587 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

vware wrote...

ME3 is more RPG than ME2.

There, I said it.

How? Because they added more options to the skill tree? 

[dreamgazer]

Thaa_solon wrote...

Bioware is slowly killing the RPG genre

No, gamers with short attentions spans are killing the genre.

[CDRSkyShepard]

I keep hearing the word "Streamlined" to describe the "new" RPGs that DA2 and ME3 represent.

Too bad "streamlined" as a word with the connotation that you got rid of things that were not just unnecessary but unwanted and decreased the performance of whatever you were streamlining; like parasite drag on an aircraft or car.

Getting rid of tabletop-esque and story elements (like hubs) isn't streamlining, it's watering down and dumbing-down. "Streamlining" a game to get rid of these RPG elements is like taking a fancy Italian sports car and taking off all the options and things that make it an expensive Italian sports car so that you get a car everyone can afford. You don't see Ferrari stripping their cars bare just so they're "more accessible to everyone else." (Or for a less-fantastical analogy, you can use an Audi or some other auto maker that makes cars in a tier above your average Ford and Toyota.)

So, in other words, don't take out of RPGs what makes them RPGs. Don't homogenize the whole scope of video games by trying to make shooters more like RPGs and RPGs more like shooters (or hack-n'-slash). Everything is starting to migrate towards this murky middle-ground, and all you're gonna end up with is generic homogenization. While ME3 still technically *is* an RPG, it's wandering into dangerous middle-land territory.

[DanHarbinger]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

I keep hearing the word "Streamlined" to describe the "new" RPGs that DA2 and ME3 represent.

Too bad "streamlined" as a word with the connotation that you got rid of things that were not just unnecessary but unwanted and decreased the performance of whatever you were streamlining; like parasite drag on an aircraft or car.

Getting rid of tabletop-esque and story elements (like hubs) isn't streamlining, it's watering down and dumbing-down. "Streamlining" a game to get rid of these RPG elements is like taking a fancy Italian sports car and taking off all the options and things that make it an expensive Italian sports car so that you get a car everyone can afford. You don't see Ferrari stripping their cars bare just so they're "more accessible to everyone else." (Or for a less-fantastical analogy, you can use an Audi or some other auto maker that makes cars in a tier above your average Ford and Toyota.)

So, in other words, don't take out of RPGs what makes them RPGs. Don't homogenize the whole scope of video games by trying to make shooters more like RPGs and RPGs more like shooters (or hack-n'-slash). Everything is starting to migrate towards this murky middle-ground, and all you're gonna end up with is generic homogenization. While ME3 still technically *is* an RPG, it's wandering into dangerous middle-land territory.

YES!

[vware]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

vware wrote...

ME3 is more RPG than ME2.

There, I said it.

How? Because they added more options to the skill tree? 

Yes. Because the options are more diverse and do actually matter gameplay wise. 

Less real choices are better then a buttload of options which don't really matter. (See ME1 with it's plethora of guns, armours and other options, which weren't that different.) If you like to spend half your game sifting through menus, be my guest but that's not my idea of a good time.  Also there are more armour, gun,  weapon mods and overall customization options. Even more than ME1.

Story wise things stay the same apart from more auto-dialogue.

And before you go all medieval on me I've been playing RPG's since KOTOR and with every single release since then a lot of people have been crying over the decline of the Bioware RPG.

I haven't noticed that decline. The RPG's game mechanics have changed for sure, but what a RPG boils down to for me is a great story where you can make significant choices (story-wise) while playing a fun and engaging game.

Maybe it's just me who thinks that and (apart from DA2) Bioware has delivered that every single time.

Modifié par vware, 15 janvier 2013 - 10:22 .

[Mobuse]

I remember my thoughts on all of them:

Baldurs Gate:
"Oh, that's pretty neat but I like Fallout 2 better!"

BG 2: Was just awesome....best story I had ever seen in a game and a great game

Who played through Neverwinter Nights with a variety of character types?

