What is it about BioWare...

[Saint_Proverbius]

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.

No, what advances the genre is innovation, something BG most certainly did not do. In fact, BG was a leap backwards and dumbed down. Since it sold well, it got cloned countless times, and that's what stagnates and kills a genre. The same thing happened back in the 1990s when SSI had a lock on D&D with it's gold box games. Nearly every CRPG that came out was a gold box clone, there was no variety or no new hooks to get the new people coming in or the old players coming back for more because they'd been there and done that several times already. In fact, that's one of the reasons IWD2 bombed, it'd been done too many times already.

 

[Cyzada]

Clones do not stagnate a genre. Any successful product regardless is going to have a bunch of clones (and bg didnt have that many clones at all if you dont count the ones made by its parent companies bioware and black isle). This happens in every genre not just crpg. I think both to a certain extent advance the genre in different ways.

Personally i think DnD itself to some extent "stagnates the genre" becuase RPGs made by it must conform to a specific set of rules always. This makes them all play pretty much the same.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Clones do not stagnate a genre.

The problem is that they don't advance it either. Look at Diablo, and then look at 2 very good clones of it, Revenant and Darkstone.

Darkstone had a 3D graphical, rotational engine. The loot and dungeons, as far as i remember, were randomly generated. It had about 4 classes. The fact you could rotate the screen in a 3D RPGish game helps (look at Morrowind or NWN). But the game didn't sell well.

Now look at Revenant. A better graphical engine than Diablo, a better storyline, branching conversations, some well-rounded puzzles, increasing skills by use, it has the main character do 3 different types of attacks (which later on can evolve into combos), and physical combat in itself revolves around attacking, defending and counterattacking - not mentioning magic as well.

Now, where have these 2 Diablo clones, with better ideas, managed to furhter the genre, if the genre-makers still repeat the same crap ideas they always had? Revenant was a bit of a sales fiasco, same with Darkstone. Yet the ideas in them were quite good. Diablo 2 could have been tremendously superior had it incorporated them. Did it? No. On an aside, try asking the casual gamer if he ever played Revenant or Darkstone. Many people won't even recognize the name. Ask them about Diablo, though, and they'll beam with joy.

Any successful product regardless is going to have a bunch of clones (and bg didnt have that many clones at all if you dont count the ones made by its parent companies bioware and black isle). This happens in every genre not just crpg. I think both to a certain extent advance the genre in different ways.

That depends. Again, look at two games, Castle Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake and System Shock. Castle Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake presents fast and furious gameplay, while SS presents methodical, think-before-you-act gameplay. Now, how many times has the Quake formula been copied? And how many times has SS' style of gameplay been copied?

SS' "clones" (so to speak) take form in SS2, Thief, Thief 2 and Deux Ex (to a degree, Splinter Cell, also). Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake has about Doom, Doom 2, Final Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Unreal, Unreal 2, Kingpin, Mortyr, Soldier of Fortune, SoF 2, Red Faction, Red Faction 2,.... nigh endless, as the list goes on. And where have the fast action-typed games brought innovation? The innovation'o'meter is quite stale when it comes to clones. You have to present good ideas (and a better aplication of said ideas) to actually present innovation. This is usually achieved by crossing genres, like System Shock 2 or Deus Ex. Or even the upcoming STALKER: Oblivion Lost.

In fact, here's some quick trivia. The original Castle Wolfenstein, for PC, (which you can search around the net, prolly on the Underdogs site), has a randomly generated map/castle each time you play. It was the original. Meanwhile, how many FPS clones of Wolfenstein have you seen that have randomly generated maps? Not many, i'd wager. Not even Wolfenstein 3D, nor Return to CW. The idea of having different maps every time you play trough the same FPS would drastically increase an FPS' longevity. And to be honest, the only First Person game i remember of having random generation of things in it was Daggerfall (and it wasn't eactly an FPS).

Personally i think DnD itself to some extent "stagnates the genre" becuase RPGs made by it must conform to a specific set of rules always. This makes them all play pretty much the same.

Well DnD would stagnate the genre if it was the only PnP system out there, but given its not the only one (and its far from being the best), i believe it doesn't.

Also the fact DnD has rules has got nothing to do with its limitations. I'm yet to see *any* game without rules. In Diablo you'll need to increase some stats to use better weapons. In Deus Ex you cannot shoot trough walls. In Return to Castle Wolfenstein you cannot summon magical beasts of yore to defeat your enemies. They also have rules.

Each game has its own rules. And we play by them.

And also, all games that have a DnD license obviously have to have the same type of ruleset. They're *licensed products*, meaning a company was paid to faithfully (read: as best as they can) recreate the DnD system on computer. Just like Fallout used SPECIAL. Just like PoRyth Dranor used the 3rd Edition DnD rules. Just like any electronic game of chess uses... well, the rules chess has.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Clones do not stagnate a genre.

Yes, they do. Without advancement of the genre, it stagnates. Clones do not advance anything. They also don't tend to sell well, either.

This happens in every genre not just crpg. I think both to a certain extent advance the genre in different ways.

