360 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubya75]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

Developers want to streamline the hell out of rpgs and try to appeal to people who will never like rpgs no matter what. Appealing to the "hardcore" rpg market isn't enough. It all comes down to money, and the next installment must compete with the shooters and action games on the market, not just be the best selling rpg.

Maybe the game industry think RPG is dead.
Hopefully, SKYRIM will prove them wrong and they can get back on track making proper RPGs.

[Stanley Woo]

FedericoV wrote...
So, the question is simple: if BG is still so popular for devs and players alike, more than 10 years after ToB, why no one in the business make a true spiritual successor of it? Why pass from the DA:O format (wich at least was closer to BG2) to the DA2 format?

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

3. "Spiritual successor" means different things to different people. When we used that phrase to market DAO, we got a lot of flak from people who interpreted the phrase differently than others did. For some, the "spirit" of BG was Dungeons & Dragons. For some, it was the wide open world. For others, it was the difficulty level. For others, the strength of antagonists like Jon Irenicus and Sarevok. For still others, extensive character buildilng or story pacing. Or any combination thereof. There is no way you can make a "spiritual successor" to anything and please everyone.

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Those are some big concepts, I know, but the question comes up frequently and people seem to forget that there is an entire universe out there that has advanced and changed over time. The videogame industry is not a zero-sum system, nor can it be easily defined with a binary choice (love BG vs. don't love BG, success vs. failure).

[Pedrak]

What I miss:

- Cities that were huge, vibrant, alive, full of places to visit, of houses to sneak in. Not just an inn, a blacksmith, a couple of shops and the houses of a couple of plot-relevant NPCs.

- Combats that felt like brilliant chess games, with an incredible amount of spells to cast and of different monsters to slay.

- Stuff like meeting a bunch of cutthroats in an inn, deciding I want their loot and placing all my characters ready for the fight (the rogue behind their wizard, the fighter blocking the door, the wizard ready to cast a spell), then starting it not through a conversation which replaces my party members, but with the assassin's poisoned blade backstabbing their leader.

- Permanent death and other details that required a careful planning (do you have fire to finish the trolls? No? Though luck, man). Although I will concede that having infinite arrows doesn't bother me as much as it should.

- A huge selection of party members, a giant world to explore, a >150 hours game with class-specific strongholds and very elaborate sidequests.

Things I don't miss:

- The alignment system. Meh.

- Actually, sleeping. That's one of the mechanics, along with other more hardcore stuff like eating and a time limit (not seen in BG though) that I can gladly leave without.

As for why they are not "making more games like them", the vanilla explanation is the following.The world moved on. Only a part of the generation who loved BG is still playing games.

New generations have different tastes, more oriented on Action! and Graphics! and Cinematics! and the devs are trying to meet their expectations, making sacrifices. Ex. full voice acting killed game length and multiple quest solutions, as well illustrated here:

http://www.escapistm...Voice-vs-Choice


Voice acting might not be the only reason games are offering less freedom, but I think it's a major culprit. Going back twelve years or so you can see the trend: The more voices we get the more linear games get, because having both at once is too danged expensive.


I really liked how voice acting worked in Planescape Torment and Morrowind. Generic folks would be all text, but main characters would greet you in voice so that you could get a sense of who they were. Their introduction would tell you if they were gruff, friendly, arrogant, a schmooze, or a moron. Then the rest of the conversation would happen in text. The neat trick is, the player will naturally read the text in the given voice. Thinking back, I remember all of the dialog as if it had been fully voiced, even though I just read most of it.


In any case, I believe Origins was a somewhat simplified, but worthy throwback.

Modifié par Pedrak, 10 novembre 2011 - 06:01 .

[blaidfiste]

Dubya75 wrote...

Arthur Cousland wrote...

Developers want to streamline the hell out of rpgs and try to appeal to people who will never like rpgs no matter what. Appealing to the "hardcore" rpg market isn't enough. It all comes down to money, and the next installment must compete with the shooters and action games on the market, not just be the best selling rpg.

Maybe the game industry think RPG is dead.
Hopefully, SKYRIM will prove them wrong and they can get back on track making proper RPGs.

Not the game industry, just Bioware co-founder.
http://www.escapistm...g-Less-Relevant

[RagingCyclone]

Stanley Woo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
So, the question is simple: if BG is still so popular for devs and players alike, more than 10 years after ToB, why no one in the business make a true spiritual successor of it? Why pass from the DA:O format (wich at least was closer to BG2) to the DA2 format?