Couldn't even finish it...I HATED the "1 character + one guy you can't control" limitation....


Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic?

Awesome too.....

Jade Empire?


Good

ME 1

Good


DA:O:

I somehow liked BG 2 better but still awesome...




ME 2: Even better than part 1

ME 3: Awesome game with the most disheartening ending ever.....did I really just wipe out all my allies' armies with "destroy"?

[99DP1982]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

I keep hearing the word "Streamlined" to describe the "new" RPGs that DA2 and ME3 represent.

Too bad "streamlined" as a word with the connotation that you got rid of things that were not just unnecessary but unwanted and decreased the performance of whatever you were streamlining; like parasite drag on an aircraft or car.

Getting rid of tabletop-esque and story elements (like hubs) isn't streamlining, it's watering down and dumbing-down. "Streamlining" a game to get rid of these RPG elements is like taking a fancy Italian sports car and taking off all the options and things that make it an expensive Italian sports car so that you get a car everyone can afford. You don't see Ferrari stripping their cars bare just so they're "more accessible to everyone else." (Or for a less-fantastical analogy, you can use an Audi or some other auto maker that makes cars in a tier above your average Ford and Toyota.)

So, in other words, don't take out of RPGs what makes them RPGs. Don't homogenize the whole scope of video games by trying to make shooters more like RPGs and RPGs more like shooters (or hack-n'-slash). Everything is starting to migrate towards this murky middle-ground, and all you're gonna end up with is generic homogenization. While ME3 still technically *is* an RPG, it's wandering into dangerous middle-land territory.

Well the problem is, that you do not see many gamers willing to pay 10-50x more for a game to make reasonable profit.

Being a Finance guy I am fully aware of the pursuit for the better bottom line, but... having experience in working very close with sales department on a managment level I can say that making most products homgenous is bad for business. Play on your strong points for sustainability and explore other venues with new lines and use your strong points to emphasise the difference between your product and similar producs of your competition.

ME should have remained closer to ME, with enhanced combat. I realize that creating a new product/IP costs a lot, thus it is better to experiment on your current products. You can always experiment within the product line with different product types. I'll bring the example of Coca-Cola company.

It's a consumable so it's slightly different but the general rules are similar.

They get different brands for different types of drinks they produce, but within each brand they experiment with some flavours, yet always retaining their core product. Now I am not sure how many people follow the news and recall consumers backlash when the company decided to experiment with a package on their flag product...

To make a parallel here, if you do not want to fork out money for the new IP, create a flavoured product within your IP, i.e. if you want to make a more GoW gameplay within ME universe do not replace the original gameplay, use another story and another protagonist, but use the ME universe title in front and inform me about the flavour that it will contain. Now it's a bit late, but since the story of the Shepard ended I fully expect that a new, future ME game might be far less like the original ME and more like ME3, but that's fine, it's a different product. I wanted to experience the story of Shepard in the form it got me hooked up, ME form. Refined, yes (better handling of combat control and movment in covers, improvment of exploration part and weapon types), but not twisted at the core.

[LTKerr]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

I keep hearing the word "Streamlined" to describe the "new" RPGs that DA2 and ME3 represent.

Too bad "streamlined" as a word with the connotation that you got rid of things that were not just unnecessary but unwanted and decreased the performance of whatever you were streamlining; like parasite drag on an aircraft or car.

Getting rid of tabletop-esque and story elements (like hubs) isn't streamlining, it's watering down and dumbing-down. "Streamlining" a game to get rid of these RPG elements is like taking a fancy Italian sports car and taking off all the options and things that make it an expensive Italian sports car so that you get a car everyone can afford. You don't see Ferrari stripping their cars bare just so they're "more accessible to everyone else." (Or for a less-fantastical analogy, you can use an Audi or some other auto maker that makes cars in a tier above your average Ford and Toyota.)

So, in other words, don't take out of RPGs what makes them RPGs. Don't homogenize the whole scope of video games by trying to make shooters more like RPGs and RPGs more like shooters (or hack-n'-slash). Everything is starting to migrate towards this murky middle-ground, and all you're gonna end up with is generic homogenization. While ME3 still technically *is* an RPG, it's wandering into dangerous middle-land territory.

