Interview J.E. Sawyer Interview By Grupo97

[Dionysus]

I don't remember him mentioning Dragon Warrior or Pong. I can't even remember what DW is like.

It was a complete piece of shit, even compared to other games of its time, but it was still a big hit in Japan. RPGs didn’t really break into the mainstream in the U.S. until Pokemon and FFVII. I did like the first Pokemon game, but in general, I’d rather play the likes of FO3 and ME.

And the rest of your “comparison” is absolutely ridiculous. You talk up the elementary features of Super Mario Bros and then bitch about the story in ME. How was the story in SMB? Were you drawn in by the characters? Were you shocked and amazed to learn that your princess was in another castle? It was just another side-scrolling platformer for the ADD-afflicted masses that could only be troubled to worry about which button jumps and which button shoots. The good SP games of that time originated on the PC platforms.

The mainstream hasn’t deteriorated. The older games were somewhat harder, and they had less handholding (although they were often so linear that it wasn't relevant), but they were generally less complex and the added challenge was mostly there to compensate for a relative lack content.

But thanks for showing that you understand Nintendo and Pong. A pity for you that the video game industry started with one, while the other one was considered a joke by the PC market at the same time.

You are confused. We were discussing mainstream games. If you want to bitch about how things aren't like they used to be, you have to recognize what the mainstream was like in the 80s and 90s. It's stupid to complain about how the console/multiplatform games of today don't match up well against the niche PC games of yesteryear. For RPGs, the mainstream titles are as good as they've ever been.

And there are some little indie games for those that want something different.

 

[Rosh]

It was a complete piece of shit, even compared to other games of its time, but it was still a big hit in Japan.

Hmmm, I wonder where they got their "inspiration"...

RPGs didn’t really break into the mainstream in the U.S. until Pokemon and FFVII.

Hahahaha...oh, wow...

I did like the first Pokemon game, but in general, I’d rather play the likes of FO3 and ME.

That explains a lot.

You are confused. We were discussing mainstream games.

So was I. I was discussing the games that created the genre, as well as being the mainstream in the gaming industry, to the point of a developer being able to buy himself a castle.

Hmmm, I have a feeling I'm repeating myself for the benefit of those with a learning disability.

If you want to bitch about how things aren't like they used to be, you have to recognize what the mainstream was like in the 80s and 90s.

Given your pathetic examples, you probably weren't even alive in the 80s, or not long enough to really know much about the industry at that time.

It's stupid to complain about how the console/multiplatform games of today don't match up well against the niche PC games of yesteryear.

They weren't niche, dipshit. They were mainstream and worldwide. Care to try again? No, don't bother, kid. You are way out of your league.

For RPGs, the mainstream titles are as good as they've ever been.

You are an uneducated shit. One that brings up Dragon Warrior as some kind of point, when it was just a sloppy rip-off of what came out on the PC. Because you're too lazy or stupid to read the wall of text I wrote above, I'll give you a hint: Wizardry and Might and Magic.

 

[The Feral Kid]

Such as developing an engine worth a shit.

Infinity Engine was good enough to spawn a series of games that granted Interplay a life-extension, at a time when they wouldn't let a day pass without making a stupid decision. Once that engine became outdated, the company became outdated itself. Surely "worth a shit".

Also, I don't know about the romances in recent Bioware games since their last one I played was KOTOR back in 2003. But the romance aspects in BG series tend to be over-emphasized by teenagers with spotty faces who like to spend their entire life behind a keyboard. They're only there as small nuisances, not worthy of serious debate, and surely they don't give ground for any valid criticism. The amount of criticisms these games had over the years over romances, is disproportionate to their importance.

 

[Rosh]

Infinity Engine was good enough to spawn a series of games that granted Interplay a life-extension, at a time when they wouldn't let a day pass without making a stupid decision. Once that engine became outdated, the company became outdated itself. Surely "worth a shit".

