BioWare/Pandemic have no soul.

[Timur]

BioWare/Pandemic have no soul.

I was just reading (or, for the most part, skimming) this article in which bioware/pandemic reply to an old article about how the games industry is “broken” both from an economic and creative point of view.

Some tid bits:

3. Increased Risk Means Decreased Creativity - The next-gen systems require publishers to place very large bets with each title. This will mean decreased risk taking and just regurgitated sequels of big brand franchises. How many publishers will take risks with multiplatform original IP? This is clearly not good news for the consumer as innovation has driven our industry from the beginning. The irony is that the amazing tools, capabilities and quality of the new systems may very well doom what is most important, which is the game itself. Reconciling what a creative team wants and what the executive suite needs in terms of profits will be a growing challenge for many companies.

While this is really a no shit sherlock statement, at least he said it. More money obviously= less unorthodox games and more clones with less sophistication (as we can see with current RPGs)

However when bio was given a chance to reply they never really addressed this key issue. All the cooperate clowns really addressed are the economics of the issue (retail), and how to diversify the means in which one games (hand-helds, ect) if not the games themselves.

Is it just me or are they ignoring a major problem here; It doesn’t matter if the games are sold via retail or an online store, or if you play them on a handheld or PC, if they suck, they still suck.

What really infuriated me in this article however, is that bio and pan acted as if games were more commodities instead of pieces of art, as PS:T or FFVII (if it’s good art or bad art is up to you) has proven.

Given that I suck at forum script, I’ll just provide the link down here.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/featu ... 612&page=1

 

[Elwro]

Well, I guess we'll slowly have to switch our attention to shareware developers... and maybe the stinky Eastern European folk or the insidious Russians will provide a few decent RPG titles for us until they also succumb to the "The game is next-Gen so it has to sell 3 million copies to make a profit" trend.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Well, I guess we'll slowly have to switch our attention to shareware developers... and maybe the stinky Eastern European folk or the insidious Russians will provide a few decent RPG titles for us until they also succumb to the "The game is next-Gen so it has to sell 3 million copies to make a profit" trend.

"Comrade, ve make der PRETTY GRAPHIC and make MANY ROUBLES."

 

[Walkin' Dude]

What really infuriated me in this article however, is that bio and pan acted as if games were more commodities instead of pieces of art, as PS:T or FFVII (if it’s good art or bad art is up to you) has proven.

Um . . . games are commodities. What do you expect? Just like much of todays music, mainstream games are made to make money. As long as publishers see the big dollar signs, they will continue to publish games that attract the biggest payback. Why the hell shouldn't they? Should they drop lots of money on games that will only sell to a few people?

This is why indie developers can make better games. They are making games they want to see, without any real expectation of a profit. It is the same with indie films and music. There are budget constraints that affect the production quality, but the work itself can be great.

Do I like the games that are made in the commoditized manner? No. Will I fault the game companies for trying to make a profit? No. And clearly, some people want the games if they are selling. Therefore, they are meeting someone's needs.

 

[Dgaider]

What really infuriated me in this article however, is that bio and pan acted as if games were more commodities instead of pieces of art, as PS:T or FFVII (if it’s good art or bad art is up to you) has proven.

So, what would you prefer? That we simply reiterate what great games we make and show you all the awards we've won and how we're just going to get better and better as time passes?

Or maybe talk about the honest fact that there are some real challenges to be faced in balancing the business side of game development with the artistic side?

I mean, really, make up your mind.

Would it please you more to have a developer concern themselves only with the artistic side and ignore the fact that games are commodities completely? That would convince you that they aren't soulless like all the other developers out there and you could cheer them on... all the way to the unemployment line. I bet those developers feel really good about having earned the approval of the hardcore while they spend their time looking for work. I guess that the plus side is you would have gotten at least a game or two out of them while they lasted, but you sure aren't getting any more out of them now, are you? But why should you care, right?

I'm sure that good games can be made which are also successful. It happens, but no-one's stumbled onto the magic formula yet. This is the challenge they're talking about -- probably the same challenge that any industry faces which has art as a commodity. I'm sure someone will come along and slam me for being a "soulless corporate toady" or whatever, but slamming someone for telling the truth about the challenges we face, just because it's not something you'd like to hear, says more about you than them.

