Azarkon said:
If you define writing as such. But surely there's a difference between linguistic virtuosity and a engaging plot/characters. Dan Brown, for instance, has a knack for the latter, but none of the former. Joyce, on the other hand...
When I spoke of writing, that encompassed all aspects of it as they're presented in within the game. Dialogue, plot, characters, the history behind locations, as well as the technical proficiency, style, etc.. They all struck me as being unexceptional to bland.
Are you just throwing out generalizations or do you have proof that IWD's writing is somehow boring, shallow, and cliche relative to the rest of the CRPG genre? Certainly, the game lacks PS:T's flourish, but compared to BG/BG2? You might be surprised if you examine the actual writing, by which I mean the construction of sentences, word use, imagery, and style.
Obviously it's an opinion, based on past experience with games in the genre. Even if the technical aspects are adequate, if there's nothing interesting being presented by them, the writing ultimately fails to be interesting. Quantity
is also worth noting when you start making comparisons to other games. Diablo 2 may have had exceptional writing, but there wasn't a whole lot there to measure, when you compare it to a game like Baldus Gate 2, Fallout, or even the random Final Fantasy game.
You're far from trying to be reasonable, what with ad hominem attacks every other paragraph. Being reasonable requires a certain degree of class, which anyone who starts off his post calling his opponent "moron" and ends it with "fruit cake" lacks. Ah, see? I can resort to the same posting style, if you prefer.
From the first line in your initial response to me, you insulted my intelligence by suggesting I'm incapable of distinguishing between design elements of a game and writing, where a
reasonable person would've assumed I knew the difference and left it alone. You have belabored the same pompous straw man for three posts now, so don't act taken aback when I respond with the same accusation, even though it may have been more direct and to the point than your approach. By the way, it was fruit
basket, don't misquote me. :wink:
It was better than Fallout: Tactics by a long shot.
Strongly disagree, but they were both weak games anyway.
Oh? And how would you know that? Market sampling? Forum analysis? Polls? Unlike you, Bioware and Obsidian have both conducted the aforementioned research. Last I checked, Bioware's conclusion was that the vast majority of people played a game once and never looked back, thus validating their philosophy of making a "tight" single-run plot.
Marketing trends. Show me where BioWare concluded and publically stated that. Why would they still allow evil/good paths(however shallow) through their games if that's the case?
On the contraire, JRPGs are exactly that, and they are among the best selling RPGs of this day and age (the other consist of MMORPGs). OTOH, the only best-selling non-linear single-player RPG I'm aware of is Oblivion (and Gothic if you count the Euro scene), and I beg to differ if you intend to offer it up as the example of a great game.
Japanese RPGs sell in droves because they usually have high production values and a great amount of attention to detail in all aspects of them; more quality than you can get in an 18 month development cycle. The main market for them is also in
Japan, they haven't been doing so good in the West in recent years. Actually, most JRPGs fall falt on their face in the West, with a few exceptions like the Final Fantasies which is now a recognizable license.
Even if they were setting their sights primarily on the Japanese market by cranking out shoddy, linear console RPGs, Obsidian would be highly unlikely to make an impression with a rushed game and without a significant switch in style.
You seem to have a stigma against re-use of technology. I am of the opposite mind: technology should be re-used whenever possible. Game development is, as you say, expensive - and it will only get more expensive, until the only developers capable of making those successful, high-quality, memorable retail games will be the likes of EA and Blizzard.
I do not mind it for new studios that are trying to get off the ground, but eventually to progress and be successful, developers need to start utilizing their own tech, art resources, combat and rules systems, etc.. If a developer is just going to slap on a story and a few other minor, unique, elements on someone elses game, then the game shouldn't be full price as far as I'm concerned, and most other people will see through that and stop buying those kinds of games at full price as well.
Developers get money from publishers, they often don't fund their own projects.
As long as consumers are not willing to shell out $100+ dollars for a game, business sense dictates that to develop financially successful, AAA games you must do one of two things: appeal to a massive player base, or reuse existing technology. Personally, I'd prefer the latter if it means that I'd get games tailored to my more eccentric interests. Obsidian, right now, is trying to do both. But I'd really challenge anyone who claims that KOTOR 2 succeeded in mass appeal; the game's style is uniquely BIS, and thus clique.
That's true. There's a difference between using another developers
engine and borrowing heavily from someone elses game though.
