Interview GameCloud talks to BioWare doctors

[Shevek]

Well, the cRPG genre has pretty much become a collection of 3rd person action/adventure games (I hear Oblivion now comes with platforming elements..heh). Though I was heavily disappointed by NWN, any halfway decent cRPG could invigorate the genre at this point.

In a perfect gaming world, we would have a full spectrum of cRPG choices. FPSRPGS (Deus Ex, Bloodlines, System Shock, etc), Adventures with Stats (Veil of Darkness, Bloodnet, etc), Survival Rpgs (Realms of Arkania, etc), Space Opera RPGs (Countdown to Doomsday, etc) and so on and so forth. Personally, I would love a roleplaying game that went for more than just easy combat and alot of scripted story stuff. Some tactical combat, character development depth, more complete world/adventure simulation and so on would be great. That is not going to happen though so I minus well wait and see what Bio can do with their IP.

 

[Claw]

I hear Oblivion now comes with platforming elements..heh

Will Oblivion become the new Pagan? :twisted:

 

[LlamaGod]

Dragon Age will be boring generic fantasy poo. "Original IP" means they took the same old shit and changed some names around and now dont have to pay for D&D rights.

I wonder why people still bother trying to make high fantasy stuff, what is there to accomplish?

 

[Volourn]

Ellester, my post wasn't directed at you at all so why the rant? LOL

Llama, aye, that's exactly what they did with JE. LOL

 

[Ellester]

Ellester, my post wasn't directed at you at all so why the rant? LOL

Actually it was directed at everybody in the thread, not you, that’s why I said “guys”. Although: you did quote from my post, hence my post using some elements from your argument. :wink:

 

[bryce777]

It is hype, but unoriginal boring hype suggests they will have an unoriginal boring game, which I don't think will surprise too many people here. Volly will love it, though, no doubt.

 

[MarFish]

I wonder why people still bother trying to make high fantasy stuff, what is there to accomplish?

If you wonder about that, you are stupid.

World of Warcraft - High fantasy - Top 5 game for the last 6 month
Guild wars - High fantasy - Top seller
Neverwinter Nights - High fantasy - top seller
Baldurs Gate - High Fantasy - top seller


Upcoming
Oblivion - High fantasy (less weird than morrowind, back to the high fantasy roots...)
NWN 2 - High fantasy
Dragon Age - High Fantasy

Hmm, apparently there is cash to be made there, because the majority of potential customers likes these settings and buys into them.

But apparently you are too stupid to understand that.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Guild Wars - Number 1 seller in the world for the past 3 weeks.

In any case there's nothing wrong with high fantasy. As long as the setting is well done, like a Feist novel or one of the earlier Wheel of Time books, it's all good. I couldn't care less for R.A. Salvatore's "Dungeon Lords comes to the bookshelf" writing, though.

 

[Greatatlantic]

*Stuff.. read the above post if you really want to know.*

Yeah, the top selling RPGs tend to be in the very narrow category of Tolkien-like fantasy. However, Bioware just broke that mold with Jade Empire, and last time I checked it was selling fine for an RPG (though less than KotOR) and got pretty good reviews, though its RPG elements are less than hard core. So the question ought to be why is Bioware going back to that same setting with Dragon Age. Of course, so few details are known about the game, most discussion about it are being based on assumptions. Though, they're latest crop of games seem to indicate "chosen one" story, fairly linear progression, and character development that heavily values combat.

I found both KotOR and NWN to be seriously wanting, so I highly doubt I'm going to invest in this one before some price drops.

 

[bryce777]

It is difficult to create an entire, original world that doesn't suck and is coherent.

Most authors don't ever do so, really, even the better ones, so it is unlikely that people making a game will be able to do it successfully that often.

Jade empire is still very derivative; it just borrows from different places.

 

[MarFish]

*SSo the question ought to be why is Bioware going back to that same setting with Dragon Age.

They state that they have 5 project running simultaneously in the interview, so i don't think it's 'going back', it's just that DA happens to be released later.

Different team, different goals, different platform. My guess is we will see an Jade Empire 2 for Xbox 2 sooner or later anyway. And then there is that other UnrealTech game as well, Star Cidadel IIRC, doesn't sound too much like high fantasy anyway.

 

[Volourn]

"Volly will love it, though, no doubt."

Probably. And? Of course, even most of the crybabies here whining about the hype will likely buy it anyways, and then whine about it afterwards. At least I usuall don't spend my money on games I know I'm gonna hate.


"Jade empire is still very derivative; it just borrows from different places."

Tell me one game that doesn't 'burrow' from different places, and I'll tell ya you are bullshitting. Once again, originality does NOT equal good. And, no, FO or your precious TOEE aren't original. Period.


"Though, they're latest crop of games seem to indicate "chosen one" story, fairly linear progression, and character development that heavily values combat."

- No Chosen One in DA accoridng to Monsieur Gaider

- The game will be as lienar/non linear as previous BIO games

- Like most of their games, you'll be avoid combat here and there; but you will not be able to fake being a apcificsit sicne no RPG has ever allowed yout o be a pacifist anyways.

