Dragon Age preview

[Gromnir]

"But if Gromnir is right in his McDonald's analogy, the economics actually favour Bio making Dragon Age as dark as possible in order to meet the demands of the market, just like McDonalds introduced salads to attract women customers and allegedly 'gourmet' coffee to win back market share from Starbucks."

 

well that makes no sense. by adding a faux salad to menu, to attract women and health conscious peoples, mcdonalds did not overt change the menu. all the old mainstays is still there. is still a mcdonalds menu... but they throws in anemic, token salad or two. do not alienate the current established customers with any real change, and maybe with a half-hearted nod to health consciousness you gets some extra customers by adding a salad or two. is not as if every mcd restaurant renovated... added a salad bar and killed anything fried from menu. if mcd adding salads is akin to what bio is doing by adding dark to games, then Di gots even less to worry 'bout than we suggested earlier.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

keeps in mind that we is talking 'bout da, a pc crpg from bio. a pc crpg is already gonna appeal to a relative small subset of total potential gamers, and bio has shown a desire to reach as big a % of that small group as is possible. is the first pc crpg bio will have released since nwn and its expansions, so chances are that they go vegan is slight... and notion that doing so would be economic smart is... stoopid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tale]

Damn you Gromnir, I find your reasoning entirely agreeable. That's not so common.

[newc0253]

keeps in mind that we is talking 'bout da, a pc crpg from bio. a pc crpg is already gonna appeal to a relative small subset of total potential gamers, and bio has shown a desire to reach as big a % of that small group as is possible. is the first pc crpg bio will have released since nwn and its expansions, so chances are that they go vegan is slight... and notion that doing so would be economic smart is... stoopid.

 

Hmm, for a self-professed food fan, it seems surprising that Gromnir can't tell the difference between a restaurant and a menu.

 

Does the fact that McDonalds adds salads to the menu mean that it is going vegan? Similarly, if McDonalds starts selling fancier coffee, does that mean that it will suddenly turn into Starbucks?

 

No?

 

So if Bio puts out a 'dark' game, would that spell the end of Bio as we know it?

 

No, not really.

 

Bio always has more than one ball in the air at a time and, since most of those balls are the kind of shiny happy balls that posters like Di seem to clap at, it's unlikely that a single 'dark' game would turn the crowd away.

 

As for DA being the 'first pc crpg ... since nwn', so what? Bio now looks to make most of its dosh from the console market and arguably the PC market now favours darker games, so why would Bio be taking such a big risk by making DA 'dark'? Perhaps Gromnir believes that the PC CRPG market is dominated by soccer moms and nervous nellies but i've seen no evidence for it.

 

Ultimately, I doubt DA will be much different than previous Bio games, not because they're afraid to try something different but because they lack the know-how. But in these insecure times, it's good to know that some things don't change, just like Gromnir still can't see the wood for all those darn trees.

[Gromnir]

"Does the fact that McDonalds adds salads to the menu mean that it is going vegan? Similarly, if McDonalds starts selling fancier coffee, does that mean that it will suddenly turn into Starbucks? "

 

now you is just being silly. is not as if bio can offer up a menu to people. you want a "dark" pc crpg game? then bio can just whip up such a game, such a salad, and still has so much space on the menu for big macs and fillet o' fish and quarter pounders n' such.

 

HA!

 

bio, in spite o' being bigger and busier than most developers, releases how many games a year? not many.

 

regardless, even using your ridiculous myopic view, the meal bio is offering to customers in the guise o' da is still gonna be targeted to appeal to most people possible... and if that is case, then why in their right mind would they offer all da customers only salad?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

is not as if bio can offer up a menu to people. you want a "dark" pc crpg game? then bio can just whip up such a game, such a salad, and still has so much space on the menu for big macs and fillet o' fish and quarter pounders n' such.

 

Yes, the idea of Bio whipping up a game to order in the kitchen is silly, but not nearly as silly as the your view, which seems to be something like Bio makes one 'dark' game and all of a sudden they're canning the sequels to Mass Effect and Jade Empire and making a CRPG with Sonic the Hedgehog as a goth baby-killer.

 

the meal bio is offering to customers in the guise o' da is still gonna be targeted to appeal to most people possible... and if that is case, then why in their right mind would they offer all da customers only salad?

 

You want some straw man with your salad? If Bio wanted DA to appeal to most people possible, then why not include aliens and spaceships and guitars and a dance/singing contest of some kind?

