Dragon Age preview

[newc0253]

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.

 

i'm not saying he couldn't write for Galactica now. if he offered to, i'm sure they'd jump at the chance.

 

i'm saying the George Lucas of 2008 no longer has the same instincts and sensibility of the George Lucas of 30 years ago, so a Galactica episode written by the 2008 Lucas would in all likelihood be inferior to one written by the Lucas that wrote THX 1138.

 

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.

 

it's a fair analogy as far as it goes, and Lucas's control or power is pretty much irrelevant to the case at hand. it may be that there's some writers at Bio who are capable of writing something different than usual Bio fare but we're talking about the 'controlling minds' at Bio, and - in the case of DA - Gaider in particular.

 

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'.

 

which just goes to show my earlier point to Di that the actual content of games like BG are every bit as 'dark' as the Witcher. i think the real force of Di's complaint about 'darkness' in games is that she dislikes the tone. Horrible things happen in BG but the overall tone of the game isn't all that 'dark'.

 

the actual complaint about Bio's writing being a little too 'bright and simple' isn't really about the content, as though all DA really needs is a few more child-killing dwarves and moms commiting suicide to be genuinely successful. I'm sure there's more than a few fans of 'dark' games that think that, btw, but it's not what i'm talking about. Yes, the 'bright and simple' point goes to things like tone but also other issues like motivation, characterisation and a degree of psychological depth.

 

It's not just the difference between, say, Star Wars and the revamped Galactica but the difference between a vanilla hero type like Luke Skywalker and a slightly more complex hero type like Lee Adama. Both have a lot in common, e.g. both have daddy issues and both strive to do what's right, but i think we both know that Bio would be much better suited to writing Skywalker-type characters than Galactica-style ones.

 

I stress again that I'd hate to see DA try to be 'dark' simply for the sake of being 'dark', e.g. more suicide! more infanticide! incest!!! What would be much more interesting would be if Bio set out to do heroic fantasy without the crutch of the usual conventions of heroic fantasy: something with a little less vanilla and a little more bitter coffee.

[~Di]

Okay, I lied. This is just to clarify a couple of points since we obviously aren't communicating well, and I don't want to just remain silent when you have made new statements that obscure or twist my original meanings, even though I know you didn't do so in a rude or malicious way. Miscommunication, I'm sure.

 

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).

 

Again, your response to my comment ignores that said comment was in response to a comment of yours.

The statement you quoted from me was in response to your allegation that:

"...They (BioWare) 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.

 

So I pointed out that the BG series was BioWare's first major success, therefore they had that success before having anything to "capitalize on". In other words, your allegation that they were only successful by capitalizing off something that they had created made no sense to me. Yes, I know Fallout came first. There were old-time crpgs, but they were few and far between. In the 90's, there weren't many developers doing crpgs because fans weren't buying them. Even Fallout was a nitch game with few but adoring fans until the success of BG brought hundreds of thousands of gamers into the crpg fold (myself included), where these new gamers learned of Fallout via word-of-mouth, extending its shelf-life by years and firmly establishing it as a classic... and a valuable franchise.

 

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.

 

These paragraphs are a bunch of words that say nothing about my initial comment. I still say that it's one thing to criticize the work produced by an individual or a company; it's quite another to stand on one's hind legs and arrogantly proclaim that an individual or company is incapable of producing anything different. You are not in a position to know what these people are capable of; you are only in a position to know what they have produced (that you have had access to) and to judge what you have seen based upon your own taste and opinion. You may write a novel-length essay to refute that, but the fact remains that it is not something that can be refuted. You cannot know what others are capable of, especially not a whole bunch of people whom you have never even met.

 

I don't know that it's such a criticism to call a writer a hedgehog rather than a fox.