Of course it happens in every genre. Remember the RTS glut back in the early-2000s? You had one popping up nearly every week, and very few of them even remotely tried to push the bar forward. Now, how many RTS games have come out this year? Rise of Nations? That's the only one I can recall that's come out this year.

 

[Section8]

Cloning is about the worst thing that can happen in the games industry.

First of all, it doesn't advance the genre as the prior discussion has been concerned with. But the effects do more than stagnate progress.

First of all, it systematically eliminates interest in a certain style/genre/type of game. Somebody who has played BG, IWD, PS:T, NWN, etc could quite understandably be turned off all RPGs based on the fact that the few they've played have all been the same. It's the same with the dismissive nature of most toward MMOGs. Since the high profile MMOGs are all pretty samey, then many gamers don't give them a second thought.

And so we have a situation where if something innovative is introduced into that market, it doesn't stand a chance. Those who might find an enjoyable experience have been scared away by the stigma that genre holds, and are readily dismissive of any offering, and those who have found their niche in playing a range of similar games are just as likely to be dismissive of something that breaks the mould.

As time goes by, those in the groove will grow tired of the same thing, and so the market for that product effectively dries up. A sweeping generalisation regarding the genre/style/whatever is popularised, ie "RPGs don't sell", "TB doesn't sell", etc and that is obeyed as doctrine until someone outside of the ball-less, soulless corporate machine suddenly "surprises" the market with a revival, at which point the clones start again, and the cycle resets itself.

So let's address the problem at hand. Why sell a market something they already have?

"Here you are consumer, have some sliced bread."

"But we already have sliced bread"

"Ah, but our slices are half an inch thicker."

...or...

"Here you are consumer, have some sliced bread."

"But we already have sliced bread"

"Ah, but our slices are half an inch thicker, so they're ideal for making toast."

"What's toast?"

"It's funny you should mention that, I'll refer you to my fellow salesman over here who is selling a range of toasters"

...or even better...

"Hello consumer, I have the greatest invention since sliced bread!"

Give yourself full marks if you picked the third option for your Marketing 101 exam. Picking the second option scores you points for a while, until people realise you're a fucker.

 

[Skorpios]

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. .

Really? Luckily, I'm currently working in a job I really love. It's not the highest paid job in the world but it gives me satisfaction and has a great work environment, etc, etc. I'm single with no major ties or liabilities.

But that might not always be the case - so if something major does come up I will either have to look at changing my job or advancing myself in it. Just 'making do' might not be an option.

So designers of games have no right to try and increase market share just because they love making games? I'm sure they love feeding their families, giving their children education, and so forth as well! If other posters are being simplistic about the realities about marketing games, I think you are being simplistic about the economic and social realities of working for a living. Sure you might be wiling to work for a company for a pittance just for the chance to make games - don't expect EVERYONE to do so! And please don't paint them as evil, corporate sell-outs if they do!

There are shades of grey in this discussion. The creation of a game that is less than 'pure' RPG is not the end of the world. Dozens of games are made every year that I will never play - simply because they don't interest me. There has to be room in the world for the Diablo 2's AND Torments of the gaming world, simply because BOTH games have an audience, even if one is bigger than the other. They are just games, one isn't worse than the other (because that is a very subjective judgement) just different, and they appeal to different people.

Personally I see 'genre-blending' as a positive thing. If you can take a dash of the plotting of an RPG and stick it into a FPS (Deus Ex) is that so terrible? And why should it only be one way? So you take the realtime action of a FPS and apply it to a fantasy RPG (Diablo). It might not be your exact cup of tea - but it seems to have worked for quite a few people out there. Is it intrinsically wrong to try something like that?

Isn't computer gaming healthier with a wide range of games, some crossing boundaries, which appeal to a wide range of gamers as opposed to several strictly controlled genres, isolated from each other never sharing ideas for fear of diluting the 'pure goodness' of their style of gaming, only catering to certain small 'hardcore' audiences and 'never the twain shall meet'?

Isn't it better to be exposed to outside influences? Sure you discover things you don't like more often than not, but sometimes don't you discover something new that excites you?

Obviously innovation advances a genre but after that comes consolidation - building on the new discovery. Otherwise all games would be complete mish-mashes of new ideas with no balance and nothing familiar for players to get hold of, making them almost impossible to market, and probably just as impossible to play.

"It's a totally new gaming experience! It's nothing like Diablo! It's nothing like Table Tennis! It's nothing like Origami!"

Would you buy a game solely on that sales pitch? Of course not. There has to be more than just innovation - there has to be some angle that the consumer can comprehend easily to get a grip on the product. Call it 'dumbing down' if you like but that doesn't change the fact that if the consumer has no idea what your product is, they are very unlikely to buy it.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Really? Luckily, I'm currently working in a job I really love. It's not the highest paid job in the world but it gives me satisfaction and has a great work environment, etc, etc. I'm single with no major ties or liabilities.

But that might not always be the case - so if something major does come up I will either have to look at changing my job or advancing myself in it. Just 'making do' might not be an option.

