239 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

And yet people goe ape-crud over them saying they want the COD crowd.

There is nothing wrong wanting something. There is also a lot more game players in this world than COD crowd. There is no wrong focus as customer base, just different customer based for games. So, question is to whom the games has been design. If you as player are complaining about the game in general, you where wrong target customer, if sametime others liked the game. It's that simple.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2011 - 11:11 .

[Terror_K]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

They meant they wanted an audience of a similar size to that which CoD gets, not that they literally want the same people who play CoD. A third-person, story-focused science fiction game mainly aimed purely at single-player is not going to appeal to the same people who are looking for a 'realistic', modern, first person shooter with a heavy focus online multiplayer. Anyone that thinks that ME2 having a little more focus on the shooting than ME1 is an attempt at pulling in the CoD and BF crowds doesn't understand why people play CoD or BF in the first place. 

And they aren't going to succeed with this attempt to "have their cake at eat it too" approach. They're trying to keep their old-school RPG fans and at the same time appeal to the hardcore CoD and Gears crowd to broadly sweep as many of the gaming audience as possible. The problem is with the approach that they're taking with Mass Effect 2/3 and Dragon Age 2 is that they're removing or toning down too many of the factors that the old-school RPG fans love and introducing too many mainstream factors that simultaneously put them off, so they're driving away some of that audience. At the same time, they're not going the complete action/shooter route either, and still retain too many RPG and narrative factors that put the mainstream audience off, so they're not quite grabbing them either. In the end they're probably going to appeal to a larger overall audience, but they're never going to nab those two extremes at the same time, and are thus alienating many of their old fans and just not registering that much with the opposite end.

And the fact is, there are already a lot of games catering to this area as it is, which is why almost every AAA title these days is a somewhat story-driven, partially cinematic action title with mild RPG elements. It's causing gaming stagnation, and BioWare really aren't helping, especially with stuff like DA2 which really didn't end up pleasing either side, nor many inbetween.

[KainrycKarr]

There will be endings where Shepard survives. Count on it.

[Varen Spectre]

Savber100 wrote...

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

-snip-

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.  

Mmm, like Mister Mida, I haven't followed Witcher's development... but I checked the article you refer to and it seems that you haven't mendioned quite few paragraphs such as:

- The one that kind of sums up what CD Projekt Red meant by "redefining" the RPG genre...

And here are the results of our considerations. The crucial elements of the game should be: the storyline, combat system, freedom and non-linearity, character equipping and development. At the same time, all the aforementioned issues should be most intuitive and easy-to-use for the gamers. We have tried to match the structure of the game according to the rules specified above, so to sum up...

This kind of reminds me Casey's "Typically our goals - creating interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and exploration" from the article in the OP and many previous ones...

- many other paragraphs that emphasize the role or priority of the story:

First of all, we agreed that the storyline should be the spine, the basis of any RPG. Therefore, we’ve tried various ways of introducing this idea into being: we have placed the game in a rich, intriguing and believable world known from a series of 7 fantasy novels. This allowed us to provide background and depth unlike all that’s been seen in computer games.

Another important element of the game is character equipping and development. And here is what the die-hard RPG purists might find surprising . First of all, we have a predefined protagonist – this stems from our willingness of telling a truly intriguing story revolving around him.

- and of course some closing words from that article:

To put it all together, we believe that the time has come for the RPGs to achieve and gain new quality. We wish they would be more realistic, plot-oriented and visually mature… Open, to put it short, so as to bring loads of sheer joy. We wish for the RPGs to concentrate on intriguing storyline and to offer as much freedom in making decisions as possible.

So,... I don't know... Based on this article alone (maybe in general you are right), I don't see that many differences between current Bioware's and past CD Projekt's approach towards the story and its role in RPGs... Especially not when I look at the results. Both Bioware's games and Witchers have excellent stories and I could easily find a lot of people who would consider for example Witcher 2's story better (longer, with more meaningful consequences, less "black and white" choices, etc.) than Mass Effect 2's.