 

Or maybe the fantasy SP CRPG market isn't as broad a church as you think, and maybe Bio are simply recognising that all the kids are flocking to buy so-called 'dark' games like Bioshock and Witcher and following suit.

 

Really, it's an empirical question based on what the fantasy CRPG market wants. Apparently you think there's lots of CRPG players like Di out there, honest upright folk who are disgusted by 'dark' games and would desert Bio in droves if they ever made a game like Bioshock. I don't. I think Di represents a tiny, tiny minority and one that Bio is happy to forgo if it means they sell as well as Bioshock did.

 

We both agree DA won't really be that dark but we disagree as to why. You seem to think Bio are afraid of making a 'dark' game like Bioshock because it won't sell as well as a shiny happy game like Mass Effect. I think Bio would love to make Bioshock-kinda money, they just don't have what it takes to deliver something that novel.

[Gfted1]

Hasnt DA been in development since the biblical flood? Why is it being touted as darker because games like the Witcher, etc... are "what the people want" when its been in development since before those games came out? Meaning, its not a result of "what the people want", its the direction it was going the whole time.

[newc0253]

Hasnt DA been in development since the biblical flood? Why is it being touted as darker because games like the Witcher, etc... are "what the people want" when its been in development since before those games came out? Meaning, its not a result of "what the people want", its the direction it was going the whole time.

 

you have plainly forgotten the endless development cycle of NWN, in which something that originally promised to be primarily a multiplayer game became touted as the single-player sequel to Baldur's Gate.

 

of course we all remember how well that turned out.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, NWN took years.

 

And I remember the furore when they said maybe, they wouldn't even have a real campaign.

[~Di]

Really, it's an empirical question based on what the fantasy CRPG market wants. Apparently you think there's lots of CRPG players like Di out there, honest upright folk who are disgusted by 'dark' games and would desert Bio in droves if they ever made a game like Bioshock. I don't. I think Di represents a tiny, tiny minority and one that Bio is happy to forgo if it means they sell as well as Bioshock did.

 

How many units did Bioshock actually sell? I think it would have to be pretty impressive to beat the combined number of BG 1 and BG 2, which I've heard is 4-5 million units. Sure, over a period of years Bioshock and many other games may beat those figures... I imagine a lot of fps's have already beaten them. The fps genre is massive, much larger than the crpg nitch. Thing is, I happen to think there are a lot of gamers like me, gamers who define stark differences between rpg's and fps's, although some developers seem determined to blur those lines by assigning the rpg to a fps. I suspect Bioshock is such a game; I suspect STALKER is such a game; I know that Dues Ex (one of my all-time favorites) was such a game. The ability to add limited changes to a character does not an rpg make, in my view. Most fps's, I suspect, have much larger sales than most crpgs. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Frankly BioWare is one of the largest crpg developers in the business, and has a huge fan base for its games, games you seem to lump in the "happy shiny" category. If what I like in a game is so rare (and I like BioWare games), then BioWare would have a very small fan base of that tiny, tiny minority like me. The very fact that their fan base is as large as it is tends to prove my point. And I know for a fact that there are a lot of gamers who don't take the evil route in crpgs because they find it distasteful to do evil things, so I doubt that makes me some kind of anomoly. I'm curious why you are fighting so hard to prove that I am.

 

I do agree with you that consoles are taking over the gaming market. I saw this coming a decade ago; even had some heated discussions with Gaider and other BioWare and Black Isles developers who assured me that PC gaming would never die. Fair enough, it's not dead yet. But it's on a respirator, with the best games being snapped up by Microsoft and Sony as exclusives. That doesn't surprise me, but it does disappoint me. For various reasons, I'm not a console person... and on principle it annoys me that one must invest hundreds of bucks every couple of years to buy the spiffy new console version (which of course will not play games from the previous version) just to use the latest productions.

 

We both agree DA won't really be that dark but we disagree as to why. You seem to think Bio are afraid of making a 'dark' game like Bioshock because it won't sell as well as a shiny happy game like Mass Effect. I think Bio would love to make Bioshock-kinda money, they just don't have what it takes to deliver something that novel.

 

I suspect BioWare has enough talent to make any kind of game it wants to make. Just because you might not like the kind of games they do make doesn't really put you in a position to judge their abilities; it only puts you in a position to judge their products based on your personal gaming tastes.