So designers of games have no right to try and increase market share just because they love making games? I'm sure they love feeding their families, giving their children education, and so forth as well! If other posters are being simplistic about the realities about marketing games, I think you are being simplistic about the economic and social realities of working for a living. Sure you might be wiling to work for a company for a pittance just for the chance to make games - don't expect EVERYONE to do so! And please don't paint them as evil, corporate sell-outs if they do!

Ah, wonderful. More mouth-stuffing via rhetorical questions. Your argument sounds perfectly reasonable, probably because it doesn't really don't address what I was saying.

No, it's not wrong to sell lots of games or at least hope to. I don't think I ever said such a thing. But putting the desire of money first isn't a recipe for good games, either. Ironically, it's also not always the best recipe for making money. Make the games you like, and go ahead and market them. That's all fine and dandy. But when the main objective of the process is to make a game because you're chasing whatever trend you think will make it sell, that's not so great for the creative process and will more likely than not just end in mediocrity. And plenty more designers have crashed and burned from mediocrity than misunderstood genius.

There are shades of grey in this discussion. The creation of a game that is less than 'pure' RPG is not the end of the world. Dozens of games are made every year that I will never play - simply because they don't interest me. There has to be room in the world for the Diablo 2's AND Torments of the gaming world, simply because BOTH games have an audience, even if one is bigger than the other. They are just games, one isn't worse than the other (because that is a very subjective judgement) just different, and they appeal to different people.

Personally I see 'genre-blending' as a positive thing. If you can take a dash of the plotting of an RPG and stick it into a FPS (Deus Ex) is that so terrible? And why should it only be one way? So you take the realtime action of a FPS and apply it to a fantasy RPG (Diablo). It might not be your exact cup of tea - but it seems to have worked for quite a few people out there. Is it intrinsically wrong to try something like that?

Isn't computer gaming healthier with a wide range of games, some crossing boundaries, which appeal to a wide range of gamers as opposed to several strictly controlled genres, isolated from each other never sharing ideas for fear of diluting the 'pure goodness' of their style of gaming, only catering to certain small 'hardcore' audiences and 'never the twain shall meet'?

Really, didn't I already cover this? Okay. Once again. I accept Diablo's right to exist. I think everyone here does. Just don't make every game just like it. Is this really so hard to comprehend? We've said it countless times to you, is it sinking in yet? Is making every game just like the top 3 sellers any better than nothing but hardcore games? (And by the way, I don't think anybody ever suggested that's How Things Ought to Be.) If you think your arguments sound reasonable and we're just all crazy, it's probably because you're spending all your time bashing strawmen and ignoring the heart of what we're saying.

 

[Skorpios]

Just don't make every game just like it. Is this really so hard to comprehend? We've said it countless times to you, is it sinking in yet? Is making every game just like the top 3 sellers any better than nothing but hardcore games?

Where did I say that? I agree totally, neither extreme is good for games or gamers. It just seems to me that you guys jump onto any game that ISN'T 'hardcore' with both feet just because of that fact with no consideration of any other factors. That is the impression I got, I'm sorry if it was mistaken.

In my other discussions about Lionheart for example the response to a simple feature like the dialogue icons seems WAY over the top. Just adding those icons doesn't strike me as slavishly making the game 'JUST like' the top 3 sellers (whatever they are). So why the vehemence of the response in that case? I definitely got the impression that it is 'hardcore or nothing' on this particular board.

Basically I'm agreeing with you guys - we don't want just hardcore games, or stupid clones. The best (or at least most sustainable) balance is a range of games somewhere between those extremes. Where in that statement am I saying that you are wrong?

Also, why do you guys always assume the most extreme interpretation of what I say? (Maybe because I do? ) When I talk about people supporting their families how am I saying they always put money first? I'm just saying that earning a decent living is one of their priorities. Making good games should also be another priority, if that is what they are doing for a living. Expecting that they SHOULD automatically value one priority higher than the other seems a bit extreme, that's all I'm saying. If you want to do so, that is your choice, but don't expect everyone to make the same choice. Nor are either of those choices intrinsically WRONG.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Where did I say that?

I know the feeling.

I agree totally, neither extreme is good for games or gamers. It just seems to me that you guys jump onto any game that ISN'T 'hardcore' with both feet just because of that fact with no consideration of any other factors. That is the impression I got, I'm sorry if it was mistaken.

People here just tend to like certain types of games. Frankly, I'd rather they tear games up when they don't like them. It gives me more of an idea on what I'd want to spend my time/money on. If you find that attitude offputting, well, no one's forcing you to come here. I'm sure if I went to a WC3 board and spouted off what I thought about the game and by extension their attitude towards it, they'd tear me a new one. So I don't go there. They want to have their own fun in their own little corner of the Internet, that's their business. It's our business what we want to talk about here.

In my other discussions about Lionheart for example the response to a simple feature like the dialogue icons seems WAY over the top. Just adding those icons doesn't strike me as slavishly making the game 'JUST like' the top 3 sellers (whatever they are). So why the vehemence of the response in that case? I definitely got the impression that it is 'hardcore or nothing' on this particular board.

Basically I'm agreeing with you guys - we don't want just hardcore games, or stupid clones. The best (or at least most sustainable) balance is a range of games somewhere between those extremes. Where in that statement am I saying that you are wrong?

