239 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I have never understood why genre labels are important. If you're a fan of a genre, you have to be familiar enough with the development companies in it to know your tastes. If I ever saw Bestheda on the box, it's not a game for me. I know that. Whereas, Bioware games are must buy.

[rt604]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually,  you're dead wrong,  and Casey's being disingenious.  It's very,  very easy to prove.

Baldur's Gate - D&D
Baldur's Gate 2 - D&D
Neverwinter Nights - D&D
Knights of the Old Republic - D20 (D&D)
Dragon Age Origins - Modified D&D 3.x system

Not only have the majority of their games been RPG's,  but they also spent a ton of money to license the rights to RPG settings.  When you make RPGs,  and you pay someone else to use their RPG system,  you're an RPG developer.  Truth is,  they even broke with Interplay to sign with Atari,  just to use the D&D rules system.

So you're being revisionist at best,  and Casey's dodging the question since he works at a studio that's rode the coatheels of D&D for the majority of it's projects.

Or perhaps what he considers important as a Bioware developer is completely different from what you might consider important. Sure, Bioware in the past made use of mechanics typically found in RPGs. Yet since BG1, all their games have also placed a heavy emphasis on interactive story, dialogue, and choices. Hence why they might not see themselves as merely an "RPG developer". 

At this point it's clear that Bioware cares more about choices, interaction, and storytelling given that's what their games still have, while all stat-based mechanics have been slowly phased out. It's better this way, as this shows how Bioware views itself.

Actually I became a fan of bioware because of Baldur's Gate and Shadows of Amn (BG2).  They were games that combined strong stat-based mechanics with a compelling story and great character interaction with both party members and NPC's.  I agree Divo with your description on which components of the game that BIoware is emphasizing, but I don't agree with it being better by phasing out stat based mechanics, that's subjective.  What is the case though is that strategy of emphasizing choices, interaction, and storytelling at the same time simplifying stat based mechanics is in essence to make the game appeal to a broader audience.  That's fine by me as long as you don't eliminate stat mechanics entirely, I think you can have strong elements of both and still produce a game with a large following.

[Varen Spectre]

Gatt9 wrote...

- snip -

The only new thing they managed to bring to the table was the nonsensical interrupts where morality is now a function of how fast you pull a trigger.

Well, I don't know... but I probably would not say that restricting the actions to only specific time span has always been nonsensical... I mean, sometimes in real life as well, I have only a short time span to do or say something, otherwise it won't have the same / any effect or it would be completely impossible. So to say the least, some of them most probably made sense. But I admit, most likely not all of them... So I guess, in order to make proper assessment one would have to check them all step by step...

And as for classifying such interruptions as paragon or renegade actions, well again, step by step analysis would be needed because lot of them would influence person's reputation - i.e. the way a person is perceived by others, in real life as well.

So IMO, it's hard to make some kind of judgment in one way or another without really detailed description. And it's also about tolerance to limitations, because Bioware probably does not have enough resources to simulate all situations (e.g. interrupts being available throughout entire conversations). But in general, I would not rule this feature out, but rather provide feedback on cases in which it did not make much sense...

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 04 août 2011 - 05:23 .

[Il Divo]

rt604 wrote...

Actually I became a fan of bioware because of Baldur's Gate and Shadows of Amn (BG2).  They were games that combined strong stat-based mechanics with a compelling story and great character interaction with both party members and NPC's.  

I agree Divo with your description on which components of the game that BIoware is emphasizing, but I don't agree with it being better by phasing out stat based mechanics, that's subjective.  

I wouldn't say that the phasing out of stat-based gameplay is better, but rather it's good that Bioware is openly stating that they don't see themselves as RPG developers. I just think it's a great insight into how the developers feel about their work. There are certain components which they consider critical, and are less concerned with the gameplay system to go along with it. For those who love stat-based games, I can see why they would dislike the implications, however.

What is the case though is that strategy of emphasizing choices, interaction, and storytelling at the same time simplifying stat based mechanics is in essence to make the game appeal to a broader audience.  That's fine by me as long as you don't eliminate stat mechanics entirely, I think you can have strong elements of both and still produce a game with a large following.

 I do enjoy stat-driven games. I personally think that KotOR/Origins represent Bioware's best efforts at converting a rule system into a video game. What I would dispute is the belief that ME2 alone is the Bioware game which is responsible for appealing to a broader audience. Already with KotOR, Bioware removed the Vancian casting system. And once we reach Jade Empire and Mass Effect, DnD mechanics have been replaced with simple combat systems altogether. ME2 is simply the 'next step' in this regard.