 

And I ask you again, did you follow the Dark Side in KOTOR? If so, I don't see how you could keep harping that BioWare is unable to create a dark theme.

Edited January 17, 2008 by ~Di

[newc0253]

How many units did Bioshock actually sell? I think it would have to be pretty impressive to beat the combined number of BG 1 and BG 2, which I've heard is 4-5 million units.

 

Bioshock's sold at least 2 million since being released in mid-2007, so i'd say their well on their way.

 

You're right, of course, that the market for shooters is far larger than CRPGs, so we're hardly comparing like with like, but you also acknowledge that the boundaries are blurring, with more story-driven FPS like Half Life and Deux Ex.

 

What would be really surprising, though, is that the taste for so-called 'darker' stories (btw, i really hate that we've somehow settled on using that term because i really think it's hopelessly off-base) is somehow restricted to the larger FPS market whereas somehow people who play CRPGs mostly like up-with-people storylines.

 

I also think the success of Bio has to do with their emphasis on story, rather than the particular tone of any particular story of any particular game of theirs. They have a particular strength in characterisation and a style of humour that's very popular, but their dominance of the CRPG genre probably has more to do with the way they've capitalised on the success of the BG series (and the D&D franchise) rather than the particular appeal of their writing.

 

For the record, I've never played the 'evil' path in any CRPG i can remember so you're hardly an anomaly there. I've sometimes made the occasional self-interested choice here and there but I'd be as unhappy with a game that gave no opportunities for heroism as one which overtly encouraged them. I think in fact you'd be suprised at the prevalence of the 'heroic' path even among games you label 'dark' (hence another reason for hating that label). In truth, even the shadiest of shades-of-grey game usually has a heroic path, even if you sometimes have to work for it.

 

But I think there is a market for games that eschew obvious heroism for a greater degree of social and psychological realism or whatever (i'm not sure that's any better than 'darker' as a label, but it's one I'll try for now) and I think you are in a minority in eschewing the tone of games like Bioshock or STALKER. These things are a matter of taste of course, and there's nothing wrong with wanting more Bio-style games. I'd prefer to see as great a range as possible rather than have all CRPGs be as dark as possible. I also might be wrong about my sense of the general tastes of CRPG players - like i said, it's an empirical question - but the popularity of games like Torment, Fallout, Witcher, etc leads me to think I'm more likely to be right.

 

I suspect BioWare has enough talent to make any kind of game it wants to make. Just because you might not like the kind of games they do make doesn't really put you in a position to judge their abilities; it only puts you in a position to judge their products based on your personal gaming tastes.

 

Really? I don't think I've ever said I dislike Bio. I liked the BG series, the HOTU expansion for NWN1, Jade Empire, KOTOR and Mass Effect. But I don't think they're perfect and I think they go for a particular kind of writing which, over time, shows its limitations.

 

As for whether liking or not liking their games forbids me from judging their abilities, I'm not so sure about that. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, I don't have to be a carpenter to judge whether someone has made a ****ty table. And while I like most of their games, no writer or developer is beyond criticism. Tolstoy they ain't.

 

And I ask you again, did you follow the Dark Side in KOTOR? If so, I don't see how you could keep harping that BioWare is unable to create a dark theme.

 

No, but I'm well aware of the possibilities for following the Dark Side in KOTOR. But are you saying that possibility therefore made KOTOR a darker game overall? And, if so, why do you seem to find Bioshock distasteful but not (apparently) KOTOR?

[Gromnir]

"You want some straw man with your salad? If Bio wanted DA to appeal to most people possible, then why not include aliens and spaceships and guitars and a dance/singing contest of some kind?"

 

*chuckle*

 

you purpsoeful uses two strawmen agruments in a row to somehow prove that Gromnir uses strawman? however, in spite of fact that Gromnir made no such ridiculous argument, it is probably true that if bioware honest believed that adding such nonsense would improve sales, they would probably do so... but you seems to lose sight of the big picture again, which is sales. can you honest think o' a game developer plausibly mixing your suggested elements such that they end up with a commercially viable whole? no? if not then you got answer why bio not doing that way.

 

"Or maybe the fantasy SP CRPG market isn't as broad a church as you think, and maybe Bio are simply recognising that all the kids are flocking to buy so-called 'dark' games like Bioshock and Witcher and following suit."

 

so why is you arguing with Gromnir's comments above? you suggest that really what crpg fans want is the freaking salad.