Even though I mildly enjoyed the first one, I still haven't bought KOTOR 2, for the same reasons I've gone into in this thread: I'm done buying rushed, hand-me-downs for full price. It doesn't help that I loathed the combat and many other aspects of the original and don't wanna go through them again. Company loyalty and interest aside, a developer has to do more then rush out a new story onto another developers game if they want my money.
Like how EA is capable of pushing out the same crap every year and make a killing doing it?
Look at the fucking scale of the licenses they employ though. The NBA, NFL, NHL? Those aren't even comparable to regular game licenses like D&D. People with barely a passing interest in video games, especially a nichey genre like RPGs will pick those up. EA does add to each of their releases of those kind of franchises too though. Improved graphics, animations, gameplay features, gameplay modes, rosters, and the like. There's only so much you can do with sports games, but by their nature they're the kind of thing that can sell merely on updates.
IWD 2, Dark Alliance 2, and Fallout: BOS were subpar games done on outdated engines. At the time IWD was released, the IE was hardly outdated, which is one reason why it was financially successful. Tellingly, NWN 2 is not re-using NWN's engine, which should say something about Obsidian's differences (arguably, KOTOR 2 was IWD 2 done "right" - ie utilizing a popular license, with a fast development cycle, to catch the sequelitis boat before people forgot about the original; if Obsidian made KOTOR 3, I'd fully expect them to use a new engine). Clearly, the BIS folks have learned from their mistakes.
Do you not think part of the reason they were sub-par was because they were rushed games? Maybe they have learned their lesson, that's what I'm hoping, but Feargus often implies otherwise in interviews.
Feargus's claim that he would've "loved" to make a Fallout MMO makes me think that he is well aware of the benefits accrued from a significant undertaking. At the same time, companies that engage in such undertakings are rather rare and are usually possessed of vast financial resources. I do not believe Obsidian is capable of engaging in such a pursuit, especially given the traditional technical problems this particular team has demonstrated in the past (see: TORN). Without a dramatic expansion of the company, Obsidian *will*, indeed, be a re-use heavy developer. But why is that a bad thing? You're looking at this from the perspective of a gamer looking for the Next Big Thing(tm). Try to see it from the perspective of job security: would Obsidian rather produce relatively "good" games to satisfy a CRPG drought (there's certainly such a demand, given that even ToEE managed to sell reasonably) or risk it all, at this point in the developers' lifetimes (ie Sawyer, MCA, et. all are not "young" anymore), for a title that could bomb and waste 3-4 years of development time/resources?
They landed sequels to two of the best-selling games in CRPG history, a start-up doesn't get much luckier than that in terms of finances. One would hope they'd take that gift and put it to good use by producing their own, high-quality games.
I do completely understand the issue of job-security, many of Obsidian's employees are from failed studios after all, and that's mainly why I'd like to see them be successful and reach Blizzard or BioWare status. They'll
never do that by sticking to the same generic, cash-cow approach that BIS took towards the end though. In fact, I'd argue--as I have been all along in this thread--that they'll be lucky to survive past a few fast releases by sticking to that model. Maybe I'm wrong, but going by history of the industry, I don't think so.
Remember old RPG games like Ultima and M&M? We complain about sequelitis today, but how many sequels did those games have, ultimately? And how long did they sustain their respective companies?
The market is a lot different than it is now. A game can't sell merely a hundred thousand units and keep a company afloat anymore. I'm glad you mentioned those studios though, as they're a perfect example of how churning out half-cocked sequels with fast development cycles will lead to an inevitable demise in todays market. As far as I remember, Ultima IX sold for shit and I don't even remember hearing much about the last non-heroes M&M game, except that it was pretty much the same as it's predecessor, only you character was some gothy lookin' kook.
EDIT: And to be honest, think about a game developer's own interests. Feargus expressed a line that, in my mind, was rather salient: you only learn once per game development cycle. I don't think he's talking about learning in the sense of better writing, better design, or whatnot, but rather a better gauging of *consumer* desires. If you push out a game once every four years, that's the only time when you'll really get feedback as to whether your game matches the market. OTOH, smaller releases over time gives you the opportunity to perfect your craft. This is actually accurate from a software engineering point of view, which stresses the flexibility of an iterative development model.
Best point you have made so far, though I'm not sure that was really his meaning. This is an industry of risks though, I just do not see a small development studio being financially successful by trying to play it so safe, especially when the quality of your products is going to suffer for it.
Not sure about that, but it's a hell of an insinuation.