That's more or less what I was going to say. That doesn't mean I don't get why nowadays most of the companies (at least the big ones) do that. I understand them, it's just business. They just want more benefits and less risks: make generic games and everyone will buy them. But at what cost? Quality... and even personality, if that's the correct word in english. Some companies have the guts to take risks, to make something different, to innovate or just to make what their core customers want. Bioware customers used to be people who enjoy playing RPG like KotOR or Baldur's Gate, people who enjoy creating their character and their story, exploring, etc. That's no longer true, at least for Bioware. Their last games are not for those. DA2 or ME3 (ME2 to some extent) are for people who want to point and shoot, people like... everyone. I think that's a huge mistake on Bioware's part: there are already a lot of companies making shooters and hack&slash and what is worst, those games are far better because these companies know exactly what their customers want, they know what that "everyone" wants. Bioware don't. How many of those new customers who played ME3 (but never touched ME and ME2) enjoyed making decisions? Enjoyed talking so much with other characters? How many played more than one secondary mission? How many even finished the game? If I remember correcty, less than 30% of ME2 players finished the game. Why? Well.. some of that 70% includes a lot of people (it happens with every game) who buy a game, play few minutes and then they never play it again, but most of them because they are that "everyone" who wants to point and shoot and they basically got bored of taking decisions and talking to your squadmates. They wanted more pew pew and less blah blah, in short terms

Sadly Bioware want to make games only for the ones who didn't finish the game, not for the ones who actually finished it. That's good or bad? Good for Bioware because that "everyone" includes more people and more money, and bad for the industry and for the customers because it means Bioware will no longer make different or excellent games.

Modifié par LTKerr, 15 janvier 2013 - 11:15 .

[CDRSkyShepard]

99DP1982 wrote...

Well the problem is, that you do not see many gamers willing to pay 10-50x more for a game to make reasonable profit.

Being a Finance guy I am fully aware of the pursuit for the better bottom line, but... having experience in working very close with sales department on a managment level I can say that making most products homgenous is bad for business. Play on your strong points for sustainability and explore other venues with new lines and use your strong points to emphasise the difference between your product and similar producs of your competition.

ME should have remained closer to ME, with enhanced combat. I realize that creating a new product/IP costs a lot, thus it is better to experiment on your current products. You can always experiment within the product line with different product types. I'll bring the example of Coca-Cola company.

It's a consumable so it's slightly different but the general rules are similar.

They get different brands for different types of drinks they produce, but within each brand they experiment with some flavours, yet always retaining their core product. Now I am not sure how many people follow the news and recall consumers backlash when the company decided to experiment with a package on their flag product...

To make a parallel here, if you do not want to fork out money for the new IP, create a flavoured product within your IP, i.e. if you want to make a more GoW gameplay within ME universe do not replace the original gameplay, use another story and another protagonist, but use the ME universe title in front and inform me about the flavour that it will contain. Now it's a bit late, but since the story of the Shepard ended I fully expect that a new, future ME game might be far less like the original ME and more like ME3, but that's fine, it's a different product. I wanted to experience the story of Shepard in the form it got me hooked up, ME form. Refined, yes (better handling of combat control and movment in covers, improvment of exploration part and weapon types), but not twisted at the core.

I don't really look at it from a standpoint of economics. AAA game titles are going to cost a lot to make no matter if they're 30-hour RPGs or 5-hour shooters. The costs are comparable. All AAA games that come out are at least $60 upon release. Sure, an RPG seems like a great deal with the amount of content you get for that $60, but it's not like it costs so much more to make that we should be paying more.

I used the car example more as a matter of principle than a matter of economics; the big engines and flashy options are what make a sports car a sports car just as much as the RPG elements make RPGs what they are. With the car example, it's economic - you decrease the economic value of the car as you take away the components that make it what it is. With the game, it's not as tangible as dollar signs, but it's the same idea. You take away the components that make an RPG what it is, and you decrease its value as an RPG. You start stripping away its identity as an RPG.