Well, I just want to play hardcore games. I don't really give much of a damn about the rest, just like I don't really give a damn about knitting needles. I don't feel a need to justify the existence of knitting needles because I'm really just not that interested. What point is there in always qualifying everything I say with, "But someone else might like that, and that's okay." Give me a break. This ain't preschool.

Also, why do you guys always assume the most extreme interpretation of what I say? (Maybe because I do? )

Well, you answered your own question. For example, the Lionheart "moron indicators" were just a throwaway sarcastic comment that I doubt anybody really gave a second thought about until you made a big stink over it.

When I talk about people supporting their families how am I saying they always put money first? I'm just saying that earning a decent living is one of their priorities. Making good games should also be another priority, if that is what they are doing for a living. Expecting that they SHOULD automatically value one priority higher than the other seems a bit extreme, that's all I'm saying. If you want to do so, that is your choice, but don't expect everyone to make the same choice. Nor are either of those choices intrinsically WRONG.

As far as game companies, I really don't expect anything. But I'm willing to sound off about what I want to see in a game that would make me willing to pay for it. Just what's so WRONG about that? I wasn't planning to buy Lionheart and still am not, what's the harm in saying what it is I do and don't like. And it's fun to be snarky, anyway. Somebody wants me to be PR flack for their game, cough up some money or else make something I like enough to recommend it to others. I just know what I like and what I'm willing to pay for. And endlessly qualifying everything I say so that it won't give anyone the wrong idea or break some developer's fragile ego to know that someone out there really doesn't care for what they're doing is just kind to a waste of time to me. Don't flip out over it, it's really not that important.

 

[Voss]

Here, here!

 

[Skorpios]

Frankly, I'd rather they tear games up when they don't like them. It gives me more of an idea on what I'd want to spend my time/money on

Does that mean though, that no one can put forward an alternative view, even if it is a positive one? That's all I'm asking...if this is a forum for discussing RPGs, why is 'tearing up' the only valid form of criticism? Why can I explore what I like about games as well? Doesn't that help people decide about games also? If we never actually say positive things about games how is that meant to attract new players? Do you really want to spend all of your time in thst sort of environment?

As for the the whole dialogue icon issue - it took two to tango. Yes, I expressed my disappointment with the term 'moron indicator' but I don't think my response was a 'big stink'. Several people subsequently made posts specifically using the term and made it quite clear they weren't being sarcastic. So I continued to argue my case. Perhaps too vigiorously, but as you guys yourself say, "No-one listens to you if you are quiet and polite." So I argued hard for my position and I still do even though everyone here has told me several times I'm wrong.

"The world is flat. The world is flat. The world is flat." Doesn't necessarily make it true. No one has convinced me yet that the icons simply indicate choices for morons in Lionheart.

Maybe I am in the wrong place - a discussion board that discourages actual discussion doesn't seem all that attractive anyway. Where any opinion that doesn't match the 'company line' is shouted down and personal attacks seem to be the standard response.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Does that mean though, that no one can put forward an alternative view, even if it is a positive one? That's all I'm asking...if this is a forum for discussing RPGs, why is 'tearing up' the only valid form of criticism? Why can I explore what I like about games as well? Doesn't that help people decide about games also? If we never actually say positive things about games how is that meant to attract new players? Do you really want to spend all of your time in thst sort of environment?

Well, there goes the mouth-stuffing again. Postive views are fine, and I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. Just look at the Escape Velocity Nova threads if you want to see a shameless gush-fest. I was simply addressing what you said about negative views, nothing more. You specifically mentioned that, and it's a consistent theme with you, so that's what I was addressing.

As for the the whole dialogue icon issue - it took two to tango. Yes, I expressed my disappointment with the term 'moron indicator' but I don't think my response was a 'big stink'. Several people subsequently made posts specifically using the term and made it quite clear they weren't being sarcastic. So I continued to argue my case. Perhaps too vigiorously, but as you guys yourself say, "No-one listens to you if you are quiet and polite." So I argued hard for my position and I still do even though everyone here has told me several times I'm wrong.

"The world is flat. The world is flat. The world is flat." Doesn't necessarily make it true. No one has convinced me yet that the icons simply indicate choices for morons in Lionheart.

Spare me the dramatics. That "discussion" just got lamer the further it went on. There really wasn't that much meaningful to talk about in the first place, these things just tend to escalate. I quit when I did because there really wasn't anything else to add and we were just repeating ourselves. Go right ahead and think we're telling you the earth is flat, I frankly don't care any more.

Maybe I am in the wrong place - a discussion board that discourages actual discussion doesn't seem all that attractive anyway. Where any opinion that doesn't match the 'company line' is shouted down and personal attacks seem to be the standard response.

*yawn* You want to discuss things, go right ahead. I haven't seen that many personal attacks. Personal attacks are saying "Guess your momma dropped you on the head once too often" or "Wow, another damn Aussie, why don't you go back home to your common law sheep." You just have a bad tendency to drift off, make bad assumptions about what people mean, and such, so they feel the need to be more direct. At least that's how I've started to feel. Think I'm making personal attacks here, go right ahead, I'm just being frank. Possibly tactless. I'm just tired of this discussion, really.