Certainly, in terms of style and ease of use. Technically? The AI couldn't find its way out of a wet paper bag.

Also, I don't know about the romances in recent Bioware games since their last one I played was KOTOR back in 2003. But the romance aspects in BG series tend to be over-emphasized by teenagers with spotty faces who like to spend their entire life behind a keyboard.

Ah, BioWare's Target Audience.

They're only there as small nuisances, not worthy of serious debate, and surely they don't give ground for any valid criticism. The amount of criticisms these games had over the years over romances, is disproportionate to their importance.

Apparently, BioWare thinks they are worth mentioning over other details, go into how relationships are "complex", while they make excuses against complexity with story and game in other ways.

 

[Panthera]

Dr. Cat

There's an obscure namedrop right there. I'm a fan of his last, oh, twelve years of work.

 

[Rosh]

Dr. Cat

There's an obscure namedrop right there. I'm a fan of his last, oh, twelve years of work.

Would it be worth mentioning I still have an arbalest from Watson?

 

[Dionysus]

So was I. I was discussing the games that created the genre, as well as being the mainstream in the gaming industry, to the point of a developer being able to buy himself a castle.

I think this is the problem that you are having. I'm not sure where you are from, but the broadly popular mainstream titles in the U.S. and Japan have generally been on home consoles (there are exceptions, but WoW and Diablo don't do much to help your case). The first RPG that I really got into was Ultima 2. At that time, the Atari 2600 was still the mainstream platform, and Ultima 2 obviously wasn't even available for that console. When you talk about Fallout 3 or Mass Effect, you aren't just talking about games that are mainstream for a certain incredibly limited platform. You are talking about games that are actually mainstream. They were developed primarily for a home console and designed to appeal to a genuinely mainstream audience. These are games that get television ads. We've got people talking about Fallout 3 on The View. Nobody was talking about Ultima 2 on Donahue, man. You don't know how insignificant your hobby was back then.

 

[The Feral Kid]

Apparently, BioWare thinks they are worth mentioning over other details, go into how relationships are "complex", while they make excuses against complexity with story and game in other ways.

Yes, in all their more recent games. Which is why I'm staying away. They didn't hype the BG series over romances.

 

[Rosh]

I think this is the problem that you are having. I'm not sure where you are from, but the broadly popular mainstream titles in the U.S. and Japan have generally been on home consoles (there are exceptions, but WoW and Diablo don't do much to help your case). The first RPG that I really got into was Ultima 2.

Funny you should mention that. Ultima, alone, had about as many titles in that series as BioWare has released games. Mainstream? Indeed. And they didn't do it with crap design (except for the Japanese versions, which were comparatively crap to the originals). It was also on the news for various reasons from showing the advance of computers to the pentagram on the box cover of Ultima 8. It was even featured in CS classes at universities along with a lot of other Origin work (namely Wing Commander). Ads in "mainstream" computer magazines and other publications. So much mainsteam that the JAPANESE IMPORTED the design for a couple of games to be redesigned and developed in Japanese, and sold there (including TV ads). That was NOT just a simple translation job. The same with Wizardry. Both of these titles, and including Might and Magic, gave a lot of "inspiration" to the Japanese market. Compared to Origin, even posthumously, BioWare's just an industry footnote. It also had worldwide appeal as UDIC members are numerous and spread out across the globe, long before BioWare peddled a shitty RTS at Interplay.

Aside from your efforts of a tangential straw man argument, I still stand by that compared to the games that started this genre, the modern development companies aren't even trying anymore.

 

[MLMarkland]

I think this is the problem that you are having. I'm not sure where you are from, but the broadly popular mainstream titles in the U.S. and Japan have generally been on home consoles (there are exceptions, but WoW and Diablo don't do much to help your case). The first RPG that I really got into was Ultima 2.

