Interview NMA's big to-do about nothing posted as advertised

[Stark]

Did I write that roundbased combat affected the level of non-linearity? No, I don't believe so. I wrote that "my real beef" was with the games "so far", not that "roundbased combat is lousy action and linear lack of roleplaying" or whatever you got out of it. So far the roundbased games have been too linear to be good RPGs (such as Fallout and Arcanum), and due to the roundbased combat they haven't had good enough action to be good action games (such as Diablo). I guess Planescape: Torment was a good enough RPG though, but I felt that it was too linear to play a second time. Could be because I don't care for the AD&D rules, the Infinity Engine or the deep emotional crap that seems to be the major difference between different Nameless Ones.

ouch. i reread the sentence and apparently there're more than one way of interpreting it.

Are you implying that BioWare is only in it for the money? If so, why wouldn't they just keep doing D&D? Or does the D&D license cost more money than it brings in? When Dragon Age was first announced there were some people claiming that they wouldn't buy it if it wasn't D&D. I don't know how many people like that there are though. Perhaps few enough to make it more profitable to deny WotC and Atari their cuts?

Not sure if Bio is only in it for the money. But money is definately a big consideration. With their own IP they do not have to be subjected to restrictions imposed by WotC. I think it'll only be good for them in the long run. Those hard core DnD geeks will still buy a welldone generic fantasy, that's for sure.

 

[Sol Invictus]

About what Greg Zeschuk said about "making fun games", I'm inclined to agree with him. Why set out to make an RPG? Why not set out to make a game that you would perceive as fun regardless of what others would perceive it as (an RPG)?

What's so wrong about that? While there are many at Bioware who set out to make RPGs, Greg's one of those guys who finds RPGs fun, but doesn't actually set out to specifically make games set in the realm or genre of RPGs. Much like Moby and Aphex Twin don't deliberately set out to compose songs that are 'Ambient'. They're just doing what they like to listen to and hope others listen to it as well - as opposed to pop and rock groups which only do what they expect others to like, for the sake of HUGE PROFIT. That's what Troika is doing with Bloodlines right now: They're making a game that's appealing to the mainstream, as it's a real time first person shooter. If they could make a TB game, they would. But they're more interested in reaping the profits.

So, unlike Troika, Bioware's actually doing games that they want to do, that they like to do, games that they would actually consider playing if they saw them on the store shelves. I doubt Tim Cain would want to buy his own product if he wasn't the one making it. He'd be going for some niche RPG instead, wouldn't he?

 

[Sol Invictus]

What are you, 12? Have you been to the real world yet? Talent is necessary of course, but it would be useless without investements to give it creative freedom. Remind me again, who got the Fallout license? Talent or money? Where was talent when Jefferson got shelved? Where is Sir-Tech, the talented studio behind Wizardry and Jagged Alliance? Where is Looking Glass Studio? Why there are money to make all that crap that shelves are filled with, but not for great games? What decides whether a game will be made? Money, not talent. Remember Sea Dogs 2? Well, money figured that Pirates of the Carribean would sell better. Etc, etc, etc.

I thought we were talking about which element results in a better game? Why did you turn your argument around and say that money is more important? Of course money is more important, in most cases it is what dictates which games get made and which games don't get made. But the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT was which was more important in the development of a good game rather than "which games get made". Talent doesn't decide what games get made. Money does - that's clear. But that was never what we were talking about. We were talking about whether talent PRODUCED a better game, or whether money was more important than talent when it came to the production of a quality title.

The answer is still talent. Money doesn't create talent. Talent creates money. You could give a 10 year old a billion dollars to produce a good game, and it still will not happen regardless of how much money you dump into it. That's what happened with Daikatana. Ion Storm definitely had the raw talent, but they did not have talent as a team. No matter how much money Eidos dumped into their money pit, nothing of quality managed to materialize from John Romero's team.

If you just said that Bio could have pitched a TB non-linear, multi path (as in a lot of "exponential" work) game to a publisher, you are even more delusional that I thought possible. You are plain crazy.

