480 réponses à ce sujet

[Aran Linvail]

David Gaider wrote...

You know... and I say this as one of the people who wrote BG2... I'm all for nostalgia, but let's not forget that the industry has changed in the last ten years. Not only that but our circumstances have changed. BG2 was a great game, and I'll always remember it fondly, but the company that could survive on its sales would need to be a lot smaller than BioWare is now.

Me, I'd love to work on a game like BG2 again. I'm one of the people in this company that keeps trying to push us as much in that direction as we can go-- but there are limits as to how far that is, and as big a fan as I am of that sort of game I do truly understand why that is. I'm sure nobody enjoys hearing how their favorite type of game isn't considered profitable enough for big companies like they were 10 years ago (here I'm tempted to link to that Escapist article again) but there it is, for good or ill.

Sad , i think BG is the Bioware masterpiece , i know no one notice im a BG fan , i post this in another topic but , bioware have a Action Rpg ( ME ) , Is making a MMO ( Old Republic ) , dont you think the games industry have a place for a oldschool like RPG ? Im not talking about a carbon copy of BG or anything , but a game with the same epic feeling , great party interactions , great characters and amazing quests and side-quests. DAO have this and i really like the game , but since DAO2 is change to a more ME like style ... I dont Know ...

Anyway , thanks for your post , i really like your posts , you are my favourite Bioware employee

Obs : Sorry for my English.

Obs2 : I already tell you guys i Love BG series ?

[Adanu]

David, I get that times change... but consider what Brock just said.



You do *not* know how well a BG2 style game is going to sell now until you've tried it. You are assuming that people don't care anymore when some of us *CLEARLY* do. I get that a jaded viewpoint tends to be set, but don't expect us to agree with you in that.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

David Gaider wrote...

Knight Templar wrote...
That is still a strange thought. Being limited in what characters say. I mean, it makes sense but it's a strange thing to wrap your head around.

Even if there's no voice-over and cinematics attached to dialogue, you still have to consider translation costs. Ten years ago, the cost of translating BG2 into different languages amounted to about $1 per word. That wasn't a cheap development cost for a small company to bear.

If there's no translation-- well, then you can include as many words as you think your audience has the patience to read. Which is dwindling, I think (or, at least, that's the common perception).

Wow...now that is crazy. I never knew it costed that much. This is why Bioware needs to collect multi-lingual interns to work for the privledges of stale coffe and not being whipped by Chris Priestly. Has Bioware ever considered just running all the dialogue through the Google translator?

I would love to see how Google's translator would interpret dramatic dialogue, it slaughters web pages.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
I understand that but at the same time I wonder though- how do people in the industry know that a game more in the vein of BG2 wouldn't be profitable or successful in today's market if no one is even trying to make one?

That's an excellent question. Conventional industry wisdom is always incontrovertible until it's proven wrong. It's like the commonly-held belief that Everquest's 400,000 subscribers was about the most that an MMO could hope for... until, whoops! There's World of Warcraft! Probably not the example you were hoping for, I imagine.

Probably more topical was the belief (until the time when BG came into play, I think) that RPG's were dead-- simply not feasible. These things are cyclical, without a doubt.

Even so, in a way the perception becomes the truth. The media plays a big role in this. If you show a game to the media and their reaction is "wow, that looks like something that's way out of date" then that's what they're going to say. If your project isn't viewed as a triple-A game, you're not going to get triple-A coverage. Ask independant game-makers how difficult it is to get media attention and get awareness out there that their game even exists.

I mean I can remember earlier in DAO's development that some of the marketing speak was that DAO was basically taking the core of BG and dressing it up with modern technology (which it pretty much was). Wasn't DA successful, both critically and commercially?

It wasn't BG "dressed up"... in fact, how many threads were there that DAO wasn't enough like BG? Strange how perceptions change. We always said that DA is the spiritual successor to BG, meaning the things that were important to us in BG remain true in DA. Not that features are the same, beyond a return to a larger party and tactical combat (which we hadn't done since BG).

DAO was successful, though, that's true. Insofar as it sold well. Profitability, for a game that was so long in development, may be another matter... but I think fans and developers will probably always have very different bars on what constitutes success. No way around that.