 

[Skorpios]

Just look at the Escape Velocity Nova threads if you want to see a shameless gush-fest.

I guess this is the attitude that confuses me - I'll try my best not to drift off and I'll clearly state any assumptions I make.

It seems to be an understanding on this forum that any positive view of a game is "shameless gushing" or "corporate ass-kissing". While any negative comment is "important criticism", "improving games" and 'WHAT WE DO'. It doesn't matter how mindless or offensive the negative comment is it still qualifies as criticism. While no matter how carefully thought out or cautious a positive viewpoint is, it is automatically dismissed as "kissing-up", "wishful thinking" or "aplogising" for slack-ass designers or greedy corporations.

Is that an erroneous assumption? It is certainly the impression I've got from several posters here.

Now my understanding of criticism is that it is judging ALL factors (positive and negative) of whatever you are criticising. Again, is that unreasonable? So if criticising games are 'WHAT YOU DO', then I'm one of you. I just prefer to play more on the positive side, while you prefer the negative. Just different sides of the same coin really.

As far as personal attacks go, I don't care what you say about me or my sheep. (There, there Angelina, don't let that nasty man scare you.) I was referring to constant accusations that I am trying to 'stifle criticism' just because I have the temerity to raise positive opinions to balance against negative criticisms that have been raised.

How am I 'stifling criticism' if I'm actually taking part in the process? Am I hacking the board and destroying your criticisms? No, I'm responding to them in the same forum they were raised for everyone to consider and comment upon.

Do I want better games made? Of course! But I believe in the carrot as well as the stick. Sure, criticise designers and publishers as much as you like, but don't forget to reward the few who get it right or even those who are trying hard with some praise as well.

If you won't do it, then I will. Maybe I waffle on too much and my thinking is unclear, but someone has to do it even if it is someone as unworthy as me. As far as I can tell this is a discussion board and you need at least two points of view for a discussion otherwise it's just masturbation.

And I'd hate for the good folk of RPGCodex to go blind

 

[Walks with the Snails]

It seems to be an understanding on this forum that any positive view of a game is "shameless gushing" or "corporate ass-kissing". While any negative comment is "important criticism", "improving games" and 'WHAT WE DO'. It doesn't matter how mindless or offensive the negative comment is it still qualifies as criticism. While no matter how carefully thought out or cautious a positive viewpoint is, it is automatically dismissed as "kissing-up", "wishful thinking" or "aplogising" for slack-ass designers or greedy corporations.

Is that an erroneous assumption? It is certainly the impression I've got from several posters here.

You just haven't been around long enough. Things are kind of in a dry patch now.

Now my understanding of criticism is that it is judging ALL factors (positive and negative) of whatever you are criticising. Again, is that unreasonable? So if criticising games are 'WHAT YOU DO', then I'm one of you. I just prefer to play more on the positive side, while you prefer the negative. Just different sides of the same coin really.

As far as personal attacks go, I don't care what you say about me or my sheep. (There, there Angelina, don't let that nasty man scare you.) I was referring to constant accusations that I am trying to 'stifle criticism' just because I have the temerity to raise positive opinions to balance against negative criticisms that have been raised.

How am I 'stifling criticism' if I'm actually taking part in the process? Am I hacking the board and destroying your criticisms? No, I'm responding to them in the same forum they were raised for everyone to consider and comment upon.

Well, I don't think I've said you're stifling criticism. Don't know about others. To be perfectly honest, I've just started skimming over your discussions with others, though, unless I see my name come up.

Do I want better games made? Of course! But I believe in the carrot as well as the stick. Sure, criticise designers and publishers as much as you like, but don't forget to reward the few who get it right or even those who are trying hard with some praise as well.

Check out the developer interviews and the like. The people who run the site give plenty of press to developers they like who might not be as widely recognized, like Jeff Vogel. IMO, you really haven't been around enough if you think the attitude towards NWN and to a lesser extent Lionheart is the blanket reaction to everything.

If you won't do it, then I will. Maybe I waffle on too much and my thinking is unclear, but someone has to do it even if it is someone as unworthy as me. As far as I can tell this is a discussion board and you need at least two points of view for a discussion otherwise it's just masturbation.

And I'd hate for the good folk of RPGCodex to go blind

Nonsense, it's good for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jul16.html

 

[Cyzada]

Saint Proverbius - Thats only in an extreme case were A. the clones are of far lesser quality then the original and B. the clones are the only games on the market for that genre.
Both of these are seldom true simultaneously. As for RTS's you need to check out gamespot. Damn near every strategy game on the market is an RTS. I can name at least 3 coming out this christmas and thats if you dont count xpacs. How about Homeworld 2? Lord of the Rings:War of the Ring? Empire?