Bioware's games had a lot more multiple paths than TOEE ever did. I also don't see what's so non linear about TOEE besides choosing what group to work for in the Temple.

Hommlet -> Moathouse -> Nulb -> Temple of Elemental Evil

Were there multiple solutions to the quests in Hommlet? No. There weren't any. Sure, there were some small choices you could make pertaining to how you entered the Temple itself (e.g. from the side entrance, or from the main) but that was it. What little choice you had was which group in the temple you could support, of which there were only 3 quests for each of the 4 groups.

I wouldn't brag about TOEE's multi-pathness.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'm not sure what the right word is: commercial? I meant games that are released in stores through publishers, the one that have a chance to be sold in hundreds of thousands copies, and thus justify and pay for many people's efforts. Jeff sells several thousands copies per game, which is a different ballpark.

Same game, smaller ballpark. Jeff makes a good profit from his games. Multiply his success exponentially and you'll get: a big company producing huge commercial games that reaps profit at an exponentially larger sum than what he makes. Of course it's risky, but Id Software wouldn't be as big as it is if it was too scared to venture beyond the Shareware market back when it was first established.

Now, let's first remove all non-RPGs as they are much easier to make. Games like Red Alert and Homeworld only require basic gameplay, balancing, AI and cutscenes. After that part is done, al you need to do is mission design which is not very difficult. RPGs require all that AND tons of dialogue, checks, different paths, solutions, etc. Now, let's remove all games that are based on the existing engines and art assets. Reasons are obvious. What's left? Geneforge 1. I believe I've already covered that.

RPGs are not exponentially more difficult to make regardless of what creating an RPG entails. RPGs for example don't require much in terms of AI, balancing, or even cutscenes (I believe that's handled via dialogue). Arcanum managed to forego the gameplay element altogether and is still regarded by most of you as a good RPG. Though, I would not call it a good game. Dialogue has to be the easiest thing to do, really, because it does not require any of the following: programming, art direction, AI, balancing. What do most good RPGs consist of? Dialogue. Case in point: Arcanum, PS Torment, Fallout.

Did Fallout have good balancing? Besides the order in which you faced your challenges and opponents? None at all. Power armor was the best armor in the game, and the Plasma Rifle the best weapon in the game, and once you had it, nothing could stop you. The rest was a matter of dialogue. That wouldn't work in an RTS or strategy game. Having a unit that's stronger than everything else in terms of weapons, armor AND good against air and land would be a disaster in terms of balancing. Imagine if you will, a unit in Red Alert 2, that could destroy everything with absolutely no counter. No such unit exists.

 

[Sol Invictus]

What's a success? What's a failure? These things are subjective, and depend on a goal and a position. Microsoft is a successful company, yet many users (more advanced ones) believe that MS failed to produce quality soft. NWN was crap for a person who plays SP games, yet it was a success for many people who started making crappy modules :p like there is no tomorrow. The war in Iraq was both success and failure. Depends who's looking at it.

Success and failure are not a matter of fucking opinion, VD. You just can't generalize a subject and say 'it's subjective about whether it succeeded or failed'. That iimplausible and irrelevent to any facts pertinent to the subject. You have to marginalize the subject into various aspects. That's how things are done objectively. It's fine and dandy and all that you would want to call NWN a 'failure' just because you didn't like it. I didn't like it either, so it was a personal failure with me. But was it a commercial failure? Hell no. The profit, the sequels and the overall acclaim from the gaming news press proves otherwise.

Just the same, the War in Iraq could be considered a personal success by George W. Bush, because he managed to get revenge for his dad by catching Saddam Hussein. But from military, economic and political viewpoints - it is an absolute disaster. There is no arguing that. Who gives a fuck if Bush and a few hard-line republicans consider it a failure? Even guys like Powell and that guy who doesn't know what Mojo means called it a failure outright. What was their mission? To get WMDs. Did they find any? No.

Mission failed

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why set out to make an RPG? Why not set out to make a game that you would perceive as fun regardless of what others would perceive it as (an RPG)?