Funny you should mention that. Ultima, alone, had about as many titles in that series as BioWare has released games. Mainstream? Indeed. And they didn't do it with crap design (except for the Japanese versions, which were comparatively crap to the originals). It was also on the news for various reasons from showing the advance of computers to the pentagram on the box cover of Ultima 8. It was even featured in CS classes at universities along with a lot of other Origin work. Ads in "mainstream" computer magazines and other publications. So much mainsteam that the JAPANESE IMPORTED the design for a couple of games to be redesigned and developed in Japanese, and sold there (including TV ads). That was NOT just a simple translation job. The same with Wizardry. Both of these titles, and including Might and Magic, gave a lot of "inspiration" to the Japanese market. Compared to Origin, even posthumously, BioWare's just an industry footnote. It also had worldwide appeal as UDIC members are numerous and spread out across the globe, long before BioWare peddled a shitty RTS at Interplay.

Aside from your efforts of a tangential straw man argument, I still stand by that compared to the games that started this genre, the modern development companies aren't even trying anymore.

The fundamental difference is that a hardcore-targeted game needs to achieve a very high penetration rate of the consumer base than a more broadly-targeted game must achieve.

Ultima was being marketed to a smaller overall audience and therefore profitability required a high penetration rate (higher by an order of magnitude).

Fallout 3 and Mass Effect are being marketed to a a much broader audience and you don't need as high a penetration rate to find profitability.

I have to sell the hardcore game to 50-80% of the market for it to be successful. I have to sell the broad-market game to 5-10% of the market for it to be successful.

That is the primary sales dynamic that drives design of broad-market titles; it's not that Ultima wasn't mainstream and that Fallout 3 is mainstream.

The primary cause of both the actual results, and the disagreement in this thread, is that the definition of mainstream has changed with the broadening of the market and the shift in sales strategy.

Whether that's a bad or good thing is irrelevant.

Does that mean there is an underserved, smaller market that developers and publishers could successfully exploit? Yes. Serving that market, however, is fundamentally riskier because you need much a mugh higher success rate to be profitable. That doesn't make it a bad idea - someone somewhere will take on the risk. Also, those that successfully take on that risk will likely find great rewards, both critically and financially (c.f. Easy Rider and Pulp Fiction in the film industry and Castle Crashers and Sins of a Solar Empire in the game industry).

 

[BearBomber]

Aside from your efforts of a tangential straw man argument, I still stand by that compared to the games that started this genre, the modern development companies aren't even trying anymore.

Why should they? Why should they make special efforts if theyre audience is fine with what they get? You expect Bioware to make effort that will give them nothing. Whey're not trying because they don't have to. They make games for living and i don't think that anyone would work more if nothing gives him a hint that he should. Blame the audience.

 

[Rosh]

The fundamental difference is that a hardcore-targeted game needs to achieve a very high penetration rate of the consumer base than a more broadly-targeted game must achieve.

Here's the amusing note: The same audience was buying Wizardry and Might and Magic, along with a few others, because of the quality they offered. Lately, you will find folks polarizing towards one game or another, and not because of quality, but instead of some superficial gimmick. Which game tickles their jollies more, and apparently BioWare does offer a reach-around.

The mainstream of today hasn't really contributed any good ideas to the industry aside from what other genres they could flavor into a CRPG while still calling it a CRPG. The only true creativity is how flowery and overblown they can make their marketing spiel.

Ultima was being marketed to a smaller overall audience and therefore profitability required a high penetration rate (higher by an order of magnitude).

Then I suppose you could say it penetrated the world.

When video games come even close to the widespread appeal of watching TV (still nowhere close), then perhaps your representative samples might be a bit more on target. Until then, the video game audience is still the video game audience, either you shell out $300+ to play video games or you don't. There really is no such thing as "casual".

The industry has grown, and is still growing.

(snip)

Well, I suppose by the argument by both of you, that when the industry grows even larger, and the average intelligence of the gamer goes even lower, today's games will be considered hardcore and niche. After all, we haven't had a president pimp out a game yet on their address to the nation.