The genre in general is becoming watered-down for no real reason. The current rationale is to make them appeal to...who, exactly? The people who won't even finish playing the game? People who are just going to sell the game back? In that case, why even bother? If they're not going to finish the game anyway or just rent it/sell it back, why are we watering things down to make them more "accessible?" People who are in the more casual market will buy the game and play/not play no matter what's in it, so why are we trying to appeal to them at the expense of people who play RPGs because they enjoy the complexity?

If BioWare wanted to experiment, they needed to wait until their RPG trilogy was over. Since they have a new thing going on, I wouldn't be as perturbed if they did some changes and made it more a shooter and less an RPG (even though I feel like the ME universe should always be a strictly RPG IP, it would be a waste otherwise). I was already invested in Shepard's story as an RPG, and as the freedoms became more restricted I became more frustrated. If anything, if they want to experiment they need to figure out how to give people *more* freedom, not less. You give people less of anything and they will always be unhappy.

[CDRSkyShepard]

Paulomedi wrote...

The problem is, it's more profitable to be in the middle ground.

I think Bioware was a niche-market publisher. Have the shift on focus payed off? IDK...

It is, but it is also more boring for the consumer. Is it more profitable enough to risk the market becoming stale?

IMO, if you're going to make an RPG, make an RPG. Maybe it's more of a gamble, but if it's done right, the payoff is huge. BioWare built themselves on amazing RPGs.

[Lunch Box1912]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

Here we go with the Art again...

[Iakus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

vware wrote...

ME3 is more RPG than ME2.

There, I said it.

How? Because they added more options to the skill tree? 

TO be fair, I do think it's true.

But it's kinda like saying "Getting punched in the face once is better than being punched in the face twice

[Mathias]

vware wrote...

Yes. Because the options are more diverse and do actually matter gameplay wise. 

It was a step forward from ME2's skill tree, but then ended up taking a few steps back in other areas. Exploration is pretty much gone, the Journal system was shoddy, side quests were reduced to eavesdrop> scan > fetch, and the dialogue opitions were very few and far between, and when we got a dialogue wheel, moments where we had more than 2 choices where few and far between.

Less real choices are better then a buttload of options which don't really matter. (See ME1 with it's plethora of guns, armours and other options, which weren't that different.)

I have played ME1 many times on many difficulties. The skills, armor, weapons and mods you use, absolutely make a difference. Especially if you play on Insanity. The gear and squadmates you bring with you on missions in that game, determine how well you'll perform on that mission. On the other hand in ME3, the strategy for every single mission is get to cover and shoot. Even on my Insanity run, my squaddies felt useless. I was pretty much killing everything.

If you like to spend half your game sifting through menus, be my guest but that's not my idea of a good time.

 

That's an exaggeration. I'd say in a 30 hour run in ME1, i probably spent 30-40 minutes in the menu total.

Also there are more armour, gun,  weapon mods and overall customization options. Even more than ME1.

There's not more armour mods in ME3 than ME1. That is completely false. As a matter of fact there are no mods you can install in your armor. Hell you can't even customize your squadmates gear, aside from changing outfits which provides a different bonus.

As for guns and gun mods, again i'm not sure how that makes ME3 a RPG. So many TPS and FPS games these days have customizable weapons. Black Ops 2 and Far Cry 3 immediately comes to mind.

Story wise things stay the same apart from more auto-dialogue.

Except for the dip in the quality of that writing. ME3's narrative was nowhere near as good as ME1&2's. It had it's moments, but a few good moments doesn't make up for the many mediocre and flat out bad moments.

And before you go all medieval on me I've been playing RPG's since KOTOR and with every single release since then a lot of people have been crying over the decline of the Bioware RPG.

Well no, but i've been playing RPGs since 1994 if that counts? Your always gonna have people complain about certain things. But the amount of people complaining about the decline fo the Bioware RPG today, is not nearly as bad as it was 10 years ago.

