771 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Motivation is a problem in a lot of games; the real motivation is to get on with the plot. Why on earth should my character in Baldur's Gate 1 be interested in investigating an iron shortage?

[Rzepik2]

maxernst wrote...

Motivation is a problem in a lot of games; the real motivation is to get on with the plot. Why on earth should my character in Baldur's Gate 1 be interested in investigating an iron shortage?

At the beginning it's just a quest. One of many. That's what adventurers do.
Later it's connected to a guy who tries to kill you. Pretty good motivation.

Besides, forcing main plot isn't so annoying when you have so much freedom.

[maxernst]

Rzepik2 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Motivation is a problem in a lot of games; the real motivation is to get on with the plot. Why on earth should my character in Baldur's Gate 1 be interested in investigating an iron shortage?

At the beginning it's just a quest. One of many. That's what adventurers do.
Later it's connected to a guy who tries to kill you. Pretty good motivation.

And why does your character suddenly decide to become an adventurer?  Wouldn't a more logical response to somebody trying to kill you be to go somewhere and hide and keep a low profile?

[Rzepik2]

maxernst wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Motivation is a problem in a lot of games; the real motivation is to get on with the plot. Why on earth should my character in Baldur's Gate 1 be interested in investigating an iron shortage?

At the beginning it's just a quest. One of many. That's what adventurers do.
Later it's connected to a guy who tries to kill you. Pretty good motivation.

And why does your character suddenly decide to become an adventurer?  Wouldn't a more logical response to somebody trying to kill you be to go somewhere and hide and keep a low profile?

It's a cRPG. Forcing player to adventuring isn't something bad. Forcing to saving the world is. IMO.

If he wasn't safe in the candle keep, he can't be safe anywhere near the sword coast. Gathering a party in order to protect yourself isn't a bad idea.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 19 août 2010 - 03:51 .

[In Exile]

Rzepik2 wrote...
It's a cRPG. Forcing player to adventuring isn't something bad. Forcing to saving the world is. IMO.

If he wasn't safe in the candle keep, he can't be safe anywhere near the sword coast. Gathering a party in order to protect yourself isn't a bad idea.

No, being an adventurer is far less coherent. With the existential threat of doom, you can always make the case that death will inevitably come if you don't do anything about it. With adventuring, that's a career move.

ETA:

I mean, obviously, in D&D, everyone is an adventurer. That's like, the whole point. But cRGPs shouldn't follow conventions like that.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 août 2010 - 04:00 .

[NKKKK]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

TL;DR, yeah we have to value money or they'll kill us. Either take our problematic games or don't take them at all. Bioware is gonna die soon people, unless they manage to pull something out.

If they do end up dying, hopefulyl they'll go to Obsidian. Sadly EA still has their old series.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Now, obviously not all motivations are compatible with the game. That is just the nature of the plot. There has to be a buy in from the player at some level. Still, there are groups that absolutely make no sense. Like the Dalish. The Dalish Warden was very motivated to become a Grey Warden - not doing so basically meant death. Once you are a Warden, though, you've just gotten your magic health pill, relatively speaking. You have no ties to Ferelden as a country, no ties to the dwarves, possible contempt for the city elves...

Seriously, I have never seen a motivation for a Dalish Warden, personally.

The theory being that your own tribe can just keep outrunning the Blight until someone else stops it? I suppose that's true, as long as a Dalish tribe can cross the Ferelden-Orlais border at will. IIRC there's dialog someplace that implies this does happen.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
No, being an adventurer is far less coherent. With the existential threat of doom, you can always make the case that death will inevitably come if you don't do anything about it. With adventuring, that's a career move. 

ETA:

I mean, obviously, in D&D, everyone is an adventurer. That's like, the whole point. But cRGPs shouldn't follow conventions like that.

We actually had a thread about this on the NWN2 boards once, with some folks maintaining that "adventurers" made no sense, since nobody would run risks like that just for some wealth and glory. Obviously they were totally wrong about that, but it does take a bit of adjustment from a comfortable bourgeois mindset.

So we've got , what, three categories of motivation? Imminent world/national/ hometown doom (DAO, Fallout), personal doom (BG2), and profession (HotU). With switches possible over the course of the story -- ME1 goes from category 3 to category 1, NWN2 goes from category 1 to category 2 before going back to 1, etc.

BG1 does seem like the outlier here, since for a lot of the game there isn't much motivation. Even if you want to take revenge for Gorion, you've got no way to proceed early on. And there's no way to deal with the threat to your own life either, except in the somewhat metagamey sense that adventure gains you levels and power.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 août 2010 - 04:59 .