But who knows? After Mass Effect is finished, Bioware might go back to something more stat-oriented.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2011 - 05:37 .

[didymos1120]

Wow. Terror_K still hasn't shown up yet? Must be because the article didn't mention COD.

[Dexi]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

- snip -

The only new thing they managed to bring to the table was the nonsensical interrupts where morality is now a function of how fast you pull a trigger.

Well, I don't know... but I probably would not say that restricting the actions to only specific time span has always been nonsensical... I mean, sometimes in real life as well, I have only a short time span to do or say something, otherwise it won't have the same / any effect or it would be completely impossible. So to say the least, some of them most probably made sense. But I admit, most likely not all of them... So I guess, in order to make proper assessment one would have to check them all step by step...

And as for classifying such interruptions as paragon or renegade actions, well again, step by step analysis would be needed because lot of them would influence person's reputation - i.e. the way a person is perceived by others, in real life as well.

Lol, sometimes, in real life I find myself in situation similar to some of Shepard's, and realize it's an interrupt check...
Believe me, renegade interrupts always work. Because people don't expect it and you usually put your point across very well rofl! ( I know, I'm nuts). 
Don't know about paragon interrupts, I'm a good guy and I don't know when the situation calls for something more benevolent because all I do is good stuff... 

[Brenon Holmes]

Gatt9 wrote...

Shattered Steel
Baldur's Gate - D&D
MDK2
Baldur's Gate 2 - D&D
Neverwinter Nights - D&D
Knights of the Old Republic - D20 (D&D) D20ish, very ish
Jade Empire
Mass Effect
Sonic Chronicles
Dragon Age Origins - Modified D&D 3.x system
Mass Effect 2
Dragon Age 2

I took the liberty of modifying the above. I don't normally like to respond to these sorts of posts but I wanted to address the rule system list above at a minimum... since I didn't feel that it presented an accurate picture.

You've got multiple problems in there il.

1.  Doesn't matter what he considers important when the company has spent the better part of it's life leasing a RPG rules set to make RPGs.  That's like saying Michael Bay isn't an Action movie director,  he's a comedy director,  because his movies had comedy lines in them and he feels like it makes him a comedy director.

If a person makes a painting, and then makes a sculpture... are they a painter? A sculpter? Or are they an artist?

7.  Seriously.  Quit trying to pretend like there's some long trend here.  DAO was 2 years ago.  ME2's the only game they've made without heavy RPG emphasis,  and it was extremely weak as far as the gameplay went,  corridor runs,  AI from the 90's.  You act like there's a decade of a different type of game development,  it was one game!.  Even DA2 had significant RPG elements.

That's... one interpretation.

I've been here for over a decade, and I've worked on most of the games that we've released over that time period... and I can't ever remember us sitting down at the start of development and saying: "Ok, what's the next RPG going to be?"

It was generally focused around a story we were interested in telling or an experience we were interested in exploring. The ruleset generally came afterwards, and was usually based on whatever we were comfortable with, or if it worked particularly well with the setting (or if there were other obligations).

While we have made a lot of RPGs, we've also been continually experimenting with different things... as you'll probably note in the list... a lot of those aren't what some might consider "pure" RPGs... :happy: And that list doesn't include some of the concepts that never made it to the public's awareness. None of which were "pure" RPGs either...

8.  It's also important to note that it was the first game they made under EA,  with DA2 being the second.  It's a much better way to showing how EA views itself.

This is also incorrect. The decisions that we made and continue to make for our games are wholly our own. Of course I'm sure some people won't believe that... but hey, if it makes them happy...

As an additional note, while I disagree quite a bit with the general tone of what you're saying Gatt9 - this post is merely meant to provide some additional insight, please take it as such.

Modifié par Brenon Holmes, 04 août 2011 - 08:01 .

[Savber100]

Brenon Holmes wrote...


I've been here for over a decade, and I can't ever remember us sitting down at the start of development and saying: "Ok, what's the next RPG going to be?" It was generally focused around a story we were interested in telling or an experience we were interested in exploring. The ruleset generally came afterwards, and was usually based on whatever we were comfortable with, or if it worked particularly well with the setting (or if there were other obligations).

While we have made a lot of RPGs, we've also been continually experimenting with different things... as you'll probably note in the list... a lot of those aren't what some might consider "pure" RPGs... :happy:

lol.. and Mr. Holmes says exactly what I've been trying to point out. 