 

[obediah]

So, what would you prefer? That we simply reiterate what great games we make and show you all the awards we've won and how we're just going to get better and better as time passes?

Or maybe talk about the honest fact that there are some real challenges to be faced in balancing the business side of game development with the artistic side?

I mean, really, make up your mind.

Would it please you more to have a developer concern themselves only with the artistic side and ignore the fact that games are commodities completely? That would convince you that they aren't soulless like all the other developers out there and you could cheer them on... all the way to the unemployment line. I bet those developers feel really good about having earned the approval of the hardcore while they spend their time looking for work. I guess that the plus side is you would have gotten at least a game or two out of them while they lasted, but you sure aren't getting any more out of them now, are you? But why should you care, right?

I'm sure that good games can be made which are also successful. It happens, but no-one's stumbled onto the magic formula yet. This is the challenge they're talking about -- probably the same challenge that any industry faces which has art as a commodity. I'm sure someone will come along and slam me for being a "soulless corporate toady" or whatever, but slamming someone for telling the truth about the challenges we face, just because it's not something you'd like to hear, says more about you than them.

Bioware wants to continue to make successful AAA titles and will compromise "gameplay" to make that happen. Completely valid business decision. However, some people that enjoyed their previous games prefer "gameplay" over AAA and won't be following Bioware down that path. This is where those people live.

In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Make games the codex wants, or suffer our feeble consequences.

 

[Timur]

Um . . . games are commodities. What do you expect? Just like much of todays music, mainstream games are made to make money. As long as publishers see the big dollar signs, they will continue to publish games that attract the biggest payback. Why the hell shouldn't they? Should they drop lots of money on games that will only sell to a few people?

They're underestimating their clientele however. There are plenty of games (and books, and movies, ect) that are literate and still did incredibly well both in the commercial and critical sense. The problem is that marketers are underestimating the intelligence of the consumer (in the case of the 15 and up crowd). A cooperate commodity and art does not have to be mutually exclusive, Interplay proved that before they went down hill.

The reason why this generation of twitch 12 year olds are into graphics, guns, ect, is because they’re told to be. If gaming magazines were to make a big deal about the characterization of X NPC, Y story arch, ect, then thats what the 12 year olds would demand. It’s all about marketing when it comes to the younger crowd, you tell them what they should like, and they’ll like it.

This is why indie developers can make better games. They are making games they want to see, without any real expectation of a profit. It is the same with indie films and music. There are budget constraints that affect the production quality, but the work itself can be great.

True, but that does not mean mainstream games can't be creative. It’s that they don’t want to be creative.

Do I like the games that are made in the commoditized manner? No. Will I fault the game companies for trying to make a profit? No. And clearly, some people want the games if they are selling. Therefore, they are meeting someone's needs.

The problem is that those people would buy a box with a piece of dog shit if it read "madden" or "halo" on the cover, they have the brand name, why not take some risks with it? What is interesting is that corporations are forsaking further legitimacy (and therefore profit) in the wider world because they’re afraid to lose their nich market of teenage boys. It’s orthodoxy at it’s worst.

Regardless, I was pointing out the fact that bioware completely ignored a major issue in the market so that they could talk about retail.

 

[Castanova]

Or maybe talk about the honest fact that there are some real challenges to be faced in balancing the business side of game development with the artistic side?

No one says it isn't challenging to balance those two sides. But, just like the movie industry, the game industry suffers from enormous budget bloat which throws the entire picture out of wack. When game companies these day solve the "formula" of actual depth and innovation versus focus group demographic pandering they seem to hold certain values in the equation constant (How could our game possibly sell millions of copies if we don't have 16 billion uber polygons per frame using three dual-core graphics chips and a physics card?!).

Bring down production costs and then you can tone down the size of the target audience. Look at a series like Worms. They had a simple game concept that works well and they flesh it out like crazy. Add features. Add polish. Add new weapons. Add game modes. Map generator. A three man team could probably make Worms in a reasonable time-frame. You think they need to pander to 16 year olds who havent even heard of games that were released before 2002?