I'd love to see BioWare do an old school iso view text only BG style RPG- obviously not as a huge, big budget project but even as an experimental DLC or some smaller project to lead in to a core DA game maybe. I like some voice acting in games and all, but it just seems its gotten to the point now where VO (and especially player VO) is eating away at content and player choice such that we're just playing interactive movies.

I would tend to agree. I'd like to see developers having the ability to do smaller, "art house" projects much the way that the film industry does. I suspect, however, that "cheap" according to modern standards would not equal the triple-A games you were used to 10 years ago. BG2, for instance, still took 70 people about a year and a half to create. That's not cheap, and I'm not certain that the number of people it would take to make a similar game today would be so much smaller... especially compared to the fact that whatever game they created would never get the same chance at success that it would have 10 years ago.

Let's also not forget that the economy is not doing very well. Such an "art house" project might very much be considered a luxury... something a company in a comfortable enough situation might indulge in as a risky venture. I'm not sure that any developer is in that situation right now, but maybe I'm wrong. There's all sorts of arguments one could make about what's good business sense on this front, but I'm not the one to make them. I don't decide what BioWare or EA creates-- but I get why they're risk-averse, considering the state of things. It's not rosy.

Anyway. Enough of my cold-water doses of reality. I doubt these sorts of statements are particularly welcome in these parts anyhow.

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 septembre 2010 - 04:05 .

[ErichHartmann]

www.gamersnexus.net/bgr-home

I'm hoping this DAO project sees the light of day. (Baldur's Gate II Remix) 

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 14 septembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

David Gaider wrote...

Knight Templar wrote...
That is still a strange thought. Being limited in what characters say. I mean, it makes sense but it's a strange thing to wrap your head around.

Even if there's no voice-over and cinematics attached to dialogue, you still have to consider translation costs. Ten years ago, the cost of translating BG2 into different languages amounted to about $1 per word. That wasn't a cheap development cost for a small company to bear.

If there's no translation-- well, then you can include as many words as you think your audience has the patience to read. Which is dwindling, I think (or, at least, that's the common perception).

Damn... over here we charge about $ .1 per word. I feel pretty much like I've been raped for my entire life.

I'd translate BG2 for free, but that's another story.

[David Gaider]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Damn... over here we charge about $ .1 per word. I feel pretty much like I've been raped for my entire life.

That's not $1 per language, that's $1 in total for however many translations we did. And it's probably not that accurate-- it was ten years ago, remember. I just recall it being waaay more expensive than I would have thought.

[Dynamomark]

ErichHartmann wrote...

www.gamersnexus.net/bgr-home

I'm hoping this DAO project sees the light of day. (Baldur's Gate II Remix) 

That link is broken. I fixed it in the above quote though.

[Ortaya Alevli]

David Gaider wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Damn... over here we charge about $ .1 per word. I feel pretty much like I've been raped for my entire life.

That's not $1 per language, that's $1 in total for however many translations we did. And it's probably not that accurate-- it was ten years ago, remember. I just recall it being waaay more expensive than I would have thought.

Now the price makes sense, although I don't know exactly how many languages BG2 was translated into, and prices vary greatly when the "bulk" factor comes into play - just how many thousands of lines did BG2 have? As for the expensive part... well, we indeed get that a lot, even though proper translation adds much more to sales than people usually give credit for, no matter the material in question.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Ah...I hope this modder has great success in realizing a DA version of BG, it's a hefty project and I would sure play it...though I enjoy the original Infinity Engine version so it will always have a place for me.



And hopefully Bioware will gain a bunch of revenue through the KotOR MMORPG so they can fund "art house" projects. I tend to enjoy those more than the big flashy games most companies have always put out. It's what made me a fan over a decade ago. I'm sure it's a tough balancing act to match profit and just how much craftmanship the creatives can put into a product before corporate has to start tightening the purse strings.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...

That's an excellent question. Conventional industry wisdom is always incontrovertible until it's proven wrong. It's like the commonly-held belief that Everquest's 400,000 subscribers was about the most that an MMO could hope for... until, whoops! There's World of Warcraft! Probably not the example you were hoping for, I imagine.

