1996 and Hellfire in 1997.

I know all about Troika SP; I also remember you from the arcanum inn so many, many years ago. Troikians spent way to much tiome on the inn, and had really unprofessional people on their team.Which is why their games were BUGGY as hell, and as such they were forced to close doors. That and doing stupid things like wasting time adding in 'graveyards'for the arcanum inn'rs and 'dumb dfialogue' when that time should have gone to smart coding.

Do you realize this is why you're the village idiot?

You really don't get it do you?

(and yeah, that was also a statement, and not a question)



[/quote]

 

[Gromnir]

"always"

Absolutes are retarded.

but isn't that an absolute? didn't really leave room for equivocation... retard.

to be fair, even seeming absolute retards, like vol, occasionally has something worth saying. as painful as it may be, we always reads vol posts as if we has never read a vol post previous... 'cause he will, ever so infrequent, surprise with some random and inexplicable insight. is kinda scary.

btw, for & (am not gonna write out anhandarea, or whatever the name is, so you gets "&" from here on out, ok?) diablo were the game that brought big sales to the rpg genre. were barely a crpg itself, but is easy to see how diablo influenced BG development with similar pov and requisite 1007 & exp mill. bg filled a niche left by diablo... something 'twixt hardcore crpgs and barely crpgs like diablo. is arguable that if not for bg, then somebody, somewhere, woulda' eventually tried to fill same void.

perhaps a better argument is that bg revitalized D&D... and not just crpg d&d. hadn't been a playable crpg d&d game for a long time previous to bg, and sales o' d&d pnp were quite low when bg were first released. 'course it can be argued that this were the most lamentable aspect o' bg... 'cause it is possible that w/o bg d&d might have continued its slow decline into obscurity. diablo brings back interest in crpgs, and bg brings back d&d? sounds 'bout right.

regardless, am not gonna get into a palsgraf causation analysis with &. is no way to prove or disprove proximate cause in the present context. don't you get tired from all the axe grinding? even Gromnir can only keeps up for so long for we simply grow bored from such exercise.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Andhaira]

Ha! Good fun!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

It doesn't need to be defended. Thing is BG heralded in "The Great Revival' ofcrpg's. It renewed interest in a dying genre. Raised it from the dead, or so to speak. (this is also why Xzar, the first npc you encounter is a necromancer...its an inside joke in the industry) Were it not for BG, there may not even be any true crpg's in the new millenium; we would only have had action-rpgs.

Again, completely false. If the CRPG were dead, you wouldn't have seen Fallout and Fallout 2 released prior to Baldur's Gate. The only thing stagnating at the time was the D&D CRPG following such great fiascos as Descent to Undermountain. Of course, the success of Baldur's Gate is why Interplay road the D&D/Infinity Engine train straight to their grave.

Other games released during that DEAD ZONE were Daggerfall in 1996, Return to Krondor in 1997, Realms of Arkania in 1997, Wizardry Gold in 1996, and so forth. Ultima 9 was being developed during this time as well. The argument that the CRPG was dying out during that time frame is rubbish.

I also remember you from the arcanum inn so many, many years ago.

I posted there twice and you remember it?

Which is why their games were BUGGY as hell, and as such they were forced to close doors.

Actually, they were forced to close their doors because they had a reputation of not being mainstream enough. They pitched the idea of a four attribute CRPG to MicroSoft and got turned down because it seemed too complicated for the average gamer.

The argument that they closed because of buggy games is silly. Anyone ever know of a big publisher in the last ten years that's shied away from releasing a buggy game? Anyone? <cricket>

That and doing stupid things like wasting time adding in 'graveyards'for the arcanum inn'rs

There's your proof I didn't post much on the Arcanum Inn. I'm not in the Graveyard.

and 'dumb dfialogue' when that time should have gone to smart coding.

Dumb dialog and smart coding go hand in hand.

