Bioware - Are Their Games Actually That Good?

[Moatilliatta]

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.

Those two movies by copppola and scorsese are some of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen.

I think a problem here is the definition of entertaining, entertaining means something more along the line of giving pleasure to the person being entertained and I derive gobs of pleasure from coppola and scorsese. If anything artistry should be viewed as the highest form of entertaining.

 

Anyway, I like how the people who had to tell us what 'artsitic value' is, did so by using equally vague terms or by showing us something of artistic value. Doesn't really help any of us self-proclaimed art-illiterates how to recognize art.

[Humodour]

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

 

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

 

Did I say that? I was explaining what the guy probably meant by 'artistic value'. I did not include 'aesthetic appeal' because that's what his meaning was being confused with. I appreciate games for their aesthetic appeal too, which I believe I explained earlier is one reason why I prefer BG1 to BG2.

 

Aesthetically speaking, IWD1 is the winner. It's a beautiful game and has a melodious musical score to boot.

 

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.

 

It's an opinion, Dan. Pidesco specifically said "I usually get more enjoyment out of deeper games" and "It depends on taste". I fail to see the absolutist judgementalism you appear to be mocking. Why so argumentative?

[random n00b]

I am still pretty confused. So then, "artistic value" = creativity and imagination?

 

Well, that would explain then why I can't seem to appreciate contemporary art. I value technique better myself.

 

By that logic, I can see how Fallout would be more artistically worthy than BG. What with them creating a whole new (and possessed of a rather unique flavor too) setting, ruleset and all. But then Deus Ex wouldn't rate too high artistically, since it's a rehash of many sci-fi and fiction topics, and it's not that great or innovative visually either. It had a solid story and interesting hybrid mechanics, but that's about it. So what gives?

 

Also, it's a good thing that somebody made the separation from "artistic value" and "entertainment value". Following the former reasoning, I am not going to dispute the artistic value of PST, despite the fact that that I personally hated it for its execution and dumped it less than four hours into the game. But then, I fail to understand why artistic value as has been defined seems to rank so high for some people (both players and developers) when it is obviously not a requirement for entertaining (I will henceforth use "fun" for convenience) games. That is assuming the purpose of games is entertainment and as a passtime and not a means of self-aggrandizement - for developers by setting themselves apart from the art-lacking, aimed-at-the-masses games, and for fans seeking to put themselves above the rest by being able to appreciate the magnificence of the Emperor's new suit.

 

I much prefer a reasonably bug-free game with solid mechanics and internal coherence, than one that leaves me gasping at its imaginative world and interface design, and whose gameplay is hampered by bugs and awkward and/or tedious mechanics. Throw in a good (not necessarily innovative) story, and it's a winner for me. Yup, I'm that simple.

 

edited for... coherence

Edited April 21, 2008 by random n00b

[Hell Kitty]

I did not include 'aesthetic appeal' because that's what his meaning was being confused with.

 

I'm not referring to just "aesthetic appeal", I'm talking about the whole package. A game is the sum of it's parts, and for a game to be judged artistic as a whole you need to be able to look at all those parts.

 

I don't care if people think game x has nicer graphics or game y has a more interesting story, I want to know why people think game x (and all of it's parts) is more artistic or artistically ambition than game y (and all of it's parts)?

 

If you* think [insert game here] has more artistic/intellectual/cultural worth than [insert other game here], then surely you* should be able to state why? I just think that people are claiming a whole product artistic when what they really mean is something like it has a more compelling/less cliche/better written plot/story/characters or whatever, and overlooking others aspects of the game.

 

It's an opinion, Dan.

 

Meshugger claimed that movies x and y were certainly less entertaining than movies a and b, and then Pidesco and Moatilliatta came along and proved that incorrect. The artistic/intellectual/cultural worth of a game/movie/whatever has no basis in how entertaining individuals will find it.

 

 

 

*that's a general "you" folks.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Kelverin]

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.

 

I liked the change. I thought it was necessary and helped show that although it was a sequel, it was it's own game.

 

Not familiar with forgotten realms lore but maybe the change in location explained the differences in atmosphere and art direction, why it was as you put it in "more surreal and Middle Eastern"

?

