Bioware - Are Their Games Actually That Good?

[Pidesco]

My dictionary doesn't include the word "arguements".

[H]

[quote name='H

[Pop]

[quote name='H

[Slowtrain]

[quote name='H

[Sand]

H

Edited April 19, 2008 by Sand

[Morgoth]

I love Halo and Fallout sucks.

 

*runs away*

[H]

[quote name='H

[Sand]

[quote name='H

[Tigranes]

Phooee, what's that burning smell around here?

 

Debate the point not the person, Pop/everyone else. There is nothing wrong with having a viewpoint about the medium or its users in general, as long as one is willing to accept new evidence and not force his own down everyone's throat.

 

Personally speaking, I find this dichotomy between entertainment and art very very artificial. Certainly you find works in which everyone finds value but nobody enjoys; certainly you find works that people are aware have no value and is 'trash' but enjoy anyway. But inbetween those two extremes there is a whole world and putting it on a e-a scale is very reductive. Was Torment, for example, an 'artistic' game which was not as entertaining but was 'deeper'? Putting aside the question of whether Torment was 'deeper' than your average game aside, for a moment, personally speaking, I thoroughly enjoyed, and had fun playing, Torment precisely because of the qualities that others might say made it 'deep' or an 'artistic' game. Unless you want to push the archaic and pretentious high-brow / low-brow culture distinction, this would not mean that I have superior 'taste' than anyone else. Complexity is not always better than simplicity, and so forth. It's simply that Torment's particular strengths in storytelling and so forth hit the right notes for me, and I had fun, I was entertained, and I was enthralled. Which is what any game tries to do. Torment and Halo do not have, fundamentally, different aims. The only difference is the specific tropes each game uses to achieve that aim; and usually, the more simple and visceral that trope is, we tend to label it 'low-brow'.

 

Someone who plays Torment and Halo and Mario Kart and enjoys them all (hah, me!) isn't being a hypocrit, in that sense. He is simply finding the games that use the right tropes in the right way to, personally, make him entertained. And msot people are capable of being entertained in numerous ways. However, this kind of debate is still very important, I feel - we could juts say "everyone just play whatever they want, nothing wrong with that", and sure, at a personal level, there is nothing wrong with that. But tastes are engineered, tastes are acquired and constructed. We aren't born with a natural tendency to like certain types of games over others. We are influenced by how we come to understand what kind of things games are, what kind of experiences they can give us and what we can/should expect from games. That's why we speak of the Halo Generation, some with worry. I'm not saying go to war over taste. I'm saying there is good reason to sound the drums and work up enthusiasm and debate about what you think games should be and what kind of experiences they shoudl deliver. Saying 'everyone do whatever they want' sounds very egalitarian and libertarian, but not really.

 

As for Bioware, I don't think the author was saying their games are BAD, or that Bioware is at fault for the press they receive. Certainly, that's not my point of view, either. Bioware work hard to make good games and they are dedicated to their art. Bioware work hard to promote their game. It also happens to be that Bioware is much stronger at production value and polish than at any individual RPG element (IMO); also that they are very skillful at creating an image of themselves as stellar quadriple-A developers and of their games as groundbreaking superstars. Notice how I'm carefully avoiding any pejorative connotations. We could call them cookie-cutter, we could call them devilish smart, we could call them soulless corporate giants, or whatever, but that kind of name-calling implies judgment and that is eventually left up to the individual. For me, I like Bioware. They make good games. But from past experience I know that they are not likely to give me a game that really gives me fantastic, fantastic moments (except for bg1/2).

[H]

What game company that has survived over decade of game development that have consistantly created several successful above average CRPGs on multiple platforms? That would be Bioware.

BioWare is the most commercially successful RPG developer out there, I'm not going to argue that. They are nothing compared to Troika, BIS or Obsidian when it comes to creativity and originality, however.

Edited April 19, 2008 by H

[Sand]

[quote name='H

[Pop]

PS:T has the same problems that The Witcher has, namely a propensity for dragging the player through tedium to get to the interesting bits. Combat in PS:T was atrocious, even more atrocious than the IE usual (which makes Baator particularly aggravating). And the way that the (meaningful) dialogue and the quests were set up was confusing. I've played through it three times and I've gotten different, but always incomplete, sets of dialogue from the CNPCs. Each time I beat it I was unsatisfied. The bad parts overshadowed the good parts. And if you're going to make an argument for ambition overshadowing ****ty gameplay in one case than it ought to apply consistently. It just happens to be the case that ****ty FPS gameplay is infinitely more tolerable than ****ty IE gameplay, which I suppose is a null point if you consider FPSes to be Crimes Against Gaming.

 

In the end, Bioshock was a wildly ambitious game that also happened to be wildly successful, because its design was more favorable to the whims of the market. PS:T was then and is now an ambitious game that was uncommonly set against what the market made successful. The difference is only significant if you consider eclecticism to be a virtue. I don't think it is. Bioshock's the one that has the better chance of informing the direction gaming's going to take in the future.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Pop

[Tel Aviv]

I don't have the space in my teeny tiny apartment to keep games that are very good but that I know I wil never play again once they have run their course.

eBay! eBay! eBay! Part exchange them or, better still, send them my way.

 

I've only ever thrown Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller which I've always regretted and, lets not forget, that game was ****. I think I'd die inside a little if I threw out either BG I or II.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Tel Aviv

[Pop]

Guys, ISOs. Use them.