Ugh...I think I actually threw up a little.

*chews it back down*

I've seen this shit repeat itself for two decades, guys. From a position where I could see the impact it had upon media and other creative sources.

Why should they? Why should they make special efforts if theyre audience is fine with what they get? You expect Bioware to make effort that will give them nothing. Whey're not trying because they don't have to. They make games for living and i don't think that anyone would work more if nothing gives him a hint that he should. Blame the audience.

I do as well. If you take a look at the science fiction written today, it hardly compares to that of the writing in the past. Today it needs to be dumbed down with as much sex as possible. Battlestar: Galactica, anyone?

 

[denizsi]

as much sex as possible.

Battlestar: Galactica, anyone?

Does not compute. Either you have a fucked up definition of sex, or you didn't even see the series.

 

[Rosh]

Does not compute. Either you have a fucked up definition of sex, or you didn't even see the series.

That was mainly in terms of dumbed down, but you're right. Little to nothing about sex after the first couple of episodes. To use a better example, the Land of the Lost parody.

 

[Imbecile]

Does not compute. Either you have a fucked up definition of sex, or you didn't even see the series.

That was mainly in terms of dumbed down, but you're right. Little to nothing about sex after the first couple of episodes. To use a better example, the Land of the Lost parody.

Surely the new BSG is a much smarter version of its earlier incarnation? ::derail::

 

[The Feral Kid]

Well, I suppose by the argument by both of you, that when the industry grows even larger, and the average intelligence of the gamer goes even lower, today's games will be considered hardcore and niche.

Seriously, I'm in perfect agreement that games of the nineties such as Fallout, Civ2, Alpha Centauri, etc weren't niche but mainstream and they could be appreciated because the standard among gamers was much higher. And that now they're considered hardcore- and examples to avoid by devs - because within 10 years everyone's become a retard and that companies don't care because morons are going to buy them anyway. I mean would anyone watch Marx Brothers today instead of Will Ferell? And certainly that isn't because the totally mainstream in their time Marx Brothers became somehow smarter and niche.

But what's that thing with mentioning Bioware in every post of yours, and most times uncalled for? Are you trying to blame them for all the industry's failings? Do you get paid for each time you mention their name? Do you also like to go to political forums and blame them for the situation in the Middle-East, and the current economic crisis?

 

[Rosh]

Surely the new BSG is a much smarter version of its earlier incarnation? ::derail::

Nah, the originals built upon mythological roots that required a bit of background knowledge on part of the viewer. The recent one...oh, we're living on the SECOND Earth. Okay.

Seriously, I'm in perfect agreement that games of the nineties such as Fallout, Civ2, Alpha Centauri, etc weren't niche but mainstream and they could be appreciated because the standard among gamers was much higher. And that now they're considered hardcore- and examples to avoid by devs - because within 10 years everyone's become a retard and that companies don't care because morons are going to buy them anyway. I mean would anyone watch Marx Brothers today instead of Will Ferell? And certainly that isn't because the totally mainstream in their time Marx Brothers became somehow smarter and niche.

Pretty much spot-on, as the 90s were considered "more mainstream" than the 80s, and then the 80s were considered "more mainstream" than the 70s. I have to wonder if I'm one of the few that remembers arcades in the 80s.

Just wait until 2020 and the X-Box Satellite! service is launched. We'll all be considered oldtimers and hardcore, because we used our hands to play video games. Back to the Future II, anyone?

But what's that thing with mentioning Bioware in every post of yours, and most times uncalled for? Are you trying to blame them for all the industry's failings? Do you get paid for each time you mention their name? Do you also like to go to political forums and blame them for the situation in the Middle-East, and the current economic crisis?

Nah, nothing like that. BioWare is just the poster child of the lowest standards in the genre, right beside Bethesda, and the romance pimping is just the icing on the shit cake. At least Obsidian occasionally tries, though their games aren't released in a finished state.