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

3. "Spiritual successor" means different things to different people. When we used that phrase to market DAO, we got a lot of flak from people who interpreted the phrase differently than others did. For some, the "spirit" of BG was Dungeons & Dragons. For some, it was the wide open world. For others, it was the difficulty level. For others, the strength of antagonists like Jon Irenicus and Sarevok. For still others, extensive character buildilng or story pacing. Or any combination thereof. There is no way you can make a "spiritual successor" to anything and please everyone.

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Those are some big concepts, I know, but the question comes up frequently and people seem to forget that there is an entire universe out there that has advanced and changed over time. The videogame industry is not a zero-sum system, nor can it be easily defined with a binary choice (love BG vs. don't love BG, success vs. failure).

This is an interesting point which I think many have differing views on.  I would go on the tangent of BW needing the ideals of product diversification. While BW's success has been built on games like BG and it's mode of play it also built up a core audience with those games. I would suspect, and correct me if I am wrong, but ME took BW in a new direction. I different kind of game and mechanic than DAO which followed the BG path. Both games were different in style and mechanics, and both were successful. I think the perception is that when BW made DA2 more in the mold of ME and ME2 it was passing on it's core audience that was for all intents and purposes the company's bread and butter. I would have preferred to see both styles remain on the paths they were taking. The way to get more people to play and thus get a larger audience I would think would be to have varying products available with different styles. In your poll I used the auto market as an example with the differences of approach with Toyota and GM...one being more successful than the other because of it's product diversification as opposed to the other using the same mechanics (style) across several nameplates. I would think the same kind of business model would translate to gaming as well. Just my opinion and view on the current state as an outsider looking in

[TobiTobsen]

Stanley Woo wrote...

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

Pah! I play the Baldur's Gate games once every year. It's kind of a tradition. And they are still awesome.

I reject your reality and substitute my own, Mr. Woo!

[San Diego Thief]

@Stanley

1. I don't see how Twitter, Facebook, DLC, cell phones, and other trends prohibit Bioware from making a proper RPG. Photo realistic graphics would improve a game like Baldurs Gate greatly! Also, just because voiced characters and digital acting are available doesn't mean you need to include it in your game.

2. I don't "remember" how good they are....in fact, I still have them installed and went back to play Baldurs Gate and Dragon Age after the disaster that was Dragon Age 2 came out

3. A successor was all those things....and you chose to ignore many of them when you created Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2

4. With so many monsters, dungeons, different classes, and scenarios available - it would be so easy to create a new world and situations that differ from Baldurs Gate

5. A good game will always capture people's attention...in fact, people are taking days off work just for Skyrim

[Joy Divison]

Stanley Woo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
So, the question is simple: if BG is still so popular for devs and players alike, more than 10 years after ToB, why no one in the business make a true spiritual successor of it? Why pass from the DA:O format (wich at least was closer to BG2) to the DA2 format?

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

3. "Spiritual successor" means different things to different people. When we used that phrase to market DAO, we got a lot of flak from people who interpreted the phrase differently than others did. For some, the "spirit" of BG was Dungeons & Dragons. For some, it was the wide open world. For others, it was the difficulty level. For others, the strength of antagonists like Jon Irenicus and Sarevok. For still others, extensive character buildilng or story pacing. Or any combination thereof. There is no way you can make a "spiritual successor" to anything and please everyone.

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Those are some big concepts, I know, but the question comes up frequently and people seem to forget that there is an entire universe out there that has advanced and changed over time. The videogame industry is not a zero-sum system, nor can it be easily defined with a binary choice (love BG vs. don't love BG, success vs. failure).

1. How did Twitter and ubiquitous cell phones effect RPG game development?

2. I just listened to the Beatles White album.  It's not nostalgia.  It's a musical masterpiece.

3. I wasn't around for the marketing of DA:O.  It would seem the game's quality silenced those people who intially gave it flak.

4. Who said an expereince like BG had to be a carbon copy?

5. I don't see the logic that having more competition means moving away from something voted "best of all time" is a good thing.

[Salaya]

 Market, the world, context... wathever. It has changed a lot, it's true. But that does not mean that following the philosophy of DAO -'spiritual succesor'- could not work properly. In fact, DAO was a wider succes than DA2 in every aspect (well, maybe DA2 was cheaper to develop).