 

*shrug*

 

maybe you not read entire thread... which is okie dokie 'cause Gromnir rarely reads entire threads, but it is noteworthy that bio got real and serious resitance from 'bout 1/4 of bio boardies when they announced that da would be "dark," inspired by george r.r. martin and battlestar galactica. 1/4 thought dark were grand stuff. 1/2 wanted to talk 'bout other more important aspects o' game development. this debate is what promted Gaider and other biowarians to come up with a new take on da's darkness: "DA will be dark, but not too dark."

 

the congregation responded when bio announced oncoming darkness, and it were a pretty damned broad range o' responses they got back from the faithful.

 

again, maybe you wanna read actual thread and comments that inspired... or not. you not gonna listen anyways.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

so why is you arguing with Gromnir's comments above? you suggest that really what crpg fans want is the freaking salad.

 

To be honest, i don't think we're really talking salads and burgers here. the difference between a game like Baldur's Gate and a game like the Witcher is really the difference between Big Macs and Whoppers. In fact, Witcher is overall more like the BG series than, say, Torment. Some people like their fantasy CRPGs shiny and heroic and some like their fantasy CRPGs flame-grilled with gritty helpings of 'realism'. My point is that Bio would happily give the customer more grit in DA, just as if the Whoppers start outselling the Big Macs 2:1, then pretty soon McDonalds is gonna start pushing Quarter Pounders or something to compete.

 

Okay, i've reached my limit with the food analogies here.

 

maybe you not read entire thread... which is okie dokie 'cause Gromnir rarely reads entire threads, but it is noteworthy that bio got real and serious resitance from 'bout 1/4 of bio boardies when they announced that da would be "dark," inspired by george r.r. martin and battlestar galactica. 1/4 thought dark were grand stuff. 1/2 wanted to talk 'bout other more important aspects o' game development. this debate is what promted Gaider and other biowarians to come up with a new take on da's darkness: "DA will be dark, but not too dark."

 

Didn't read the entire thread, no.

 

But i hardly think the fact that 1/4 of bio boardies complained about too much darkness signifies much of anything, nor the fact that Gaider et al made soothing noises to calm them down. About 1/4 of bio boardies can be relied upon to say pretty much anything, at least until their lithium kicks in.

 

Gaider's backtracking is more interesting. Personally, i'm mighty indifferent to Martin's stuff but they could do worse than take BSG as inspiration and it's a shame they seem to have rowed back from that. But, let's be honest, it was never gonna be Blood Meridian with elves and orcs or anything. The writers at Bio are hedgehogs, not foxes.

[~Di]

You're right, of course, that the market for shooters is far larger than CRPGs, so we're hardly comparing like with like, but you also acknowledge that the boundaries are blurring, with more story-driven FPS like Half Life and Deux Ex.

 

Correction. I did not say that the boundaries between crpgs and fps are blurring; I said that there are people like myself who know the difference between a crpg and a fps that touts itself as a crpg. Glueing feathers on a pig and calling it a rooster doesn't make it one.

 

I also think the success of Bio has to do with their emphasis on story, rather than the particular tone of any particular story of any particular game of theirs. They have a particular strength in characterisation and a style of humour that's very popular, but their dominance of the CRPG genre probably has more to do with the way they've capitalised on the success of the BG series (and the D&D franchise) rather than the particular appeal of their writing.

 

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

But I think there is a market for games that eschew obvious heroism for a greater degree of social and psychological realism or whatever (i'm not sure that's any better than 'darker' as a label, but it's one I'll try for now) and I think you are in a minority in eschewing the tone of games like Bioshock or STALKER. These things are a matter of taste of course, and there's nothing wrong with wanting more Bio-style games. I'd prefer to see as great a range as possible rather than have all CRPGs be as dark as possible. I also might be wrong about my sense of the general tastes of CRPG players - like i said, it's an empirical question - but the popularity of games like Torment, Fallout, Witcher, etc leads me to think I'm more likely to be right.

 

I've already said that I agree there is a thirst for dark, gritty, games with themes and stories I personally find unpleasant. I just don't have to like 'em, and for a fps to get my gaming dollar it has to offer me more than the opportunity to choose between slaughtering little girls or saving them, or running around Chernoble trying to beat other scroungers to the goodies. I've already said I liked Torment and Fallout, but comparing a couple of decade-old games... undisputed classics!... with The Witcher seems a stretch to me. And I have explained in detail why I choose not to purchase The Witcher even though I had initially considered it, so I'm getting the idea that you are not really reading my posts, rather skimming them for sound bytes you can argue with!