Besides, based on how some features have been changed in Witcher 2, it's not far fetched to think, that CD Projekt's approach towards the role of the story might have changed even more in its favor as well, but I haven't checked the interviews so don't take my word for it.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 04 août 2011 - 12:02 .

[Candidate 88766]

Terror_K wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

They meant they wanted an audience of a similar size to that which CoD gets, not that they literally want the same people who play CoD. A third-person, story-focused science fiction game mainly aimed purely at single-player is not going to appeal to the same people who are looking for a 'realistic', modern, first person shooter with a heavy focus online multiplayer. Anyone that thinks that ME2 having a little more focus on the shooting than ME1 is an attempt at pulling in the CoD and BF crowds doesn't understand why people play CoD or BF in the first place. 

And they aren't going to succeed with this attempt to "have their cake at eat it too" approach. They're trying to keep their old-school RPG fans and at the same time appeal to the hardcore CoD and Gears crowd to broadly sweep as many of the gaming audience as possible. The problem is with the approach that they're taking with Mass Effect 2/3 and Dragon Age 2 is that they're removing or toning down too many of the factors that the old-school RPG fans love and introducing too many mainstream factors that simultaneously put them off, so they're driving away some of that audience. At the same time, they're not going the complete action/shooter route either, and still retain too many RPG and narrative factors that put the mainstream audience off, so they're not quite grabbing them either. In the end they're probably going to appeal to a larger overall audience, but they're never going to nab those two extremes at the same time, and are thus alienating many of their old fans and just not registering that much with the opposite end.

And the fact is, there are already a lot of games catering to this area as it is, which is why almost every AAA title these days is a somewhat story-driven, partially cinematic action title with mild RPG elements. It's causing gaming stagnation, and BioWare really aren't helping, especially with stuff like DA2 which really didn't end up pleasing either side, nor many inbetween.

But here's the thing - they aren't trying to appeal to the hardcore shooter crowd. They want an audience as large as CoD (what kind of game developer wouldn't want that level of success?) but they aren't trying to appeal directly to the CoD or GoW market. CoD and GoW are built with a very strong focus on competetive multiplayer. ME is directed exclusively at the single-player market.

The closest kind of game to ME I can think of is Uncharted. Both are third-person action games that feature shooting, but the shooting isn't the main focus for either of them. Both of them focus on a cinematic and action-packed story. ME features more interactivity and Uncharted features more large-scale set-pieces.

DA2 displeased people because it was a sequel to a game that was trying to be an old-school RPG, and DA2 deviated way to much from that goal. For ME, the genre was never as important as the story and the way they were trying to tell that story.

You have a point that ME doesn't appeal to the hardcore RPG fans but also doesn't appeal to pure shooter fans. However, I'd argue that the majority of gamers don't care too much what the genre of a game is. Most can appreciate a good game regardless of whether it adheres to established and arguably outdated genre archetypes. ME1, for example, was a great game. If it was being rated as an RPG, it was pretty bad. If it was rated as a shooter, it ws terrible. However, if we just rate it as a game then it was really good.

I'd argue that games shouldn't try to stick exclusively to one genre. Almost every genre borrows from RPGs to some extent now - sports and shooter games now often feature in-depth inventory and customization options - so maybe its time that RPGs started borrowing from other genres too, or run the risk of becoming a very stale and outdated genre. As long as a game is good, it shouldn't matter what its genre is. 

Also, just because some is an RPG fan doesn't mean they can't play other games. I'm a fan of sci-fi films, but I enjoy other genres of film. You yourself have proven that you play games other than old-school RPGs by playing ME1.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 04 août 2011 - 11:59 .

[Lumikki]

All the players who likes or could like ME series games are target customer of ME serie.

Motive behind of Terror_K's opinion is pure self interess as what he wants. I don't mind that. I just don't like how this same personal issue has to be taked in so many threads.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2011 - 12:20 .

[Candidate 88766]

Lumikki wrote...

None of the hardcore crowd is target customer of any game type. All the players who likes or could like ME series games are target customer of ME serie.

Motive behind of Terror_K's opinion is pure self interess as what he wants. I don't mind that. I just don't like how this same personal issue has to be taked in so many threads.