[AlanC9]

NKKKK wrote...
TL;DR, yeah we have to value money or they'll kill us.

And if Bio was still independent, they wouldn't have to value money? Grow up, dude.

[Davasar]

I think the point they might have been trying to make is: Make money? Sure they want to make money. Do it while alienating the audience that helped them get where they are?

Without EA pushing the "make money FAST at all costs" attitude, Bioware might not have this sort of stance.

But the game they are putting out surely is evidentiary if this new attitude with the loss of core features that hardcore audience liked.

If being down on the new game for it's lack of things I liked gets me flamed, or makes me a target fom ad homenim attacks or just dismissed, that's fine (all this has happened in the past).

I would rather be a pragmatic realist then a blind, fanboy appologist. 

Oh, and if you are not a blind, fanboy appologist...then you have no need to reply or take offense...as this obviously isnt you.

Modifié par Davasar, 19 août 2010 - 05:39 .

[Vandrayke]

AlanC9 wrote...

NKKKK wrote...
TL;DR, yeah we have to value money or they'll kill us.

And if Bio was still independent, they wouldn't have to value money? Grow up, dude.

werd.  Like anybody goes to work for free.  

[Vandrayke]

I mean if anyone had a valuable brand, the obvious thing to do would be to improve the value of the brand and make more money with it. You don't do this by ruining the brand, so obviously BioWare wouldn't want to alienate the majority of their core.

[Davasar]

Vandrayke wrote...

I mean if anyone had a valuable brand, the obvious thing to do would be to improve the value of the brand and make more money with it. You don't do this by ruining the brand, so obviously BioWare wouldn't want to alienate the majority of their core.

Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

[Vandrayke]

Davasar wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I mean if anyone had a valuable brand, the obvious thing to do would be to improve the value of the brand and make more money with it. You don't do this by ruining the brand, so obviously BioWare wouldn't want to alienate the majority of their core.

Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

EA already went down that road and lost their ass when the long-term effects of buying brands and bastardizing them caught up with them.  Which is why they made a huge culture change and are trying to build up the BioWare brand instead of whoring it out for a release or two.  If the future for revenue is subscription-based and DLC-based or whatever, you absolutely HAVE to have a compelling product to keep people coming back and giving you more money.  

Will you alienate SOME of your audience whenever you make changes?  Sure, but you HAVE to make changes and try to improve your product.  

[In Exile]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

We actually had a thread about this on the NWN2 boards once, with some folks maintaining that "adventurers" made no sense, since nobody would run risks like that just for some wealth and glory. Obviously they were totally wrong about that, but it does take a bit of adjustment from a comfortable bourgeois mindset.[/quote]

Oh, I do think adventurer is a perfectly reasonable option, just as a career. I just think there are more interesting backgrounds that a poor adventure seeker.

[quote]So we've got , what, three categories of motivation? Imminent world/national/ hometown doom (DAO, Fallout), personal doom (BG2), and profession (HotU). With switches possible over the course of the story -- ME1 goes from category 3 to category 1, NWN2 goes from category 1 to category 2 before going back to 1, etc.[/quote]

More or less. A personal hook is the best hook, though, since you really can't avoid the story at that point.

[/quote]BG1 does seem like the outlier here, since for a lot of the game there isn't much motivation. Even if you want to take revenge for Gorion, you've got no way to proceed early on. And there's no way to deal with the threat to your own life either, except in the somewhat metagamey sense that adventure gains you levels and power.[/quote]

Yeah, but BG is pretty distinct as being pretty much PnP with some destiny thrown in for the PC.

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...
Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

That makes no sense, though. If EA wanted FPS, they should have bought an FPS studio. Buying Bioware and demanding Halo is a little like buying a garage and expecting to provide legal advice. Sure, you could fire all the mechanics and hire lawyers or try and turn your mechanics into lawyers, but all of that is far less smart than just hiring a firm in the first place.

[Vandrayke]

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

That makes no sense, though. If EA wanted FPS, they should have bought an FPS studio. Buying Bioware and demanding Halo is a little like buying a garage and expecting to provide legal advice. Sure, you could fire all the mechanics and hire lawyers or try and turn your mechanics into lawyers, but all of that is far less smart than just hiring a firm in the first place.

rofl nice analogy I like it

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...

