Bioware - Are Their Games Actually That Good?

[Pop]

There are no awesome gnome villages in BG2 and as such BG1>BG2.

Halflings. They were halfling villages.

[Meshugger]

Bioware have excellent production values in their games, other companies should look up to them when on how to make a good presentation of their game. While their games certainly are entertaining, they do lack any kind of insightful writing (heh, most games do that anyway) or take major, like Xard put it, artistic risks.

 

Taking that into consideration, it's easily summed up: Bioware provides me with great entertainment. They're the Spielberg of the RPG-industry, and Obsidian is Scorcese or Coppola.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Meshugger

[Pop]

If you look at their careers, Obsidian is more akin to Scorsese, I would suppose. Coppola is unmistakably Troika.

[Meshugger]

I would say that Troika would be the Coen brothers, but without the financial backup and business sense. But hey, Coppola makes sense too

[Spider]

I don't think Bioware will ever come close to anyhing like the story etc. in both Bioshock or STALKER.

 

I like Stalker. I find it to be an amazing game experience. But the story is not what makes it good. in fact, the story is fairly so-so and Bioware have told better stories in their games. Bioshock had a better story, but I didn't find it to be that much ahead of Bioware's offerings either. In fact, I found Bioshock to be about on pair with what Bioware produces. Filled with good ideas, but they are implemented in such a safe fashion that they don't really have any impact at all. Neither Bioshock nor Bioware games take risks. You know what you get and what you'll get is rarely bad. But also rarely amazing.

 

Stalker, on the other hand, took risks. It didn't always work out, but at least the experience I got when playing it was different from the standard fair and therefor much more interesting and entertaining.

[Moatilliatta]

There are no awesome gnome villages in BG2 and as such BG1>BG2.

Halflings. They were halfling villages.

That explains a lot...

 

No seriously, it probably shows how little I actually remember from those games.

[Leferd]

There was also an xvart village you can raid and plunder. I felt like Thulsa Doom. That was awesome.

[random n00b]

tl;dr (yet) but that weaker Vampire game (uhh, Redemption?) was released with similar editor year or so before NWN1

Not sure but I think Redemption's go at it was more a DM client than a true editor. AFAIK you couldn't make your own scripts or maps.

 

 

edit: For me MotB was best title released in long years. Absolutely brilliant stuff all around, above all writing wise (best since KotOR 2 and Bloodlines).

 

My problem with Bioware is that they seem to lack any sort of artistic ambition

While their games certainly are entertaining, they do lack any kind of insightful writing (heh, most games do that anyway) or take major, like Xard put it, artistic risks.

As someone with ZERO artistic sensitivity, I would appreciate it if you could actually explain what you mean by "artistic value", as it's something that's being brought up repeatedly in the thread and I fully fail to grasp. I'm not being facetious here, btw. I would really like to know. Pretty maps and music? Innovative interaction mechanics? What?

[Hell Kitty]

Artistically?

 

I'm not saying they're not ambitious people, all their titles are in some way (for their honor) but I was being very specific

 

I have to agree with random n00b, "artistic ambition" really isn't very specfic at all.

 

What is it that would make a game artistically ambitious?

[Enoch]

tl;dr (yet) but that weaker Vampire game (uhh, Redemption?) was released with similar editor year or so before NWN1

Not sure but I think Redemption's go at it was more a DM client than a true editor. AFAIK you couldn't make your own scripts or maps.

[Humodour]

Haha yeah it is, CrashGirl. Should be fun.

 

Regarding BG2, I really disliked the direction they took with the artwork and atmosphere compared to BG1. BG1 was more natural, earthy, a mix of feudal and colonial Europe/England - I really enjoyed it. BG2 was more surreal and Middle Eastern, less mediaeval. I did not like the change at all.

 

Comparatively, Icewind Dale 1 had a superb atmosphere and artwork direction, as did Torment.

[Humodour]

"Artistic value" likely means things like intellectual or cultural worth. In this sense, games like Deus Ex, Torment, Fallout definitely rank higher than things like KOTOR, BG or IWD.

[Enoch]

On Bioware, I haven't played NWN1, JE, or ME, so I'm not particularly well-informed. Their other games were at least solid "B"s, though, and I'm cautiously optimistic about ME's PC release.