You conveniently left out your other two quotes, probably because you couldn't figure out a way to spin them. If you truly do not dislike BioWare as a company and don't want to be misunderstood by others, you should probably refrain from making statements like these on a public forum: "I think Bio would love to make Bioshock-kinda money, they just don't have what it takes to deliver something that novel." and "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 are entitled not to like BioWare, but at least be honest about it rather than talking out of both sides of your mouth, then doing the denial tapdance when you are called on it!

 

 

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.

 

Now this is just wrong. You cannot possibly believe that KOTOR was just BG all over again. That's just silly. JE was hardly a BG clone, and from what I hear of Mass Effect, there's no conceivable way it could be even remotely considered as the same kind of game, i.e. BG, all over again.

 

I must confess, I honestly don't understand where you're coming from. I presume you'd say the same about me, lol! Anyway, just wanted to set the record straight on the above points.

[Humodour]

[Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

 

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

 

I guess it was sarcasm. It doesn't translate very well through the internet.

 

I was picking up on the fact that both of you were talking about what games reinvented/revitalised CRPGs, yet you both neglected to mention Fallout 1 and 2.

 

No biggie. :S

Edited January 19, 2008 by Krezack

[Dark_Raven]

Fallout reinvented the awesomeness of RPGs!

[~Di]

[Ok, so Fallout 1 & 2 never existed?

 

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

 

I guess it was sarcasm. It doesn't translate very well through the internet.

 

I was picking up on the fact that both of you were talking about what games reinvented/revitalised CRPGs, yet you both neglected to mention Fallout 1 and 2.

 

No biggie. :S

 

Duh. I'm sorry. I feel silly now. For some reason, I saw an apple and thought, "What is that orange doing here?" Next time I'll try to engage my brain before my fingers ask stupid questions.

[Volourn]

The argument of dark vs. light is never ending so I'l skip that....

 

 

"i'm saying the George Lucas of 2008 no longer has the same instincts and sensibility of the George Lucas of 30 years ago, so a Galactica episode written by the 2008 Lucas would in all likelihood be inferior to one written by the Lucas that wrote THX 1138."

 

So, you finally admit it. Writers who 'write' like Lucas/BIO are, in your opinion, inferior to those who write Galactia. that's silly espicially if anyone whos een even one episode of Galactia. It's a good show; but definitely not as deep as some would claim. And, definitely nothing definitely better than Lucas.

 

Plus, it's silly to think there arw actually two diffeent Lucases. The same Lucas who wrote SW is the same Lucas who wrote THX 1138. This is an undispituable fact.

 

Plus, THX while an interetsing movie, and fun to watch is NOT as well written as SW. It might be 'darker', and 'different'; but better written? Nah.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Volourn

[Xard]

The argument of dark vs. light is never ending so I'l skip that....

 

 

"i'm saying the George Lucas of 2008 no longer has the same instincts and sensibility of the George Lucas of 30 years ago, so a Galactica episode written by the 2008 Lucas would in all likelihood be inferior to one written by the Lucas that wrote THX 1138."

 

So, you finally admit it. Writers who 'write' like Lucas/BIO are, in your opinion, inferior to those who write Galactia. that's silly espicially if anyone whos een even one episode of Galactia. It's a good show; but definitely not as deep as some would claim. And, definitely nothing definitely better than Lucas.

 

Plus, it's silly to think there arw actually two diffeent Lucases. The same Lucas who wrote SW is the same Lucas who wrote THX 1138. This is an undispituable fact.

 

Plus, THX while an interetsing movie, and fun to watch is NOT as well written as SW. It might be 'darker', and 'different'; but better written? Nah.

 

Lucas who directed THX, American Grafitti and original Star Wars was different person than the one who directed prequel trilogy.

 

Young Lucas was angry, inspired young man who knew how to direct (check out American Grafitti for proof. Insta-pwning for those that think he could never do it). He had what's propably most important part for young artist. He had his angst so to speak. Really, just checking out some rare interviews from that era etc. shows completely different Lucas from one we know from today.

 

Lucas of 70's would've gone with "Ep III nearly art film with minor special effects" route GL so proudly declared.