[Slowtrain]

I don't think Hell Kitty is disagreeing with anyone's opinion, I think he is just looking for a definition of artistic. Which I am not going to offer.

 

But looking back at PS:T, it was a game I didn't and still don't particularly enjoy playing. However, I can still acknowledge that it is quite obvious that more thought went into the creation of the story and the NPC party members than is usually seen in a computer rpg. Also the art is quite good. SO even though I don't really like the gameplay and I dislike D&D as a crpg ruleset and the combat was boring, I can still respect the game as having a lot of positive qualities that set it apart from other games I have actually enjoyed more.

 

I can respect the game and appreciate it without really enjoying the actual experience of playing it.

[unangbangkay]

Now, I haven't read the entire thread, but the article makes some good points. In my estimation Bioware's games don't really push the envelope, but innovation and creativity aren't the sole thing sthat makes an A-List title. Bioware is, and has always been, tip-top on the production side of the coin. Their games are very polished, hit all their marks, and as mentioned, perfectly leverage opportunities for success. Who says that taking advantage of context DOESN'T make an A-List title?

 

Creatively, Bioware's games haven't quite been as interesting as their earlier outings with Black Isle. Take for example the plot differences between KotOR and KotOR 2. Where KotOR was a relatively straightforward jump into power fantasy (woo! you're a Sith Lord), KotOR 2 did more to expand on the deeper aspects of the Star Wars mythos. I can't pass judgment on Mass Effect quite yet (still waiting on the PC version).

 

To pass a labored San Franciso Movie-Buff metaphor, Bioware's games are usually shown at the Metreon, while Obsidian's (which I'll use in place of Black Isle et al) are the type to be shown at Embarcadero Center Cinema. Neither is a bad thing.

[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.

Those two movies by copppola and scorsese are some of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen.

I think a problem here is the definition of entertaining, entertaining means something more along the line of giving pleasure to the person being entertained and I derive gobs of pleasure from coppola and scorsese. If anything artistry should be viewed as the highest form of entertaining.

 

Anyway, I like how the people who had to tell us what 'artsitic value' is, did so by using equally vague terms or by showing us something of artistic value. Doesn't really help any of us self-proclaimed art-illiterates how to recognize art.

 

Ah, but now we're close on entering the territory on whether a certain piece art can objectively better than some other. Let's save that for another thread, shall we? It's Biowares time to shine here.

 

Oh, and for the guys claiming to be art-illiterate. Just enjoy your favourite music, architecture, movies or games (no matter what blah Ebert says, games are art). They are art in any way.

[Moatilliatta]

Oh, and for the guys claiming to be art-illiterate. Just enjoy your favourite music, architecture, movies or games (no matter what blah Ebert says, games are art). They are art in any way.

Of course. When I say that I'm an art-illiterate I'm obviously directing it at people who seem to be using a realist or objectivist view of what art is. It is simply my way of saying that I have no idea what art is until it affects me, and even then I have no idea what part of it is affecting me, so I am illiterate. This also places me very deeply in a relativist position on the subject of art.

[Hell Kitty]

Oh, and for the guys claiming to be art-illiterate. Just enjoy your favourite music, architecture, movies or games (no matter what blah Ebert says, games are art). They are art in any way.

Of course. When I say that I'm an art-illiterate I'm obviously directing it at people who seem to be using a realist or objectivist view of what art is. It is simply my way of saying that I have no idea what art is until it affects me, and even then I have no idea what part of it is affecting me, so I am illiterate. This also places me very deeply in a relativist position on the subject of art.

 

So you don't know what it is, but you'll know it when you see/feel it. Seems like you possess the same level of "art-literacy" as everyone else in this thread. After all, anyone can claim something is art, but surely the important part is why.

[Humodour]

Oh, and for the guys claiming to be art-illiterate. Just enjoy your favourite music, architecture, movies or games (no matter what blah Ebert says, games are art). They are art in any way.

Of course. When I say that I'm an art-illiterate I'm obviously directing it at people who seem to be using a realist or objectivist view of what art is. It is simply my way of saying that I have no idea what art is until it affects me, and even then I have no idea what part of it is affecting me, so I am illiterate. This also places me very deeply in a relativist position on the subject of art.