Because RPGs are no longer considered a niche market. They're mostly mainstream and usually one of the highest selling genres. Diablo. Baldur's Gate. Neverwinter Nights. Knights of the Old Republic. Final Fantasy.

While I don't necessarily disagree that Bioware are doing games for fun, there are reasons to make RPGs other than fun, money being one of them.

 

[Volourn]

"Bio first announced that it would have different races, then quickly decided to stick with more familiar dwarves and elves."

Um.. Partly right. They did say there'd be different races. And, they didn't change their minds as it is still having different races. They also never said there'd be no "old' races either so they didn't change their minds there. What they said what "old" races like dwarves, and elves would have be "different" from their 'typical" counterparts.


"They're mostly mainstream and usually one of the highest selling genres. Diablo. Baldur's Gate. Neverwinter Nights. Knights of the Old Republic. Final Fantasy."

Exceptions to the rule. Next. Half those games you listed are from BIO, and the other two are look at that super duper successful devs. Most RPGs don't get anywher near those levels. Of course, you also forgot MW (*puke*).

 

[Vault Dweller]

I thought we were talking about which element results in a better game? Why did you turn your argument around and say that money is more important?

I didn't turn anything around, Volourn claimed that only the talent is important, completely disregarding the role of the publisher (money). I disagreed and explained why.

But the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT was which was more important in the development of a good game rather than "which games get made".

This discussion has taken so many turns that we moved away from THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT (TM) long time ago. Evolushun!

The answer is still talent. Money doesn't create talent. Talent creates money.

Both are important, talent is wasted without money, and money are wasted without talent, but money rule all. Money decide what game will be made and what features it would have. Money can overrule talent at every turn. That's just how it works. Who decides that TB is a no-go? Money. Who decides that people want another MMORPG? Money. Who decides that generic fantasy is better then sci-fi? Money. Then they unleash talent to do their bidding within set guidelines.

About "talent creates money". These days advertisement and hype create money as much as talent. NWN when it was released was crap. Yet every mag praised it like the second coming of Jesus, and it sold very well. Fallout, Torment, Arcanum didn't do so well despite the talent, they failed to create as much money as BG or Diablo, and that's why we are seeing more of those.

Bioware's games had a lot more multiple paths than TOEE ever did. I also don't see what's so non linear about TOEE besides choosing what group to work for in the Temple.

Hommlet -> Moathouse -> Nulb -> Temple of Elemental Evil

Really? Can you name all those multiple paths in Bio games? As for ToEE, it was extremely non-linear. You could go straight to the temple from the Moathhouse, you could skip the MH, you could even access different levels of the Temple and thus skip many portions of the game.

I wouldn't brag about TOEE's multi-pathness.

Agree, and I didn't. You pretended that I did, so you could bitch about ToEE again.

Same game, smaller ballpark. Jeff makes a good profit from his games. Multiply his success exponentially and you'll get: a big company producing huge commercial games that reaps profit at an exponentially larger sum than what he makes.

Not as simple. First, he makes a moderate profit, his games sell 2-4k copies, at $25, that's 50-100k, minus expenses and whoever helps him, and you aint got a lot left. He stated that any game that flops can put him out of business. Second, it's silly to assume that if he were to go big, he would be able to make games as fast while reaping exponential profits. His games are basically text adventures, it would take a lot of time and money to make them presentable to mass audience.

RPGs are not exponentially more difficult to make regardless of what creating an RPG entails. RPGs for example don't require much in terms of AI, balancing, or even cutscenes

They still require combat AI, pathfinding, balance (true, some games are less balanced, but there are many RTS with poor pathfinding or poor balance: DoW - SP is so easy and unchallenging, it's ridiculous), truckload of items and their effects, char development and progression, keeping track of all the things you've done in a game, etc. It's much much more then making a dozen of units per side following the rock-paper-scissors guideline, some buildings, balance, AI, pathfinding, and then it's only the map making.

Having a unit that's stronger than everything else in terms of weapons, armor AND good against air and land would be a disaster in terms of balancing

True. Yet take a look at DoW, 2 marine squads with 2 missiles/2 imp. blasters own everything in the game, but the frigging lizard.