This principle is exactly what makes Bioware different from other RPG developers. 

Bioware - "What story should we tell?" and "What mechanics could be improved to be more accessible in order to enhance and not distract from the story/experience?" 

Other devs like CDPR - "How do we make a better, more complex/pure RPG?" and "What can we do to allow maximium character role-playing through complicated skill trees etc?" 

Both are fine goals but the failure is on our parts in failing to realize that Bioware has always been aiming beyond simple RPG conventions and has always begin to make a great story-driven game, RPG or otherwise. 

Also, Mr. Holmes, care to share some of these very unRPGish, unused concepts that you mentioned? 

Your comment has piqued my curiousity. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 07:57 .

[Mister Mida]

Savber100 wrote...
lol.. and Mr. Holmes says exactly what I've been trying to point out. 

This principle is exactly what makes Bioware different from other RPG developers. 

Bioware - "What story should we tell?" and "What mechanics could be improved to be more accessible in order to enhance and not distract from the story/experience?" 

Other devs like CDPR - "How do we make a better, more complex/pure RPG?" and "What can we do to allow maximium character role-playing through complicated skill trees etc?" 

Bioware builds upon a story and uses whatever mechanic to make it more immersive and the gameplay less distracting.

Are you jumping to conclusions based on your own interpretations or do you have something to back up that statement?

[Mister Mida]

Brenon Holmes wrote...

It was generally focused around a story we were interested in telling or an experience we were interested in exploring. The ruleset generally came afterwards, and was usually based on whatever we were comfortable with, or if it worked particularly well with the setting (or if there were other obligations).

Assuming this is really your way of concept develolopment for your games I can understand somewhat why ME2 is the way it is. But since I think the story was disappointing, my disappointment kinda swept  over to some of the design  choices (global cooldown ammo powers, ammo), including the ones that were totally unnecessary in my book (bloated Galaxy Map).

[Savber100]

Mister Mida wrote...

Are you jumping to conclusions based on your own interpretations or do you have something to back up that statement?

Mister Mida has asked for evidence, so I present my evidence. 

For now, I'll stick with my example of CDPR: 

During the development of The Witcher 1, the devs said

"We believe the time has come to really think about what an RPG game should look like. Which elements should it consist of, and which of them are most vital. Lately, the technical progress has exceeded all the borders, we’re able to create photorealistic graphics, but still, the attitude towards RPGs does not change. Most of developers tend to copy the clichés and fear the changes.

That is why, we decided to change the attitude. We sort of … ‘factorized’ the genre, put it into pieces. Next, we scrutinized and thought over all the aspects and tried to pick out the most important RPG features. Finally, it was our task to put them together the best way we could think of, using the latest development techniques and available technology. We’re quite aware that not all RPG fans will accept our redefinition, but that’s mostly because they’ve gotten used to clichés and certain mechanisms."

In creating the Witcher, they focused on making a good RPG. That was their foremost ambition and the ultimate goal. In fact, CDPR in 2006 went by the tagline "Witcher: RPG redefined"

So their goals are clear: make the ultimate RPG gaming experience. Then, they focused on the story which they believed was an integral part of RPGs (which I strongly agree).

Now, Bioware, on the other hand, focuses on "what makes a good story" and not "what makes a good RPG". 

It's a interesting difference and it's also why Bioware is different from other developers.  

Final Note: I'm not saying focusing on making a good RPG is bad or it equals a bad story. I'm saying that Bioware values writing a good story in a game above making a good RPG. 

Hopefully that makes some sense. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[Brenon Holmes]

Mister Mida wrote...

Assuming this is really your way of concept develolopment for your games I can understand somewhat why ME2 is the way it is. But since I think the story was disappointing, my disappointment kinda swept  over to some of the design  choices (global cooldown ammo powers, ammo), including the ones that were totally unnecessary in my book (bloated Galaxy Map).

And that's understandable, I think. Personally I also prefer the story of ME1... Saren was just such a great villain...

On the gameplay side, we learned a lot in the attempts to improve on ME1's gameplay... in retrospect we made some mistakes, however it's all a learning experience... and I think it's fairly safe to say we learned a *lot* during ME2. :happy:

Hopefully you'll find ME3 to be a great experience... I know for myself, I'm fairly excited about the story... and I haven't really had time to sit down and really take it all in quite yet.

Modifié par Brenon Holmes, 04 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[darknoon5]

didymos1120 wrote...