[H]

We are talking about the best, the strongest, and the most viable to the game market here. When we are talking about the "BEST" we need to take in all aspects of the game, not just bits and pieces. That would include both the technical aspects of the game as well as the artistic aspects. Obsidian has the creativity and originality, however their last two games have been very low on the totem pole when it comes to stability and bugginess, thus their technical aspects in quality has suffered.

Some people prefer polished mediocrity, while others give preference to rough diamonds. I think we can agree that we disagree.

Troika and Black Isle are dead, gone, and ultimately irrelevant. You can't be the best of the industry when you no longer exist in the industry.

I was saying that there always was a company better than BioWare.

 

 

 

PS:T has the same problems that The Witcher has, namely a propensity for dragging the player through tedium to get to the interesting bits. Combat in PS:T was atrocious, even more atrocious than the IE usual (which makes Baator particularly aggravating).

Nobody said Torment was perfect. Its combat certainly was something to be endured rather than enjoyed. Thieves with high Charisma score could avoid plenty of fighting though.

And the way that the (meaningful) dialogue and the quests were set up was confusing. I've played through it three times and I've gotten different, but always incomplete, sets of dialogue from the CNPCs. Each time I beat it I was unsatisfied.

And this is the best part. You have to replay the game several times to get everything it has to offer. Patience and thoroughness should be rewarded.

And if you're going to make an argument for ambition overshadowing ****ty gameplay in one case than it ought to apply consistently. It just happens to be the case that ****ty FPS gameplay is infinitely more tolerable than ****ty IE gameplay, which I suppose is a null point if you consider FPSes to be Crimes Against Gaming.

Prejudices in action. Bloodlines, Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are among my favorites.

In the end, Bioshock was a wildly ambitious game that also happened to be wildly successful, because its design was more favorable to the whims of the market.

There was nothing wildly ambitious about BioShock. It didn't do anything SS 2 hadn't done better. The only thing that stood out about it was art direction.

PS:T was then and is now an ambitious game that was uncommonly set against what the market made successful. The difference is only significant if you consider eclecticism to be a virtue. I don't think it is.

It is. If you try to satisfy everyone you get a very shallow game. It may be commercially successful, but it will be quickly forgotten.

Bioshock's the one that has the better chance of informing the direction gaming's going to take in the future.

I know it.

[Pop]

That the game was replayable didn't matter because none of the playthroughs felt complete. The CNPCs became less characters and more "find the new dialogue in the loop" puzzles. Which happens, I guess. Which wouldn't be much of a problem (Bioware avoids this through meticulously railing their exposition, but it's no more satisfying) except that the ending's payoff largely hinges on your knowing these characters, no pun intended. I never unlocked the characters, even after 3 playthroughs.

[Hurlshort]

Geez...these are all just opinions. For example, I think Planescape: Torment was forgettable whereas KotOR has probably the most memorable gaming experience to date. I had no frickin' clue that I was a sith lord. Wow. My jaw dropped on that one.

[mkreku]

In the end, Bioshock was a wildly ambitious game..

Is it the lame "twist" in the middle of the game that makes you think this? Because otherwise it was just a consolified light-weight version of a ten year old game (System Shock 2) with crappier combat, five different enemies (seriously!) and the dumbest end boss (I was hoping end bosses died with Doom in the nineties..) ever. And how much fun and "ambition" did you see in the latter parts of the game? Or was it the Pipe Dreams mini-game that got to you?

 

Wildly ambitious..

[Pop]

I'm pretty sure we've gone through this routine 8 or 9 times already.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Meh, I prefer Obsidian's stories (mostly K2) than Bio's.

 

It just seemed so much more... serious and deep than the first one.

 

EDIT: Excluding the Revan twist. I never saw that one coming and it was awesome.

Edited April 20, 2008 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[~Di]

Although I don't like all of Bioware's games equally, I will say that I've had a fun and satisfying experience with all of them. And yes, I've bought them all.

 

That's a pretty darned good record of turning out quality games in my book. I don't think any other gaming company comes close to the number of high-quality games released over the past dozen years or so.

[Dark_Raven]

Bioware was a good company, one of the few that I buy games from. They are not as good as they used to be though. They haven't released a good rpg since Kotor came out. Baldur's Gate out them on the map so to speak, they should have continued to make a great interesting game like that. Now that the evil EA has bought them out, I doubt they will be good any more.

[Humodour]

[quote name='H

[Kelverin]

Out of the bioware games I have played, the author of the article nails it. Average. He also is right about their success, you might not like their games but it's hard to argue with their productivity and business sense.

 

Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II plus expansions - closest to high fantasy pen and paper DnD I have ever played. Excellent

 

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

Edited April 20, 2008 by Kelverin

[Hurlshort]

Bioware was a good company, one of the few that I buy games from. They are not as good as they used to be though. They haven't released a good rpg since Kotor came out. Baldur's Gate out them on the map so to speak, they should have continued to make a great interesting game like that. Now that the evil EA has bought them out, I doubt they will be good any more.

 

Um...they've released like two games since KotOR. And have you actually played Mass Effect? It just seems like a pretty small sample size to say that they are not as good as they used to be. It sounds like you are saying Jade Empire was not as good as KotOR, so clearly the company has gone down the drain.

 

Personally I enjoyed JE, although I will say it's probably at the bottom of my Bioware list.