 

Really? I don't think I've ever said I dislike Bio.

 

Could have fooled me.

 

As for whether liking or not liking their games forbids me from judging their abilities, I'm not so sure about that. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, I don't have to be a carpenter to judge whether someone has made a ****ty table. And while I like most of their games, no writer or developer is beyond criticism. Tolstoy they ain't.

 

You said, "I think Bio would love to make Bioshock-kinda money, they just don't have what it takes to deliver something that novel." You also said, "Ultimately, I doubt DA will be much different than previous Bio games, not because they're afraid to try something different but because they lack the know-how." You also added, "The writers at Bio are hedgehogs, not foxes."

 

 

That isn't a criticism of what BioWare has produced; You said quite clearly that you didn't believe they were capable of producing anything else, which is something you are not in a position to know... unless you have access to the personnel records, work histories and resumes of everyone in their company. And it certainly would make the reader of those words presume that you do not care much for BioWare.

 

 

No, but I'm well aware of the possibilities for following the Dark Side in KOTOR. But are you saying that possibility therefore made KOTOR a darker game overall? And, if so, why do you seem to find Bioshock distasteful but not (apparently) KOTOR?

 

It sure as hell did make KOTOR a darker game overall. Good God, man, you made your wookie murder his best friend just for sport... and that was after you had personally slaughtered most of the rest of your crew! You don't think that's a bit on the dark and distasteful side? I do. Anyway, I've repeatedly said that I haven't played Bioshock, so I haven't called the game itself distasteful. There are themes and premises I find distasteful, like the GTA series. Again, I don't like the premise I've read about Bioshock, and I don't like first-person shooters wearing feathers and crowing about being a crpg. Nor do I like the premise of slaughtering little girls, even though I'm aware one can choose not to slaughter the little girls, but if a game's premise makes me shudder, I'm moving on. Bioshock is not my cuppa on many levels. However, most would agree that it's got a rather dark story and a rather dark theme (unless folks on various game forums are making that up), so I don't know why you're so vehemently trying to prove that it isn't. Do you own stock in their company or something?

 

Probably no sense continuing this discussion since I honestly don't think you're really reading my replies in depth... or maybe I just can't explain myself well enough to be clearly understood. It's been an interesting discussion though, and I thank you.

Edited January 18, 2008 by ~Di

[Humodour]

Even if all the world is against you, you will have love, and friends that stand by you.

 

Jesus Christ. I know that's a recurring theme in fantasy. But couldn't they try to only use it incidentally? Explicitly going for that... oh dear.

 

Dragon Age is for hippies. Confirmed.

 

Bioware does one thing well: well, what they do well.

 

Bioware doesn't purport to be a maker of new or innovative games (though I'm sure their marketting department does). They know what they do well, and it sells and makes people happy. I can understand why they'd not change that.

 

Love and friendships despite the odds was an important theme in Baldur's Gate. Considering this is a spiritual successor to BG, it makes sense to include this and hype it up.

 

I doubt the dichotomy will change any time soon: Bioware and Obsidian/BIS = good and complementary games. Bioware churns out the fluff RPGs to sustain us, Obsid/BIS makes the brain food that makes it all worth it.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Krezack

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I do agree with you that consoles are taking over the gaming market. I saw this coming a decade ago; even had some heated discussions with Gaider and other BioWare and Black Isles developers who assured me that PC gaming would never die. Fair enough, it's not dead yet. But it's on a respirator, with the best games being snapped up by Microsoft and Sony as exclusives. That doesn't surprise me, but it does disappoint me. For various reasons, I'm not a console person... and on principle it annoys me that one must invest hundreds of bucks every couple of years to buy the spiffy new console version (which of course will not play games from the previous version) just to use the latest productions.

 

The idea that PC gaming will die is an absolute myth, time and time again I've explained the patterns of the gaming industry and its very unlikely to change. The PC market itself vastly outnumbers the console market, so even contemplating that developers will simply cease to develop for the platform is out there in the realms of ignorance, or perhaps better put as misunderstanding.

