What is it about BioWare...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Congratulations, you're precisely the impotent chimp BioWare looks for in a suck...err...consumer. You're also part of the biggest problems of the gaming industry to date.

Hmmm. I see no reason to try and make an insult directed at me, but if that's what you like be my guest. And i believe the "biggest problems of the gaming indistry to date" take form in clueless conglomerates buying smaller companies and mutilating their franchises, coupled with gamers who take any crap given to them. Which isn't how i act, but i think you wouldn't care how i act.

As far as the rest, you seriously need to get out a bit more into some real role-playing.

Real role-playing in what form? If you're talking about PnP, i played it some years ago. If you're talking about a better develloped gameworld than BG/2, then i'm way ahead of that advice *stares lovingly at Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment and Arcanum's CDs near him*

Then you need to open your eyes. Your hands might be down, but your head is up somewhere else. AI, pathfinding, poor combat, bastardizing many of the rules, extremely limited interactivity with the environment, and about everything Prov mentioned as well.

Which i think i already discusses back there...

Let's also not forget the annoying games of "hunt the pixel" to search for containers/etcetera.

Handled with the pressing of the TAB key... and sorry to break it to you, but FO and Arcanum have the same pixel-hunting problems.

Funny, I thought staring at the screen while doing nothing but waiting for something to require pausing the game again is a hell of a lot more boring.

As opposed to just looking at the TB combat of Fallout? So you criticize one for having to pause (BG), and don't criticize the other for only allowing you to control your character (Fallout)? I mean, i like both systems (despite inherent problems they may possess), but in terms of combat, i have more control over my party than in Fallout. Sorry to break it to you, but i was talking about the game as a game, not as a failure because its not a textbook copy of how to properly imitate RPGs 101. And in terms of combat, i even prefer TB, but not the FO way. Does the combat system please everyone? Hell no, it doesn't. Does it fudge rules? Hell yes, thats obvious (and already pointed out here). Yet, considering i can control all my characters individually in combat (unlike Fallout and even Arcanum), and not have to wait until the AI makes wrong combat decisions, i'd say that the combat system, despite its flaws, is more interesting. I prefer TB, but hell if i like the restriction of actually deciding how to act during battle.

Yup, just as I thought. A nice, complacent consumer without any spine to believe that pig in a poke hype developers should get what they deserve. Hell, Gold Box was better than the IE games in many ways.

Yes, im sure you know all about me to make such an assumption... And im spineless... why? Because i don't call them names? I wonder if being rude to anyone is a sign of having a spine.... oh wait, perhaps resorting to the anonymity the internet provides and insulting game designers without them having the chance to defend themselves would prove i have a spine!

Yet BioWare keeps crowing and crowning themselves kings at every turn. Their only saving grace is that they had D&D and Forgotten Realms. Without the inevitable fanboys those bring, BG would have been an uninspired pile of trash and more people would have said as much. is it any wonder why TORN was canned, aside from some incredibly poor decisions at IPLY/BIS? it was because it was really nothing special at all, instead following along high fantasy.

And the problems working with the LithTech engine don't count, i see.

While you are being nice-nice to the developers, you're being ignored. There's many cases of where those who posted critical bug reports to the official NWN forums would have the topic locked or deleted, and some were banned. In most cases, they would try to hide the problem, using "This should be sent into the bug report email addy" as some kind of validation to hide whatever they want. Yet those topics with vitriol would get the attention of the developers rather quickly as it waves a bright red bullshit flag that others can see and only spells problems for BioWare if they were to make those "vanish", much like IPLY is feeling some kicks to the ass because of their methods.

And have you seen me here support that kind of attitude?

Oh, hey, that is already happening because of the mindless fanbois slobbering over the developers for their next munchkinfest, and then there's apologists like yourself who are too neutered to be of any care to BioWare.

You do have an affinity for calling people impotent don't you?

Do you think you matter to BioWare or any other company with a nice smile but telling them something is wrong? Sorry to break reality to you again, but at that point you're nothing more than a prison bitch with your money in their hands. Do you think you matter anymore to them after that? You're on some serious drugs or grievous head injuries if you think you do. Well, I guess BioWare might have some care for you; you're little more than a bit more cash in their pocket and spin-doctoring over forums.

So, you're implying that, nowadays, there are companies that work not for profit, but to soothe and pacify the fans, or to do their bidding? This isn't Sir-Tech's age any longer; there's no innocent company making games because they like to; no people fixing savegames sent to them by mail; no 3 people with a C++ manual and strong will nowadays earning awards for best game of the year. I could care less what you feel about Bioware, but you're implying their the only company that doesn't care about consumers, which is wrong. They're far from being the only one.

