Bioware - Are Their Games Actually That Good?

[Pidesco]

While what existed of Annah's romance was nice, it was quite short and only hinted at some possible depth.

 

And to say FFG had a romance is really stretching things, regardless of how much I wanted to read her diary.

[Humodour]

While what existed of Annah's romance was nice, it was quite short and only hinted at some possible depth.

 

And to say FFG had a romance is really stretching things, regardless of how much I wanted to read her diary.

 

That's one way to look at it. A lot of people found Torment's subtle teaser romances far preferable to BG2's in-your-face mills & boon style soap romances, though.

[Tigranes]

Haha - I never cared much for RPG romances anyway, so I can't say, but I must say Viconia's romance dialogues are starting up in my game, and they are pretty cringeworthy. I think the cultural stigma against Drizzt and the Drow in general have become so great, any attempt to add 'complexity' and 'depth' to a drow just falls on its face from the get go - Viconia's Beregost story had me going 'blurgh'.

[Tale]

Dunno why you're personally attacking me, there, though.

I'm not personally attacking you, jerk.

[alanschu]

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.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Torment being a grind. It's just I loved the story and the reading enough to get through it. I know I lot of people that couldn't get past the clunky gameplay though. And even though I love the game, I still stealth my way through Baator.

[alanschu]

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.

 

Haha me too it was awesome!

[alanschu]

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.

 

I haven't seen Taxi Driver, but I think Apocolypse now is pretty entertaining.

[Xard]

"The beautiful is hidden from the eyes of those who are not searching for the truth, for whom it is contra-indicated. But the profound lack of spirituality of those people who see art and condemn it, the fact that they are neither willing or ready to consider the meaning and aim of their existence in any higher sense, is often masked by the vulgarly simplistic cry,

[Hurlshort]

Um, except it's the art snobs that are condemning everything else.

[Tale]

Um, except it's the art snobs that are condemning everything else.

 

There's only one adequate response to this. We egg their houses.

[Xard]

Um, except it's the art snobs that are condemning everything else.

 

Not liking something is ok. Slandering something without giving any credit for works objective virtues (in movies this could be interesting and enthralling camerawork and cinematography as whole, pacing, great acting etc. and in literature author's rich language and abilities to "rhyme"/pace the work) is for imbeciles

 

I find it funny you're calling one of the most reverred directors of all time "art snob"

Edited May 21, 2008 by Xard

[thepixiesrock]

You're just so enlightened.

[Xard]

I wish

 

I'm not of the elitist type - but whenever it comes down to the "I don't like it so it sucks lololol" I see red. There's stuff I don't like but if it has its virtues I recognize them and don't slander it completely - something good reviewer is able to do.

 

And if art done by humans must automatically be entertaining we've reached the point of amusing ourselves to death already

Edited May 21, 2008 by Xard

[Hurlshort]

I'm not calling Tarkovsky anything. I'm saying the quote doesn't apply here because you have some people claiming that PS:T is soooo much better than other titles because it is art. It is the folks who claim to understand what is art that are condemning other stuff. So you have some people saying "Bioware games and PS:T are all on the same level" and you have some saying "PS:T is art and Bioware titles are mindless drivel."

 

It's not the same as what Tarkosky is saying.

[Xard]

Well, for me "art" has automatically higher starting point scores wise than mere entertainment - it doesn't mean that entertainment product can't easily overcome "art" but it has to be quite top-notch stuff if the "art" thingie is good.

 

Why I quoted Tarkovsky was because I saw this sliding once again to "I think it sucks so it sucks" and "well it's more entertaining so its better" - it wasn't specifically aimed at your PS:T comment.

 

Last time this happened I accidentally managed to create that huge ****storm about what game can be considered art and what not... of course I managed to get Moderated Status back then so I couldn't even participate

[Pop]

I agree wholeheartedly with Torment being a grind. It's just I loved the story and the reading enough to get through it. I know I lot of people that couldn't get past the clunky gameplay though. And even though I love the game, I still stealth my way through Baator.