 

The problem is that if I were picking up a BG game or KotOR for the first time right now, I probably wouldn't finish any of them.

 

Now, I enjoy story-based games where player choice has an important role in the development of the story and characters. I appreciate what Bioware has done in this area, and I want to see more of them. But games like this tend to have a gameplay problem. In far too many games (including all 3 Bioware games I've played), the bulk of the game is boring combat that you have to suffer through in order to get to the satisfying character-building and story-advancing parts. At one time, this didn't bother me much. But it does now.

 

As I get older and my free time gets more scarce, I've become a much more harsh critic of games that I loved (or would have loved) just a few short years ago. If gameplay, on the whole, stops being fun, I will shelf the game and find something else to do with my time. MotB was as strong in the character/story area as any game I've seen since Torment, but I never finished it because epic-level D&D combat is a snoozefest and all my curiosity about the story was satisfied early in Act 3. On reports of BioShock's strong atmosphere, art, story, et al., I picked the game up even though I don't normally enjoy shooters a whole lot. After about 4 hours of playing, I realized that my distaste for repetitively shootin'/shockin'/whackin' stuff, being constantly in fear of being ambushed (although many people seem to as a positive making the bame "tense" and "exciting," I despise it), and straining my eyes looking at a fast-moving, dimly lit, first-person game far outweigh my curiosity about the setting and story.

 

So, getting back to Bioware, my problem is that all of their games had way too much uninteresting grinding combat. (IMO, this stems from fan-service: fans seem to demand that a game that can't be drawn out to 50+ hours of gameplay isn't worth their money, so developers dutifully pad out their good parts with long stretches of time-sinks in between.) The current trendy solution to this in the world of CRPGs is to use more action elements imported from shooters to keep the combat interesting (ME, FO3, etc.). There's nothing inherently wrong with mixing game mechanics, but I think it covers up the real problem. Sure, the bulk of players probably prefer mediocre FPS grind to mediocre RPG grind (see Pop's earlier post). But I think both of them are a waste of my time. The real solution is hard work (for the developers)-- either replace the grinding with combat situations that are interesting and inventive, or skip them entirely and risk the fanboy wrath that you dare to publish a game that can be completed by someone with a full-time job.

[Tigranes]

the bulk of the game is boring combat that you have to suffer through in order to get to the satisfying character-building and story-advancing parts. At one time, this didn't bother me much. But it does now.

 

Yep. I definitely Ctrl+Y (instakill) through about one in three 'mundane encounters' in the BG series now (e.g. oh god, another swarm of hobgoblins?). This occurs with higher frequency in IWD series for natural reasons; I'd rather spend my time on the 'fun' battles (which is why I still enjoy most BG2 battles).

 

my problem is that all of their games had way too much uninteresting grinding combat.

 

I think that's a fair enough accusation against western CRPGs in general, not just Bioware; BIS and Obsidian are thus guilty of it too. I would much prefer that there were half or even a third the number of encounters, but they were carefully prepared set pieces rather than 'here, have 5 monsters, do whatever'. Challenges like crafted ambushes, exploding barrels a la IWD2, or particular conditions in a dungeon which really tax your endurance and make you rue every potion you drink, conserve your energy. This can exhaust the player if done often, but once or twice in the game it really makes a special experience. Imagine that instead of your standard dungeon in NWN2 OC, e.g. the orc one, where you can leave at any time, rest at nearly any time, and most encounters involve "orcs in a room, you run in, you fight, orcs in a room...". Some rooms should be empty; you shouldn't have to find enemies in every room. This actually increases tension, and it makes it less grindy. Set pieces like you find a secret door but the Orcs are actually waiting there: poisoning Orcs; trying to find the best way to their supply room or med-room of some sort to stack up on potions: contraptions you can turn against them; 'special enemies' with particular quirks; etc.

[Slowtrain]

the bulk of the game is boring combat that you have to suffer through in order to get to the satisfying character-building and story-advancing parts.

 

lol. That cracks me up. It is so totally the opposite of me.

 

I would say that (especially BG2) the bulk of the game is boring and trite dialogue and tedious narrative that I have to suffer through interminably to get to the skull cracking and vampie staking. Most of the game I felt like tossing Aerie off the nearest bridge and had absolutely no desire to rescue Imoen.