 

So you don't know what it is, but you'll know it when you see/feel it. Seems like you possess the same level of "art-literacy" as everyone else in this thread. After all, anyone can claim something is art, but surely the important part is why.

 

Which is why I said games like Torment, Deus Ex and Fallout are intellectually and culturally valuable as art... compared to, say, Icewind Dale, which is aesthetically artistic but I would consider it's cultural and intellectual worth comparatively limited.

 

Are you opposed to breaking art into groups, genres? I think it's silly to deny that some art is created purely 'because', some art is created because it is beautiful, some art is created because it is relevant (e.g. artworks about the Tiananmen Square Massacre), some art is created because it challenges the mind, some because it conveys a message (an apparent one, not the type one might try to look for or create in surreal or abstract art), etc. Many artworks overlap and are many of these things at once. Still, I think that there is nothing wrong with categorising, no?

 

It's not like deeming Torment as intellectually valuable makes Icewind Dale any less artistic because it is instead aesthetically valuable, nor does it imply either game isn't buckets of fun.

[Hell Kitty]

Which is why I said games like Torment, Deus Ex and Fallout are intellectually and culturally valuable

 

Why are these three games intellectually and culturally valuable? Giving them the labels without explanation makes those labels as meaningless as "awesome" or "crap". That is, it's just another way of saying I do/don't like this for whatever reason. If games are art then Daikatana is just as much art as Deus Ex. Bad art is till art, but people tend to use the term art to imply that something is important or valuable or just good.

 

Personally I consider art to be that which is created with the primary purpose of being art. If intent isn't important then anything can be art and it makes the word worthless. I don't consider the work I do as a graphic designer to be art compared to the drawings and paintings I create for my own amusement, even though the act of creating them and the enjoyment get from the act might be similar.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[aries101]

Let me elaborate a bit on my comment about why I don't think Bioware will ever do a game like Bioshock or a game like STALKER. Bioshock is really not the controversial (political) game it could be, because the player's missions only seem to survive. However, to me, Bioshock is a real social critique, especially of any (political) idelogogy that says 'Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? and the ideology of every man for himself. There's even a thread or two at the 2k forums, discussing this. Now, my take is that Bioware would never make a game which has this premise as an underlying score e.g. an ideal society turned bad, whatever idelogy lies behind that society.

 

Bioware seems to be in the business of making sold B-games that sell a lot. That's why I don't think they would ever make a game like STALKER where the developers did something very creative: they took a tragedy, the Chernobyl Incident, and made a game that takes place in the no-go zone. I maintain that Bioware wouldn't make such a game, since someone (ray or greg?) might deem it highly conroversial since it could be seen as Bioware being against the peaceful use of nuclear power.

[Gromnir]

okie dokie. have not bothered to read the last 8 pages, so am just gonna respond to firstest posts.

 

take out your handy compass and draw some 4 inch circles on a sheet of paper. let the circles overlap a bit, but lets your circles end up pretty much filling the entire page of ordinary notebook/binder paper. now makes 1 more circle... a circle that represents where you got the most overlap 'tween and twixt the circles on your piece o' paper. that final circle, the one that represents the greatest common area of overlap between all your circles, is kinda like the Average Gamer. your other circles represent the wants o' different groups o' crpg fans. bio doesn't make their games for any one fan or any one group o' fans, they is most concerned 'bout the Average Gamer.

 

 

"For example, Baldur

[Humodour]

Which is why I said games like Torment, Deus Ex and Fallout are intellectually and culturally valuable

 

Why are these three games intellectually and culturally valuable? Giving them the labels without explanation makes those labels as meaningless as "awesome" or "crap".

 

If that's what you wanted you only had to say! :D

 

Deus Ex taps into a host of historical conspiracy theories and is a classic example of both the spy genre and the conspiracy genre. What makes it particularly important is that it is one of the first computer games to tap these genres effectively in this form. These things essentially make it culturally meritorious. What makes it intellectually significant (and this is also part of the cultural appeal) is the finesse in which it covers various Western ideologies and philosophies, as well as the effectiveness of the moral and societal questions it raises for the responder. Also, it has a good plot and atmosphere, which, while basic traits of intellectual merit, should not be omitted. Deus Ex has artistic merit as a basic computer game, certainly, but what makes it stand out is its cultural/intellectual merit, to which few games can stand against.