 

[Secretninja]

Rosh, I commend you.

A normal person would have quit arguing long before you, having realized it was in fact futile.

I wasn't of age to play games in the 80's, so it is unlikely I played many of the games that make you feel so strongly, but I have fond memories of many Origin games. I may have been young, but I bought, or begged my parents for "complex" games. And to my knowledge, the computer that my family had was not unreachable expensive by the mainstream audience. I actually remember my dad being jealous when I got a Sega Genesis for Christmas, since it was more expensive than the computer we had at the time.

 

[Tails]

Developers care more about cash and keeping going on, then trying to do something risky & innovative and well, the masses don't require (more dislike) anything challenging. For them games should be just for relax and give satisfaction, in most simple way of course. Until those masses won't evolve and demand something harder then following way points, there is no hope. Sure, there still be some indie developer that will release something good ,great or even amazing! quality that old/hardcore/demanding players will play. Still, you have to dive in loads of crap products to find such gems.

btw. Rosh, have you enjoyed any game that was released two/one year ago?

 

[The Feral Kid]

Nah, nothing like that. BioWare is just the poster child of the lowest standards in the genre, right beside Bethesda, and the romance pimping is just the icing on the shit cake. At least Obsidian occasionally tries, though their games aren't released in a finished state.

Well sorry, but Bio are not anywhere near as bad as Beth at least their three games I played. And no, Obsidian is the epitome of lazy developers who just sit their fat ass on their Biowarian pedigree, and release games with not half the effort even Bio put in their latest ones. I mean Did Soz looked like they tried? Wtf. And the pathetic thing is in most cases they just have to finish what others started and have their work cut-out for them. Including the marketing one due to their association with Bio and Bio's games.

 

[Shannow]

I have to sell the hardcore game to 50-80% of the market for it to be successful. I have to sell the broad-market game to 5-10% of the market for it to be successful.

Forgive me, but you pulled those numbers out of your arse. You might as well say 20-50% and 15-30%. And then considering that one market is starved while the other is flooded and one requires a much lower budget the whole comparison gets a completely different ring. Add to this that advertisement has a great impact. I wasn't born a hardcore gamer. I started gaming in the mid 90s and tried various games. I still consider myself casual and play FPSs, RTTs, RTSs, RBSs, 4X, aRPGs and RPGs. I'd gladly pay for any of those if well done. But all the market offers are FPSs, RTSs and aRPGs and none of them what I'd call well done. It's all more a question of mentality than of reality. If "oldschool" games weren't so badmouthed by suits, publishers, devs and consoletards they'd have their fair market share and a fair following of casual and hardcore gamers. What you're also forgetting is that just because a game is considered "hardcore" that doesn't mean that no casual gamer will buy it.
Sometimes I feel newer games had no praiseworthy merits of and by themselves and so the marketing campaigns had to go the "past technical restrictions have been overcome, now it is in first person view", "it's next-gen" and "this is the new shit"-way thus pretending as if everything that came before was bad.

The primary cause of both the actual results, and the disagreement in this thread, is that the definition of mainstream has changed with the broadening of the market and the shift in sales strategy.

Not quite right either. The disagreement over the term "mainstream" results in different definitions. Dyonisus choses the broadest definition possible (console games + non-RPGs) while Rosh uses the most sensible in relation to the argument (cRPGs).

 

[denizsi]

This reminds me to ask: what CRPG have you found to be the most hardcore? And why? Discuss :Andhaira:

 

[MetalCraze]

I have to sell the hardcore game to 50-80% of the market for it to be successful. I have to sell the broad-market game to 5-10% of the market for it to be successful.