Who says every game has to be a success? Publishers and game companies alike seem to think the only form of diversification is within a single product (IMMERSIVE EPIC RPG III.... for ages 2-100!). What about diversification across titles? Why not split production costs across multiple games? You can even save money by sharing art resources or something along those lines. Since you defended Bioware with the finances of the business as your defense, whatever happened to proper risk/reward ratios? Since when is dumping 50 million dollars into a single title a good risk/reward environment? The variance alone on the company's revenue is ENORMOUS.

And, sure, it's a tough business. But it's not a question of the companies, of Bioware. The question is: do YOU want to make classic games at risk of financial security or are you happy making games that are products of the corporate grinder?

I'm not passing judgement. There are a million reasons people would want money over some kind of lofty goal like a classic game release. I'm guilty of sitting in a cube 5 days a week doing work that makes me want to vomit. It's just a choice people have to make.

 

[Volourn]

"Bioware wants to continue to make successful AAA titles and will compromise "gameplay" to make that happen. Completely valid business decision. However, some people that enjoyed their previous games prefer "gameplay" over AAA and won't be following Bioware down that path."

BIO games, on the whole, have improved beyond miles compared to their earlier games espicially role-playing wise.

Only a moron like you would hint otherwise.

I'd take a JE with its action combat where you get to actually choose what happens than BG where the only real choice you have is wher eto go next. L0LLERS!

As for this idea that gaming is 'broken', I say bullshit. Comapred to earlier games, today's games are, on the whole, much better. And, don't give me an exmaple of exception (like FO or Ultima) as that just proves my rule.

P.S. Games aren't art. They're games.

 

[Human Shield]

Or maybe talk about the honest fact that there are some real challenges to be faced in balancing the business side of game development with the artistic side?

If you are trying to balance vision with business all the time you are going to stay mediocre.

Would it please you more to have a developer concern themselves only with the artistic side and ignore the fact that games are commodities completely?

Going forward with the right vision will succeed both.

That would convince you that they aren't soulless like all the other developers out there and you could cheer them on... all the way to the unemployment line. I bet those developers feel really good about having earned the approval of the hardcore while they spend their time looking for work. I guess that the plus side is you would have gotten at least a game or two out of them while they lasted, but you sure aren't getting any more out of them now, are you? But why should you care, right?

I don't really care about art and soul debate but I know that empirically companies without an overriding vision don't get great results.

You made fans with Baldur's Gate 2, it sold well. If you guys loved doing that you could have expanded and improved that type of game until your team could all work with great speed to do what they know. But you change the style to try and bring in fans from other genres. Diversification and fad chasing empirically leads to mediocre stagnation. You lose focus of what you are good at and are passionate about and throw people off by changing gears.

If you asked people want they liked most about BG2 I don't think they will say action. Spending resources to get flashy action is dumbing down the game and boosting the budget to be outdone by companies that only do action.

I'm sure that good games can be made which are also successful. It happens, but no-one's stumbled onto the magic formula yet.

BG2 was successful, why not just improve its elements? Focusing on what is new and different doesn't lead to great results. Improvement and refinement is a perfectly artistic and business goal; this is what made Will Wright and Rockstar's games all-time best sellers as well as critically praised. Will Wright tried to make his new game better at the key elements, Rockstar tried to make the next one better at the key elements, Bioware is trying to add more action focus and graphics and voice-acting. Rockstar and Will Wright didn't focus on keeping up with graphics or fancy new trends.

This is the challenge they're talking about -- probably the same challenge that any industry faces which has art as a commodity. I'm sure someone will come along and slam me for being a "soulless corporate toady" or whatever, but slamming someone for telling the truth about the challenges we face, just because it's not something you'd like to hear, says more about you than them.

It is "soulless" because you aren't sticking and trying to be the best at something, which will also mean worse business results.

Just read this book: Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't

 

[Volourn]

"BG2 was successful, why not just improve its elements?"

LOL Considering how much whining that goes on because BIO games are 'all alike'; it seems to fail.