Yeah, it's sort of funny, I played through as a thief and got to the Fortress with all the greater shadows, and actually ran into the dilemma that so many tru gamers found so appalling about Bioshock. In both games you can't really die, and in Bioshock you can exploit this by going after the Big Daddies with a wrench and just patiently wear the thing down as you keep getting smashed to bits by it. Thieves obviously don't have that great of combat abilities, so the greater shadows kept killing me and I kept coming back to life, killing one or two and trying to figure out where the next objective was with a dozen shadows in pursuit.

 

And then of course the final boss came around and I was 1 or 2 wisdom points below the threshold for the diplomatic resolution, so I had to fight him. Luckily for me P:ST suffered from the Unavoidable RPG Problem of Too Much Cash and I had made sure to stock up on oodles and oodles of clot charms. And goddamn, it was like that first time you fought a wolf in BG1, but you've got 75 HP and the wolf has 500 HP. A minute would pass and I had hit him once or twice and he had hit me three or four times. That battle lasted 45 minutes and I must have burned through at least 40 clot charms.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Pop

[random n00b]

Well, for me "art" has automatically higher starting point scores wise than mere entertainment - it doesn't mean that entertainment product can't easily overcome "art" but it has to be quite top-notch stuff if the "art" thingie is good.

Try and refrain from replying to this with some snappy comment - since you make a distinction between "art" and "mere entertainment", what criterions must be met for something to be in one field and not the other?

 

Just wondering, since I would not have it easy categorising creative works like that.

[Humodour]

Well, for me "art" has automatically higher starting point scores wise than mere entertainment - it doesn't mean that entertainment product can't easily overcome "art" but it has to be quite top-notch stuff if the "art" thingie is good.

Try and refrain from replying to this with some snappy comment - since you make a distinction between "art" and "mere entertainment", what criterions must be met for something to be in one field and not the other?

 

Just wondering, since I would not have it easy categorising creative works like that.

 

It's probably an classification of ease, with average, common games as entertainment and the more highly appreciated/innovative games (e.g. those with cult following) as art. A fairly decent distinction for utility purposes, but probably inaccurate when it comes to deciding whether or not a game is art.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Krezack

[RangerSG]

Well, for me "art" has automatically higher starting point scores wise than mere entertainment - it doesn't mean that entertainment product can't easily overcome "art" but it has to be quite top-notch stuff if the "art" thingie is good.

Try and refrain from replying to this with some snappy comment - since you make a distinction between "art" and "mere entertainment", what criterions must be met for something to be in one field and not the other?

 

Just wondering, since I would not have it easy categorising creative works like that.

 

It's probably an classification of ease, with average, common games as entertainment and the more highly appreciated/innovative games (e.g. those with cult following) as art. A fairly decent distinction for utility purposes, but probably inaccurate when it comes to deciding whether or not a game is art.

 

I'm guessing that's what he means too. But to punish a game strictly for it's popularity in terms of "art" makes for a false dichotomy. The Godfather was a hit movie, and yet it's considered one of the greatest "art" movies of all time. The dichotomy is not hard and fast in movies, it can't be proven hard and fast in games. Which is why I then turned to the technical aspect; a grounds by which it's unavoidable to determine that Bioware has been innovative.

 

Put it another way, Star Wars is lampooned for much of it's story and writing (rightly), but it did advance the technical aspect of visual storytelling (especially in the original incarnation). Same with Peter Jackson and LotR, whatever you think of it as an adaptation of the books. Technical advancement of the medium is innovation.

 

Fallout 1&2 were two of the most innovative and enjoyable games on every level I ever played. I don't share (though I understand) the fascination with PS:T, myself. It's pacing is, turgid. Especially with the fact there's no real threat for most of the game. It's a great game idea, but a bit muddled in implementation. From there, we basically get into games that have used Bioware engines. And those I do not find innovative at all, though they may be entertaining.

[Zoma]

That battle lasted 45 minutes and I must have burned through at least 40 clot charms.

 

The last game I played that took 45 min or longer to defeat a boss was Chrono Trigger. Magus himself took 1.5 hours to kill.

 

That's what I get for playing a Japanese RPG game without grinding levels.

[Humodour]

Anyway, if it took pop 45 minutes and 40 clot charms to kill the PS:T end boss, he must have really sucked. I melee'd it with my mage ffs.

[Nick_i_am]

haha, me too.