Success and failure are not a matter of fucking opinion, VD

Of course, they are. I gave several examples, but I guess I have to repeat myself. MS: investors think it was a financial success, some users think it's crap and use anything but. Arcanum: failed financially, yet many people consider it's one of the best games ever (that's role-playing success if you want definitions). There are many people who think that they did ok (in whatever: life, business, sex, etc), yet other people may think that they failed utterly. ToEE: people are bitching what a crappy game it was, yet it sold ok. Etc, etc, etc. More examples? Look at my signature.

You have to marginalize the subject into various aspects

First, that's what I was doing. A game could have many aspects: financial, aesthetic, genre, fun, etc. Then some of them are subjective, like fun, or even financial. Take Spiderweb again. He sells 2-4k per game, he thinks he's successful, yet any publisher would laugh at these numbers. Point made?

Just the same, the War in Iraq could be considered a personal success by George W. Bush, because he managed to get revenge for his dad by catching Saddam Hussein. But from military, economic and political viewpoints - it is an absolute disaster. There is no arguing that. Who gives a fuck if Bush and a few hard-line republicans consider it a failure? Even guys like Powell and that guy who doesn't know what Mojo means called it a failure outright. What was their mission? To get WMDs. Did they find any? No.

That's assuming that they came for WMDs. There are other points of view. Let's not go into political debate here, and whether other points of view are justified, it's enough that they exist to prove my point.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Bio first announced that it would have different races, then quickly decided to stick with more familiar dwarves and elves."

Um.. Partly right

Yay! it's a huge step forward from your usual "you lose".

What they said what "old" races like dwarves, and elves would have be "different" from their 'typical" counterparts.

Actually - I love that word, it makes a pleasant sound when it slices through bullshit - what they said was "the world won't be inhabited by Dwarves, Elves and Halflings -- although it will be filled with Dwarf-like, Elf-like and Halfling-like races".

 

[Sol Invictus]

Really? Can you name all those multiple paths in Bio games? As for ToEE, it was extremely non-linear. You could go straight to the temple from the Moathhouse, you could skip the MH, you could even access different levels of the Temple and thus skip many portions of the game.

How is that non-linear? It's still linear as hell because it's not as if there's anywhere else to go but the Temple. Even KOTOR was non-linear by comparison, because you could choose the order in which you took the planets. In Baldur's Gate 2, there were quite a number of quests you could decide to go with, each of them bringing you to a variety of locations. Granted, you had to go to the Asylum in eventually and just the same, you had to go to the Temple in TOEE eventually. Granted, after the Moathouse, 'eventually' was just an hour less if you skipped Nulb.

Look, we're not arguing over the nonlinearity of Arcanum. We're talking about TOEE here: which aside from the quests you could choose to go with inside the Temple, (which were extremely short and lasted no more than 5-10 minutes each, I might add) was more linear than anything Bioware ever made.

Agree, and I didn't. You pretended that I did, so you could bitch about ToEE again.

You just did. The only 'non-linearity' TOEE had was to skip most parts of the game. I wouldn't call that 'non-linear'. I'd call that 'the ability to skip most parts of the game'. Non-linearity is when you are offered a choice of where to go, what to do, choices to make relating to the storyline, branching missions that take you to completely separate places, etc. Oh, sure, the 4 factions in TOEE were non-linear, but their non-linearity consisted of doing 4 different sets of quests (3 each) in the same location. All of which you could solve in 15 minutes, and all of which llead to the same outcome: meeting the Commander. Hah.

That's assuming that they came for WMDs. There are other points of view. Let's not go into political debate here, and whether other points of view are justified, it's enough that they exist to prove my point.

That's assuming they came for WMDs? What the fuck are you smoking, man?