- We know lots about DA - both good and bad - if only you paid attention.

 

[bryce777]

1. You do have a point. I do laugh when people complain about something, then buy it, then complain even more. What is the point? If they get your money they could care less if you complain. I don't have a big opinion of dragon age yet, but I am not super hopeful for it just on general principles.

2. First, I didn't say 'burrow'. You said 'burrow'. Also, you are arguing my point. It is hard to be completely original, and I am sure there are some games that were (Tetris comes to mind off the top of my head) but even games that are original on a relative scale usually borrow a lot from other sources, just not the same sources as the more mainstream stuff in many cases.

 

[Sol Invictus]

But Volourn, someone was able to skip all the combat in Fallout by stealthing and reloading lots and lots of times! That's pacifism I tell you.

 

[Volourn]

"But Volourn, someone was able to skip all the combat in Fallout by stealthing and reloading lots and lots of times! That's pacifism I tell you."

Heh. And, don't them about the explosions killing tens of people that the PC has set off...

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But Volourn, someone was able to skip all the combat in Fallout by stealthing and reloading lots and lots of times! That's pacifism I tell you.

Unless roleplaying suddenly became non-existant unless supported by a no save feature, there's no rule that prevents players from reloading a game when something in their game, or their plans, goes wrong. Why is it acceptable that a player can reload when his character is dying in combat, but not so when he can't avoid it? Why is it acceptable that I can reload in order to win a battle, but not escape from it? The only reason I find here is the usual one: selective reasoning.

 

[Antagonist]

Straw man.

At least Fallout allowed to play a pacifist up to the very end, a trait Bioware has yet to deliver.

 

[Volourn]

"At least Fallout allowed to play a pacifist up to the very end"

No, it doesn't. It allows you to play a coward; not a pacifist. A true pacifist would NEVER complete FO. They would fail so quickly; it' be laughable.

And, why bother playing a pacifist if they're gonna take away that option right at the end? Consistency is just as important. I mean, it's like you can avoid battle for 99% of the game and then boom; you can't. Whatever.

 

[MarFish]

Straw man.

At least Fallout allowed to play a pacifist up to the very end, a trait Bioware has yet to deliver.

The most useless feature ever since only one out of 50.000 people would play in such a way. Wait, that makes like 4 people....

 

[Spazmo]

Well, I myself doubt they consciously designed it that way--as Volourn is so fond of pointing out, if the designers wanted a pacifist path, they wouldn't have forced the exploding of the Military Base and Cathedral. It just sort of worked out that you could play a non-combat character based on how they made the game, which is pretty neat, I always thought. I once managed to get through both endgame locations without entering combat, and it was just as satisfying as killing everyone.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The most useless feature ever since only one out of 50.000 people would play in such a way. Wait, that makes like 4 people....

I'm not going to bother with the false numbers there, nor would would I even attempt to say it's an important feature or that Bioware should use it more often (as that's not what their design is about for the most part, even); but suffice to say, we get to see more and more people asking for more options like those in CRPGs post Fallout and Baldur's Gate.

There are people who wouldn't play a pacifist, true. Just as there are people who wouldn't play evil characters. Or female characters. Or choose short races for their characters. Or specialize in ranged weapons. Or even bother with non-fantasy CRPGs. Does this mean these options are useless? No. It just means that some people would play them, some wouldn't. It's no more useless than anything else they could put in their games that would involve players adopting differing play styles or trying different options - different character classes, multiple paths, romances, different ways of quest solving, etc.

 

[Volourn]

Role-player wins. :D

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, Fallout did get that right (among a lot of other things) in that, as Spazmo said, it allowed you to chicken out of combat and not be forced to go through it every time you entered a combat encounter. That's one of the big reasons why I, and I'm sure many other people abhor the Final Fantasy series and to a lesser extent Anachronox. You're forced into random combat so many times that it becomes extremely tedious.

It's not really a big deal at all in Baldur's Gate except when the party of Level 4 Ogres ambushes the player at level 1. Even so, the random encounters in the BG series were fairly easy and quite a number of them weren't random at all. As with the combat encounters in Fallout, you could simply leave the map if you didn't want to fight. Combat in KOTOR isn't randomized either, and what there is to fight, doesn't feel tedious at all since it's resolved in under a minute, however it'd have been nice if there were as many options to dealing with the situations in KOTOR as there were in BG and Fallout. I couldn't care less for pacifist options but chickening out should always be an option, if only because your character's low on health and you don't feel like reloading.

After all, I do tend to play a lot of games in "Ironman" mode, even if it's purely arbitary (e.g. nonexistent in the game) and forcing a reload due to a random encounter is definitely immersion breaking.

 

[Drakron]

Actually there are items in FF that remove random encounters, FF XII is even going to remove the the "pop up" random encounters.

 

[Sol Invictus]

FFXII might be the best the series has to offer, too, given its relative similarity with BioWare RPGs rather than the 'popup combat' crap of the previous FF games. It's about time those Final Fantasy designers started coming up with better ideas to advance character development instead of having the player grind over and over again on popup encounters for loot and experience.