 

[Andhaira]

Again, completely false. If the CRPG were dead, you wouldn't have seen Fallout and Fallout 2 released prior to Baldur's Gate. The only thing stagnating at the time was the D&D CRPG following such great fiascos as Descent to Undermountain. Of course, the success of Baldur's Gate is why Interplay road the D&D/Infinity Engine train straight to their grave.

Other games released during that DEAD ZONE were Daggerfall in 1996, Return to Krondor in 1997, Realms of Arkania in 1997, Wizardry Gold in 1996, and so forth. Ultima 9 was being developed during this time as well. The argument that the CRPG was dying out during that time frame is rubbish.

Incorrect. Fallout and Fallout 2 were nothing near the commercial successes the IE games were (with the possible exception of torment). Furthermore, you just stated yourself how stagnant the rpg genre was at the time:

Daggerfall 96
RTK 97

Thats one rpg a year. That is pathetic. WizG doesn't count since its just a remake/compilation; RoA was released in 1994-95.Shadows over Riva was released in 96-97 AIAIR and again, thats just another rpg in a year. All these fantastic games did not come close to the success status of Baldurs Gate.

Rpg's were being hailed as anon=profitable genre which publishers stayed far away from; BG changed that. It changed everything.

As for riding the IE games to their grave, you have no clue what your are spewing out. The IE games were what made Interplay consistant money. IWD2 was made specifically for a much needed cash injection, which it provided (far too late however but still) It was interplays other stupid decisions that fucked them up.

I posted there twice and you remember it?

Yes. And I am sure you posted more than 2wice, I distincltly remember your user name.

Actually, they were forced to close their doors because they had a reputation of not being mainstream enough. They pitched the idea of a four attribute CRPG to MicroSoft and got turned down because it seemed too complicated for the average gamer.

The argument that they closed because of buggy games is silly. Anyone ever know of a big publisher in the last ten years that's shied away from releasing a buggy game? Anyone? <cricket>

Again you are spewing nonsense from the wrong hole. Troika were not 'mainstream'enough because their games were buggy and unfinished, with really behind the time grafix (which for some reason required really powerful rigs at the time; talk about your unoptimized codes) Troika had every chance to redeem themselves yet they kept fucking themselves and their customers over and over and over with the same flaws (arcanum, toee, bloodlines,bugs bugs bugs bugs unoptimized codes bugs bugs etc)

Bioware's IE games by comparison are virtually bug free. (Note: Biowares IE games, NOT black isles IE games. IWD2 was buggy at release. Improved Init STILL doesn't work.)

Troike rode their buggy and unfinished games straight to their graves.

There's your proof I didn't post much on the Arcanum Inn. I'm not in the Graveyard.

Ok. It was a stupidf concept anyway. A far better thing would have been to put in an actual inn or something, rather than make a graveyard for your fans.

Dumb dialog and smart coding go hand in hand.

Troika's fate and the unoptimized and buggy engines of ALL their games PROVE your statement to be irrevocably false. Dumb dialogue is fun; but its something that should be done only when the entire game is complete and bug free.

 

[Calis]

Fallout and Fallout 2 were nothing near the commercial successes the IE games were (with the possible exception of torment).
(snip)
Rpg's were being hailed as anon=profitable genre which publishers stayed far away from; BG changed that. It changed everything.

Diablo. As for timeline stuff, will take your word for it, but causal link you're suggesting is dubious at best.

I posted there twice and you remember it?

Yes. And I am sure you posted more than 2wice, I distincltly remember your user name.

Take it from me: Saint was never an Inn regular. T-A staffie at one point, sure. Vehement Arcanum beta-bug-hunter, very much. Inn regular? No. You may have seen him in the IRC logs posted at the Inn though. FUN FACT: Stravaig (who, take it from me, is a different person than his wife Milady) stopped visiting #arcanum because he was scared of SaintP.

Bioware's IE games by comparison are virtually bug free.

I take it you didn't have to backtrack two chapters in BG1 due to the "skip a chapter by accident and fuck stuff up" bug, then?