The world that received DAO with such success is not so different from the world today -so, please, let's cut the hollow talk, and say things clearly; what Bioware, and every company with aspirations want is to maximize profit. With that in mind, DA2 makes sense (even when is a clear case of failed attempt). 

[Vilegrim]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

In my case because I have never encountered stronger villian personalities, Irenicus still freaks me out, Saverok is still a malevolent psychopath, Loagain came close, but they remain increbibly well written characters, especially Irenicus, when you realise he is running the prison..thats still and 'oh crap' even now, when I know it's coming.  The way they both toy with you, torment you, till you have a good head of steam up about wanting to destroy everything they represent and are (or take it all for yourself and glory in it's debased power) and having the option to do that! It's akin to finding out you could steal the Old Gods power and lead the Blight!  A real 'I can't believe they let me do this'

That's what I miss.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 10 novembre 2011 - 07:04 .

[FedericoV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

3. "Spiritual successor" means different things to different people. When we used that phrase to market DAO, we got a lot of flak from people who interpreted the phrase differently than others did. For some, the "spirit" of BG was Dungeons & Dragons. For some, it was the wide open world. For others, it was the difficulty level. For others, the strength of antagonists like Jon Irenicus and Sarevok. For still others, extensive character buildilng or story pacing. Or any combination thereof. There is no way you can make a "spiritual successor" to anything and please everyone.

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Stanley: thank you very much for the in depth reply. What you say is interesting and I'll think about it. I hope that you understand that the love I expressed for the BG series is not to be seen as yet another DA2 bashing. It's the emotional place where my affection to Bioware originates. But I can have different form of fun from different form of games and I had fun from DA2 too (at least untill Act. 3). DA2 was a divisive experience for me, but it does not deserved the hate expressed in those boards.

1-2-3: I understand your points. And I admit that there's even an element of nostalgia on my part. And a company has to move on and cannot rely on nostalgia alone. But... BG1 and BG2 are still installed on my PC. I play them once a year or two (and it's the only game I would never uninstall). It's a classic and it has aged very well compared to many other games of that time (Deus Ex has aged pretty badly in comparison for example). I know a lot of people who do the same as me. Even lots of younger gamers love it when they understand the basic of the system (look at GOG BG boards).

4: Yep, you need to try new things and you do not want to stale as a company. I understand it: it's legitimate. But while Bioware is trying to innovate and change, their games are becoming more and more similar to your average AAA game. I do not ask a carbon copy od BG2, but sometimes it seems to me that most AAA games are carbon copies in many ways. There is a number of features and design patterns that all AAA games share and in many ways they all feel the same because of that. It seems a typical Catch-22 situation to me. Playing BG2 and in many ways even DA:O is a very different and new experience compared to the actual market: there is not a singular party based and storydriven isometric RPG on the market. As music and many other arts teach, sometimes going backwards it's the only way to go forward.

5: I understand that too. But looking at the competition, Blizzard has not reinveted the wheel with SC2 and Diablo3 is following the same pattern. And those game have been (and will be) very profitable successes. Rockstar has not reinvented the GTA wheel with RDR and the game has been a wide critical and commercial success (a deserved one). And allways looking at the competition, don't you think that it's not wise to put all your eggs in one basket thinking at how DA2 looks a lot more similar to ME than DA:O?

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 novembre 2011 - 07:31 .

[Willybot]

Stanley Woo wrote...

1. Ten years is a long time.
 

Except when it's padded by a trio of 3-year comas.  I kidd, of course.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

Both of these points operate under the fallacy that one wouldn't enjoy something today that they enjoyed a decade ago. By this logic, one simply couldn't think that The Godfather or The Exorcist are still great films simply because bigger-budget, flashier films came in the interim.

Stanley Woo wrote...

3. "Spiritual successor" means different things to different people. When we used that phrase to market DAO, we got a lot of flak from people who interpreted the phrase differently than others did. For some, the "spirit" of BG was Dungeons & Dragons. For some, it was the wide open world. For others, it was the difficulty level. For others, the strength of antagonists like Jon Irenicus and Sarevok. For still others, extensive character buildilng or story pacing. Or any combination thereof. There is no way you can make a "spiritual successor" to anything and please everyone.

On this you have a point, people will respond to vague buzzwords in different ways. Folks will also make assumptions when a product is labeled with a '2' at the end of the title.

Stanley Woo wrote...

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

"Exact same thing" is a bit of a strawman, no? Unlike the sports games you note, I would hope that an RPG series would base their products on a dev cycle longer than 1 year.