Over 1,000 dead marines and it's a fucking success? Bull fucking shit. Tell that to the families. Tell that to the damn starving Iraqi families because the war destroyed the food surplus that Saddam set up for them before the war. I'm sure some starving Iraqi kid is 'Sure glad Bush saved us! By God, food is evil!" I suppose Afganistan's a success in your book too, huh? With the newly established democracy on the verge of collapse, support pulling out, investors retreating, and warlords and international drug traffickers on the rise I'm sure it's been a great economic and political success! Kabul is like a freaking Alamo in the middle of hell.

 

[Volourn]

"Volourn claimed that only the talent is important"

Bull. What I said was talent is more important money. Many good games are made without lots of money backing them up or time. You tried to blame it on the publisher when both NWN and TOEE were published by the same company yet one got a heck of a lot more support. The only difference? The developer. Next.


"NWN when it was released was crap."

Says who? A handful of people? Player reviews were by and large positive towards NWN. Youa re trying to allow a couple of dingalongs decide a game's failure and success overall. that's balony. As Exitium pointed out individuals can only decide if a game is successful or a failure for them. I can sit around 'til I'm purple in the face and say becuase I disliked MW that it failed. However, I'd be lying like youa re right now. Stop it! (I know you wont but I can try to help ya).


"MS: investors think it was a financial success, some users think it's crap and use anything but."

Once again with the 'some". The "some" in this case means shit. MS was a success so was Windows. Just because 1 person dislikes soemthing doesn't make it a failure, dumbnuts. See above for more info. Something either fails or succeeds.


"Actually - I love that word, it makes a pleasant sound when it slices through bullshit - what they said was "the world won't be inhabited by Dwarves, Elves and Halflings -- although it will be filled with Dwarf-like, Elf-like and Halfling-like races"."

And? That ahsn't changed. Point. not. Found.


P.S. Though I don't do politichere normall,y the Iraq war was mainly about getting rid of Saddam. It was a success. The war aftermath has been a failure so far but since it's not over yet it can't be judged a failure or success as a final judgement.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Exceptions to the rule. Next.

Diablo is an exception, but it has two 'exceptions', Diablo and Diablo 2. Baldur's Gate is an 'exception' and it has Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2, each with its own expansions. Neverwinter Nights is an 'exception' and its about to get a sequel - ditto for Knights of the Old Republic; it also had two expansions. Final Fantasy is an 'exception', yet its got... what, 11 games in the series, plus a massive online multiplayer game based on it.

That's 20+ exceptions, Volourn, even discounting expansion packs.

There's also, as you said so yourself, Morrowind, which also had two expansions, and is about to get a sequel. There's also Deus Ex, and how many console games? The Tales series? Front Mission? Star Ocean? Suikoden? How many MOGs out there?

So at what point do you think they stop being exceptions and turn into indicators of the more mainstream nature they are adopting, along with public reception? Even what we'd generally consider to be less recognized titles are getting more and more publicity - Divine Divinity and its sequel, Seal of Evil, and Kult are other examples. I would also mention Dungeon Siege (even if it sucks), as well as Gothic and Gothic 2, but I'm not sure how well they hit the market. Then again, it could be argued they were fairly well received: one had a sequel, the other is getting one.

So, again, when do you think they'll stop being exceptions?

Most RPGs don't get anywher near those levels. Of course, you also forgot MW (*puke*).

So you disagree that most RPGs nowadays are considerably becoming more and more mainstream?

 

[Volourn]

They stop becoming exceptions when they become the norm.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Most RPGs (action or otherwise) just don't sell very well. Bioware's and Blizzard's games are two exceptions to the rule. Dungeon Siege sold well because of the hype but nobody bought Aranna. It took a loss.

For the record, Deus Ex sold nowhere as much as any of Bioware's titles (excluding the expansion packs). DXIW didn't get any lasting support, either. Eidos's new CEO is pretty pissed off at them for blowing up DXIW. He says they should have listened to what the fans wanted: e.g. a sequel, not a different, crappier piss poor first person shooter of a game with zero RPG elements.

Consoles and their RPGs are a different ballgame.