 

Bloodlines and Fallout and Deus Ex weren't nearly as bad as that.

[mr insomniac]

Most of the game I felt like tossing Aerie off the nearest bridge and had absolutely no desire to rescue Imoen.

 

Being forced to rescue Imoen to advance the story was lame. I would have preferred the option to

save Yoshimo, akin to turning Sarevok through dialogue in ToB. And yet, Yoshimo's betrayal took me completely by surprise, so it was cool just for that

.

[Humodour]

the bulk of the game is boring combat that you have to suffer through in order to get to the satisfying character-building and story-advancing parts. At one time, this didn't bother me much. But it does now.

 

Yep. I definitely Ctrl+Y (instakill) through about one in three 'mundane encounters' in the BG series now (e.g. oh god, another swarm of hobgoblins?). This occurs with higher frequency in IWD series for natural reasons; I'd rather spend my time on the 'fun' battles (which is why I still enjoy most BG2 battles).

 

Natural reasons? Maybe not. Personally I found most BG2 battles short-lived and um... 'stale' I guess. I deliberately try to take mostly caster parties now simply to spice things up. IWD1 battles were always full of life and interesting. I thought IWD1 was a brilliant game for tactics and stuff. I have no qualms with replaying IWD1 because the battles are 'fresh' each time, and I can try any multitude of various party builds and tactics. The undead level of Dragon's Eye is one of the most fun because you get to blast the mindless hordes to oblivion in new and exciting ways each time. Now, before you make the Diablo 2 comparison, I am a Diablo 2 fan, but it's not the same. Diablo 2 requires no tactics - IWD1 is all about tactics. Similarly, IWD1 has an excellent, albeit linear, story, whilst Diablo 2 does not.

 

Now when I talk about BG2 being sub-par and stale and not that good, I am obviously speaking in relative terms; comparing it to PS:T, IWD1 and BG1. As a stand-alone game, BG2 is pretty great, and it's got all the elements of a good RPG.

[Tigranes]

By natural reasons, I mean IWDs had a deliberate focus on combat. But I could never see this 'tactical' side of IWD. I mean, I'm pretty sure that's just me not seeing it, but in terms of movement, position, maneuvre and so forth, the IE engine has a limited repertoire; there are few and very obvious things you can do. Most of the tactical flair in IE combat comes from the arsenal of abilities each side is able to command, including buffs, debuffs, immunities, AOEs, summons, transformations, items, etc. BG1's strength was that a low-level campaign allowed them to maximise the excitement of scarcity, and ranged combat was actually useful; BG2's strength was the huge number of varied mage-duels and a huge variety of enemies with all their special abilities, weaknesses and immunities. IWD2 also used exploding barrels liberally and had a few interesting 3E builds on their enemies. I've finished IWD1 twice (3x?) and I don't really see much of that going on - to me it feels more like BG1/BG2 but without those specialties. I have no idea why I seem to get that experience, though.

[Humodour]

I was never a fan of "mage duels". I tried them a few times, but I always end up casting some sort of protective buff on a fighter and sending him in to swiftly kick the living daylights out of the mage, or I strip just enough of the mage's protections away to cast a nullifying spell. I usually used fear, dispel magic, miscast magic, insect plagues and immunity spells.

 

It was far more satisfying to see the mage explode into chunks or hopelessly try to cast spells than cast all those dumb debuff spells.

 

Anyway, mage duels are a somewhat limited area of combat and tactics. I do love casters, though. I really liked the Bards and Druids in IWD1.

 

There's nothing more fun than casting entangle and spike growth on an area in IWD1, then luring the hordes into it, then casting a few fireballs or snilloc's snowballs and such (depends on their resistances and weaknesses of course).

[Humodour]

Interestingly, a game I afford similar tactical status is Fallout (1 and 2). I believe the huge weapon variety, traits, perks and stats, as well as enemy detail (variance and weaknesses/strengths) made up for a lack of nanonics/magic/psionics/super-powers.

 

I'd say that turn-based combat is important for tactical enjoyness of a game, but Deus Ex didn't have that, so...

