6 réponses à ce sujet

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

So I finally got a copy of game informer today (yes I know it is a bit late as everyone has read it already) and the first thing I see is this

Game Informer wrote...

After its (Dragon Age: Origins) release in November last year, the game enjoyed strong sales and critical acclaim. In light of these triumphs, one could easily forget that Origins was a considerable risk for Bioware's Edmonton studio. Presented as the spiratual successor to Baldur's Gate, Origins was charged with carrying on the legacy of a PC game released in 1998. In the intervening years, the role-playing genre has grown and evolved in many directions across multiple platforms. How players would react to elements like a silent hero and highly tactical combat was difficult to predict, especially with titles like Mass Effect setting new standards for conversation systems and cinematic presentation.

Any reservations about the design were put to rest with Origins release. Due to Bioware's skilful implementation, gamers accepted and embraced the old school aesthetic in Origins. But nostalgia can only carry a series so far. Where does one draw the line between homage and aging design?

Ok first of all the writer of that article gives Bioware too much credit but secondly did anyone else read from that "shallow action adventure titles like Mass Effect are the future of RPGs"?

[Begin Rant]

Also the article seemed to make out that the only reason Origins did so well is because of nostalgia and it reminded people of Baldur's Gate? I enjoyed Origins but I really diddnt feel that the game was homage to Baldur's Gate, if anything it gave off more of a NWN vibe but even that is a stretch. Origins was good, it was a hell of a lot better than Mass Effect however it wasnt great and it certainly wasnt anywhere near as good as the Baldur's Gate series.

But seriously how is Mass Effect a huge step forward for RPGs? If anything it takes a few steps back and forces you to play someone elses character instead of playing your own, also how is a voiced protagonist a huge step forward? I mean was it impossible to make a game with a voiced protagonist before Mass Effect came along? Was the only reason that games like Baldur's Gate and KOTOR diddnt have a voiced protagonist because it was impossible to do with the technology at the time? NO, it was because by not giving the protagonist a voice it allowed the player to give his own voice to the character and thus have more control over the creation of his character. Hell we had voiced protagonist back in the 90s but that only worked for predefined characters like Guybrush Threepwood.

The Dialgue wheel is a load of **** as well, sure it is good for games where you are playing a pre defined character like Alpha Protocol but it isnt good for games where you should be able to define your characters personality. The dialogue wheel should only be used for displaying different approaches and moods of the same personality instead of trying to display the different approaches of different personalies, if you are going to define your own characters personality you really need to know exactly what your character is going to say and do when you click an option instead of finding out when you click the "sure I will have some cookies" option when speaking to the girl scout your character actually delivers a swift roundhouse kick to the head of the girl scout and steals the cookies.

[End Rant]

But seriously is this the death of the Bioware who made the great Baldur's Gate series? Over the years since the release of Baldur's Gate 2 I have watched as the games Bioware released got worse and worse until they hit rock bottom with Mass Effect, Origins was a step in the right direction and gave me hope that one day Bioware would return to the great company they were but then that hope was shot down with the announcement of Dragon Age 2 and its so called "Improvements". I had foolishly hoped that Dragon Age 2 was going to be a small hiccup and that Bioware would return to trying to make a game as brilliant and immersive as the Baldur's Gate series however now that I have read the game informer article I know that it is now wishful thinking. Bioware no longer cares about making immersive RPGs and instead are focusing on shallow sub-par interactive movies with predefined characters. The old Bioware is dead, I would have added "long live Bioware" to the thread title but that would imply I actually cared about the company which I dont anymore. Bioware has just become just another game developer churning out cheap mediocre titles for maximum profit and no longer cares about the art.

But please tell me if you enjoyed Origins have you actually played the Baldur's Gate series, and if you have please tell me if Origins actually reminded you of Baldur's Gate and whether you felt it was a fitting tribute.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 16 août 2010 - 04:49 .

[David Gaider]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
BioWare aren't dead, old or new.
It's the gaming industry that died, and it's taken a lot of developers with it. New World Computing, Interplay, Black Isle, Origin Systems, Looking Glass Studios "old" BioWare and so forth. As the demand for those types of games seemed to fall, the publishers or developers went bankrupt and were either disbanded (like Black Isle did, giving us Obsidian and sort-of giving us inXile) or absorbed into bigger publishers.

That's one way of looking at it. Developers have to change with the times or they go under-- at which point fans get to give them the honorable salute and mention their names in reverential tones on forums from then on. I'm sure if you spoke to the people who actually worked at those companies and became unemployed, however, their opinion might differ as to how great that was.

I say "might" because, on one level, this is still a labor of love for most of us in the industry as well as a business. They go hand in hand even though I know they don't for you guys. None of you care about how profitable a game is beyond it being profitable enough to, say, make another (and not even then). Indeed, some fans seem to actively prefer that games not be successful and remain as niche as possible, lest they lose something they saw as unique. Which is perfectly understandable. Why would you care about the business side of things? You don't.

It is not, however, a luxury for us-- and caring about the business side of things doesn't render us soulless automatons just because we're no longer making games like in "the good old days". I think, to us, BioWare has evolved as a company along with the rest of the industry, out of necessity as well as out of interest. This is (speaking generally) the kind of games we want to make.

What's ironic, to me at least, is that people want these games that just aren't made anymore. I suspect it's why Gog.com is doing so well. CDProjekt had a great idea with it, and I think it's only correct to wish them the best of luck with Gog.com's success.