Bottom line is BIO has done just fine by moving on.

Both NWN and KOTOR were as successful (if not more successful) than the BGs both in terms of sales, and critical rewards. This is no doubt tru for KOTOR (though I personally feel it's overrated).

JE was not as successful as any of the earlier games; but it still did pretty well. Definbitely well enough to get a port to the PC made...

The BIO guys do care about 'art and soul'. Whatever that means. Heck, the doctors switched to games from medical software for a reason.

What you meant to say is that they don't do everything exactly the way you wnat them to do so that means they've 'sold out'. LOL

 

[somnium]

"Bioware wants to continue to make successful AAA titles and will compromise "gameplay" to make that happen. Completely valid business decision. However, some people that enjoyed their previous games prefer "gameplay" over AAA and won't be following Bioware down that path."

BIO games, on the whole, have improved beyond miles compared to their earlier games espicially role-playing wise.

Only a moron like you would hint otherwise.

I'd take a JE with its action combat where you get to actually choose what happens than BG where the only real choice you have is wher eto go next. L0LLERS!

As for this idea that gaming is 'broken', I say bullshit. Comapred to earlier games, today's games are, on the whole, much better. And, don't give me an exmaple of exception (like FO or Ultima) as that just proves my rule.

P.S. Games aren't art. They're games.

So according to your theory (as I read it) now would the moment of averagnes or mediocrity.
On the whole most “new “games are better then a large part of the games in” earlier times”, while they are worse then a smaller part of it.

 

[Volourn]

Not quite. Like always, only a small percentage of games are amongst the 'elite' (of course, what is the 'elite' is pretty much decided by the individual).

For exmaple, for me personally, in my 20+ years of gaming, maybe 10 games I would consider the 'top of the class'. Some are 'ancient' (Ultima), 'old' (Fallout, and 'new' (NWN - yeah, yeah, not a popular chocie here, lol).

I think, overall, games are simply better now than they are here. As much I loved Ultima way back when, i don't know if I'd be able to enjoy playing it if it were released now. It's so behind the times when it comes to production values (and, I don't mean just graphics).

 

[obediah]

You're really pushing for that fourth '!', huh?

 

[Higher Game]

What I can't figure out is why geeky, kvlt games are becoming less popular as computer hardware gets cheaper, faster, and more accessible to average people. Sure, there will be more average games, but shouldn't the geek segment grow to scale as well? Why must the kvlt games go down when the mainstream gets into computers?

 

[Twinfalls]

<heavy-handed ultra-defensive straw-manning like:

"So, what would you prefer? That we simply reiterate what great games we make and show you all the awards we've won and how we're just going to get better and better as time passes?">

No David, he'd prefer that instead of jawboning about ways to expand sales, they reflect a bit on that fundamental problem of shitty, cash-cow, mee-too sludge that we now see on the shelves.

Or (recognising that their company is in a position of relative power), talking about some ways which they might foster a culture of improving ideas and expression in games, rather than simply expanding sales.

Basically, he'd prefer if the head honchos of your studio actually expressed some understanding that games, like music and films, has 'something more' for our world than simple sales and profit for its shareholders. That there are some standards and ideals, borne especially from the days of the intelligent creative people who began the whole 'industry' as a hobby, rather than simply 'please as many consumers as cheaply as possible'.

Here, read what he said, it's pretty clear:

More money obviously= less unorthodox games and more clones with less sophistication (as we can see with current RPGs)

However when bio was given a chance to reply they never really addressed this key issue. All the cooperate clowns really addressed are the economics of the issue (retail), and how to diversify the means in which one games (hand-helds, ect) if not the games themselves.