Wow. Terror_K still hasn't shown up yet? Must be because the article didn't mention COD.

Probably for the best, he'd probably call us all simpletons for playing a dumbed down game then whinge and repeat the same tired, re-butted arguments again and again.

Bioware games have never been about the sweet stats and crunching numbers for me, it's always been about the story and characters. My favourite two bioware games are Kotor and Mass Effect 2-completely different games, but both have fun gameplay, interesting characters and an intriguing plot.

Chud is right when he says Bioware games have never been defined by genre. Even though I'd consider ME2 partly RPG, part TPS, it doesn't really matter to me.

[ThePwener]

Arcian wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG. It never was and never will be.

Casey Hudson not being an "RPG designer" is just another example of the fool he makes himself and BW look like when he is interviewed.

[S.A.K]

Arcian wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Final Note: I'm not saying focusing on making a good RPG is bad or it equals a bad story. I'm saying that Bioware values writing a good story in a game above making a good RPG.

Mass Effect is not an RPG. It never was and never will be.

Then WTH was it? You mean BW was lying to us for 4 years?

[CroGamer002]

ThePwener wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG. It never was and never will be.

*snip*

Casey Hudson not being an "RPG designer" is just another example of the fool he makes himself and BW look like when he is interviewed.

RPG developer.


And he made ME1 and ME2 and says he's not RPG developer?
That means ME1 and ME2 are NOT RPG!

And they're not an RPG nor a shooter.
They are a hybrid of those 2 worlds.

[CroGamer002]

S.A.K wrote...

Then WTH was it? You mean BW was lying to us for 4 years?

Fun fact: Bioware never said Mass Effect is an RPG.

[darknoon5]

ThePwener wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Mass Effect is not an RPG. It never was and never will be.

Casey Hudson not being an "RPG designer" is just another example of the fool he makes himself and BW look like when he is interviewed.

What do you have against Casey? He seems like a pretty cool guy to me, and he interacts a lot with the fanbase, and seems genuinely passionate about the games. Moreover, I've loved the games he's produced. Moreover, Chud isn't an RPG designer, have you actually read the thread? As Brenon said, if somebody mainly paints paintings but then makes a sculpture, what are they? An artist..

Also, Casey is by definition not exclusively an RPG designer. He created 3-D models for MDK2. A shooter. By Bioware. Yep.

Every post you make comes across of that of a whiny, angsty teenager with such petty insults. And the result is that you end up looking like a fool, ironically.

[S.A.K]

Arcian wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Final Note: I'm not saying focusing on making a good RPG is bad or it equals a bad story. I'm saying that Bioware values writing a good story in a game above making a good RPG.

Mass Effect is not an RPG. It never was and never will be.

Then WTH was it? You mean BW was lying to us for 4 years?

A 50/50 TPS/RPG hybrid.

This was in response to the people who continue to repeat this inane notion that Mass Effect is a 100% RPG. It is not.

Oh cool then. I thought you said its not an RPG. "Mass Effect 2[/b] is a science-fiction role-playing action game developed by BioWare" Thats what the Mass Effect wiki says. So yes its 50/50 RPG and action.

[ThePwener]

Arcian wrote...

Again with the "I'm just a fan but I know the products I play better than the developers who made them."

If Casey says it's not an RPG - and it is not - then it is not an RPG. You can either b!tch and moan about it, or you can zip it and deal with it. Your choice, pal.

Im not whining like an angry fan. Im telling you that what Casey says has to be taken with precaution. ME1, 2 and 3 are indeed RPGs. He can say wathever he likes, but if it has RPG elements and people say it is an RPG, then it is a damn RPG. Mass Effect being a shooter is incorrect.

Just because the swam has beak that look like a duck's, does not mean it's a duck.

Casy Hudson, everytime he is interviewed, says something that makes everyone scratch they're heads. He says stuff, that frankly, are innaccurate. And that as a developer makes him look bad. Plus he appears to have stage fright and talks bad on public or infront of the camera. Thus he may say stuff that is wrong.

Modifié par ThePwener, 04 août 2011 - 08:41 .

[didymos1120]

Arcian wrote...

If Casey says it's not an RPG *snip*

Casey didn't say that.  He said he doesn't think of himself as an "RPG developer".  That is quite different from saying that the games he's made aren't RPGs.  Or are you going to claim that statement also means that KOTOR isn't an RPG? He directed that one.   What about Baldur's Gate 2?  He wrote some code for that. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 04 août 2011 - 08:41 .