I've seen work that easily tops their crap aside from a shiny user interface. That was also about 15 years ago, and Ultima 7 still kicks BioWare's work down pretty hard, retroactively, in terms of world design. Troika's work provides a hell of a lot more playstyles and paths to be taken in the game than "click through speech options until you get to combat" that generally stands for BioHype's work.

Never said otherwise about Ultima, or Arcanum. Its no secret they top off BG/BG2's gameworlds and decision-affecting gameworld.

You might be impressed with BioWare's work, but I've come up with better ideas while taking a shit.

That may very well be, but unless that work is actually published and good as you say, its going to remain what it is now: unsubstantiated ravings of an anonymous poster on the web. Unless you actually present said better work; unless said work is recognized as being good, i'm not going to acknowledge it. We all have ideas, but not all of us can execute them, can we?

Have a nice day.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In this BioWare thread the original poster writes about a fictional BioWare designers meeting.

lol, that's very funny, thanks, Sabotai.

I have obtained an audio tape of a secret meeting between Reflexive lead designer Rick Ernst and Bioware producers Trent Oster and Darcy Pajak. The following is a transcript of that meeting:
.....
TO: We noticed that you don't have any dragons in your campaign.
RE: Well, we felt that they were not appropriate for the storyline and the level of the charac--
DP: APP! AP-AP-AP!! We feel that this just won't be a proper DnD campaign without dragons.
RE: Ummm... OK. I guess we will find a way to fit a dragon into the story.
TO: NOT just any dragon, mind you!
DP: We want this to be an incredibly stupid dragon.
RE: ... A stupid dragon?
TO: You see, we would prefer if the PCs would be able to take on this dragon at about 4th level.
RE: FOURTH LEVEL?! Are you crazy?! Dragons are supposed to be ancient and powerful creatures. If any old mid-level character could take on a dragon, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DRAGONS!
DP: Well, you see, that is why the dragon is stupid.
.....

TO: At Bioware, we like to come up with the most outrageous race/class combinations possible for NPCs. We have found that coming up with characters that have weird race/class combinations is much easier than coming up with interesting backgrounds and personalities.
DP: Unreasonable suspension of disbelief is a tenet of the Bioware game design!
TO: Lawful elven paladins, chaotic dwarven rogues, kobold bards, good drow rangers! Nothing is off limits!
DP: Did you say good drow ranger?
DP and TO together: OH... MY... GOD!
TO: That is the most original idea I have ever heard of in my life!
......

 

[Araanor]

Gaider's unappreciative response made it all the better.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Damn, i only saw that spoof interview now :shock: Gaider was really trying to contain himself...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think that interview hit a little too close to home.. heh

 

[Cyzada]

I at least enjoyed Bg1 and Bg2. Yeah Fallout was a bit better but i don't require a game to be the same or better to the absolute best game of that genre in order to enjoy it.

It seems we are pretty much universally agreed that NwN sucked.

Thats 2 for 3. Not a bad track record. If Bioware made a bg3 or some other game that was more like bg and less like NwN i would probably give it a spin. But then i spend mucho $$$ on games im not one of those guys that buys like 1 game every 5 years.

I generally dismiss any PR statement that doesn't divulge any factual information about the game so the "bioware back-patting" never bothered me.

Now about this "genre backpeddling". This is something i really wanted to address. I think its pretty obvious that Diablo is the game which is responsible for the general "mainstreaming" of games. Diablo is just enough RPG to be called an RPG and otherwise its an action game. Diablo 2 is still fairly high on the best sellers list years after release. All RPGs before Diablo sold like crap. Diablo sold millions. What does that tell me? That Diablo was probably a lot of people's first RPG. How is that a bad thing? How does introducing millions of people to the wonderful world of RPGs a little at a time not advance the genre? Could it be that some of the people who got into RPGs with Diablo got Bg and liked that? and maybe some of those people might be exactly the people that increase the sales of games like ToEE beyond the small isolated group that is the hardcore RPG fanbase.

On the otherhand lets take a look at a game like PS:T which seems to be a benchmark for "advancement". PS:T flopped. Lets face facts. PS:T sold very poorly becuase it was such a hardcore RPG. PS:T due to its sales with no regard to quality became a symbol of how NOT to make an rpg that will sell. How does that advance the genre i ask you?

 

[Volourn]

Not totally right. PST 'flopped" in the sense that it couldn't compare to the Bg sales, or Diablo sales. However, it DID make a profit, and sold reasonably well.