 

It's very simple matter of the fact stuff really, PC gaming has been in such a position before, back when the playstation was released and 3D graphics were all the rage, the PC's of the time we're not capible of producing the same results as the playstation without the aid of what was then extremely expensive 3D accelerators. Windows 95 and Direct X eventually changed this, along with some noteable titles, Quake, Half-life, Diablo, Fallout, and Baldurs Gate spring to mind.

 

What does exist belongs to technological leaps, when the XBox was released it was based upon Direct X 8 API and the windows 2000 kernal, albiet it modified and optermized for the specific hardware. This in laymans terms basically states that you can do more with less so to speak, yet the PC soon entered the direct X 9 era, which is frankly a far more capible API, HLSL and programmable graphical hardware placed the PC technologically well above the Xbox, all noteable sellers made there way ontop the PC, Halo and KOTOR, albiet that they were originally exclusive to the XBOX, the same can be said of Paystation 2 titles (which has a insane number of crap - good game ratio, and awfully weak hardware). We also found that developers would always jump at cross platform development, this isn't a new thing at all, heck I remember the days when crossplatform releases consisted of totally different versions of the same game!

 

Now we've seen the release of the next generation of consoles, the XBOX 360 is, to be blunt, Direct X 9.0c in a box with three dual threaded processors. The PC is looking at an entirely new API Direct X 10, and entirely new operating system Vista, and quad cores becoming common place, all that is happening is the same as what happend when PC's moved from DOS to windows 95, the next few years will see more reliable games made on the PC, this can be attributed to this latest step forwards. There will always be developers working on the edge creating cutting edge games. Direct X 10 really does make it easier for the developer, and the PC has something now that no other gaming platform has, geometry shaders.

 

It is always finacially viable to make games for a console and or the PC platform, the problem comes from publishers who will pay more to developers to develop for consoles when they're first released, the same game may get double the budget on a console than on the PC in regards to development. Developers want to reach as many people on as many platforms as possible, so why would they cut out the platform which is more capible (hardware wise)than others? It just doesn't make sense. Developers aren't just going to stop developing games for the PC, but they may very well stop developing games for only the PC, when other options exist, but there will always be PC only titles as there are console only titles.

 

To be blunt, the PC market can't die, because that's where the next generation of consoles will come from, its where the hardware is researched, where the API's are developed, where the cutting edge technology is released, the console is the technology of yesturdays PC's, just optermised.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

BG along with Diablo revived a die'in genre, there hadn't been a noteable release of an CRPG for years until that point, well some people may say M&M was, but meh, it didn't reinvent the genre. CRPG's were well established before this dying off period (see Ultima's, bards tales etc...) but between around 93-97 it was a bleak peroid, where RPG's almost died completely at one point, and what was released was generally extremely poor, BG and Diablo breathed a breath of fresh air into the genre and pushed the bounderies of what found be expected. But it didn't really estalbish the genre, just gave it a jolt.

 

It's like saying WoW was the first established MMO... Everquest and Ultima Online would be better responses and more accurate, WoW is certainly the first widely popular MMO, but it didn't establish them.

Edited January 18, 2008 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Humodour]

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

BG along with Diablo revived a die'in genre, there hadn't been a noteable release of an CRPG for years until that point, well some people may say M&M was, but meh, it didn't reinvent the genre. CRPG's were well established before this dying off period (see Ultima's, bards tales etc...) but between around 93-97 it was a bleak peroid, where RPG's almost died completely at one point, and what was released was generally extremely poor, BG and Diablo breathed a breath of fresh air into the genre and pushed the bounderies of what found be expected. But it didn't really estalbish the genre, just gave it a jolt.

 

It's like saying WoW was the first established MMO... Everquest and Ultima Online would be better responses and more accurate, WoW is certainly the first widely popular MMO, but it didn't establish them.

 

Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

[Hell Kitty]

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

BG along with Diablo revived a die'in genre, there hadn't been a noteable release of an CRPG for years until that point, well some people may say M&M was, but meh, it didn't reinvent the genre. CRPG's were well established before this dying off period (see Ultima's, bards tales etc...) but between around 93-97 it was a bleak peroid, where RPG's almost died completely at one point, and what was released was generally extremely poor, BG and Diablo breathed a breath of fresh air into the genre and pushed the bounderies of what found be expected. But it didn't really estalbish the genre, just gave it a jolt.

 

It's like saying WoW was the first established MMO... Everquest and Ultima Online would be better responses and more accurate, WoW is certainly the first widely popular MMO, but it didn't establish them.