I think the point they might have been trying to make is: Make money? Sure they want to make money. Do it while alienating the audience that helped them get where they are?

OK, at least not crazy. I personally don't respond to the post someone should have made rather than the one he actually made, but this is worth discussing.

Without EA pushing the "make money FAST at all costs" attitude, Bioware might not have this sort of stance.

But the game they are putting out surely is evidentiary if this new attitude with the loss of core features that hardcore audience liked.

By "hardcore audience" you mean fans of traditional RPG gameplay?

I'm also not really seeing any big shift in Bio's priorities since the EA acquisition. They've always tried to make big, mainstream games. And every release they've had after BG1 led to a few people complaining about them changing direction. 

[Davasar]

Vandrayke wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I mean if anyone had a valuable brand, the obvious thing to do would be to improve the value of the brand and make more money with it. You don't do this by ruining the brand, so obviously BioWare wouldn't want to alienate the majority of their core.

Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

EA already went down that road and lost their ass when the long-term effects of buying brands and bastardizing them caught up with them.  Which is why they made a huge culture change and are trying to build up the BioWare brand instead of whoring it out for a release or two.  If the future for revenue is subscription-based and DLC-based or whatever, you absolutely HAVE to have a compelling product to keep people coming back and giving you more money.  

Will you alienate SOME of your audience whenever you make changes?  Sure, but you HAVE to make changes and try to improve your product.  

Right.  You make some changes, but not core fundamentals that made the game successful.  You take out the bad things, keep the good

[Davasar]

Vandrayke wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

That makes no sense, though. If EA wanted FPS, they should have bought an FPS studio. Buying Bioware and demanding Halo is a little like buying a garage and expecting to provide legal advice. Sure, you could fire all the mechanics and hire lawyers or try and turn your mechanics into lawyers, but all of that is far less smart than just hiring a firm in the first place.

rofl nice analogy I like it

And yet, they've done it in the past.  Their track record speaks for itself.

[Mecha Tengu]

my goldfish died



I got a new one too

[Mecha Tengu]

Davasar wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I mean if anyone had a valuable brand, the obvious thing to do would be to improve the value of the brand and make more money with it. You don't do this by ruining the brand, so obviously BioWare wouldn't want to alienate the majority of their core.

Hey.  I would agree.  But you have to think like EA...not Bioware.

EA Exec:  "Look, if we get more of the Halo or Madden crown, think of the number of units we could sell!"

Bioware Guy:  "I dunno...won't out target audience be getting the shaft in that case?"

EA Exec:  "Who cares?  We will have plenty of casual gamers to fill the void.  Do it!"

Bioware Guy: "Ok....*starts taking out the features that made it the spiritual successor to Baldurs gate, thus making that audience that Baldurs Gate appealed to alienated*

meh activision is worse

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...

And yet, they've done it in the past.  Their track record speaks for itself.

Yeah, but all those studios failed. I'd like to think that EA learned to be somewhat less incompetent. Though you could very well be right. I am just pointing out that for EA to want to radically alter Bioware, they essentially have to either be stupid or bad at their jobs, and I tend to think this is not something we can know or not.

So to ascribe a motive to EA beyond profit maximization is not really possible, and sensible profit maximization looks at the opportunity cost of actions. The opportunity cost of buying a studio that does not design your target product is much higher than just starting a department to make that product, or buying a department that does make the product.

[NKKKK]

Hey Alan, you're a moron if you haven't seen how the company has changed since the EA acquisition.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

And why does your character suddenly decide to become an adventurer?  Wouldn't a more logical response to somebody trying to kill you be to go somewhere and hide and keep a low profile?

You can do that, though.  Try it.  Just out of Candlekeep, someone has tried to kill you.  You've received instruction on where to go, but those instructions came from a guy who just led you into an ambush.

What do you do?  Get off the road?  Great, off the road the monsters are tougher and you probabaly got killed.  That's realistic, and a pretty short game.  What if you stay on the road and follow Gorion's instructions (despite the ambush)?  Another ambush.

You're in a world filled with danger.  Your options are to face it or die.  At no point does the game credibly present the flight option and then deny it to you.  This isn't like the High Road in NWN2 where you're told there's a road but then it doesn't exist.  In BG, you're told nothing, and you can try to stay out of trouble and hide if you want, but eventually trouble finds you.

Older games wer better for this because you eventually had to venture into town to buy food, and the designers could put plot hooks in the town (knowing you would voluntarily choose to go there).  All this "streamlining" of the game experience has produced geniune design problems.