 

George Lucas of old had no problem whatsoever making Solo vicious scoundrel who unfairly "shot first", blowing planet up with millions of people, have Princess Leia tortured, showing brutal corpses of Luke's uncle and auntie etc. Today's "happy old dude" would never do something like that.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Xard

[Tigranes]

So, you finally admit it. Writers who 'write' like Lucas/BIO are, in your opinion, inferior to those who write Galactia. that's silly espicially if anyone whos een even one episode of Galactia. It's a good show; but definitely not as deep as some would claim. And, definitely nothing definitely better than Lucas.

 

I don't know anything about THX or Galactica, but:

 

If Galactica is written in a certain style, and THX is (allegedly) written in a similar style, and George Lucas in those days had a style that was more in tune with the style of Galactica, but no longer is so, then, irrespective of whether he has become 'better' or 'worse' in some arbitrary General Point Scale Of Directorness, wouldn't his hypothetical Galactica of earlier days have been 'superior', if only meaning that he would have understood and delivered what is Galactica style?

 

That wouldn't say anything about whether his earlier or later work was better.

[Morgoth]

Young Lucas, old Lucas....no difference to me. He only delivered intellectual garbage... A good cast, nice FX, complex film sets and a talented team he worked with were the only things that saved his films from trash-quality a'la Uwe Boll.

[Humodour]

Young Lucas, old Lucas....no difference to me. He only delivered intellectual garbage... A good cast, nice FX, complex film sets and a talented team he worked with were the only things that saved his films from trash-quality a'la Uwe Boll.

 

I liked Star Wars (of old) more than just for "intellectual garbage".

[Morgoth]

Well, maybe I overreacted a little bit. There were still those cool Teddy bears.... wouldn't want to call that "intellectual garbage", wouldn't I?

[newc0253]

So I pointed out that the BG series was BioWare's first major success, therefore they had that success before having anything to "capitalize on". In other words, your allegation that they were only successful by capitalizing off something that they had created made no sense to me.

 

My point was simply that the success of BG and Bio's subsequent domination of the story-driven segment of the CRPG market (because, let's be honest, Diablo was the runaway success of that period) wasn't due to Bio's particular style so much as (i) the general, more generic features they introduced and (ii) the D&D licence.

 

it's one thing to criticize the work produced by an individual or a company; it's quite another to stand on one's hind legs and arrogantly proclaim that an individual or company is incapable of producing anything different.

 

Why? If the individual or company has shown little or no evidence that they can produce anything different in terms of their writing style, i'd say i'm perfectly entitled to assess their capabilities based on their past performance over time, just as i'm fully entitled to predict that George Lucas probably won't write a good Galactica episode.

 

Of course, such assessments are necessarily imperfect (there's always the possibility i might be wrong) but hardly impossible. On the other hand, you seem to think an assessment of another's capabilities is only possible with the invention of telepathy. clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

 

If you truly do not dislike BioWare as a company and don't want to be misunderstood by others, you should probably refrain from making statements like these on a public forum: "I think Bio would love to make Bioshock-kinda money, they just don't have what it takes to deliver something that novel." and "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 are entitled not to like BioWare, but at least be honest about it rather than talking out of both sides of your mouth, then doing the denial tapdance when you are called on it!

 

Hmm, I think i've been fairly clear over the years about what I like and dislike about Bio games. If you're really bored, you're welcome to search their BB archives for all my past praise and criticisms of them. I understand it may seem odd to you that someone could like some things about their games but dislike others but there's nothing inherently contradictory about what i've said.

 

Now this is just wrong. You cannot possibly believe that KOTOR was just BG all over again. That's just silly. JE was hardly a BG clone, and from what I hear of Mass Effect, there's no conceivable way it could be even remotely considered as the same kind of game, i.e. BG, all over again.