I haven't noticed that decline. The RPG's game mechanics have changed for sure, but what a RPG boils down to for me is a great story where you can make significant choices (story-wise)

 
Where most of those choices ultimately don't matter. I can play ME1 thru ME3 making all the bad choices and getting more squadmates killed, and yet i can still get the same ending as everyone else.

Maybe it's just me who thinks that and (apart from DA2) Bioware has delivered that every single time.

ME3 gave us less control over Shepard. I don't know why you think it delivered the same great RPG experience.

[Mathias]

Here's how I see it.

ME3 took 2 steps forward:

1. More Weapon customization.
2. More Skills.

but then took 4 steps back:

1. Autodialogue
2. No exploration
3. Poor Journal design
4. Side quests reduced to scanning

And when it comes to the skills and weapon mods, again, this is something a lot of action games made these days do. If ME3 is an RPG, then so are those games.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 16 janvier 2013 - 01:37 .

[xsdob]

Cstaf wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I will be posting the links to videos I used in the dialogue analysis so others can check my results. I will also try and as accurately as I can tally the total numbers of auto-dialogue and selectable dialogue. Additionally, I will try and post the criteria for what is or is not an instance of auto-dialogue as well and take feedback on whether the criteria is acceptable or not, in order to ensure the results are as fair as I can make them. The reason I will be using someone elses uploaded videos is to ensure that I could not edit those videos in any way, making them acquired through a third party source.

Whether there is more auto-dialogue, less auto-dialogue, or an even number of auto-dialogue, will hopefully be determined by this test. I will more than likely take a few days and post this in the fan creations section to avoid a lock, if you are interested in seeing the results, pm me and I will link you to the place where my results will be posted.

Just curious, as a statistician, what will your sampling method be?

Edit: If you want suggestions on how to get a good representative sample of the whole game i could help you. I do this all day at work on financial data but it should be applicable to a project such as this as well.

I was going to literally sit through an entire video, tally with an old fashion pen and paper the number of times a dialouge option was given. Re-watch the video, watch for whenever no option was given. And finally look at both results and divide in order to get the percentage, and do this for a full walkthrouh of the entire game from start to stargazer scene.

But I have lost much steam to do so in the wake of my workload, a 3000 word essay planing on nietzsche, upcoming college projects and test, and the fact that like the person I was angry about said, by the time I do do this, no one will care or be interested in the results. Might do it as a side project but the angry drive I had just hours ago has fizzled and burnt itself out into just "meh, I don't agree and like what you guys are saying.".

Modifié par xsdob, 16 janvier 2013 - 02:06 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

I don't know if you work closely to the Directors, Mr.Priestly. But dammit, tell them to keep the choices and features like ME1! The exploration of the vast galaxy, the feeling of an actual war (Not just a sappy space drama.) The story in ME1 was unrivaled by any other Bioware game...well...KOTOR comes close. But that was the RPG that changed my view on games. To never judge a game by its cover.

[thefallen2far]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

The first part is a bad arguement. Andy Warhol and DaVincci are artists producing a piece of art. The artists of ME 1 and 2 aren't the same as the artists of 3. Drew and Chris as well as others were the biggest contributors the plotting in the writing in the first 2 and it was obvious it was replaced with people that just weren't as good. That's not an insult, that's just the critique. Michelangelo was the artist who painted most of the sistene chapel, pope Julius was the patron. Now, parts of the sistene chapel was painted by othr artists like perugino and botticelli, but an artist creates the art, not the patron or the company paying for the artist's servces. If the artist is changed out, it's judged independently critiqued seperately. The overall product is judged seperately.

to say ME3 is art in the same context as paintings or novels are if they're the same artists... the company changed the artists, so it's not subject to the same art standard. Bioware can take credit for the art of the earlier games in the same sense the Catholic church can take credit for knowing who to pay for the sistine chapel, but the actual art is from the individual making the art.