As a consumer he has every right to demand a game that meets his wants. I'd argue that the Mass Effect series is the wrong place to be looking for a hardcore RPG. In fact, I'd argue that Bioware haven't made a hardcore RPG in a long time. Even Jade Empire had plenty of streamlining. Bioware has always focused on a cinematic style of storytelling ahead of genre features, and I think their games are all the better for it.

With the Witcher 2 recently out, Deus Ex: Human Revolution out soon and Skyrim on the horizon there are still many developers making hardcore RPGs. Deus Ex isn't necessarily a traditional RPG, but it features a lot of the hallmarks of RPGs. 

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 04 août 2011 - 12:21 .

[Mister Mida]

Terror_K is a man, folks.

[Lumikki]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

All the players who likes or could like ME series games are target customer of ME serie.

Motive behind of Terror_K's opinion is pure self interess as what he wants. I don't mind that. I just don't like how this same personal issue has to be taked in so many threads.

As a consumer he has every right to demand a game that meets his wants.

I disagree. Person has right to say opinions as feedback in constructive manner, what they like and what they don't. People have no right to demand anything or polute forums topics with they own issues with game, what isn't even what they want it to be. Meaning wanting hole game design direction to be changed to be something else. We can give feedback, we can suggest, we can wish, we can talk in general related the game and games content, but we can't demand change they business.

I would suggest to create discussion on "Off Topic" forum as general topic "Direction of Biowares games and future of RPG's". Not polute so many threads with this same topic. It's hurting hole Bioware community, because we all have to allways argue here about THEY issues. What aren't even this game related, they are general game direction design related issues.

Mister Mida wrote...

Terror_K is a man, folks.

Yeah, Sorry, I know, it just comes sometimes from me that way.. My Mistake..

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 août 2011 - 12:48 .

[crimzontearz]

are people still arguing that Shepard will canon-die at the end of ME3?

Seriously?

What is it with this current of thought that the only way to have a "mature" ending is to kill the hero? Honestly....**** that.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I disagree. Person has right to say opinions as feedback in constructive manner, what they like and what they don't. People have no right to demand anything or polute forums topics with they own issues with game, what isn't even what they want it to be. Meaning wanting hole game design direction to be changed to be something else. We can give feedback, we can suggest, we can wish, we can talk in general related the game and games content, but we can't demand change they business.

To be honest though, I'm more advocating the fact that I believe BioWare are the ones changing their direction, as opposed to me wanting them to change to suit me. My issue is that they're changing to now longer not appeal to me after years of doing so. I essentially want BioWare to be the same company that saw me through from the original Baldur's Gate to the original Dragon Age, rather than rebooting and/or twisting their existing IPs to "branch out" or whatever you want to call it. Branching out isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's how they're going about it, IMO: by twisting their existing IPs and sequels rather than just sticking to their roots with them and using new IPs and games to broaden their appeal. Also, it's all well and good to make statements like, "perhaps with games like this we'll help wean mainstream gamers onto more hardcore RPGs" but that's kind of voided when they're no longer even making hardcore RPGs it seems, and are just making these action hybrid affairs now. It wouldn't have been so bad for BioWare had Dragon Age managed to stick to its original vision, but it had to get horribly twisted out of shape in an intentional sabotaging of the IP.

To be honest, it doesn't really come down to RPG factors as such. Not always. The main basic point is that there were quite a few factors in ME1 that I really miss in ME2 because they aren't there, or are there in such a reduced form that they lose almost all appeal. And almost all seem to be a victim of the same factor: the overall mainstreamlining of the game to broaden appeal and make it "more accessible" etc. It doesn't really matter that these factors are RPG ones or not, it just so happens that many of them are (some such as planet exploration, The Mako, etc. are not for instance), but the point is they are missed. And there's also a lot of factors introduced I don't personally consider good ones, and it just so happens that many of these are also common shooter mechanics (again, not all of them are). And as far as I can tell while ME3 may be an improvement on ME2 as a whole, there's still too little that I've missed that appears to be coming back, and too much I dislike from ME2 remaining. I think that while ME1 suffered from too many RPG factors that didn't really suit the gameplay and style, ME2 suffered from too many shooter factors that did the same thing from the other side. The balance has shifted for the better from what I can tell, but not enough. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Jebel Krong]