To use your phrase, a good RPG is also not a 'zero-sum' or 'binary' venture. It doesn't have to either the 'exact same thing' or 100% different.

Stanley Woo wrote...

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Those are some big concepts, I know, but the question comes up frequently and people seem to forget that there is an entire universe out there that has advanced and changed over time. The videogame industry is not a zero-sum system, nor can it be easily defined with a binary choice (love BG vs. don't love BG, success vs. failure).

I can understand that when you strive to create a product that will appeal to the largest market imaginable (as opposed to strictly the 'niche' RPG market) there is some heady competition. Perhaps making a truly great product to dominate your 'niche' market would yield greater success than appealing to multiple markets with a mediocre product.

[Giltspur]

Stanley Woo wrote...

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

I played BGII when it was released one time and considered it my favorite game of all time. I never did get around to a second playthrough...until this past summer.

I had loved DAO and had mixed feelings about DAII.  I liked it.  But something was off about it.  So I decided to try out BGII again.  Was it worth the hype?  How would it age?

Here were some early impressions:
1) Why won't this golem die.  (Oh right. Blunt weapons. Stupid.)
2) Why won't magic missile cast?  (Oh right.  Casting time.  Have to wait for it to finish.)
3) Ah, this is hard.  (Oh right.  I remember.  I just sleep after every fight to re-learn all my spells.  And now it's easy again.)
4) Hey why doesn't this mage die?  (Oh right.  Protection from normal weapons. I really shouldn't have attacked this guy yet.  Do I really not have anything to hit this idiot with?  And then I remembered having to read through all the spell counters again and learn how to peel layers away from mages.)
5) Ah, I wish it showed the spell's area of of effect when targetting.

But it didn't take long to adjust.  And then my impressions became more positive:

1) All these cities!  All these side quests in Act II!
2) Valygar's side quest.  This is crazy.  No side quest these days would be this long.  I'm on a different planet!  In Awakening's a side quests consists of traveling to a farm and having one fight.  This is as long as a Modern Warfare campaign  And it's a side question.  The old schoolers are right!  The kids are noobs!
3) Huh.  Brynnlaw kind of reminds of Kirkwall.  Hey, the Githyanki searching for their holy artifact remind me of the Qunari searching for the Tome of Koslun.  Seamus jumping off the boat reminds of Isabela jumping off the boat in the text description of Act II if you make certain choices!  Is Arlathan hidden like Suldanesselar?  Is there a new version of Irenicus that does something crazy and hurt the Elves and their immortality.  Hey, Soulaifein is a white-haired that's  a former slave and sulks a lot.  So it was kind of cool to re-encounter things that maybe got revisited and changed around and done in new ways in later games.  (I don't see this as re-telling the same story.  Writers revisit and re-work old ideas all the time.  So I'm not being critical here.)

Here was a downside.
1) Dang it people.  Can't I walk 5 feet without a side quest.  Wait?  Did someone just give me a dead body?  Really?  Well, let me change out my party for a sec.  Aw man, what do you mean you have a quest that must be done now.  Ugh, why did I bother to pick you up.  

Ha, so yeah.  The interruptions were a little out of control. 

On the whole though replaying BGII reinforced my belief that it was the greatest RPG ever.  But it was the scope I liked.  Now I do think the design of the characters and the conversations have improved in Dragon Age and Dragon Age II compared with Baldur's Gate II.  A lot of those characters except for, say, Jaheira, Viconia (her stories are great), Jan and some others seem somewhat thin compared to characters like Morrigan, Alistair, Leliana, Zevran, Isabela, Aveline, Varric etc.  

What I don't miss are some of the mechanics (spells that only come back when you sleep, not seeing the aoe of your spell ahead of time, spells with long casting time, immunities to different weapon types that require you to have a backpack full of different weapon types).  But what was great--the story, the setting, the adventure--is still great, I think.

Modifié par Giltspur, 10 novembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like.

I agree with that, but I don't think it's relevant.  Many of us continue to play those old games even today.  Might & Magic II is a good game.  Might & Magic IX is not.

[Wulfram]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Why do Bioware want their games to be the exact same thing as 50 other games that came out this year?

[devSin]

Honestly, I kind of think the people who were there maybe hate BG a little now.

Imagine doing something early on that turns out to be the pinnacle of your ability. Nothing you will ever be able to do from that point onward will be as loved as that first work.