 

[Cyzada]

Not totally right. PST 'flopped" in the sense that it couldn't compare to the Bg sales, or Diablo sales. However, it DID make a profit, and sold reasonably well.

Not enough of one apparently becuase by Black Isle's own admission, PS:T sold terribly.

 

[Volourn]

Huh? I've heard them say otherwise. I beleive that was IWD2 they were talking about. PST sold okay; just not well enough to warrant an expansion, or sequel.

 

[Cyzada]

I believe that they said that it sold so poorly that they regarded it as a failed endeavour.

 

[Araanor]

Torment sold fairly. I recall Feargus saying a sequel was a possiblity.

 

[Voss]

Even if a game does flop, it also opens up different ways of approaching things to designers, introduces them to new ideas.
Even if it is a designer decided that maybe the customer base is open to a little bit of story after PS:T came out, that was an improvement over the general approach of 'have 5 minutes of hacked-out background, now go mindlessly kill things'.

And people can learn a lot from failures- or things that don't fail, by thinking of ways to make them *better*. Which advances the genre a lot.

Having millions of people buying something doesn't advance the genre much at all. It might increase market share, and some funds might become available that weren't before, but it doesn't necessarily improve the genre at all.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Thought I remembered reading this, and I just found it on a quick Google search.

http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/fullstory.asp?id=3364

Feargus: The funny thing is as time goes on I think more and more about us making a Torment 2. I don't know if it will ever actually be in the cards, but the game did better commercially than a lot of people think.

Gamers and developers also still talk a lot about Torment, and it's often used as a yardstick. I think it was pretty influential, despite its faults. Hardly a step backwards.

 

[Cyzada]

That is where your wrong. Selling to millions of people advances the genre far more then selling to the same hardcore fans that bought the others. Why? becuase when a game is able to reach that many people, more people become introduced to that genre and that is precisely what the Crpg genre needs. A game developer is a business and a business is all about profit. However it would be nice if one didn't have to "dumb down" a game in order to sell it to the "mainstream". Therefore if you can improve upon the complexity of the games while maintaining their mainstream appeal, that advances the genre far more then a super hardcore game that only super hardcore fans buy. All this elitism (developers should only make games for hardcore rpg fanatics like me and screw the casual gamer) is holding the genre back, not moving it forward.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Gotta love blind persistence. Even when every single thing you said got shot down, including with a developer's quote which directly contradicted the entire basis of your argument, you still refuse to change your mind.

That is where your wrong. Selling to millions of people advances the genre far more then selling to the same hardcore fans that bought the others. Why? becuase when a game is able to reach that many people, more people become introduced to that genre and that is precisely what the Crpg genre needs.

So you think Final Fantasy and Diablo are the crown jewels of the RPG genre? I'd argue that most gamers out there who could possibly have an interest in RPG's are already aware they exist. Between Final Fantasy, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, etc., they've probably even played a reasonable facsimile of one. It's just a matter of taste what they choose to play. The hordes of gamers out there don't necessarily buy as much of what I like, big surprise, just like I don't buy Madden NFL Tackle Mania 2003. If Madden NFL Tackle Mania 2003 tried to reach out to me with dialog trees, I'd probably chuckle, then say no. Just worry about pleasing your existing fanbase, and I'll look for things that are the closest to what I want to play.

A game developer is a business and a business is all about profit. However it would be nice if one didn't have to "dumb down" a game in order to sell it to the "mainstream".

The funny part here is, you seem to be assuming companies have to pitch something to the mainstream to make any money. No big surprise there, since you thought Torment was a financial failure. The funny thing is, if all of Interplay's games had done as abysmally as Torment, they'd be in great shape. It's when they try to follow your advice (re: IWD2, RLH, etc.) to dig themselves out of their pit that they get in trouble. Profit means you get more money than you put in. Nothing more, nothing less. There is more than one way to get there.

Selling millions is also probably too lofty of a goal for most game companies in general. If there was a magic recipe as simple as you're making it, everyone would already be doing it. First order of business is just breaking even. If the game can do that, at least it paid everybody's salaries.

Therefore if you can improve upon the complexity of the games while maintaining their mainstream appeal, that advances the genre far more then a super hardcore game that only super hardcore fans buy. All this elitism (developers should only make games for hardcore rpg fanatics like me and screw the casual gamer) is holding the genre back, not moving it forward.

Just where would it be advancing to? Probably nowhere I'd be that interested in. This kind of attitude has rarely if ever resulted in quality TV and movies, why think games would be so different? A better attitude to have is just try to make the best quality game you can as you see fit. If millions of people like it, great, if only enough to pay your salary do, well, it's better than nothing. People can and do make money making quality RPG's that folks like us like to play.

