Bioware - Are Their Games Actually That Good?

[Humodour]

Really? I generally preferred KOTOR1 and 2 NPCs to BG2 ones. Some could have been deeper in KOTOR1, but I still feel they were all-round more interesting and interactive than BG2 NPCs.

[Slowtrain]

I only played about 15 minutes of KoTOR so I can't directly compare, but I don't think any of the joinable NPCS in BG2 were anything great. They had their little quests but other than that they were mostly just trashcans filled with inane Bioware chatter. Certainly nothing compared to Torment. Even FO2 and Arcanum generally had more interesting joinable NPCS than BG2, I thought.

[Tigranes]

FO2's NPCs weren't that interesting, for me. Their backstories were better than BG2's (for, say, Marcus), but BG2 did a much better job of actually integrating them into the game, which is really the point - not just romances and quests but interjections played a big part, which NWN2 did a good job of porting over. If you took the BG2 character designs and presented them like Fallout did, they would be pretty darn poor.

 

On the other hand, KOTOR tried to do it, but I felt their characters and dialogues were too weak to begin with. Same with Jade-o.

[Pop]

The problem with the post-BG2 Bioware CNPCs was that their plot arcs were welded onto the PC's level progression. BG2 was big and long enough that if you took your time you could exhaust all your party's banter, but a few of them, particularly Jaheira, are actually very difficult to get through before the game ends. She only became a true Harper once in my 15+ playthroughs. I suppose the level progression thing was a way to fix stuff like that, especially with the generally shorter playtimes.

 

They had their little quests but other than that they were mostly just trashcans filled with inane Bioware chatter.

I like this sentiment coming from the person who didn't see a problem with the Witcher's female NPCs being walking, talking vaginas.

[Slowtrain]

The problem with the post-BG2 Bioware CNPCs was that their plot arcs were welded onto the PC's level progression. BG2 was big and long enough that if you took your time you could exhaust all your party's banter, but a few of them, particularly Jaheira, are actually very difficult to get through before the game ends. She only became a true Harper once in my 15+ playthroughs. I suppose the level progression thing was a way to fix stuff like that, especially with the generally shorter playtimes.

 

They had their little quests but other than that they were mostly just trashcans filled with inane Bioware chatter.

I like this sentiment coming from the person who didn't see a problem with the Witcher's female NPCs being walking, talking vaginas.

 

 

Right. Good point. I see exactly where I made the mistake of comparing BG2 to The WItcher.

 

Certainly nothing compared to Torment. Even FO2 and Arcanum generally had more interesting joinable NPCS than BG2, I thought.

 

Oh wait. I didn't.

[Pop]

You don't really need to compare them, just your reactions to them.

[thepixiesrock]

That isn't even remotely what he's accusing you of.

[Humodour]

Actually, Pop really has no defensible position at all; he's judging CrashGirl's post on what he thinks she thinks, not what it actually says or implies.

 

Moreover, I don't see how enjoying Witcher-style female NPCs precludes one from preferring and enjoying Torment-style female NPCs even more.

[random n00b]

Even FO2 [...] generally had more interesting joinable NPCS than BG2, I thought.

I'm tempted to reply to this with just "lol no", but that doesn't seem to sit well with moderation so I'll refrain.

 

Now, how exactly are Sulik, Vic, or even Cassidy more interesting than even the worst of BG2 characters (Nalia, Anomen maybe)? Less dialogue, no interjections to speak of to NPCs along the game or other party members, no practical effects to having them in the party whatsoever?

 

Now, that'd be fine if by "more interesting" you mean, "silent, inconsequential, and deadly in a fight". But unfortunately, FO2 NPCs are only deadly to the player and/or themselves.

 

FO2 is one of my favorite games ever, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that NPC development was most certainly not the game's forte.

[Humodour]

If you can't see how at least Sulik is more interesting than the majority of BG2 characters, it's hopeless even discussing it with you.