To
be honest, I don’t know. I never consider myself an RPG developer, and I don’t really worry about traditional genre conventions other than our own goals for making a great game. Typically our goals - creating interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and exploration -result in games that are classified as RPGs. But my intention is always to make the best possible story-driven games, and for me and my team, the next great design that we’re excited about is what we’re doing with ME3.

that does not equal your, personal, view of what BW is or even was 'aiming for', Terror-K. they have not changed - your expectations have - you still expect them (and other companies) to stagnate based on your own, preconceived notions of what games - or RPGs - should be and include.

[Il Divo]

I personally never saw Mass Effect as anything but a hybrid. But as an RPG, it failed. As a tps, it failed. And as a hybrid system, it failed. With Mass Effect 2, I was at least pleased with the tps/hybrid aspects, even if the total number of skills were not to my liking. All imo, of course.

[Terror_K]

Companies are stagnating though, as is gaming as a whole. Instead of getting variety we're getting nothing but the same basic hybrids from 90% of our AAA titles these days. With a few exceptions most of today's big name games are essentially all the same.

I can understand people who would claim that BioWare's recent direction may be better in their opinions, but to deny it exists is just blindness, IMO. Especially when several devs from the company itself have left in the past couple of years and since cited that BioWare was basically no longer the company it used to be to them. To quote former BioWare employee Brent Knowles for instance: “I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company.”

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Companies are stagnating though, as is gaming as a whole. Instead of getting variety we're getting nothing but the same basic hybrids from 90% of our AAA titles these days. With a few exceptions most of today's big name games are essentially all the same.

I can understand people who would claim that BioWare's recent direction may be better in their opinions, but to deny it exists is just blindness, IMO. Especially when several devs from the company itself have left in the past couple of years and since cited that BioWare was basically no longer the company it used to be to them. To quote former BioWare employee Brent Knowles for instance: “I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company.”

And yet, we also had Brenon Holmes come and explain the Bioware process to us. Who wins, between the two? DA2 certainly underwent a different design philosophy, which Bioware admitted to, and overall reception was poor in comparison to Origins, which says quite a bit. Although Legacy apparently has helped redeem the DA2 team.

However, Mass Effect 2's alterations were all a result of criticism of the ME1 system (Exploration, the Mako, inventory, shooting mechanics, etc). Bioware's "direction" has changed since they first released Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1, and arguably KotOR. These games already introduced us to stream-lined game mechanics, with greater emphasis on story-telling than in-depth RPG stats.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2011 - 03:24 .

[darknoon5]

I can't even be bothered to reply to Terror K's post with much depth. They reek of elitisim and entitlement. I'll reply to the first for now.

Terror_K wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

What
can I say, he compared hardcore fans asking for the ME film to be
tailored to them to a starving child asking their parents for food.

What I meant was that I'm sick of almost everything
these days in the entertainment industry being catered to the one same
big audience to the point where the few things I enjoy are even being
warped and changed to suit this audience: one that is already massively
catered for as it is. Simply put: I'm starving for games, movies, books,
etc. that I can really get into these days because almost nobody wants
to make them any more because it's just so much more profitable to cater
to the big audience that's already got more than they could ever ask
for. As time goes on the nerd/geek audience are being left more an more
behind in favour of samey mainstream drivel, and I don't like to see an
IP that appealed to be because of not only what it was but for what it wasn't now turning its back somewhat to its roots just for the sake of global mainstream appeal.

And
the same goes for the overall direction BioWare seems to be taking
lately: less RPG, more action basically. Less art, more mechanised
formula for perfection. Less sci-fi nerd/geek, more mainstream Joe
Average. etc.