Oh really? Then what is the reason for so many mainstream titles failing?
Sorry, but older players didn't disappear anywhere, the market/lazy developers just decided that it is easier to please stupid kids who can't even do basic math. And you also don't have to design much - just recycle old ideas.
But it's failing more and more with each passing year - look at EA which now runs around in panic because of their losses that made them fire 9% of all personnel - and decided to churn out three times more sequels this year (3 sequels to NFS in one year and killing of NFS creator - Black Box - just what the fuck?)

 

[Rosh]

Sure, there still be some indie developer that will release something good ,great or even amazing! quality that old/hardcore/demanding players will play. Still, you have to dive in loads of crap products to find such gems.

btw. Rosh, have you enjoyed any game that was released two/one year ago?

Ironically enough, in the CRPG genre all indies except for a couple, and I can't even remember those off the top of my head. The indies would have to be Spiderweb Software (and Telltale Games for the Adventure genre). AoD is one I'm looking forward to.

Well sorry, but Bio are not anywhere near as bad as Beth at least their three games I played.

BioWare got bought out by EA. It's just a matter of time now.

And no, Obsidian is the epitome of lazy developers who just sit their fat ass on their Biowarian pedigree, and release games with not half the effort even Bio put in their latest ones. I mean Did Soz looked like they tried? Wtf. And the pathetic thing is in most cases they just have to finish what others started and have their work cut-out for them. Including the marketing one due to their association with Bio and Bio's games.

Good point. I'd have to say that KoTOR 2 was more of a munchkinfest. Compared to the first game, there wasn't any real difficulty. With so much description given to something so basic as cover in Alpha Protocol, it doesn't look like there's much else to talk about in regards to the combat other than using abilities. If it's "taking a page from BioWare", it will likely be simply Whack-A-Mole with guns, and little else regarding squad combat.

Not quite right either. The disagreement over the term "mainstream" results in different definitions. Dyonisus choses the broadest definition possible (console games + non-RPGs) while Rosh uses the most sensible in relation to the argument (cRPGs).

Not quite right either.

I'm coming from a background of watching the game industry grow over the span of almost four decades, and it hasn't nearly reached media saturation yet as other mediums. There's still more people reading books than playing video games, which is some small comfort to me, given the modern industry. Believing that this, now, is the limit of the industry is a tad naive.

 

[circ]

Nah, nothing like that. BioWare is just the poster child of the lowest standards in the genre, right beside Bethesda, and the romance pimping is just the icing on the shit cake. At least Obsidian occasionally tries, though their games aren't released in a finished state.

Well sorry, but Bio are not anywhere near as bad as Beth at least their three games I played. And no, Obsidian is the epitome of lazy developers who just sit their fat ass on their Biowarian pedigree, and release games with not half the effort even Bio put in their latest ones. I mean Did Soz looked like they tried? Wtf. And the pathetic thing is in most cases they just have to finish what others started and have their work cut-out for them. Including the marketing one due to their association with Bio and Bio's games.

I do question Obsidian as much as any other modern developer, especially since yes, it does seem like they're beginning with ready made content most of the time.

KoTOR II, took a year(?) to two years to develop, depending on the platform. It recycled most(?) of the music and random VO from KoTOR. Most of the textures from KoTOR. Used the same engine. Recycled character models. Did minor interface tweaks. Included a new story with tons of cut content, a few new areas, some old ones were recycled with slightly altered content. And this took a year to two years(!) to deliver in a half unfinished state? Seriously.

NWN 2 took three to four years to develop(?). Based on a modified Aurora engine, badly modified apparently. Somehow The Witcher managed to outperform NWN 2 though still using the Aurora engine(!). It recycled most(?) of the music from NWN. Some of the voice work. Artwork was bad, textures likewise. Interface and camera were bad. Game released unfinished with game breaking bugs. Bugs that make you wonder how Gamespot could give it a Best story award when the game was unfinishable.

BioWare and Bethesda have no imagination, or in some cases even talent. Obsidian has both, yet you wonder what they do during their development cycles. Drink soda pop?