RPGs on the PC belong to a niche market, albeit a very large one. Games like Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate may sell very well, up to a million or two copies, but none of them sell anywhere as well as real time strategy games and first person shooters. Compare the success of Starcraft to Diablo, and you'll have your answer.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

They stop becoming exceptions when they become the norm.

Too vague, how about telling me an exact number? Putting console RPGs aside for a while, how much do you figure CRPGs need to sell in order to become the 'norm'?

 

[Sol Invictus]

They stop becoming exceptions when they become the norm.

Too vague, how about telling me an exact number? Putting console RPGs aside for a while, how much do you figure CRPGs need to sell in order to become the 'norm'?

3 million+ on average.

That's how many copies Warcraft 3, Starcraft, the C&C series, Doom 3, Half Life, Half Life 2, Call of Duty and so forth all sold.

TOEE's 300k is cheap by comparison.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How is that non-linear? It's still linear as hell because it's not as if there's anywhere else to go but the Temple. Even KOTOR...

By the same logic, in KOTOR there is nowhere else to go but to that Star thingy, but you can't skip a planet, you can't avoid the capture, you can't defeat Malak the first time you see him, etc.

...was non-linear by comparison, because you could choose the order in which you took the planets. In Baldur's Gate 2, there were quite a number of quests you could decide to go with, each of them bringing you to a variety of locations.

Mmm...pseudo-linearity of Bio games. "hey, we have this totally linear game but, dig this, it's totally up to you in which order you do the side quests. Far out!"

We're talking about TOEE here: which aside from the quests you could choose to go with inside the Temple, (which were extremely short and lasted no more than 5-10 minutes each, I might add) was more linear than anything Bioware ever made.

We have different perception of the gameplay then. ToEE didn't have many multiple solutions, but it was absolutely non-linear. You could proceed in many different ways. You could even finish the game in 10-15 minutes by accident because it was so non-linear. Comparing to KOTOR's Star thingy where you have to follow a linear path inside, the difference is huge.

Agree, and I didn't. You pretended that I did, so you could bitch about ToEE again.

You just did.

Yes, I did, AFTER you brought it up.

That's assuming that they came for WMDs. There are other points of view. Let's not go into political debate here, and whether other points of view are justified, it's enough that they exist to prove my point.

That's assuming they came for WMDs? What the fuck are you smoking, man?

I take it that you disagree, and thus disregard factors like oil, profit made on rebuilding Iraq (if you recall, when UN said lets share the pie, US said fuck off, we fought the bastards all by ourselves, the pie is ours), strategic interests, military contracts, etc.

 

[Sol Invictus]

See what really pissed me off about TOEE is how I accidentally completed it the first time I got to the Temple and went to that little Throne room.

What the hell, man. That's just stupid.

Who give's an ape's shit if the game was non-linear. It wasn't exactly high on replayability either.

You know what else is non-linear? Minesweeper.

 

[Volourn]

"Too vague"

No. Not vague enough. The problem isn't the number of copies of games sold; but the number of copies the average RPG sales in comparison to the average other genre. It's also funny how RPGers are willing to lump Diablo in with other RPGs when it nets them a huge successful game. LOL


As for TOEE vs. KOTOR. Sure, TOEE has the 'advantage" since there are multiple ways 9more than 2) to beat the game. however, KOTOR absolutely crushed TOEE when it coems to delaing withq uests as most KOTOR quests have at leats 2, if not 3, 4, or even 5 ways toc omplete them. overall, the edge there goes to KOTOR; but even though I didn't finsih TOEE I can appreciate the better handling of multiple endings...

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Most RPGs (action or otherwise) just don't sell very well.

The expected number of sales for an RPG, action or otherwise, was much lower some years ago than it is today. You're starting to get a higher focus on development costs and production values for CRPGs, specially due to the success of exceptions to the rule. Sure, they mightnot sell very well overal, but compared to what they used to? The market is bigger, development teams are getting bigger, there's more and more resources being put into them, public reception is increasing, and so on. There's also the blatant example of MMORPGs, unless they aren't being considered RPGs for the sake of this conversation.