And see the final passage of your bosses' interview:

And the things that worked 20 years ago may not work now, and that's okay because it's all about the consumers in the end. It's about making the experiences that our consumers are demanding and deserve," he concluded.

ie focus group>genuine creative vision with depth and standards

 

[talk2farley]

One thing I've wanted to see was the statistics on per capita game consumption over the past ten or twenty years. Game sales have been steadily increasing, but I think this fact comes in spite of declineing games per individual sales, and is solely a consequence of a growing market share. I don't know it for a fact, but I speculate this is the case. Using my own case as an example, there was a time that I would buy at least one game a month, if not more, and it seemed like there was constantly something new on the horizon that I couldn't wait to get my paws on. Nowadays, I'm down to roughly 2 games a YEAR. That is a HUGE decline in sales to my household. What this means is that customer loyalty has plummeted even as games sales have skyrocketed. And it further implies that the publishers are doing something wrong and failing to maximize profits. If at one time or another the average gameing household consumed a dozen titles a year, while today consuming less than four, you've realized a 300% drop in per customer sales. Is this as true amongst console gamers as PC gamers? I seem to remember buying dozens (maybe even hundreds) of titles for my NES and SNES, versus the half dozen I own for the XBox.

 

[7th Circle]

Would it please you more to have a developer concern themselves only with the artistic side and ignore the fact that games are commodities completely? That would convince you that they aren't soulless like all the other developers out there and you could cheer them on... all the way to the unemployment line. I bet those developers feel really good about having earned the approval of the hardcore while they spend their time looking for work. I guess that the plus side is you would have gotten at least a game or two out of them while they lasted, but you sure aren't getting any more out of them now, are you? But why should you care, right?

Fundamentally, it's about whether a line in the sand is drawn and where the line is drawn. It is perhaps an overgeneralisation but generally there seems to be a progression from (a) "artistic games" possibly with compromises made for popularity's sake through (b) games made with a balance between the two to (c) games made for the popular audience with a couple of "artistic features" throw in. If you want an example, look at the progression from SS2 through Deux Ex to DX:IW.

Now you say

I'm sure that good games can be made which are also successful. It happens, but no-one's stumbled onto the magic formula yet. This is the challenge they're talking about -- probably the same challenge that any industry faces which has art as a commodity.

However, developers, on the whole, don't seem to be hitting that point and saying "let's stop here"; the attitude seems to be "a little mainstreaming brought this many extra sales so let's have a lot of mainstreaming".

It also seems rare that a developer takes the reverse approach and makes some effort at engaging more "hardcore gamers" (hate using that phrase) following a very mainstream title (Rockstar did make some effort in GTA:SA but I doubt that they will continue doing so especially as I imagine the whole Hot Coffee saga will encourage a lot more risk aversity in general from them).

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

One of the reasons the film industry is slowly going down the shitter is because they're chasing the BIG BUCK. I'm pretty sure it's thinking like, "Hey, Saving Private Ryan made tons of cash... And Titanic made tons of cash.. What if we combined the two?!" that turned out Pearl Harbor.

 

[Kuato]

One of the reasons the film industry is slowly going down the shitter is because they're chasing the BIG BUCK. I'm pretty sure it's thinking like, "Hey, Saving Private Ryan made tons of cash... And Titanic made tons of cash.. What if we combined the two?!" that turned out Pearl Harbor.

This is exactly the kind of thinking as to why this rising cost of "next gen" games is utter bullshit because what is common place in the video game industry is this silly notion of sewing two game genres together and expecting something greater than its parts but instead getting something much more costly and clumsier like taking two different animals and surgically sewing them together the legs you get this ball of animal that cant even walk.

Games are just being produced in the most inefficient ways possible thats why they cost so much its totally expected with clueless marketing types running the show instead of anyone with just a bit of game savvy.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

*Pinches comment from feedback article*

In many ways, the industry IS broken, but could be fixed if the development houses would re-work how the development process works for games. I personally feel that the thing that makes games as expensive to develop as they are is the re-creation of the game engine for almost every major game title. If developers would switch to a two pronged attack on the development of game titles, with one being engine development for the company as a whole, and the other being the content to go into each title, you would see better games and fewer technical problems.

Whoever this guy is, I agree with him. Instead of completely revamping the entire engine "starting from scratch" (if that's what they truly do) Bethesda could've made a few tweaks to Morrowind's engine, focussed on content and horse-back riding instead, released that and not had to deal with "Why is the screen all white? LOL" and "OMG it's always loading". It would've worked for a larger range of PC's and worked better, looked better for those of us on the "Yeah, I know, I should upgrade but I can't be arsed" end of the scale AND actually had some decent content.