Section8 - First of all your examples are a bit counter to your argument. You list Bg and IwD, then PS:T often seen as somewhere near the pinnacle of innovation, and then NwN which is nothing like the aforementioned three. But anyway, i will use the example of the bg clones which i think you are trying to employ. It is obvious for me that these games have *not* decreased interest in the rpg genre and if anything have increased it. NwN and IwD2 sold mainly on the hype of all the other bg clones. Now they sucked, and THAT is what decreased interest (the suckiness, not the lack of innovation). Still i think all those bg clones have still improved the business atmosphere for games like ToEE.

Still history teaches us that clones when do well, do sell and continue to sell for some time. Just look at series like the Might and Magic series which continued to sell clones right up till the 8th or 9th one when it finally stopped working.

Now don't take any of this to mean that i am clamoring for clones. I am just saying that a quality but not very innovative game does not hurt the genre but rather builds up hype for other perhaps more innovative games.

 

[Voss]

Section8 - First of all your examples are a bit counter to your argument. You list Bg and IwD, then PS:T often seen as somewhere near the pinnacle of innovation, and then NwN which is nothing like the aforementioned three. But anyway, i will use the example of the bg clones which i think you are trying to employ. It is obvious for me that these games have *not* decreased interest in the rpg genre and if anything have increased it. NwN and IwD2 sold mainly on the hype of all the other bg clones. Now they sucked, and THAT is what decreased interest (the suckiness, not the lack of innovation). Still i think all those bg clones have still improved the business atmosphere for games like ToEE.

Just throwing myself into the discussion.

NWN is a lot like the other three- just a different perspective, and a lack of party. And suckier, but hey.

Part of the suckiness of IWD2 and NWN was the lack of innovation. And they sold mostly on the hype of BG, not the clones.

And I think, (though theres no way I can prove this) that the atmosphere for TOEE would be exactly the same without the BGs and clones. D&D, nostalgia factor over old module, classic dungeon crawl, actually getting the 3e rules right (which no one has pulled off)- these all add to the marketing more than BG does. In some ways it owes more to the old gold boxes than BG and its lot.

Still history teaches us that clones when do well, do sell and continue to sell for some time. Just look at series like the Might and Magic series which continued to sell clones right up till the 8th or 9th one when it finally stopped working.

M&M was dying at about 6 or 7. 8 and 9 were half-hearted attempts to milk a dead cow. And again, theres a problem of complete lack of innovation (which was part of the problem- too much of a sense that they were the exact same games as the previous ones)

Now don't take any of this to mean that i am clamoring for clones. I am just saying that a quality but not very innovative game does not hurt the genre but rather builds up hype for other perhaps more innovative games.

It may keep the genre and stasis and keep marketing people somewhat aware that they can make some profit off em, but it doesn't really build up hype. In fact, too many bad clones can kill a style, and leave it solely in the hands of the original devs to do sequels. (Take, for example the Diablo clones. How many people (casual gamers) even remember Throne of Darkness or Darkstone? And who's going to remember Harbinger in a year's time?)

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Saint Proverbius - Thats only in an extreme case were A. the clones are of far lesser quality then the original and B. the clones are the only games on the market for that genre.

A.) Most clones are of lesser quality. The ones that aren't still don't sell well.
B.) Which seems to be mostly the case in CRPGs these days.

As for RTS's you need to check out gamespot. Damn near every strategy game on the market is an RTS. I can name at least 3 coming out this christmas and thats if you dont count xpacs. How about Homeworld 2? Lord of the Rings:War of the Ring? Empire?

This is precisely the point. Back in the 1990s, you have a wide variety of strategy titles, there were turn based squad strategy games like X-Com, Jagged Alliance, Chaos Gate, and so on. You had turn based empire builders like Civilization, Master of Orion, Birth of the Federation, Master of Magic, Empire, Deadlock, etc. You had RTS games like Warcraft, Dune, C&C, Total Annihilation, etc. You even had wargames all over the place, both realistic and non-realistic.

Now, you really only have RTS games with few exceptions, and there's not a hell of a lot of those compared to 2000/2001. There was a huge glut of RTS games one year where there was one coming out every two to three weeks, and then BAMMO.. You have a fucked genre. That's the case today.

 

[Section8]

Section8 - First of all your examples are a bit counter to your argument. You list Bg and IwD, then PS:T often seen as somewhere near the pinnacle of innovation, and then NwN which is nothing like the aforementioned three.

Herein lies the hidden charm of my example. Neverwinter Nights is very similar to the previous games. It has an almost identical implementation of combat (with the obvious 3E changes) and the world design is very similar, most quests are bulit around finding something and killing it, and there are locked/trapped doors and chests everywhere. The whole world feels as though it's built to accomodate a balanced party. The problem is the fact that the player at best, has themselves and a moronic companion. This to me suggests that Bioware took what they knew from the experiences of the BG series, the pre-defined universe of the forgetten realms, and the same principles as Unlimited Adventures or Bard's Tale Construction Set and kind of threw it all together without a great deal of thought.

But anyway, i will use the example of the bg clones which i think you are trying to employ. It is obvious for me that these games have *not* decreased interest in the rpg genre and if anything have increased it. NwN and IwD2 sold mainly on the hype of all the other bg clones. Now they sucked, and THAT is what decreased interest (the suckiness, not the lack of innovation).