I'm basically saying that I still don't believe
what Mass Effect is now is how it was intended from the start. Somewhere
between ME1 and ME2 the vision changed, the direction changed and the
target audience shifted at least somewhat. What Mass Effect is now
and probably will be in the future is not something I question, but I
do question anybody who says that it was always that way. To simplify
it: Mass Effect didn't start as a hybrid game, it started as an RPG with
some TPS elements. It was only with ME2 that it became a proper hybrid,
and actually became more of a story driven TPS with some RPG elements
than what ME1 was. with ME3 it appears to be a more balanced hybrid, but
I still feel its too focused on the action and shooter elements
personally. At least from what I've seen.

And I'm just not a big fan of the feeling that they're making their games lately more to bring in new fans than to keep the old ones. That's what DA2 was pretty much entirely built on, for example.

It was an awful comparison. Food=necessity. Film=want. Not only that, it was ridiculously over the top.

Also, here's a hint-not everything will appeal to you, but if you widen your search and go in with a  more open mind you may find more things you like. Industries change, sometimes for the worse and better. Inability to accept change means you will find enjoyable entertainment more dificult.

Now, onto the rest.

Whether you like it or not, change happens. Just because you disagree with this change doesn't mean it's bad, "dumbed down," or inferior.  Mass Effect's direction and audience never changed. ME1 was their first next gen game and they were still trying to create a hybrid. ME2 is a lot closer to what ME1 should've been in terms of gameplay-some things, like interrupts, were meant to be in ME1 but weren't due to restrictions.

But as usual, you repeat the same tired arguments. ME1 is not an RPG with TPS elements, it's a hybrid, or was intended to be at the very least. It was never a solid RPG-crappy inventory, no attributes, armour lumped as one suit instead of individual components (ironically, ME2 did this better!). On the same front, it was a poor TPS. No reloading made it less tactical, thousands of useless weapons which were only different in damage, poor enemy AI. This was made worse by skills that made no sense in universe (weapons and armour, specifically) which hindered gameplay.

ME2 kept the RPG elements which enhanced the story and gameplay (at least, from the developers perspective) and chucked the needless ones whilst overhauling the shooting aspect. To quote Chud:

...interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and exploration.

With the exception of exploration (depends if you count N7 missions) ME2 has every single one of them-progression, interactivity and combat more so. Interrupts, branching skills, balanced skills, class exclusive skills and refined combat. Sounds to me like ME2 fits the bill better then ME1, but that's me.

Finally, you seem to have some irrational fear of people who aren't geeks/sci-fi fans, or RPG enthusiasts. What exactly is wrong with Bioware trying to make their games appeal to more people? I know plenty of people who aren't RPG fans and overlooked ME1 because it didn't appeal to them, but played it and loved it. I don't mind a few changes if it helps widen the appeal. I don't have the selfish attitude that Bioware's games are exclusively for me and should be tailored to me. Frankly, were ME3 made into a FPS with no interactivity, customization and a weak plot, I wouldn't be interested, however appealing to a wider audience does not necessarily mean this.

I agree ME3 being made into a COD copy would be bad, but this does not equal appealing to a wider audience. Appealing to a wider audience can mean anything-including the port from 360 to PC, hmm?

On that note, surely the fact ME1 was originally for the xbox 360, a platform famous for shooters, (Halo, GOW) tells you something. Does that show it was never AR-PEE-GEE first?

DA2 is a poor example. Seperate team, limited dev time. Also, many of the negative things aren't that they appealed to a different audience, it's that they presented an average storyline (act 3) with re-used areas and few important decisions. None of which has anything to do with appealing to a new target audience.

Modifié par darknoon5, 04 août 2011 - 03:47 .

[Terror_K]

I would say that most of these factors with regards to KotOR, Jade Empire and ME1 being somewhat different were to do with two factors: technology allowing them to take their games into more cinematic territory and the fact that these were primarily console releases, while their prior titles had been primarily PC ones. BG and NWN wouldn't work on a console without a lot of cutting and streamlining. They were also working on DAO during ME1's development (and possibly Jade Empire's), so they were clearly still working on proper RPGs at the time. Jade Empire is arguably BioWare's least-RPG RPG to date, but it was what it was, and wasn't trying to be anything else. It was also a fairly original title at the time of its release. Mass Effect and Dragon Age were different in that they started off rather differently than their sequels. Maybe the issue isn't RPG factors so much as BioWare having an overall problem with sequel consistency and IP integrity. It's hard to tell since they hadn't done a sequel since Baldur's Gate until ME2 came along. Overall I'd say that (bugs aside) Obsidian did a better job with their sequels to KotOR and NWN than BioWare did with their own recent sequels.