You used the example of Davincci and Warhol, imagine the backlash the church would get if Andy Warhol was commissioned to finish the last Supper. that's kinda the same level here. Mac is not Drew. You can't even compare the 2. I'm sure both can be respected in their own right, but if the product is crap because the replacement isn't as good. We're just comparing artists. The product was so much better with the critical, well thought out mind of the artist Drew than the pop-contrivance thematic idea of an idea art of Mac.

It's not meant to be an insult. It's praise of another artist. Perugino is not as good as Michelangelo, that's not an insult, that's just a critique. And if andy warhol was commisioned to modernize the Last Supper, the product is not as good and the audience of Davincci would not want to visit that product. And they'd complain, they'd protest, they'd not to church etc.... basically, the church looses money to do this. That's why the church knows to not do that, it's bad buisness. The church knows it's a company making a product and they don= want to loose buisness.

So as much as you want this "art" arguement to say "anything's good".... it's not. It's a product. Artists creates the art or is commissioned forthe art by the company. The company releases a product. The audence flocks to the art of the product because of the artist. The artist is responsible for generating the audience, the company is responsible for the upkeep of the product for the audience in case the artist goes away. If it's unsatisfying, then the company hired the wrong artist. The "it's our art" rguement reflects badly on tche company for forgetting it's responibility is the product. If you see it as art and someone says "it's crap" the company is seen as making a crappy product, not a "flawed piece" of art, a product that isn't good, and any future products for the company are the same negaetive conotation. That's why most companies don't use the "artistic integrity" arguement. Artists do, and they have to individually deal with those negative connotations. M Night Shyamalan uses artist integrity to defend his bad movies... steven spielburg uses it to defend crystal skull... but the production companies know that it has no dealings with artistic licenses they're responsible cor the product.

As for the second part, ME3 was an RPG by reputation alone at this point. It's fine if that's the direction of the company, but if Call of Duty starts adding more RPG elements than Mass Effect, you can't really clasify it as an RPG. It's an action game. Again, it's not a bad thing. Action games aremore profitable than survival horror games which is why RE6 isn't really a survival horror game, action games are more profitable than RPGs nowadays which is why it moved away fromRPG elements and replaced them with multiplayer, co op and SP action and autodialogue and a linear, shoehorned storyline, linear level up stats for characters, removing the individual character origins to be unimportant or standard and forced themes... at some point you have to realize you're not really making nor are you interested anymore in making RPGs. Saying that your game progressions are less RPG because people have said it for years isn't an arguement if it's true. When GTA San Andreas and Call of Duty are more RPG than your game, it's not BS, you're just whether you care to see it or not.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 16 janvier 2013 - 03:10 .

[Lunch Box1912]

thefallen2far wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

The first part is a bad arguement. Andy Warhol and DaVincci are artists producing a piece of art. The artists of ME 1 and 2 aren't the same as the artists of 3. Drew and Chris as well as others were the biggest contributors the plotting in the writing in the first 2 and it was obvious it was replaced with people that just weren't as good. That's not an insult, that's just the critique. Michelangelo was the artist who painted most of the sistene chapel, pope Julius was the patron. Now, parts of the sistene chapel was painted by othr artists like perugino and botticelli, but an artist creates the art, not the patron or the company paying for the artist's servces. If the artist is changed out, it's judged independently critiqued seperately. The overall product is judged seperately.

to say ME3 is art in the same context as paintings or novels are if they're the same artists... the company changed the artists, so it's not subject to the same art standard. Bioware can take credit for the art of the earlier games in the same sense the Catholic church can take credit for knowing who to pay for the sistine chapel, but the actual art is from the individual making the art.

You used the example of Davincci and Warhol, imagine the backlash the church would get if Andy Warhol was commissioned to finish the last Supper. that's kinda the same level here. Mac is not Drew. You can't even compare the 2. I'm sure both can be respected in their own right, but if the product is crap because the replacement isn't as good. We're just comparing artists. The product was so much better with the critical, well thought out mind of the artist Drew than the pop-contrivance thematic idea of an idea art of Mac.