So for instance, to me, David Gaider will always be celebrated for writing for BG2. You can like Deekin. You can like the novels. You can like Origins and DA2. But come on... he's one of the guys who wrote for BG2!

Probably their only hope is that they live long enough to reach an audience that has never and will never play the BG series. They're likely getting close now, except stupid stuff like this where a bunch of old respectable farts get together and remind them that they used to be gods.

[Atakuma]

Wulfram wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Why do Bioware want their games to be the exact same thing as 50 other games that came out this year?

Name one game that is the exact same thing as DA2.

[Realmzmaster]

I like the BG series and still think they are excellent games. Forgotten Realms was a good setting, but certain D & D mechanics were not. The spell memorization system as already mentioned was one of them. Your wizard forgets how to cast a spell because he/she did not memorize it enough times. That like a warrior forgetting how to swing a sword after a given number of swings. The purpose of the system was to limit the power of the spellcaster.

Some said it allowed for strategy. That really is not the case strategy requires some intel to be gathered. Without knowing something about the enemy you are simply guessing what spells you will need. That is not a strategy.

Now if you face an enemy like it before and use a certain spell to great effect then you have intel for the next encounter provided you survived the first one. You can now formulate a strategy.

Some have complained about the restrictions that DAO and DA2 have on classes. The D & D system was even worse in that regard.

What makes the BG series good was the writing and characters. The same things that make the DAO and DA2 (to a lesser extent) good to me. I like the gameplay and mechanics much better in DAO and DA2 than the BG series.

I just recently finished playing BG1,2 and the Icewind Dale series. All are good games, but so is Wizardry 1. But how many want to go back to black and white line drawings? (Yes I recently went back and played Wizardry 1along with parts of Might and Magic series). DAO and DA2 stay on my hard drive the others do not.
But that is my humble opinion. I am with Sylvius that Ultima IV was the best of the lot, especially its character creation.

[Realmzmaster]

Wulfram wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Why do Bioware want their games to be the exact same thing as 50 other games that came out this year?

What other 50 games are you talking about? Did I really miss that many party based single player cRPGs? Please tell me so I can play them until DA3 comes out.

[Anomaly-]

Stanley Woo wrote...
1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

Equating technological advancements in communication devices with the trend of simplifying games is not a good choice. Or rather, it's probably accurate, but that's really the whole problem with it, in my opinion. The devices we use in our day to day lives are continually expanded on and made more accessible, because people don't want something like that to take too much of their time and/or effort. Games, on the other hand - and especially RPGs - rely on your involvement. The more involved and the more control you have, the more the game challenges you and requires your thought the better your gaming experience. Sacrificing this in favor of "cinematic gaming" is not a good thing. In fact, the only things I can see as improvements that you listed are advancements in graphics, and perhaps motion capture. At least when it comes to an RPG.

2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

I can assure you, the games that I dust off and re-play from time to time are not enjoyed because of nostalgia. In fact, the story and characters are usually the things I would most like to change. I don't get much enjoyment out of playing through something I already know the outcome of. Most of my enjoyment comes from the gameplay mechanics that are now hard to find. Solid mechanics that allow for ambitious designs, while still giving the player a lot of freedom and reward.

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Again, we (or at least I) don't want the exact same thing. Obviously, give us a new story, new characters, new settings, items, skills, all that stuff. The only thing we (or, again, at least I) want kept is those core gameplay mechanics and design that allow us the freedom, challenge and involvement we'd expect from an RPG.

5. Competition. There is so much out there now that competes for people's attention. This is related to #1 and #4.

Yes, but here is what boggles my mind about that. In order to compete (and ideally, make more sales), you changed the design of your game from that of an old-school RPG to some sort of Action-RPG-Cinematic hybrid. Primarily action games like that are a dime a dozen now. You stepped out of an arena where your competitors were few, into one where your competitors are far more numerous. This, by itself, doesn't strike me as a smart decision. Ambitious, perhaps, but not smart. To make matters worse, in order to achieve this you changed the design of your game to try to appeal to both crowds, while not doing particularly well with either (especially the RPG crowd). Hence, instead of doing better than your last outing (as one would assume was your hope), you did considerably worse.

I think you would be far better off continuing to make quality RPGs in an arena with few competitors, rather than trying to compete in a much more saturated arena with mediocre Action-RPG abominations.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 10 novembre 2011 - 09:54 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Stanley Woo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
So, the question is simple: if BG is still so popular for devs and players alike, more than 10 years after ToB, why no one in the business make a true spiritual successor of it? Why pass from the DA:O format (wich at least was closer to BG2) to the DA2 format?