Overall, the games just feel different and come across different presentation wise with the likes of ME2 and DA2. Prior to that they really did seem like works of art and labours of love that simply were what they were meant to be and made for who they were meant to be, without fear of not being popular or mainstream enough or perhaps being big hits. Now they feel methodical and cold, and like they're parading around with their caps backwards to rap music while bikini girls do flips on dirt bikes during a laser show.

[RPGamer13]

Ooh, that was interesting to read that FF: Spirits Within was a visual inspiration, thought I have yet to see it. Hopefully it becomes more apparent with this third game.

darknoon5 wrote...

I agree ME3 being made into a COD copy would be bad, but this does not equal appealing to a wider audience. Appealing to a wider audience can mean anything-including the port from 360 to PC, hmm?

On that note, surely the fact ME1 was originally for the xbox 360, a platform famous for shooters, (Halo, GOW) tells you something. Does that show it was never AR-PEE-GEE first?

Except when the first Mass Effect was released, it was when the system had a number of RPGs recently released and some more on the way. It was released in the middle of that huge RPG rush, gave me a different impression.

But the truth is, neither your statement nor my opinion would necessarily have anything to do with their decisions.

Though when you look at ME2, it was released after the number of RPGs being released for the system died down and there were more shooters, which shows they were more likely influenced by the then current trends rather than the overall impression of the system.

To further evidence this, now Gears of War 3 is coming out and I see a lot of the additions to Mass Effect seem to be similar to what is being done with Gears of War 3. And I didn't even like it at first, but after playing the MP Beta for Gears 3 I went back and played the other two and I must admit, the series is more interesting to me than I thought it would be.

[Terror_K]

darknoon5 wrote...

Finally, you seem to have some irrational fear of people who aren't geeks/sci-fi fans, or RPG enthusiasts. What exactly is wrong with Bioware trying to make their games appeal to more people?

Nothing in principle. When it involves removing a lot of stuff that I like and putting in a whole bunch of stuff I despise, that's another matter. Again, I got into Mass Effect in the start because it largely wasn't the samey brown dross that most companies were making to feed the masses. Now it's become more like them. It was fresh and different to me and appealed to me because of its style and feel. ME2 seemed to want to just throw a lot of that out the window and replace it with stuff I didn't want to see in Mass Effect and am sick of seeing in games lately in general.

I don't have the selfish attitude that Bioware's games are exclusively for me and should be tailored to me. Frankly, were ME3 made into a FPS with no interactivity, customization and a weak plot, I wouldn't be interested, however appealing to a wider audience does not necessarily mean this.

I still find this extremely ironic: the concept that its selfish for somebody to just want one game, IP and universe that appealed to them initially to keep appealing to them, rather than just join the endless oceans of titles out there for the masses who already have more on their plate than they could ever want. Isn't it far more selfish for a bunch of people who already have more for them than they'll probably be able to play and enjoy anyway taking it away from that one person and saying "mine too!" as well?

Again, how it is selfish for me to want just one, single IP I enjoyed to remain as it started in comparison to that? How?

On that note, surely the fact ME1 was originally for the xbox 360, a platform famous for shooters, (Halo, GOW) tells you something. Does that show it was never AR-PEE-GEE first?

Actually, if you look back far enough, you'll discover Mass Effect was originally intended to be a PC game, but that changed when the 360 was coming along and MGS took the publishing rights and wanted it for their new console. Kind of like how Halo started off as an RTS intended for the PC and Mac, but then MGS kind of did the same thing.

DA2 is a poor example. Seperate team, limited dev time. Also, many of the negative things aren't that they appealed to a different audience, it's that they presented an average storyline (act 3) with re-used areas and few important decisions. None of which has anything to do with appealing to a new target audience.