 

I could say similar for Torment (philosophical/intellectual merit, surrealism and plot) and Fallout (historical, cultural and aesthetic merit).

 

That is, it's just another way of saying I do/don't like this for whatever reason. If games are art then Daikatana is just as much art as Deus Ex. Bad art is till art, but people tend to use the term art to imply that something is important or valuable or just good.

 

Well there's little point using the term art to imply something is important or valuable, or not important or not valuable valuable. That is, there's no point using art as a tautology, that just makes the word essentially useless.

 

If we accept that the medium of computer games will always produce some form of art (I certainly consider games a form of art), then patterns in human language dictate we use the word art more sparingly; for paragons of the medium rather than anything and everything.

 

I for one will continue to use the word art to imply something positive about a work. Art doesn't have feelings, but some art definitely is bad, and to be honest not worth the title of art. I'm not going to shed tears because bad art doesn't get called art.

 

Certainly, the word art alone is fairly ambiguous, which is why I brought up culture worth, aesthetic worth, etc in art. This is far more descriptive. For more information, wikipedia has a fairly decent article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Characteristics

 

Personally I consider art to be that which is created with the primary purpose of being art.

 

That would rule out a lot of computer games. I can also think of counter-examples outside the field of gaming. It's a definition that is too narrow.

 

If intent isn't important then anything can be art and it makes the word worthless.

 

Semi-true. Intent is certainly important but it isn't the only factor. Message conveyed, responder's opinion, cultural significance, intellectual stimulation... these all help define whether or not something is art. Consider fractals for example. One would generally say they are not made with intent, yet are inherently beautiful and many would call them art.

 

Similarly photography is an art-form, but many photos taken without the intent of being art become art.

 

I don't consider the work I do as a graphic designer to be art compared to the drawings and paintings I create for my own amusement, even though the act of creating them and the enjoyment get from the act might be similar.

 

But those who see your work very likely would, and thus your opinion of your own work as art or not may become irrelevant.

[babydol]

For my part, I LOVED KotOR and Mass Effect. But Jade Empire was pretty disappointing to me.

 

I'm pretty new to PC gaming, so I bought the Diamond Compilation of Neverwinter Nights, but I haven't tried it yet (I started Neverwinter Nights 2 1st ). And I haven't played Baldur's Gate or MDK yet, either.

 

I like what I've seen from Bioware so far, but I wouldn't dare assume everything they make is going to be good. I'm pretty curious about whatever it is they're doing with LA, though. I'm guessing it'll be bad*ss.

[Moatilliatta]

I like what I've seen from Bioware so far, but I wouldn't dare assume everything they make is going to be good.

I would, the discussion of Bioware isn't so much about whether they make good games, because they do. The discussion centers around whether their games can be called masterpieces, something which can easily be contested, whether true or not.

[Dark_Raven]

All I know is the Baldir's Gate games are masterpieces.

[Volourn]

BIO games are awesome. Plain, and simple. KOTOR being the worst. NWN (TTP) being the best. No RPG company comes even close. Media hype means nothing to me, and it was D&D not the press that got me to play my first BIo game.

 

LONG LIVE BIO! BIO IS DEAD! L0L

[Arkan]

BIO games are awesome. Plain, and simple. KOTOR being the worst. NWN (TTP) being the best. No RPG company comes even close. Media hype means nothing to me, and it was D&D not the press that got me to play my first BIo game.

 

LONG LIVE BIO! BIO IS DEAD! L0L

 

 

Wrong, NWN was the WORST.

 

I win. You lose

[Dark_Raven]

NWN withs its horrible square graphics number 1?

 

 

R00fles!

[Arkan]

GO, DWARVES, GO!

[Humodour]

Haha, yeah, I'd have to agree; NWN1 was the lowest point in Bioware's history.

[Kelverin]

NWN1 was the lowest point in Bioware's history.

[Volourn]

Yet, it's their most successful game. R00fles!

 

Best. game. evar.