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).
Dear Mr Woo, allow me to comment my opinion on your post.
1. Indeed, Having to keep it up with whatever new technologie and way of use it make technicaly game range variation a lot wider, as each persone have their own favorite technologie and way to use it, it is much harder to make a "new" game impacting a whole lot of player as it were some years ago, when gaming was restricted to a very few ways and less system categorie.
2. Nostalgia, i agree too that it might be trycky, but, it is possible to grasp the essence of what is still objectively great and is missing today >< than what "seemed" to be great.
Not every part of a work is tied to his technical evolution, Storys, dialogue, some conceptual game philosophy, can be "out of time", and if they are grealtly done, they are great for a long time.
We talk about game evolution, but we often forget about our evolution too, getting old, having more experience, granting us some wisdome, altering or i should say "refining" our judgement, the way we percieve things. when i was younger i watched the transformers, i wasn't looking for the same things back then, cool robot transforming in sports car or other vehicule, having some action boom boom was enough for me.
As the same way, some books and movies at that time i wasn't intrested in, are catching my attention now.
Most rpg lover, would enjoy BG2+TOB if they put aside what is technicaly predicated to get older.
3. i totaly agree with you, i don't want to argue about that as it involve too much subjective apreciation.
4. I agree that game devloppers have to go forward and try new things, ("old" game when done "this ways" because this is what technicaly possible do at that time) and not stay in the same box forever, or people would get bored.
Also, this statement seems a bit strange from a Bioware senior staff like yourself, do you know that most Bioware game are just about the same structure, that it spoile the pleasure because we know the outline of our task ?
Even if i don't know the game details, it often turn to be "there is a big threat, you need to travel to gather allys to join you (after you have accomplished their errand task) in a final fight to defeat the threat".
My problem is not "the big threat", as it is a motives.... but the abscetionnal focus of "spend your play time to gather allys to defeat the threat"; this is stuck in my throat.
When i buy a new "rpg" or "stroy driven" game, i DON'T want to know ONE BIT, what i'll have to do.
Peoples don't want a 10 years old game copy, but things in a ten years old game that still could work or is missing in todays games.
The proof that some people still play the game today (especialy out of nostaligia, but because of it's quality) just show that's there is a place for this kind of game or at least his quality could be recycled.
Also, some games (elder scoll) are nearly carbone copy, just rafined and tunned, but it works.
Playing Skyrim right now, and i love it (i wasn't hypped much about killings dragons .... again as in most medieval fantasy games, not very creative IMO, but the way they fly in the sky, spead fire ... just ... woaaaw).
Oblivion made me stop to play Morrowind (that i loved, over 400 houres) forever, and Skyrim make sure i won't play Oblivion ever again, i found Skyrim a lot better than Oblivion.
They recycle their quality (freedom feelings, character leveling in a vaste way, incredible amount of side quest, BG story,).
BUT, despise DA or any other of your RPG, i'll still play BG2 again and in the future because there is some "things" (not devlopping here, post already too long) in this game that today i cannot find.
5. In the "adventure" industry may be, in the "amazing RPG" industry, for me, not so much, Bioware, Bethesda, and CDprojekt. Other seems expendable for me (especialy since i have stoped to play JRPG). If Bioware don't want to compet in this field, it's mean there will be lesser choice, because this is what it matters, to have "choice" in different game. Games like Elder Scroll need to existe but we don't need all game to be an Elder Scroll like, same as The Witcher or Dragon Age.
Modifié par Siegdrifa, 13 novembre 2011 - 07:22 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
I'd bet fans would be so dissapointed they'd cry themselves to sleep every night.
The Bhaalspawn series is done for me and it was great. However i wouldn´t mind a new RPG in the Forgotten Realms setting, as long as it is well done. I think this IP has just so much potential when it comes to story telling. 