Who mean aside from all that "awesome button!" nonsense, the fact they deliberately engineered it for consoles primarily and turned it into an over-the-top, too-fast semi hack'n'slash action game, etc. <_<

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

I would say that most of these factors with regards to KotOR, Jade Empire and ME1 being somewhat different were to do with two factors: technology allowing them to take their games into more cinematic territory and the fact that these were primarily console releases, while their prior titles had been primarily PC ones. BG and NWN wouldn't work on a console without a lot of cutting and streamlining. They were also working on DAO during ME1's development (and possibly Jade Empire's), so they were clearly still working on proper RPGs at the time.

And Mass Effect 2 took Bioware games into even more cinematic territory. Remember, KotOR completely removed the Vancian casting system, eliminated the ability to multi-class (other than becoming a Jedi once), and restricted the total # of class options. The streamlined JE and ME I don't think I need to explain to you. How you're justifying Bioware's direction is irrelevant. What matters is that they clearly were on a new path of story-telling, since KotOR began and that became their primal focus.  

Jade Empire is arguably BioWare's least-RPG RPG to date, but it was what it was, and wasn't trying to be anything else. It was also a fairly original title at the time of its release.

But again being an original title doesn't matter. Jade Empire still indicated a completely new direction for Bioware, as did Mass Effect, as did KotOR. 
 

Mass Effect and Dragon Age were different in that they started off rather differently than their sequels. Maybe the issue isn't RPG factors so much as BioWare having an overall problem with sequel consistency and IP integrity. It's hard to tell since they hadn't done a sequel since Baldur's Gate until ME2 came along. Overall I'd say that (bugs aside) Obsidian did a better job with their sequels to KotOR and NWN than BioWare did with their own recent sequels.

Where your argument runs into problems is that Origins was intended as a traditional, old-school RPG. And it was much loved for it. Most of ME1's elements you seem to have enjoyed I personally hated, a sentiment shared by others. IP integrity would not have saved Mass Effect, as opposed to Origins. Until the game was released and fan reaction is determined, Bioware can't decide what did or did not work with Mass Effect.

Overall, the games just feel different and come across different presentation wise with the likes of ME2 and DA2. Prior to that they really did seem like works of art and labours of love that simply were what they were meant to be and made for who they were meant to be, without fear of not being popular or mainstream enough or perhaps being big hits. Now they feel methodical and cold, and like they're parading around with their caps backwards to rap music while bikini girls do flips on dirt bikes during a laser show.

And I think, based on this, you're a little too invested at this point. You're claiming that we should all be able to see Bioware's new direction of games, yet you're relying entirely on subjective interpretations to do it, none of which I share. I don't regard a single Bioware game as a "labor of love", but simply as an enjoyable gaming experience. I happened to enjoy Mass Effect 2 more than every other Bioware game, excluding KotOR. Your labor of love argument does not convince me of this change in direction.

[didymos1120]

Terror_K wrote...

Actually, if you look back far enough, you'll discover Mass Effect was originally intended to be a PC game, but that changed when the 360 was coming along and MGS took the publishing rights and wanted it for their new console. Kind of like how Halo started off as an RTS intended for the PC and Mac, but then MGS kind of did the same thing.

Source please.  All I can find is this interview about licensing UE3 back in 2004, and they said hadn't committed to a platform yet for what was, in hindsight, obviously the very embryonic ME.  Also, this was after they already had published with MGS and also well after (about a year) the 360 was in development and had already been shopped around to a few hundred developers.

[Veex]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

They meant they wanted an audience of a similar size to that which CoD gets, not that they literally want the same people who play CoD. A third-person, story-focused science fiction game mainly aimed purely at single-player is not going to appeal to the same people who are looking for a 'realistic', modern, first person shooter with a heavy focus online multiplayer. Anyone that thinks that ME2 having a little more focus on the shooting than ME1 is an attempt at pulling in the CoD and BF crowds doesn't understand why people play CoD or BF in the first place. 

That wasn't what the quote meant really. It wasn't an issue of wanting a playerbase the size of CoD, or attracting someone looking for multiplayer or realistic modern shooters. The quote mentioned that shooters are now adding "RPG elements" that feature character leveling and equipment upgrades that hadn't been present before. The point was that, with some exposure to these elements, they may find that a game like Mass Effect also offers mechanics they're familiar with and they might in turn enjoy the narrative style that BioWare offers.