It just seems to me, like so much else in the world, that the gaming industry is a copy cat industry: You get one WoW then everyone tries to make a WoW killer; you get one Halo or Gears of War, you're inundated with boatloads of shooters. Every time you get an original idea, hell, even something like Farmville, you see the big gaming companies rush out and try to mimic the success of that original product instead of trying to be the inventive ones and make something new and unique on their own.

Even so, in a way the perception becomes the truth. The media plays a big role in this. If you show a game to the media and their reaction is "wow, that looks like something that's way out of date" then that's what they're going to say. If your project isn't viewed as a triple-A game, you're not going to get triple-A coverage. Ask independant game-makers how difficult it is to get media attention and get awareness out there that their game even exists.

True, on one hand you've got many great indy games coming out now, but even with stuff like Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3- they're decidedly "old school" in their iso view and approach, yet Blizzard didn't ditch the formula that worked just to try and shake things up. I'm not saying BioWare is doing that with DA2 necesarily, but going back to the BG2 example, if younger gamers of this generation haven't played a BG2 style game because no one is making them anymore, how does anyone know that they wouldn't be well received? Heck, I'd imagine a iso view, Infinity engine style RPG would be great to play on an Ipad or 3DS or something....

It wasn't BG "dressed up"... in fact, how many threads were there that DAO wasn't enough like BG? Strange how perceptions change. We always said that DA is the spiritual successor to BG, meaning the things that were important to us in BG remain true in DA. Not that features are the same, beyond a return to a larger party and tactical combat (which we hadn't done since BG).

Right, I just seem to remember some interview with Ray and Greg where they summed up DAO as being like taking the meat and potatoes of BG2 and fancying it up with modern technology. But I remember the posts from the old forum- heck, you had D&D people complain about how BG wasn't enough like pen and paper; then DA wasn't enough like BG; now DA2 not being enough like DAO.

... especially compared to the fact that whatever game they created would never get the same chance at success that it would have 10 years ago

I don't know- if news released on the internet tomorrow that BioWare was making an old school iso view BG style RPG, even if it was a smaller project than something like BG2, I'd bet a fair amount of people would be excited. Whether that number of excited people resulted in anything financially viable for BioWare and EA... nobody knows since nobody has tried making such a game in recent years.

... but I get why they're risk-averse, considering the state of things. It's not rosy.

Thats understandable enough. And its nice to see EA try some new IP like Dead Space or Mirror's Edge. But then again, you've got the industry pumping out shooter after shooter  or Guitar Hero sequel after sequel and seeing something like an old school BG RPG would be a breath of fresh air for many people.

I doubt these sorts of statements are particularly welcome in these parts anyhow.

I find them interesting at least!

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 septembre 2010 - 04:38 .

[AlanC9]

David Gaider wrote...


It wasn't BG "dressed up"... in fact, how many threads were there that DAO wasn't enough like BG? Strange how perceptions change. We always said that DA is the spiritual successor to BG, meaning the things that were important to us in BG remain true in DA. Not that features are the same, beyond a return to a larger party and tactical combat (which we hadn't done since BG).

Boldface mine. Different people have different ideas about what was good about BG. Even if -- especially if -- they were big fans of it. Same thing for any game, I suppose. But it's only when a sequel  (or a sucessor?) does stuff differently that you see the disagreements.

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...
.....but going back to the BG2 example, if younger gamers of this generation haven't played a BG2 style game because no one is making them anymore, how does anyone know that they wouldn't be well received? Heck, I'd imagine a iso view, Infinity engine style RPG would be great to play on an Ipad or 3DS or something....

On those platforms, maybe. People seem to apply different standards for different platforms. My nephew, for example, couldn't believe that I was putting up with BG2 on my PC, but some of the stuff he plays on a handheld has incredibly crappy graphics and clunky controls.

Incidentally, the Pokemon games seem to be traditional RPGs, but more in Bethesda's style than Bio's.