 

Ehhh I suppose it is semantics. BG2 NPCs certainly had interjections, but personally this alone does not make them interesting to me. I thought Cassidy, Sulik, Marcus and Skynet were superb NPCs; I found myself adoring them far more than any BG2 NPCs. Even the BG2 NPCs I thought were actually done well (Minsc, Jan, Viconia) were rather forgettable once the game was over.

 

Interestingly, BG1 NPCs were a different matter - BG1 Minsc, Jaheira and Imoen for example were thoroughly memorable.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Krezack

[random n00b]

If that was sarcasm, you need to work on it.

[Pidesco]

If you can't see how at least Sulik is more interesting than the majority of BG2 characters, it's hopeless even discussing it with you.

 

Ehhh I suppose it is semantics. BG2 NPCs certainly had interjections, but personally this alone does not make them interesting to me. I thought Cassidy, Sulik, Marcus and Skynet were superb NPCs; I found myself adoring them far more than any BG2 NPCs. Even the BG2 NPCs I thought were actually done well (Minsc, Jan, Viconia) were rather forgettable once the game was over.

 

Interestingly, BG1 NPCs were a different matter - BG1 Minsc, Jaheira and Imoen for example were thoroughly memorable.

 

 

BG1 NPCs? They had almost no personality whatsoever. I mean, it was funny hearing Minsc and Xan's bit lines, for example, but they were practically not written at all, when compared to Fallout 2 or BG2.

[Tigranes]

BG1's NPCs are a lot closer to Fallout's, in that they are not really 'characters' as much as 'set pieces'. In both cases you very quickly run out of anything new that they've got to say or do, and as such they are defined by a single archetypical characteristic (i.e. Minsc = Crazy + Boo, Edwin = Megalomania, Sulik = Thick Native, Marcus = Intelligent Mutant). The success of each character depended on how distinct you could make that character in so small a presentation, and how much complexity that presentation could imply - for example, Minsc was already a fan favourite in BG1 because of the way he was so distinct, and he was so well presented in terms of dialogue and voice acting (really, voice acting made 50% of Minsc). Marcus, on the other hand, was a relatively simple character, but he was very well weaved into the narrative and setting as a whole, and after you listened to his story, everything you heard about the mutants could be related back to him, and everything you did in that world with him in tow made you think about how Marcus would see things from his clearly defined perspective.

 

The reason I would rate BG2 and Torment's NPCs above Fallout/BG1, on a purely personal level, is because while their character designs are not necessarily better (after all, if Marcus was given the same detailed treatment as Dak'kon, or Dak'kon was reduced to a caricature...), the delivery of the characters and their integration into the story was much, much better - yes, because these games focused a lot more on characters and invested a lot more into them. Even if you don't enjoy or take romances very far, their possibility and the dialogue does present an additional dimension: the character quests are especially well done in the sense that they're not just any other quests you can go and do, but the NPC talks with you and is actively involved all the way through - i.e. Jaheira being spirited away by the Harpers, or Jan with all his talking and his family and past love. Everything is a lot more fleshed out, and fleshed out in a coherent and polished way: even if the dialogues with Minsc or even Sarevok never hit particular excellent 'high's like, say, some of Kreia, the overall effect is surprisingly interesting: designing a game NPC is about making you imagine what he/she would say or think about everything you do or happens to you, and connecting mundame game events to imagined narratives in terms of their personality (which is what happened with Dogmeat) - and BG2 especially shows how this raises the characters to a new level, even if they aren't particularly deep, complex or unique.

[Slowtrain]

You don't really need to compare them, just your reactions to them.

 

 

meh. I don't even know why I am bothering to get into this, but all right for the moment, I guess.

 

Please find a post I've made in which I lauded The WItcher's sex card/male conquest aspect. Don't even bother looking, cause you won't since I've never done so. I think it is an asinine and juvenile aspect to the game, made even more so that the fact that The WItcher is a strong enough game that it does not need such tawdry silliness. I think The WItcher is a well done game, but it has problems, just like most games.