 

[Spazmo]

Only companies like Blizzard can hope to touch the million mark without waiting years and re-issuing the game a few times. Most companies are damned happy to sell a good 100,000 copies.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Now this kind of genre-backpeddling conversation is nifty... specially because games like the afforementioned games (Diablo and Final Fantasy) are probably some of the best-selling franchises ever, and they are nowhere near as good at being RPGs like Planescape, Fallout or

Now this is not a question about wheter one likes Diablo or FF. I liked Diablo 1 as a Rogue-like game, not as an RPG. When i saw D2, i almost fell ill, to see such wasted potential. It could've been a lot more of an RPG but instead it was more of the same without much else. The same with FF's - fairly good in their own right, but the customization of your characters is the essence of the games, coupled with minigames (and the occasional role-playing in form of decision-making in dialogues sequences).

They're entertaining in their own right, but they fail tremedously at being RPGs. Yet their treated, looked at, and considered as such. So its no surprise when you go to many places and people flame you because you're surprised FF is considered an RPG. They have very limited (but still existing) role-playing, but its pretty much on-rails. That's why there's a distinction between PC and console RPGs. Its not because of gamers' elitism, its because console RPGs, contrary to what their fans say, are failed RPGs. Thats the genre backpeddling - the consistent removal of what makes an RPG an RPG, and the inclusion of a heavy focus on character customization (or things that by themselves are not synonimous with RPGs), then calling it an RPG as if it behaved like one. And then the usual idiotic consumer masses see "levels" and "magic", and its like "w00t, dat's an RPG!!!". Its what they have been playing since 1987 (more or less) since Dragon Warrior surfaced on the NES, and they don't want to know (majorly) about anything else. Limited, with shallow role-play, where you don't have enough freedom to do all you want. They're good games, though: many of their story arcs or some memorable characters are sometimes better than the usual PC RPG. But in terms of role-playing and player freedom, its an extremely visible backpeddling. Thats not to say its not there - but its not good enough.

Its a pity, though. I believe the FF franchise could sell much more if it had more role-playing and less FMV's.

 

[Dwango]

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster.

About the Planescape Torment discussion, I've got some info from an RPGVault article quoting Desslock a long while back (He hasn't written anything new since last year). He had a topic about how sales figures can be misleading.

RPG Sales Editorial At Desslock's
The latest edition of Desslock's Ramblings has gone up at Desslock's RPG News, and it focuses on sales figures for popular games, and how many "classics" don't actually sell that well:

Even more interesting are the sales statistics for other RPGs. Diablo-clones such as Revenant and Darkstone have sold quite poorly, according to PC Data, in spite of decent critical praise and word of mouth, selling only 35,000 and 75,000 copies, respectively. But the most interesting sales statistics involve Ultima IX: Ascension and Planescape: Torment. Planescape: Torment received fantastic critical acclaim (almost universally receiving the 1999 RPG of the Year Awards) and great word of mouth, has to date sold only about half of the number of units that the Fallout games have sold. Ultima IX: Ascension, on the other hand, was a major release from a major company, and perhaps due to poor word of mouth and its negative reception from game reviewers, similarly achieved a mere 73,000 unit sales in the markets tracked by PC Data. While the sales numbers are almost the same for Planescape: Torment and Ultima IX: Ascension, it's worthwhile to note that most of Torment's sales have been in the year 2000, while Ascension's sales were predominently in 1999, even though Ascension was released later in 1999 than Torment. Again, word of mouth and critical praise obviously bolstered Torment's sales and negatively affected Ascension's potential sales.


Interestingly, Desslock suggests that the PC Data sales figures we've become accustomed to seeing regarding game sales are deceptive in that they tend to track data from large, department-style stores rather than dedicated games stores. The article is definitely worth checking out, so just click on the link above.
11:09 AM - Pipeline

I don't know if these figures hold true now, since PS:T may have sold more through word of mouth and repackaging in the last three years. Hope this is helpful to the discussion.

-Dwango

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

That is where your wrong. Selling to millions of people advances the genre far more then selling to the same hardcore fans that bought the others. Why? becuase when a game is able to reach that many people, more people become introduced to that genre and that is precisely what the Crpg genre needs. A game developer is a business and a business is all about profit. However it would be nice if one didn't have to "dumb down" a game in order to sell it to the "mainstream". Therefore if you can improve upon the complexity of the games while maintaining their mainstream appeal, that advances the genre far more then a super hardcore game that only super hardcore fans buy. All this elitism (developers should only make games for hardcore rpg fanatics like me and screw the casual gamer) is holding the genre back, not moving it forward.