You said so yourself, its a niche market, albeit a very large one. It was much smaller some years ago. If that isn't another indication that they are becoming more and more well accepted by the public and more mainstream, I don't know what is.

And as you've also said, we're talking the PC market only. On the consoles, RPGs have been terribly popular for years, and are the highest selling genre.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I take it that you disagree, and thus disregard factors like oil, profit made on rebuilding Iraq (if you recall, when UN said lets share the pie, US said fuck off, we fought the bastards all by ourselves, the pie is ours), strategic interests, military contracts, etc.

Oil prices are higher than they've ever been. VICTORY!

Strategic interests? That's laughable, considering that the US has satallites and long range missiles. Who gives a damn about occupying some country full of people who hate you and your military?

Military contracts? I suppose it's a success for military contractors and corporations, but don't they profit from EVERY war? That's a moot point, considering they don't represent public interests, or even economic ones. Their money doesn't exactly go to fund public education or build roads, does it? It goes into some fat bastard's bank account where it will eventually find its way into the pockets of some stupid politician. VICTORY! For Bush alone, I guess.

Try explaining all of this crap the families of the dead marines and to everyone who has to pay taxes to support the war they don't want to support.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No. Not vague enough. The problem isn't the number of copies of games sold; but the number of copies the average RPG sales in comparison to the average other genre.

Fine. So one of these days when you feel like considering them the norm, gives us a holler.

It's also funny how RPGers are willing to lump Diablo in with other RPGs when it nets them a huge successful game. LOL

LOL indeed. For the purpose of discussing high-selling games I'm not going to discuss wheter I feel X game is within a certain genre or not; that's a kind of discussion that only serves to drag down this thread further into useless time-wasting bickering. If you're so willing that I make a distinction or take a stance on that, I can point you to other posts I've made on the subject, or I can create a new thread just for you.

But hey, I'll remove Diablo and Diablo 2 anyway. I'll even remove Dungeon Siege. Guess what? You still have several other high-selling RPGs. Ooops. Your LOL = moot.

 

[Sol Invictus]

High selling in comparison to what, Role-Player? NWN may have been a high seller but it does not even begin to compare to the success of Half Life or Starcraft. Besides, Bioware's games are exceptions to the rule. Try looking at the sales figures of most RPGs and you'll notice the disparity.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

High selling in comparison to what, Role-Player?

To same genre games that came before it.

Try looking at the sales figures of most RPGs and you'll notice the disparity.

If you're getting a wider range of investment put into RPGs today, and if you're getting higher sales for RPGs as well, when compared to what was invested and earned back with them years ago, what does it tell you?

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Volourn claimed that only the talent is important"

Bull. What I said was talent is more important money.

Same thing. Next.

Many good games are made without lots of money backing them up or time.

Right. The sports games.

You tried to blame it on the publisher when both NWN and TOEE were published by the same company yet one got a heck of a lot more support. The only difference? The developer. Next.

I see. So, the fact that Iply paid for 4 years of development and Atari basically published a finished product is irrelevant? Now, that's really biased and stupid.

"NWN when it was released was crap."

Says who?

Many magazines who've admitted as much by the time HotU hit the shelves. I posted some quotes before.

As Exitium pointed out individuals can only decide if a game is successful or a failure for them.

Unfortunately, Exitium was wrong, because public opinion is made out of many individuals opinions that are the same. Shame on you for repeating that.

"MS: investors think it was a financial success, some users think it's crap and use anything but."

Once again with the 'some". The "some" in this case means shit. MS was a success so was Windows. Just because 1 person dislikes soemthing doesn't make it a failure, dumbnuts.

May I interest you in this link?
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5267

See above for more info. Something either fails or succeeds.

Who determines that? You? Must be nice to have that powahz.

"Actually - I love that word, it makes a pleasant sound when it slices through bullshit - what they said was "the world won't be inhabited by Dwarves, Elves and Halflings -- although it will be filled with Dwarf-like, Elf-like and Halfling-like races"."

And? That ahsn't changed. Point. not. Found.

Yes, it has. Now there ARE dwarves, and elves, and halflings. Keep looking for that point.