 

 

On the topic of BG2 npcs: None of them are hideous or made me cringe or made the game unplayable (well, Aerie came close). They served the purpose of providing heads to fil my party slots with no problems. I just dont' understand what made them so special that they deserved to be mentioned as something of a "plus" to the game. If you say Torment had great npcs, yes, I'll agree, Torment was brilliant in that aspect. BG2 was not.

Edited May 16, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Slowtrain]

Wait a minute. The WItcher doesn't even have joinable npcs or even a party. WTF? WHy am I even discussing this game? It is not the least bit related to my original post.

[Slowtrain]

Even FO2 [...] generally had more interesting joinable NPCS than BG2, I thought.

I'm tempted to reply to this with just "lol no", but that doesn't seem to sit well with moderation so I'll refrain.

 

Now, how exactly are Sulik, Vic, or even Cassidy more interesting than even the worst of BG2 characters (Nalia, Anomen maybe)? Less dialogue, no interjections to speak of to NPCs along the game or other party members, no practical effects to having them in the party whatsoever?

 

Now, that'd be fine if by "more interesting" you mean, "silent, inconsequential, and deadly in a fight". But unfortunately, FO2 NPCs are only deadly to the player and/or themselves.

 

FO2 is one of my favorite games ever, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that NPC development was most certainly not the game's forte.

 

 

It's been a long time since I played either game, but to the best of my recollection the integration of joinable npcs into the gameworld is pretty similar in BG2 and FO2. In both games the NPCS stand around waiting for you to find them. When you do find them they have some sort of quest that needs to be played out before they will join or shortly afterwards. Once that arc is through they pretty much just tag along provising the occasional bit of atmosphere commentary. The only exceptions are VIc and Sulik who have a slightly larger presence in the FO2 and Imoen and Yoshimo in BG2. So I rate that a draw as far as comparisons go.

 

Where FO2 shines is in the variety of npcs that will join you: deathclaw, supermutant, ghoul, robot, mad scientist. It is a pretty colorful and wacky crew you can have tailing along in your wake. Similar to Torment in that aspect. In BG2, the joinable npcs were far more generic and less imaginative. At least it felt so to me.

Edited May 16, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Humodour]

BG1's NPCs are a lot closer to Fallout's, in that they are not really 'characters' as much as 'set pieces'. In both cases you very quickly run out of anything new that they've got to say or do, and as such they are defined by a single archetypical characteristic (i.e. Minsc = Crazy + Boo, Edwin = Megalomania, Sulik = Thick Native, Marcus = Intelligent Mutant). The success of each character depended on how distinct you could make that character in so small a presentation, and how much complexity that presentation could imply - for example, Minsc was already a fan favourite in BG1 because of the way he was so distinct, and he was so well presented in terms of dialogue and voice acting (really, voice acting made 50% of Minsc). Marcus, on the other hand, was a relatively simple character, but he was very well weaved into the narrative and setting as a whole, and after you listened to his story, everything you heard about the mutants could be related back to him, and everything you did in that world with him in tow made you think about how Marcus would see things from his clearly defined perspective.

 

The reason I would rate BG2 and Torment's NPCs above Fallout/BG1, on a purely personal level, is because while their character designs are not necessarily better (after all, if Marcus was given the same detailed treatment as Dak'kon, or Dak'kon was reduced to a caricature...), the delivery of the characters and their integration into the story was much, much better - yes, because these games focused a lot more on characters and invested a lot more into them. Even if you don't enjoy or take romances very far, their possibility and the dialogue does present an additional dimension: the character quests are especially well done in the sense that they're not just any other quests you can go and do, but the NPC talks with you and is actively involved all the way through - i.e. Jaheira being spirited away by the Harpers, or Jan with all his talking and his family and past love. Everything is a lot more fleshed out, and fleshed out in a coherent and polished way: even if the dialogues with Minsc or even Sarevok never hit particular excellent 'high's like, say, some of Kreia, the overall effect is surprisingly interesting: designing a game NPC is about making you imagine what he/she would say or think about everything you do or happens to you, and connecting mundame game events to imagined narratives in terms of their personality (which is what happened with Dogmeat) - and BG2 especially shows how this raises the characters to a new level, even if they aren't particularly deep, complex or unique.