@ slimgrin: what's acceptable depends on genre, I think. Theoretically you could have a separate subgenre of "hardcore RPGs" where iso graphics, no VOs, etc., are the norm , and then you could sell such games. But that space just doesn't exist now on the A-list. Maybe it would exist if Bio didn't sell out with KotOR, but they did and it doesn't.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 septembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[mr_nameless]

BG2 is still doing strong. So many great mods and Tweaks!! BG2 with Sword Coast Stratagems II mod is a MUST be played!



http://www.gibberlings3.net/

http://www.pocketplane.net

[Bryy_Miller]

mr_nameless wrote...

BG2 is still doing strong. 

But is it being bought? I'd venture to say not in the numbers of its heydey. I'd say that it is only bought as a novelty now.

[foodstuffs]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

But is it being bought? I'd venture to say not in the numbers of its heydey. I'd say that it is only bought as a novelty now.

You don't exactly trip over it in the stores anymore, it's not on every shelf like the Star Craft or Diablo Battlechests or WoW are (hyperbole).

[Bryy_Miller]

foodstuffs wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

But is it being bought? I'd venture to say not in the numbers of its heydey. I'd say that it is only bought as a novelty now.

You don't exactly trip over it in the stores anymore, it's not on every shelf like the Star Craft or Diablo Battlechests or WoW are (hyperbole).

Exactly, the only real place you can find Baldur's Gate is online. So the ideal of "it's still being played" is flawed.

[foodstuffs]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Exactly, the only real place you can find Baldur's Gate is online. So the ideal of "it's still being played" is flawed.

You're comparing "being bought" to "being played"... apples to oranges I think.  People still play BG, they still play SC, they still play Diablo, they still play Deus Ex, among others, even if they aren't being bought as much anymore.  I can almost guarantee someone somewhere will reinstall Deus Ex after reading this.

EDIT:

Certain old games are still used as "Ten Factors" for how current games should be many years after the old games should have disappeared.  Those above are a few of them.

Modifié par foodstuffs, 14 septembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Morroian]

slimgrin wrote...

Super Street Fighter 4: Capcom's flagship title, and arguably the best thing they have made in years. I can't imagine where that company would be right now without this franchise.

Its pure old school gameplay, entirely devoted to perfecting the formula the original game had. Its also 2D and nothing has been reinvented. 5 years ago, who would have thought a 2D fighting game could be so popular? Well, the people that made the game did, and thats why it was a success.

I simply don't believe the 'times change' mantra. I'm sorry, but I don't. Old trends and ideas always recycle themselves.

Conversely 2d RTS games seem to have died out.

[AmstradHero]

I loved BG2 as much as the next person, but I must confess I'm getting tired of it constantly being wheeled out by dedicated fans as an example of the epitome of exactly what roleplaying games should be. Yes, there are a lot of things that BG2 did right, but I'm sure even the creators would admit that there are things that it doesn't do quite so well, and things that games since have done much better.

Are we so hung up on this one game that everything has to be a copy of it? I believe that we've had games since that offer some really amazing scenarios and decisions presented in ways that eclipse what we were given in BG2. Isn't it time players stopped comparing every new game in the RPG genre to this one example?

I've been contemplating writing an article/blog post on this subject actually... this might be the thing that tips me over the edge.

[Bryy_Miller]

foodstuffs wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Exactly, the only real place you can find Baldur's Gate is online. So the ideal of "it's still being played" is flawed.

You're comparing "being bought" to "being played"... apples to oranges I think. 

Not in the context of financial viability.

[foodstuffs]

I'd like to point out that BG is not the only example mentioned. It is, however, going to be mentioned on a Bio board for the simple fact that it is a Bio game. Yes, BG had its faults, every game does. No, BG is not perfect, if it were it would have no faults. BG is one of The Greats. People refer to The Greats as an idea of what something should be like thus people refer to BG. BG is a Great, is an RPG, is a Bio game... it is a Great Bio RPG, so naturally it is to be mentioned.



A video game is like a woman. Sadly, for most people, the only thing that matters is the features (T&A). Some of us, however, actually care about what's inside (personality). BG went past the surface, too many games do not. There are games that are still good overall, but aren't Greats, but who cares about them when they are done?