Most of those mainstream people tend to buy things like The Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon, not CRPGs. RPG fans are the ones who ultimately buy CRPGs. Look at how many copies of BG and BG2 sold, and while there is some obvious dumbing down in both those games, there are still encounters that would make casual gamers run screaming to the store to trade them in for a Sims expansion pack or two.

 

[Cyzada]

It doesn't matter what the "crown jewel" is snails. My point is that real advancement in the genre happens by making games with more and more components of "the games that people like you would be interested in" that also sell to the sort of people you are constantly looking down your nose at. Making games whether you like it or not is a business and true advancement of the genre happens at the business level first.

That is true Proverb for the present, but my point is that a lot of casual gamers might "run screaming" at some of the encounters in bg, but a lot will pleasantly discover that they like it, and *that* is what advances the genre.

 

[Visionary]

Baldurs Gate and other stock D&D titles have not just reduced gameplay complexity by over simplifying quests and making victory inescapable, but they have also homogenised plotlines. They all follow the same bland stories with little sense of drama or mystery to make them engaging. I find it hard to believe people pursue them so far and have to attribute it to desire to explore unopened maps or reach the next spell level, or possibly even sheer determination to complete the game.

However, I do think those games are good for the future of CRPGs. By showing that they can be profitable and by expanding the market, they create opportunities for quality games developers. With a prevailing attitude that CRPGs are always money-pits, and the old much smaller market, there would be far fewer such opportunities.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Haven't changed your position one iota, big surprise.

It doesn't matter what the "crown jewel" is snails. My point is that real advancement in the genre happens by making games with more and more components of "the games that people like you would be interested in" that also sell to the sort of people you are constantly looking down your nose at.

Some of the things I'm interested in are by definition what other people don't like. I like involved dialogues, others don't like to read when playing games. There really isn't that much you can do to reconcile the two. It's kind of an either/or proposition, or looking for a middle ground neither side is going to be crazy about. I don't really care for games that are a test of my reflex time, others think that's great. There isn't a whole lot to be done to bridge the gap. There is no such thing as a perfect game that's ideal for everyone.

And when was I looking my nose down on anyone? I'm cool with people who like to frag stuff in Quake, or piddle around with an alter-ego in the Sims. Just don't mess with the games I like.

Making games whether you like it or not is a business and true advancement of the genre happens at the business level first.

When did I ever claim anything different? Really, you need to chill with the assumptions about people. I thought I pointed out more than once from a business point of view how making games I like isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I guess that didn't register since it interfered with your mini-crusade.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

However, I do think those games are good for the future of CRPGs. By showing that they can be profitable and by expanding the market, they create opportunities for quality games developers. With a prevailing attitude that CRPGs are always money-pits, and the old much smaller market, there would be far fewer such opportunities.

How has it helped? I haven't seen a major RPG renaissance, and the BG clones don't sell off the shelves by the truckload. Unfortunately, the C students with MBA's just think that means making a BG clone = easy money. When that fails, they give up. Apparently most of the people who bought BG just bought BG. And possibly BG2 and NWN. It didn't prompt most of them to go on an RPG spending spree. Same goes for Diablo. Hey, if all of a sudden everything with "RPG" on the box sold millions after hordes of consumers discovered the genre existed when they bought BG and Diablo, I might be more inclined to buy your story. But that's not the case. Look for a new theory.

 

[Cyzada]

I don't believe that people's likes and dislikes are static snail. I believe that if more people are exposed to these things a little at a time, some of them will find that they like it. As for your view of business, you seem to be under the impression that a business will be happy with merely "getting by" if it suits your view of what a good RPG is. Why do you think that there is such a trend of "dumbing down" rpgs in order to make them more accessible to the "mainstream"? Your stance seems to be that this "dumbing down" is a backstep in the evolution of rpgs. I say that this is a very short sighted viewpoint.. It is a step forward becuase these sort of compromises improve the consciousness of the mainstream which in turn allows more complex crpgs to reach the mainstream. The goal is to get to a point where there isnt as much of a gap between "hardcore rpgers" and "the mainstream".

My theory essentially is that bg wouldn't have sold as well as it did if Diablo had never existed and games like Lionheart and ToEE (if they even existed) would not sell as well had there not been a bg.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Well, I don't think there's much evidence out there to support your claims. But I doubt anything I say is going to change your mind, so whatever.

As far as what I said about just getting by, I'm talking about how people might want to look at it, if they were actually making games because they enjoyed it. It's probably the way I'd want to look if I were there. I'm well aware of how things usually work, but it's rather amusing that the money-grubbers usually wind up going under, anyway.