 

I think you understand the issue well, and mirror my personal stance on it. As far as interactivity goes, BG2 was fairly innovative (except not, because Torment surpassed it and was created a year earlier). However, I do not feel that BG2 NPCs were particularly 'atmospheric', though. Torment alone managed to pull off both atmospheric and unique NPCs as well as high interactivity, out of all the IE games.

 

Torment even went one up on BG2, making the interactivity two-way - allowing the player to initiate NPC interaction.

 

Interestingly, I think Sarevok was one of the best implemented BG2 NPCs, probably because of his strong backstory, high uniqueness and the fact that he alone occupied developer time as the only NPC of the expansion.

 

Pidesco: BG1 NPC's had plenty of personality and flair. As Tigranes said, it was in large part due to the voice acting and superb exploitation of extremes and archetypes.

[Hurlshort]

Sulik was awesome in JA2 with his Ice Cream truck.

[Slowtrain]

Sulik was awesome in JA2 with his Ice Cream truck.

 

 

You're obviously making some kind of complex point here, Hurlshot but it went right over my head. Please elaborate. How are you relating Hamous and Sulik and to what end? Are you saying that from a game design point of view Sulik is comparable to Hamous on an joinable npc level?

[Hurlshort]

Hmm...I really didn't think it through much, Sulik just made me think of Hamous for some reason.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ytp7zlSnf0

 

I always loved Hamous. Maybe it's the fact they both have accents and talk with a strange syntax. Maybe it's because they are both fiesty natives. Maybe I'm just being racist

[Slowtrain]

I hadn't really thought of Jag 2 as being part of a discussion of joinable NPCS, but now that you bring it up, there is certainly merit to it. While not a crpg per se, the personalities of the mercs are so well-written and voiced so well that they do leave an impact. In many ways, Steroid and Grizzly and Magic and Shadow and all the rest are far more memorable npcs for me than in I would find in most other games, despite the fact that they don't have any of the game mechanics behind them that you find find for an npcs in a crpg.

 

And when you consider the fact that there must be almost 60 joinable npcs (AIM + MERC + rebels + locals) in Jag 2 and they all have such strong and well done personalities, it is actually quite an impressive NPC feat.

[Kelverin]

BG1 NPCs? They had almost no personality whatsoever.

I thought Xzar had a great personality given the little information and voice dialog, however I guess since no one else talks about him I could be wrong.

[Gorth]

I hadn't really thought of Jag 2 as being part of a discussion of joinable NPCS, but now that you bring it up, there is certainly merit to it. While not a crpg per se, the personalities of the mercs are so well-written and voiced so well that they do leave an impact. In many ways, Steroid and Grizzly and Magic and Shadow and all the rest are far more memorable npcs for me than in I would find in most other games, despite the fact that they don't have any of the game mechanics behind them that you find find for an npcs in a crpg.

 

And when you consider the fact that there must be almost 60 joinable npcs (AIM + MERC + rebels + locals) in Jag 2 and they all have such strong and well done personalities, it is actually quite an impressive NPC feat.

Definitely!

 

You have your low lifes, good guys, stoopids, arrogants, psychopaths, cowards, drug addicts and a few more. Some are friends, lovers, ex's, enemies, admirers and despisers. Damn hard game to beat when it comes to sheer number and quality of npcs

 

I always felt sorry for Dimitri

[Moatilliatta]

Actually the NPCs only come off as real if you somehow mix them in a way so that they'll actually talk to each other. Most of the NPCs have little to say in most situations.

[Slowtrain]

Actually the NPCs only come off as real if you somehow mix them in a way so that they'll actually talk to each other. Most of the NPCs have little to say in most situations.

 

 

It always cracks me up when they get in a bad stituation and start to panic. Grizzly's "MAYDAY! MAYDAY!" makes me laugh every time.