 

Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

 

Fallout was the critical success, Baldur's Gate was the commercial success.

[Volourn]

"Fallout was the critical success, Baldur's Gate was the commercial success."

 

Baldur's Gate was both a financial, and critical success.

 

And, this talk of Fo being a 'commercial failure' is a joke. It has spawned two sequels, and 2 spin offs. *shrug* When did a game have to start selling a billion copies to be considered a financial success? L0L

 

 

"Bioware and Obsidian/BIS = good and complementary games. Bioware churns out the fluff RPGs to sustain us, Obsid/BIS makes the brain food that makes it all worth it."

 

L0L That's funny. there asn't much thinking involved in either NWN2 or KOTOR2. MOTB there was 'cause that was an awesome game. NWN OC had more situations where you had to 'think' than those two sequels. HA! Of course, I laugh when people claim that games made them 'think' like that is supposed to really mean anyway.. L0L

 

NHL08 makes you think. So does Super Mario for heaven sakes. L0L

[~Di]

[Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

 

That makes no sense at all. What on earth are you trying to say here?

[Hell Kitty]

"Fallout was the critical success, Baldur's Gate was the commercial success."

 

Baldur's Gate was both a financial, and critical success.

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I meant that Fallout was the start of the new wave and paved the way for BG (weren't Bio originally going to make an RTS?) which lead to the revivial of the genre as a whole. I don't think Fallout alone could have done it, and BG wouldn't have been without Fallout before it.

[newc0253]

Correction. I did not say that the boundaries between crpgs and fps are blurring; I said that there are people like myself who know the difference between a crpg and a fps that touts itself as a crpg. Glueing feathers on a pig and calling it a rooster doesn't make it one.

 

Okay, you didn't say that the boundaries are blurring but you acknowledged that some developers are trying to blur the boundaries which I think is a pretty strong indication of the way things are going, since - hey - they're the ones making the games.

 

I agree with you that slapping the CRPG label on an FPS doesn't make a game a CRPG. But I think the boundaries *are* beginning to blur, whether it's shooters with stronger story elements and character development, or action CRPGs that are so minimal in terms of actual story, they might as well be frakking shooters.

 

I agree that in gaming terms 'pigs' and 'roosters' are still very distinct at this point, but the game developers are working with more than just feathers and glue here. Sooner or later, they're gonna start breeding the pig and the rooster, or go into the lab and start mixing their DNA until they get something that crows at dawn and produces great-tasting bacon.

 

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

As many other posters have pointed out, BG didn't establish CRPGs. Fallout preceeded BG and Fallout was preceded by the goldbox games, among others. Hell, the chronology of CRPGs on wikipedia stretches back to 74 (something which surprised even me).

 

Of course, the BG series was innovative. It gave a huge shot in the arm to the CRPG genre, not to mention the D&D licence. But it's important not to confuse BG's innovations (e.g. strong NPC characterisation) with Bio's particular style, just as it's important not to confuse what was groundbreaking about the film Star Wars with George Lucas's particular writing style.

 

That isn't a criticism of what BioWare has produced; You said quite clearly that you didn't believe they were capable of producing anything else, which is something you are not in a position to know... unless you have access to the personnel records, work histories and resumes of everyone in their company.

 

Hmm, I don't think George Lucas would be able to write a good episode of Battlestar Galactica. Now, I don't have access to his personnel record, or the work history and resume of everyone at Lucasfilm. Instead, I'm basing it on the artistic output of George Lucas in general.

 

Now, it's not in itself a criticism of George Lucas that he's not writing Galactica episodes, anymore than i'd criticise Chinese food for not being Italian enough. George Lucas writes what he writes, and he's clearly successful (Indeed, I think the George Lucas who made THX 1138 would have written a great Galactica episode, but that's not the George Lucas we have today).

 

It is a criticism, though, in the sense that a lot of people also have problems with Lucas's stuff and praise the writing on Galactica. In other words, this isn't people who like italian complaining that Lucas only makes chinese food. This is people complaining that Lucas's chinese food isn't as good as the chinese food across the street because he uses too much sauce or something.

 

It's the same with Bioware. Over the years, the writers at Bio have put out some great stuff but they've also come to be known for a very specific style and type of story, one of the criticisms of which is that it's a little too bright and simple. You would obviously disagree and you're entitled to. But you can't deny that Bio have also had many opportunities to try and do something different, yet haven't. Maybe Bio will startle us all with DA and maybe George Lucas's next film will be a period-drama adaptation of an EM Forster novel. But somehow i doubt it.