It's not meant to be an insult. It's praise of another artist. Perugino is not as good as Michelangelo, that's not an insult, that's just a critique. And if andy warhol was commisioned to modernize the Last Supper, the product is not as good and the audience of Davincci would not want to visit that product. And they'd complain, they'd protest, they'd not to church etc.... basically, the church looses money to do this. That's why the church knows to do that, it's bad buisness. The church knows it's a company making a product and they don= want to loose buisness.

So as much as you want this "art" arguement to say "anything's good".... it's not. It's a product. Artists creates the art or is commissioned forthe art by the company. The company releases a product. The audence flocks to the art of the product because of the artist. The artist is responsible for generating the audience, the company is responsible for the upkeep of the product for the audience in case the artist goes away. If it's unsatisfying, then the company hired the wrong artist. The "it's our art" rguement reflects badly on tche company for forgetting it's responibility is the product. If you see it as art and someone says "it's crap" the company is seen as making a crappy product, not a "flawed piece" of art, a product that isn't good, and any future products for the company are the same negaetive conotation. That's why most companies don't use the "artistic integrity" arguement. Artists do, and they have to individually deal with those negative connotations. M Night Shyamalan uses artist integrity to defend his bad movies... steven spielburg uses it to defend crystal skull... but the production companies know that it has no dealings with artistic licenses they're responsible cor the product.

Thank you... It drives me nuts when people hide behind the It's ART spiel

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 16 janvier 2013 - 02:49 .

[xsdob]

Weren't most of the Renaissance art pieces done by commissions? How are they not commercial art as well?

[Yate]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I have worked on every game we've made since the end of Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. EVERY time we make a game, someone complains it isn't as "RPG" as the one previously. NwN wasn't BG, KotOR wasn't NwN, Jade wasn't KotOR, ME wasn't Jade, etc.

RPG is not static, RPG changes and evolves. Fallout 3 is not the same game as Fallout. Dragon Age: Origins is not the same game as Baldur's Gate. There is no hard, set rule as to what an RPG must be (beyond letting you play a role and it being a game, I suppose) or contain. That "YOU" (whoever you is) enjoys XYZ features and "THEY" liek ABC features does not mean that a game that does or does not include those features is any more or less an RPG. Yes, it absolutely may be less of an RPG in the mind of someone who wants ABC features, but gets XYZ features, but that does not change the inherant RPGness of the game.

Now we're arguing about "art" (as a methapor, stick with me here). Is the Mona Lisa art? Sure, it's awesome, historic, beautiful, etc. Is Warhol's Soup art? No! It's simple, childish, ugly, etc. This is the mind of the person perceiving it. They are both art, just different art. BG2 is an RPG, so is ME3. They are different, but they are also the same.

I don't know if you work closely to the Directors, Mr.Priestly. But dammit, tell them to keep the choices and features like ME1! The exploration of the vast galaxy, the feeling of an actual war (Not just a sappy space drama.) The story in ME1 was unrivaled by any other Bioware game...well...KOTOR comes close. But that was the RPG that changed my view on games. To never judge a game by its cover.

really? ME1? the feeling of an actual war?

you mean the space battle that lasted around half an hour?

or the three man squad doing all the actual warring?

better than ME3?

look, there's criticism, and then there's just malarky.

[Yate]

wait

are people actually trying to define art here?

guys

just...

no

[EnvyTB075]

Yate wrote...

really? ME1? the feeling of an actual war?

you mean the space battle that lasted around half an hour?

or the three man squad doing all the actual warring?

better than ME3?

look, there's criticism, and then there's just malarky.

ITT: People who don't know what actual war is like.

[Xenite]

Theirs a big difference in a game franchise evolving and it's quality taking a nosedive. Blizzard is known for evolving WoW by stealing... I mean borrowing good ideas from newer games, and hey it works. The bulk of the problems people have complained about in recent games do not stem from the game mechanics or genre evolving.