So what exactly sucked about IWD2? From all I've heard it improved upon most things from the previous Infinity Engine games, and was quite competent at what it provided. On the other hand, NWN was supposedly the next big thing, so many were more than happy to forgo a purchase of IWD2 in favour of something promising a great deal more.

NWN, however did suck. Bioware took their old formula and took out everything that gave it any semblance of fun. Although I was never a fan of the IE games, from what I can gather the things that most people hail as their shining moments are real time tactical battles, and the storytelling talents of Black Isle. NWN, while essentially using the same core systems, altered the dynamics of the game such that it wasn't fun, and Bioware completely missed this fact, instead of correcting it, they dedicated their efforts to telling us repeatedly how fucking good they and their games are.

Still i think all those bg clones have still improved the business atmosphere for games like ToEE.

Maybe, maybe not. After Fallout I was psyched for the next Black Isle game, expecting similar heights. I got Baldur's Gate and was so disappointed I haven't bought a Black Isle game since. The only regret I have is missing out on the rose among thorns, PS:T, because I was dismissive of something that shared many similarities with it's predecessor.

Still history teaches us that clones when do well, do sell and continue to sell for some time. Just look at series like the Might and Magic series which continued to sell clones right up till the 8th or 9th one when it finally stopped working.

I think history proves the opposite. It's here that my example falls down since the games I mentioned are essentially made by the same dev houses. Pedigree sells. Blizzard could box up a turd and it would sell millions because it has Blizzard emblazoned on the box. So could id Software. Sid Meier's Chunky Crod in a Box would be a sure fire winner.

Likewise, Starcraft Ghost, while not developed by Blizzard, bears the Starcraft brand name and will sell. It takes a concerted effort or surprising idiocy to fail when using a popular license. (see: FOBOS)

But cloning does not sell. You could tally up the sales of Revenant, Darkstone, Cybermercs, Divine Divinity, etc. and they probably wouldn't even come close to Diablo, let alone Diablo II which has made a recent resurgence into the Top 10 seller lists.

Now don't take any of this to mean that i am clamoring for clones. I am just saying that a quality but not very innovative game does not hurt the genre but rather builds up hype for other perhaps more innovative games.

As I have said before, I'm inclined to disagree. "Not another D&D game!" would be a perfectly justified response, and were it not for the fact that I hold Troika in high regard, I would likely generalise the game in the same group of lacklustre D&D titles along with the BG series, the IWD series, POR2, NWN, etc.

On the other hand, if ToEE was what we got instead of Fallout 2 or BG I would probably be creaming for it, as opposed to merely being a little chubby at that thought of it.

 

[elzod]

God,

what a bunch of elitist pricks!

The CRPG genre was almost dead before BG1 & BG2 came along. Arcanum and the upcoming ToEE wouldn't exist if not for the success of the BG series.

I thought the BG series had a great story. I was dissapointed when it ended. As for NWN, I admit I did not finish it because I got bored with the story. However, I have to give Bioware credit for trying to deliver what most CRPG fans have wanted for a long time. A recreation of "pen-n-paper" role-playing on the computer. I believe this is as close as we'll get for a long time. Even so, The "pen-n-paper" experience will never, ever be faithfully recreated on a computer. The limitations of a computer as well as the cost of producing such a thing are too great.

If you want "pen-n-paper" role-playing, stick to "pen-n-paper".

As for bashing Bioware over hype, name one game publishing company that doesn't hype their product. Is everyone just pissed off because they boght the hype? Sorry for you then. We live in a world where every new product is hyped and it's up to you to be able to filter out the BS.

If game companies delivered the type of games everyone in this thread is clamoring for then the CRPG genre would be dead. No one but the die-hard would buy these games. If it wasn't for the so-called linear, combat-driven CRPG's and their clones you wouldn't have the luxury of hoping that the next CRPG that comes out will be differnet, original, and what you've been waiting for.

 

[Spazmo]

God,

what a bunch of elitist pricks!

Well hi to you, too!

The CRPG genre was almost dead before BG1 & BG2 came along. Arcanum and the upcoming ToEE wouldn't exist if not for the success of the BG series.

See: Fallout, Diablo.

I thought the BG series had a great story. I was dissapointed when it ended. As for NWN, I admit I did not finish it because I got bored with the story. However, I have to give Bioware credit for trying to deliver what most CRPG fans have wanted for a long time. A recreation of "pen-n-paper" role-playing on the computer. I believe this is as close as we'll get for a long time. Even so, The "pen-n-paper" experience will never, ever be faithfully recreated on a computer. The limitations of a computer as well as the cost of producing such a thing are too great.

If you want "pen-n-paper" role-playing, stick to "pen-n-paper".

Actually, the first game to try to replicate PnP gaming on the computer was Fallout, which is why it had turn-based combat (like you have in PnP), a hex-based system (like you have in some PnP games, with others using squares) and didn't suck (like a good PnP campaign). Interestingly enough, BioWare's games lack all these elements!

As for bashing Bioware over hype, name one game publishing company that doesn't hype their product. Is everyone just pissed off because they boght the hype? Sorry for you then. We live in a world where every new product is hyped and it's up to you to be able to filter out the BS.