 

And it certainly would make the reader of those words presume that you do not care much for BioWare.

 

I don't know that it's such a criticism to call a writer a hedgehog rather than a fox. It's simply the difference between being able to do a lot of different things and only being able to do one thing, but very well. I think the folk at Bio are very, very good at writing a CRPG with a particular kind of story and characters. But i can hardly praise them for their range or versatility if all they do is write broadly the same kind of game, over and over.

 

Bioshock is not my cuppa on many levels. However, most would agree that it's got a rather dark story and a rather dark theme (unless folks on various game forums are making that up), so I don't know why you're so vehemently trying to prove that it isn't.

 

I'm not trying to prove Bioshock isn't a rather dark story. But i'm scratching my head trying to understand why the option to harvest the DNA from child zombies is intrinsically darker than the option of killing half your party and soliciting your wookie companion to kill his friend for sport. If Bioshock is a 'dark' game for this reason, then so is KOTOR and every other game with an 'evil' path.

 

It's been an interesting discussion though, and I thank you.

 

No worries, you're welcome.

Edited January 18, 2008 by newc0253

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Then how do you account for the immense success of the BG series in the first place? There was nothing previously to "capitalize on", and when the BG series came out it was clearly innovative... not to mention wildly popular. I believe that the BG series is responsible for establishing the entire sub-genre of crpgs.

 

BG along with Diablo revived a die'in genre, there hadn't been a noteable release of an CRPG for years until that point, well some people may say M&M was, but meh, it didn't reinvent the genre. CRPG's were well established before this dying off period (see Ultima's, bards tales etc...) but between around 93-97 it was a bleak peroid, where RPG's almost died completely at one point, and what was released was generally extremely poor, BG and Diablo breathed a breath of fresh air into the genre and pushed the bounderies of what found be expected. But it didn't really estalbish the genre, just gave it a jolt.

 

It's like saying WoW was the first established MMO... Everquest and Ultima Online would be better responses and more accurate, WoW is certainly the first widely popular MMO, but it didn't establish them.

 

Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

 

Oh they did and they made a huge impact!

[Volourn]

"I meant that Fallout was the start of the new wave and paved the way for BG (weren't Bio originally going to make an RTS?) which lead to the revivial of the genre as a whole. I don't think Fallout alone could have done it, and BG wouldn't have been without Fallout before it."

 

Your illogical. The timeline is off. BG was alreayd well under development before FO came out. The reason BIO turned the RTS into BG was because Interplay had the D&D license, wanted to use it successful after bombing with Descent to Undemrountain, and the big wigs (aka Mr. U et al.) felt that Battlefield Infinity game would be perfect for it. BG's style had nothing to do with FOfrom everything that's been said, and is abck up by the timeline of the two games. Why do people try to give FO credit for BG? It's nonsencial.

 

 

"Hmm, I don't think George Lucas would be able to write a good episode of Battlestar Galactica. Now, I don't have access to his personnel record, or the work history and resume of everyone at Lucasfilm. Instead, I'm basing it on the artistic output of George Lucas in general.

 

Now, it's not in itself a criticism of George Lucas that he's not writing Galactica episodes, anymore than i'd criticise Chinese food for not being Italian enough. George Lucas writes what he writes, and he's clearly successful (Indeed, I think the George Lucas who made THX 1138 would have written a great Galactica episode, but that's not the George Lucas we have today)."

 

Your inconsistency is illogical. You say he can't write Galactica 'now'; but he could 'before'. I doubt he's very much forgotten how to. He just chooses not to. I'm sure he's capable of it, and you even admit he is.

 

Of course, comapring one writer (Lucas) to a writing/development team of many ala BIo is beyond silly. A single writer at BIO doesn't have the control, or power that Lucas has.

 

 

"one of the criticisms of which is that it's a little too bright and simple."

 

And, that criticism is stupid. Plain, and simple. I don't think a dwarf that slaughters children is 'too bright'. Thatw as way abck in BG1, btw. I don't think having to tell a mother her children are dead, and then watching said mother basically commit sucide as being 'too bright' nor is that chocie itself 'simple. BIO games are littered with literally hundreds of these type of situations that simply don't fit the stereotype of 'too bright and too simple'.

 

Surely, no more than any other RPG I have played that's for darn sure.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Volourn