 

You misunderstand. Obviously KOTOR was different from BG, and JE different from Mass Effect. My point is that the story and writing, etc, are recognisably from the same stable of Bio writing. Yes, Mass Effect is different from BG - one is space opera and one epic fantasy - but you could probably write a thesis on the many striking similarities too, not just in the sense that both are broadly heroic tales (yay!), rely heavily on exploration, etc but in the recognisable Bio elements of the writing, tone and NPC characterisation (especially the NPC romances), just as you can tend to pick the similarities in CRPGs written by Obsidian or Bethesda.

 

Indeed, I think Bethesda's Fallout is the perfect example of what I'm talking about: most Fallout fans think that Bethesda don't have what it takes to write Fallout 3. Personally, I think Bethesda deserve a chance for at least trying something different. I also think writing a sequel to a well-established property is very different task than inventing something from scratch.

 

But a lot of people think that Bethesda's Fallout will just be Oblivion with guns, by which they don't just mean the mechanics of the game but also Bethesda's peculiarly-limited approach towards NPC characterisation (in Oblivion, there was only two memorable NPCs in the entire game, and they were voiced by Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean). Given that Bethesda have spent over a decade producing game after game in a particular style, there are entirely reasonable fears that they lack the capability to deliver a rich, story-driven game.

 

Hope this makes things a little clearer.

[newc0253]

So, you finally admit it. Writers who 'write' like Lucas/BIO are, in your opinion, inferior to those who write Galactia. that's silly espicially if anyone whos een even one episode of Galactia. It's a good show; but definitely not as deep as some would claim. And, definitely nothing definitely better than Lucas.

 

Hmm, i'd respond at length but I think Tigranes put my point perfectly (thanks, dude).

 

Plus, it's silly to think there arw actually two diffeent Lucases. The same Lucas who wrote SW is the same Lucas who wrote THX 1138. This is an undispituable fact.

 

Physically, yes, they're the same person. But there's an interesting philosophical debate as to whether we are psychologically the same person we were, say 10, 20 or 30 years ago. For instance, I think that my 10 year old self liked Knight Rider a helluva lot more than I do now. And possibly I would have been able to write a cooler Knight Rider episode back then when I really 'got' Knight Rider than I do now.

 

Plus, THX while an interetsing movie, and fun to watch is NOT as well written as SW. It might be 'darker', and 'different'; but better written? Nah.

 

I didn't say THX was better written than Star Wars, nor that it was a better film. One of those films I've seen about 3 times and one i've seen probably more than 30 times. Can you guess which?

[~Di]

...Hope this makes things a little clearer.

 

It does. Thank you!

[Humodour]

"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

 

Agreed. The same is true of Torment, which was quite successful in the eyes of IPLY/BIS, especially over time.

 

And yes, I would consider BG1 to be a 'critical' success. Certainly not BG2, though. It was more of the same with quite a bit of movement backwards in some areas. Fun, sure. Financially successful? Sure, like NWN1 OC.

 

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

 

I haven't played MoTB or NWN2 so I can't comment on those, but KOTOR2 certainly had more depth and complexity to it than KOTOR1. Which one did I enjoy more? KOTOR1, probably because KOTOR2 was unfinished in my eyes - it had great potential. But perhaps also because I just loved KOTOR1, though it has an unfortunate lack of replay value (as with KOTOR2 IMHO).

 

NWN1 OC, Volo? I thought we'd already agreed that a bigger bunch of rubbish for an OC was never seen? How you can call it intellectual or complex with a straight face is anyone's guess; it was one of the most ludicrous and forced campaigns I've played in a CRPG - the only thing which saved it in my eyes was exploration of a lost ancient civilisation. If you'd speak of SoU or HotU it'd be a different matter.

 

Whose games do I enjoy more - Bioware's or BIS/Obsidian's? It depends on what mood I am in, though BIS/Obsidian has made more games that interest me.

 

To Morgoth: I can't understand you. You often use double negatives and contradict previous sentences. Coupled with your intentional use of sarcasm, it becomes near impossible to distinguish what your actual stance on something really is.