Once again, Fallout. This game was simply thrown onto the market by Interplay and told to sink or swim. It got nowhere near the level of sheer hype BioWare mustered for NWN.

Also, look at Spiderweb Software or any other shareware developers for people who rely on sheer word of mouth for sales and do okay.

If game companies delivered the type of games everyone in this thread is clamoring for then the CRPG genre would be dead. No one but the die-hard would buy these games. If it wasn't for the so-called linear, combat-driven CRPG's and their clones you wouldn't have the luxury of hoping that the next CRPG that comes out will be differnet, original, and what you've been waiting for.

It's people like you who force the CRPG genre to stagnate as it is. Haven't you noticed how BG clones don't sell? That's because people don't just want the same damn game all the time. Innovation is never bad.

Now please die.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And here comes another one....

what a bunch of elitist pricks!

what an ignoramus!

The CRPG genre was almost dead before BG1 & BG2 came along. Arcanum and the upcoming ToEE wouldn't exist if not for the success of the BG series.

My cluemeter is reading zero. For your information, Fallout and Diablo are responsible for the genre's revival, not BG series.

I thought the BG series had a great story.

Think again

I was dissapointed when it ended.

Why, you really liked to be the uber child of Bhaal with supa powaz and the biggest collection of ph4t l3wt in the realm?

However, I have to give Bioware credit for trying to deliver what most CRPG fans have wanted for a long time.

Why? Because they hyped that piece of crap as "what most CRPG fans have wanted for a long time"? So let's start giving credit for hype now In that case it's fitting that Bioware teamed up with Lucas Arts.

A recreation of "pen-n-paper" role-playing on the computer. I believe this is as close as we'll get for a long time.

That "as close" is still so far away from PnP that it's even pointless to bring it up.

The "pen-n-paper" experience will never, ever be faithfully recreated on a computer. The limitations of a computer as well as the cost of producing such a thing are too great.

And you know it because....?

If you want "pen-n-paper" role-playing, stick to "pen-n-paper".

Or so now you tell us what to do? Sweet.

As for bashing Bioware over hype, name one game publishing company that doesn't hype their product.

There is a huge difference between hype and marketing. Think!

If it wasn't for the so-called linear, combat-driven CRPG's and their clones you wouldn't have the luxury of hoping that the next CRPG that comes out will be differnet, original, and what you've been waiting for.

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in months. Please, kid, do yourself a favour, educate yourself a little bit.

 

[Montez]

The CRPG genre was almost dead before BG1 & BG2 came along. Arcanum and the upcoming ToEE wouldn't exist if not for the success of the BG series.

So are you saying that if BG hadn't come along, no one would've ever made an CRPG again? Hmmmmm.........

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I believe we can now all see who the prick is.

 

[Volourn]

Spazmo, as much as I like FO; it is not closer to pnp than NWN is. You can't get pnp rping in a sp gaming no matter how hard you try. The first game to try to bring the pnp experience to computer was Vmapire: The Masquarde which bombed in every single way that matter - sales, hype, critical, fan support (or alck thereof); not to mention it was plainly an awful game.

People can bahs BIo all theyw ant; but they are very successful because theynknow what they are doing - they make games people enjoy. What I find funny is that most peole on this board who hate BIO continually buy game after game by them. Not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, are we now? That would be like me buying another ES series game after the ABOMINATION known as MW.

It could be argued that Diablo helped bring the new age of rpgs to the fore; but certainly not FO. Consideirng that to this day it has only sold 500,000 - 600,000; it's not like a lot of players have had the joy of playing.

As for BIO being guilty of over hyping. Woopity-do-dah. Every company, and espicially Troika overhypes their games. Before you whine about the lack of advertising for TOEE; I will clarify that I said overhyping; not overadvertising. Every time I see a Troika person talking about the game it's the following:"This game will r0x0r your b0x0r". *yawn* Hype is overrated; and only suckers fall for it.

And, for those who think NWN sold on hype alone, think again. NWN has recently mad eit back into the top 20 selling PC games. It seems word of mouth, and the release of SOU (which has been pretty much in the top 5 since it came out) is helping its sales; not the reverse that everyone here thought would happen. Go figure. Hype is not needed in the long run for popular games even if for the 1% who think it 'sucks'.

Now, I expect some (heh, a lot of flack) for this post; but 'tis is life.

Enjoy. :D

 

[Vault Dweller]

It could be argued that Diablo helped bring the new age of rpgs to the fore; but certainly not FO. Consideirng that to this day it has only sold 500,000 - 600,000; it's not like a lot of players have had the joy of playing.

It was a sleeper, what do you expect? Regardless of sales numbers it created a strong name and a franchise that could have done a lot better without Interplay's mis-management. Nonetheless it showed a strong interest in hardcore RPGs, unfortunately the only answer to that was mass-production of D&D IE games

As for BIO being guilty of over hyping. Woopity-do-dah. Every company, and espicially Troika overhypes their games.

That is a serious statement. I'm sure you have a link backing up your words handy.

Every time I see a Troika person talking about the game it's the following:"This game will r0x0r your b0x0r".

Link please.