Today, graphics are not the be all and end all that they used to be. Look at GTA. It looks like crap compared to a high-end machine running Oblivion but how many copies did it sell? And why? Because of all that gameplay they chucked in. They made three games virtually on the back of the same engine. In each they added a few new innovations like helicopters and aircraft but the fundamental engine, gameplay and the rest was the same. They focussed on content and what made the game fun.

 

[Ryuken]

High production values can make a game better imo (just look at Bloodlines, that facial animation alone leveraged the dialogues) but to me it seems that with the transition to 3D, non-isometric rpg's, a lot of things were lost and that the whole of all those shining, new features seem too costly to implent in a meaningful way apparently (just look at TES4) .

Sure, you have to stay competitive and we all know that things like up-to-date graphics (and maybe some overhyped physics), going multiplatform or chosing to bring out titles on the console with the biggest hype, guarantee enough buzz for your products to at least break-even in sales, but what is left then? Bioware games may have advanced in some specific areas in the last few years but not one came close to the enjoyment I had with BGII (and I bet my ass on it that David must have heard a lot of similar comments before). Not in terms of length, world size, character, addictiveness and just that general cosy feeling you get when playing a game in isometric view.

I just have the feeling everything is going a bit too fast, like with the sidescrolling->full 3D platformer transition. Suddenly there is only one choice you have to pick if you look at new products and if you're not happy with it, you just have to turn to the indie side (which, with all due respect, can't satisfy me alone). Of course, we don't need big 2D rpg's based on age-old engines like the IE again, there is definitely room for improvement there (tToEE-engine had some charm f.e. and adding things like climbing, swimming, transports can only make things better) but completely replacing it with the likes of KotOR or JE isn't the kind of progression I had hoped for, in my opinion they offered less bang for your buck, nonconvenient camera views and just not the same sense of enjoyment, even not a better interface that their 2D predecessors offered. Same can be said for NWN, which is only good for its tools and modules, which mostly offer short-lived scenario's that deserve better than such a hideous (graphics) engine which had less charm than most 2D games of that time, like Divine Divinity. The only thing that isometric view seems good for nowadays, is for a slew of hack & slash games which all try to mimick Diablo II till infinity and beyond. The rpg-genre needs a breakthrough like what happened with Half-Life and Far Cry for the shooter genre. Oblivion definitely wasn't a step forward for people who look beyond graphics/hype. I hope Dragon Age might be a return to form.

And I also don't really see games as "art", just like I don't see them as a sport. It's more entertainment than anything else, as it should be.

EDIT: so, what humanshield also said more or like.

 

[Elwro]

Instead of completely revamping the entire engine "starting from scratch" (if that's what they truly do) Bethesda could've made a few tweaks to Morrowind's engine, focussed on content and horse-back riding instead, released that and not had to deal with "Why is the screen all white? LOL" and "OMG it's always loading". It would've worked for a larger range of PC's and worked better, looked better for those of us on the "Yeah, I know, I should upgrade but I can't be arsed" end of the scale AND actually had some decent content.

Yes, but it wouldn't have been the title to buy with a shiny new X360 to pleasure yourself in front of your HDTV in awe of the graphical paradise you've bought an entrance into with your hard-earned cash. I think we're talking at least a million sales here, and I'm taking the figure out of my ass. (I think one of the MW developers said that sales of the console version of TES3 exceed those of the PC version.)

 

[Zomg]

I'd rather get the, "Look, we see Charybdis, too, but I can't turn the boat" line than witness the the fucking horror of the blind, wriggling earthworms with generic gaming shill voices that will vigorously mate with anything that has been sprayed with hype pheremones (I enjoy metaphor).

Anyway, the mainstream is moot at this point - they made their beds. I'm sure they all dreamed of being a fungible labor commodity generating bulk mass while their superiors insentiently chase local maxima.

The foundation is there for indies, and if they don't make a success out of it, I'll just chalk it up to The End.

 

[St. Toxic]

Chillax mangs. It's all just a phase eh.