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

And not all of this is needed to affect each and every game that is made today. Few of those things actually have anything to do with a satisfying gaming experience, depending on the genre. Things like for example "always on internet" lead to developments that tend to hurt people who, for whatever reason, just aren't always online. And concerning changing context you forgot to mention beautiful innovations like the various forms of DRM, which come in different grades of ‘annoying’ and mostly make gaming a more unpleasant experience for honest PC gamers.
 

Stanley Woo wrote...
2. Nostalgia is unrealiable as a gauge of what people like. You look at BG and BG2 and you "remember" how good they were. Well, those feelings and that game experience is based on your experiences up to that point, based on who you were at the time, and based on what other experiences were available. At the time, BG and BG2 were some of the most epic stories and game experiences around. Today, everyone who played, remembered and loved BG have played 10 years' worth of other games, have experienced 10 years' worth of life and gaming experiences, and the further away they get from their BG days, the more they'll remember only the good feelings and ignore the intervening time. Look at the Transformers cartoon. I loved the show as a kid, but when I watched it on DVD, I was screaming obscenities at the hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations!

When I rewatched some of the beloved cartoons from my childhood I was schocked by how ridiculous some of the stories and characters were, too. But Bioware RPGs obviously didn't have "hackneyed stories and overly simplistic character motivations" ten years ago, and if I'd play a Baldur's Gate game today I don't think I'd find them there, based on what people say. That’s what your games are famous for, after all: story and characters. There are elements in movies, series and games that don’t age well for different reasons. Well written stories and characters are not among them.

Stanley Woo wrote...
4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year?

 
Yeah, the carbon copy argument. It’s getting kind of old, isn’t it? Not much gamers want “the exact same thing” over and over, no matter how often the “new is always better” crowd says they do. Yes, people don’t want “something rehashed from last year”, they want good games. Also, RPGs aren’t sports games. Games are allowed to evolve, if in the end the result is that they’re better games. DA:O wasn’t a carbon copy of BG, but it was a good game. DA2 was only an okay game.
 

Stanley Woo wrote...
So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

 
1. Again, not “the exact same thing”, but an experience of similar quality and depth.
2. Dragon Age Origins wasn’t released ten years ago.
3. In the end it is probably a good thing to start asking yourself just what your audience actually wants.

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware has asked what their audience really wants. The answers are all over the map. What you want and what I want can be entirely different. So Bioware is suppose to build a game by consensus?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

1. Ten years is a long time. Look at what communications, computing, and gaming technologies we've gotten in the last 10 years: always on internet, mass adoption of broadband, social media, online consoles, social gaming, mobile gaming, ubiquitous cell phones, mass texting, Twitter, Facebook, digital distribution, DLC, videogames going mainstream, photorealistic graphics, fully voiced PC, digital acting, motion capture, cinematic gaming. You're not going to get the same kinds of gaming experience these days as you got then because the context in which those games were created are no longer the same.

The problem, Stan, is that your games supported a fundamentally unchanged playstyle from BG through DAO.  Character-focused RP gameplay was supported by BG, BG2, NWN, KotOR, JE, and DAO.  And then with DA2, you completely removed it.

This isn't a gradual trend.  Regardless of what else the newer games did, they continued to do the same things they had always done.  Put in software development terms, as you added new features and refined many old features, you continued to support legacy behaviours from your users.  Your games were, in effect, backward compatible with an older style of player.

And now they're not.  If you've intentionally chosen to do that, please say so.  Just come out and tell us that you're no longer supporting us, and then we can move on.  But if you're still trying to support our playstyle, as you have for many years, we would like to stick around and help you do that.

[Stanley Woo]

Cool, people are clarifying and getting more specific on the kinds of things they want to see in a BioWare game. It seems I had misinterpreted what people were asking for.

So... people aren't asking us to recreate Baldur's Gate. They want us to create a game that will give them a similar experience of epic-ness, immersion, and sense of value as the BG series? Kind of like what we did with DAO? Is that correct?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So... people aren't asking us to recreate Baldur's Gate. They want us to create a game that will give them a similar experience of epic-ness, immersion, and sense of value as the BG series? Kind of like what we did with DAO? Is that correct?

Yes!

DAO is a terrific game.  It's not a perfect game, but it's still a wonderful RPG experience.