 

I just made up a word, didn't it? Enjoyness... enjoyment?

[Meshugger]

Artistically?

 

I'm not saying they're not ambitious people, all their titles are in some way (for their honor) but I was being very specific

 

I have to agree with random n00b, "artistic ambition" really isn't very specfic at all.

 

What is it that would make a game artistically ambitious?

 

Krezack answered the question well enough, but i can give a comparison to modern movies. Take "Taxi Driver" or "Apocalypse Now!", movies that many consider to be one of the best ever, but are they entertaining? Certainly not, compared to most comedies and action movies, like Die Hard and The Terminator and The Predator.

[Pidesco]

Krezack answered the question well enough, but i can give a comparison to modern movies. Take "Taxi Driver" or "Apocalypse Now!", movies that many consider to be one of the best ever, but are they entertaining? Certainly not, compared to most comedies and action movies, like Die Hard and The Terminator and The Predator.

 

That really depends on taste, though. I found Taxi Driver And Apocalypse Now to be much more entertaining than Terminator.

 

I want deeper games not because there's something intrinsically better about them, but rather because I usually get more enjoyment out of deeper games than of shallower, "just for fun", games.

[Humodour]

I want deeper games not because there's something intrinsically better about them, but rather because I usually get more enjoyment out of deeper games than of shallower, "just for fun", games.

 

Yay, for once our minds are in the dance of accord!

[Enoch]

I think that's a fair enough accusation against western CRPGs in general, not just Bioware; BIS and Obsidian are thus guilty of it too. I would much prefer that there were half or even a third the number of encounters, but they were carefully prepared set pieces rather than 'here, have 5 monsters, do whatever'. Challenges like crafted ambushes, exploding barrels a la IWD2, or particular conditions in a dungeon which really tax your endurance and make you rue every potion you drink, conserve your energy. This can exhaust the player if done often, but once or twice in the game it really makes a special experience. Imagine that instead of your standard dungeon in NWN2 OC, e.g. the orc one, where you can leave at any time, rest at nearly any time, and most encounters involve "orcs in a room, you run in, you fight, orcs in a room...". Some rooms should be empty; you shouldn't have to find enemies in every room. This actually increases tension, and it makes it less grindy. Set pieces like you find a secret door but the Orcs are actually waiting there: poisoning Orcs; trying to find the best way to their supply room or med-room of some sort to stack up on potions: contraptions you can turn against them; 'special enemies' with particular quirks; etc.

Well said.

 

Oddly enough, I thought that IWD2 was actually the strongest of the IE games in this regard, because the grinding was broken up by interesting set-piece battle at fairly regular intervals (at least for the first half of the game or so). On this count, IMO, it was a stronger game even than the first IWD-- it had a significantly higher ratio of interesting, satisfying combat to "another freakin pack of cold wights" combat.

 

I would say that (especially BG2) the bulk of the game is boring and trite dialogue and tedious narrative that I have to suffer through interminably to get to the skull cracking and vampie staking.

I'm not saying that all combat is tedious in RPGs. Interesting fights that someone actually sat down and designed to be an appropriate challenge to the player are one of the things that keep me playing (the example that pops into my mind is the party of adventurers you find early in BG2 in the temple sewers). It's the lazy "here's another half-dozen ogres to kill" fights that make me wonder if there's anything good on TV. Plus dialogue and narrative aren't the whole reason to get through the less-than-interesting fights-- it's also about the time-honored RPG tradition of XP and loot gathering. (I agree that, particularly in the BGs, much of the plot-related dialogue was silly. But, post-BG1, at least, the central mystery of the plot was still a pretty strong motivator on one's first playthrough.)

Edited April 21, 2008 by Enoch

[Hell Kitty]

"Artistic value" likely means things like intellectual or cultural worth.

 

So you're not a fan of art for arts sake?

 

That's three different things you're talking about there, and the last two don't have much to do with the definition of the first. "Artistic" refers to the level of skill and imagination that goes into a work, and something can be described as artistic without being intellectually or culturally worthy.

 

That really depends on taste, though. I found Taxi Driver And Apocalypse Now to be much more entertaining than Terminator.

 

Absolutely, the idea that artistically lesser works are more entertaining is simply wrong.