As for the rest of your post... well, I can't argue that low production values (for industry standards) didn't play a big role in Troika's lack of commercial success, but I'd still rather have a bit of ambition when it comes to implementing intricate design concepts than a Blizzard-like vehemence in polishing a simple design until it shines a blinding shine. I still find it hard to blame them (Troika) for trying.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Incorrect. Fallout and Fallout 2 were nothing near the commercial successes the IE games were (with the possible exception of torment). Furthermore, you just stated yourself how stagnant the rpg genre was at the time:

Daggerfall 96
RTK 97

Thats one rpg a year. That is pathetic. WizG doesn't count since its just a remake/compilation; RoA was released in 1994-95.Shadows over Riva was released in 96-97 AIAIR and again, thats just another rpg in a year. All these fantastic games did not come close to the success status of Baldurs Gate.

Rpg's were being hailed as anon=profitable genre which publishers stayed far away from; BG changed that. It changed everything.

The fact those CRPGs were still being made the entire time you claimed that the genre was stagnant wrecks your argument that it was a dead genre. CRPGs were released in 1998, 1999, and 2000 which were in development before BG was TEH SUCKCESS as well. The only question about the deadness of CRPGs was if the D&D license was worth it following the period after the gold box games.

You said the genre was stagnating, I pointed out gobs of CRPGs that were made during that time. If there's new games being produced during that time, then the genre wasn't stagnated at all.

As for riding the IE games to their grave, you have no clue what your are spewing out. The IE games were what made Interplay consistant money. IWD2 was made specifically for a much needed cash injection, which it provided (far too late however but still) It was interplays other stupid decisions that fucked them up.

IWD and PS:T made about the same amount of money(Feargus posted that here on this site, search for it). The reason IWD was more profitable is because it only took 5 months to make. Neither one were stellar sellers.

And yeah, they rode it to their graves. IWD2 should have never been made. It was too little, too late. A woefully outdated engine with a hacked hybrid of 2E and 3E rules when other D&D games were fully 3E.

Yes. And I am sure you posted more than 2wice, I distincltly remember your user name.

Your memory is as faulty as your logic.

Again you are spewing nonsense from the wrong hole. Troika were not 'mainstream'enough because their games were buggy and unfinished, with really behind the time grafix (which for some reason required really powerful rigs at the time; talk about your unoptimized codes) Troika had every chance to redeem themselves yet they kept fucking themselves and their customers over and over and over with the same flaws (arcanum, toee, bloodlines,bugs bugs bugs bugs unoptimized codes bugs bugs etc)

So, nope. You're wrong. Again, I know what I'm saying not from speculation, but from direct sources on the subject. When you can't get a contract from a publisher and they tell you specifically that you're not mainstream enough, chances are that's the reason.

Bioware's IE games by comparison are virtually bug free. (Note: Biowares IE games, NOT black isles IE games. IWD2 was buggy at release. Improved Init STILL doesn't work.)

Bullshit. Here's the final patch readme for BG1. Note all the crash bugs that were fixed. Note all the bugs dealing with breaking quests. Here's the final patch for BG2, note all the bugs that were still in the game even after several patches. How many patches did NWN get? Things like save game corruption, various crashes and broken quests, and so forth were in the game straight out of the box. Even the expansions had save game corruption issues.

There's your proof I didn't post much on the Arcanum Inn. I'm not in the Graveyard.

Ok. It was a stupidf concept anyway. A far better thing would have been to put in an actual inn or something, rather than make a graveyard for your fans.

In your option. Graveyards with witty epitats are a CRPG tradition.

Troika's fate and the unoptimized and buggy engines of ALL their games PROVE your statement to be irrevocably false. Dumb dialogue is fun; but its something that should be done only when the entire game is complete and bug free.

You know there's a huge difference between a designer and a programmer, right?

Dumb dialog isn't there for you to slap your knee at, it's to give quest options that equate directly to the intelligence of your character. It's GOOD DESIGN, nimrod.