Well, I don't think anyone's arguing that there isn't some demand for games like that-- there is a hardcore market. It's just not a market that's really large enough to be profitable for today's triple-A games. Or, at least, that's the commonly held belief ("convential industry wisdom", whether I agree with it or not, is always held as incontrovertible-- until it's proven wrong). For a developer that wishes to make games that aren't triple-A quality, or is small enough/quick enough in their development time that a smaller amount of sales is "good enough" then this isn't really an issue. That's what a niche market is all about. Wanting a company to stay at that level and never grow or evolve their style ever does, however, seem to be a bit counter-productive. I'm not sure where it gets you, exactly.

I linked to an Escapist article once before, and it seems relevant here: http://www.escapistm...ryone-Except-Me

As to the "old BioWare" being dead-- I'm not sure what to say about that. A lot of "old BioWare" is still here, after all. Perhaps it has more to do with what you thought "old BioWare" was actually about, or instead what you hope we would make as opposed to what we actually are. I think we still make quality games, ones that there is a large audience for, and I don't think making everyone happy is ever possible-- much as we might like to.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 août 2010 - 04:28 .

[David Gaider]

slimgrin wrote...
Not sure that's true David. I think you underestimate the devotion of a fan base, Bioware's in particular. In fact, sometimes that devotion is downright blind, to the publishers gain. I sense this remark is directed at some of the embittered posters on this forum, which must represent a drop in the bucket in the overall market. I can say I'm proud to have made my small contribution to Bioware with the few games I've bought.

It's not directed at the embittered specifically-- I think most fans would be uninterested in the business needs of a developer. In fact, most of them probably wish we didn't have those needs period. I don't begrudge someone that viewpoint. If anything I begrudge the idea that to some people it is somehow more honorable for a company to make unsuccessful games and go under then to actually make games that are profitable.

Ideally there's a way to do both. Not all "mass market" games are crap any more than all mass market movies are crap. In either case if the sole inspiration behind it is to make money you're not likely to end up with quality results, but I don't really see the assumption that this is what we're doing here at BioWare. Clearly we're part of a big corporation that needs to see financial results, but surely we can do that and still make the games we want to make-- even if they're made for the hoi polloi out there and not the "real gamers" here, perhaps? Or perhaps that's just cynicism talking? Let's hope so.

The reference to GOG is important, as is any reference to CD Projekt, which came out of nowhere with a title that was largely foreign outside of Poland. There was no reason to think The Witcher would do as good as it did, and on one, 'obsolete' platform no less. But Cd Projekt's philosophy appears to differ from yours. They are one of the few companies that plunged headlong into a niche market, and they look to be bringing that market to the masses. If you read about the TW2, it's easy to see there's no sense of them compromising or altering their creative vision to compliment current trends. After reading your post, that seems to be what you deign necessary for Bioware to stay afloat. 

It's not what *I* deem necessary-- I don't set BioWare corporate policy. I'm not sure where you see our creative vision being compromised, however. That would involve an assumption that we're not working on something we want to work on, I guess? Which is an odd thing to assume, and perhaps even a little arrogant. I hope I'm reading that wrong.

CD Projekt is an excellent example, though. They're a small team, and one for whom the level of sales they received on TW was sufficient to meet their needs. If they intend to grow, their needs may also increase and they may need to think about how they'll get bigger sales for their future games-- or they'll have the same fate as other companies that didn't do that, and have their names invoked in the future alongside companies like Troika and Looking Glass Studios. Which is maybe good, I don't know. Not so good for the people who worked at such places, though they made some kick-ass games. Hopefully a company like CD Projekt can find the fine line between growth and vision. I know I certainly wish them well-- I enjoyed TW quite a bit. But if they did decide to change their vision I certainly wouldn't look on it as a betrayal even if what they made wasn't of interest to me personally.

[David Gaider]

adneate wrote...
Sorry I don't mean to be rude but from a bunch of people that sold their company to Electronic Arts that has to be a bad joke of some sort. EA is known for taking studios and people with exactly that mentality and driving them into the ground and forcing them make games that utterly betray their original vision, then taking them to the slaughterhouse when they somehow don't sell as good as previous iterations. I bet the people at Bullfrog Studios, Origin Systems, Maxis, Westwood Studios and Pandemic thought exactly the same thing and where are they all now? What was said about the games they made in their final days, were they what they wanted to make? In the war of profits versus quality profits will always win even if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do, but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier, profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision. If we failed to make profitable games period then we might have disappeared regardless of whether we were part of EA or not-- making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone.

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It's a completely valid question in that David himself brought up DA;O's 5 year dev cycle in the first place. Bioware became as respected as they are today based on well made games and deep mechanics. Its never been an issue before including said mechanics for those in their long time fanbase that like them. So explain to me what's changed to the point that its no longer viable or profittable? I seem to recall both BG1 and 2 selling very well, and NWN and it's expansions sold quite well as well, as did DA:O. 

Err... I never said that DAO's development cycle or DAO's profitabilty was the reason we changed anything. Certainly a long development cycle is no road to profitibility, however, but you're taking completely different points I'm making and then demanding to know how they add up to yellow.

I've said all I wish to say on the subject. It doesn't sound like you really need any answers, anyhow.

[Mary Kirby]

Mary: Wandering the hallways of the BioWare office with a cart. Bring out yer dead!

David: Hauling Luke over his shoulder I've got one for you.

Luke: I'm not dead!

Mary: Suspicious. He says he's not dead yet.

David: Well, he will be soon enough.

Luke: I'm getting better!

Mary: I can't take him on the cart if he ain't dead.

Luke: I feel fine.

David: Clubs Luke over the head. There you go.

Mary: I'll be back round next Thursday. Bring out yer dead!


Yeah, yeah. I know I'm not the only one who was thinking it.

Modifié par Mary Kirby, 17 août 2010 - 12:49 .

[John Epler]

Let's keep this civil and avoid personal attacks. We encourage open and frank discussion - calling others morons is not open and frank discussion.