Games, even shooters, are starting to use mechanics that exist across genres and (I can't recall who initially made the statement) thought that exposure might convince a former "CoD" player to try out a game like Mass Effect. 

[Savber100]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Mmm, like Mister Mida, I haven't followed Witcher's development... but I checked the article you refer to and it seems that you haven't mendioned quite few paragraphs such as:

- The one that kind of sums up what CD Projekt Red meant by "redefining" the RPG genre...

And here are the results of our considerations. The crucial elements of the game should be: the storyline, combat system, freedom and non-linearity, character equipping and development. At the same time, all the aforementioned issues should be most intuitive and easy-to-use for the gamers. We have tried to match the structure of the game according to the rules specified above, so to sum up...

This kind of reminds me Casey's "Typically our goals - creating interactive story, compelling progression, intense combat, and exploration" from the article in the OP and many previous ones...

- many other paragraphs that emphasize the role or priority of the story:

First of all, we agreed that the storyline should be the spine, the basis of any RPG. Therefore, we’ve tried various ways of introducing this idea into being: we have placed the game in a rich, intriguing and believable world known from a series of 7 fantasy novels. This allowed us to provide background and depth unlike all that’s been seen in computer games.

Another important element of the game is character equipping and development. And here is what the die-hard RPG purists might find surprising . First of all, we have a predefined protagonist – this stems from our willingness of telling a truly intriguing story revolving around him.

- and of course some closing words from that article:

To put it all together, we believe that the time has come for the RPGs to achieve and gain new quality. We wish they would be more realistic, plot-oriented and visually mature… Open, to put it short, so as to bring loads of sheer joy. We wish for the RPGs to concentrate on intriguing storyline and to offer as much freedom in making decisions as possible.

So,... I don't know... Based on this article alone (maybe in general you are right), I don't see that many differences between current Bioware's and past CD Projekt's approach towards the story and its role in RPGs... Especially not when I look at the results. Both Bioware's games and Witchers have excellent stories and I could easily find a lot of people who would consider for example Witcher 2's story better (longer, with more meaningful consequences, less "black and white" choices, etc.) than Mass Effect 2's.

Besides, based on how some features have been changed in Witcher 2, it's not far fetched to think, that CD Projekt's approach towards the role of the story might have changed even more in its favor as well, but I haven't checked the interviews so don't take my word for it.

But my point remains. 

CD Projekt RED strives to create a great RPG first and foremost where the story is integral (which I mentioned in my previous post). They emphasize more the role-playing and recognize the value of a good story to drive that role-playing. 

Bioware strives to create a great story-driven game, where RPG mechanics is only a convenient tool to tell it. They emphasis more on the writing and a compelling story while recognizing the value of good RPG mechanics to help drive the story. 

So does Bioware's approach necessarily make better stories than CDPR? Of course not because as you said, I thought The Witcher 2 had the better plot than Mass Effect 2. However, these goals have led these two fine developers to take different directions with their franchises. Many RPG fans have wondered about the direction of Bioware in moving away from their RPG roots and I'm saying that it's because it was never their ultimate goal to become a RPG developer in the first place. 


Anyways, I'm finding Terror_K and Il Divo's debate up here rather entertaining (and refreshing) to read. :happy:

Terror_K is one of these posters that passionately hate the new direction of Bioware but doesn't act like a whining troll or idiot to express it. A rarity on this forum... 

I think what Terror_K is trying to say is that if Bioware makes an action game, he would have no problem with that. But Bioware shouldn't butcher or turn a 180 on their existing franchises to make them. Translation: Go make a new IP or resurrect JE if you want an action game THAT badly, Bioware. 

Instead, Bioware is right now in a compromise where the old school RPG-lovers hate Bioware for serving the dumb consolites while the action gamers ignore it over a plethora of better action games. To him, this compromise is a basis of mediocrity where Bioware can not excel in pleasing either side. 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 août 2011 - 07:32 .