Am I really the only person who can't stand the new (ie. post-KotOR) Bioware games?
Mass Effect and Dragon Age have clichéd (and, in Dragon Age's case, blatantly stolen) settings and plotlines (which have exactly the same plotline as KotOR, basically).
I don't know, I just found Mass Effect and Dragon Age to be hilariously dull, in terms of character development, plot development, combat (good at first, soon got repetitive), etc etc.
Giving credit where it's due: Voice acting is top notch, graphics allow the games to run on any system and the gameplay isn't TERRIBLE just a bit boring.
I don't see this changing with Star Wars: The Old Republic, either. The plotline is going to be something along the lines of a character suffering a tragedy or whatever, joining special order of bad arses and saving the galaxy. Hella dull, especially since they're still using the old, tired MMO combat systems.
None of these games even begin to compare with Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment, Fallout (I and II) or Icewind Dale. Sure, the gameplay and combat in those games was a bit esoteric, but the writing was top notch and the combat wasn't very much more dull than the newer games'.
What does everyone else think? Can you not stand the newer Bioware games either? Or do you love them? (Please tell why.)
P.S. If you're wondering where Bioware basically ripped the entire Dragon Age setting from, go have a gander at the Prince of Nothing series by R. Scott Bakker. Mages who are persecuted by the temple and live in wizard towers, "dark fantasy" setting, "darkspawn" monster guys who are described almost exactly how the typical darkspawn look and who just go rampant until their God of Death rises again, etc etc. They're amazing books by the by.
Heavy Rain and Bioshock are two off the top of my head examples, as well as some of the really art-y flash "games" (interactive movies, really, but that's a different discussion) that you see about.
You lost me on that one. Bioshock is as far away from art as a McDonalds burger is from a cullinary masterpiece.
Just making sure you weren't focusing on only games you like as an art form, which of cousre would be a natural tendency. There is plenty of art out there that I think is complete crap, but is still art. In general, I think games are a lot like movies . No one typically says all movies and books are art. In fact, a lot of them are not considered art for a number of reasons. I just don't understand how anyone can say ALL games are not art except for that fact that the gamers themselves don't treat the games like art. If we do, we're called old and stuck in the past. If the gamers can't give games the respect and appreciation they deserve, we can't possibly expect the general public to do so.
Art is subjective. Bioshock certainly has a style though. I mean I've never played the game but seeing a screen shot from one of the games certainly gives you a feel for the game.
The classification of art is not subjective. If one painting is art, so is another. If one statue, then so is another. If one game is art, then so must all other games be. The subjective part is which of these pieces of art you like and which you don't, but not whether or not it is, in fact, art.
BG2 has a different story to NWN which has a different story to Jade Empire which has a different story to Dragon Age. They're not even close to being similar.
Good job on choosing the exceptions that I mentioned in the first post. I was thinking, "Oh, don't worry about putting in a paragraph explaining that sentence, and about how I mean post-KotOR games considering that Bioware has lost most of it's original staff, I'm sure they'll understand that."
I was wrong.
Compare Mass Effect with Dragon Age Origins with Knights of the Old Republic. Three games, exactly the same generic plot that someone's already summed up in this thread.
It had style and it examined both objectivism and the value of choice. As far as I could tell, anyway. The game was dull as hell other than that, though.
No, bioshock was a cheap rippoff of system shock 2, stupified for the console crowd.
That is not true. Have you studied art by chance? All photographs are not art. Art is an expression, not just a thing. Art is not classified by what it is but what it expresses, what it conveys. If you walk around your house taking photographs of your stuff so you have an inventory of your things for insurance purposes, that is not art. If you walk around your house taking photographs of your life, of what you have accumulated and you intend to use those photographs to express that life, that would be art. There is a major difference between the two.
Do you like any games? Bioshock was an important game for the industry and one hell of a good game to boot.
Can't deny that, man.
Still, though, they went over completely different themes.
It wasn't really. It's not changed the industry or the way we view games. It was just a game that a few people like.
And it wasn't all that great.
Do you NOT fanboy for a company? I mean, really man, look at how defensive you are towards criticism about these terrible games.
This was a stupid question to ask, since the answer is obviousl. You seem to have serious fanboism issues that we can only hope you will grow out of someday. Here let me help you a little, there are some people who like games that did not fall down and worship Bioshock. For me, I couldn't get past the way the game looks, but i could certainly appreciate they were going for a certain style. I know crazy right, not hating on something you don't care for. You should try it.
This is completely irrelevant. There is no such distinction between games. It's like comparing a painting by Da Vinci and one by Picasso and arguing that one is art and the other one isn't.
More like a painting of a shop sign to one of the great's as you mention.
The one thing that seems to tie all of this silly art stuff together is that people often say art "means something". But things mean different things to different people.
That inventory of your possesions might mean a lot more than a simple database in the event of a fire for example, it could 'represent the life you once had' lol.
There is no art, only you.
I meant comparing game to game is like comparing the two painters, but yeah.
Bioshock changed the whole light story FPS concept we used to have. You seem to say all the critically acclaimed games in recent history are terrible. I know, we can never hope to achieve the quality of games back in the late 90s and early 2000. You know, the period where devs spent more time on graphics than anything else.
[quote who="Aractain" reply="138" id="2682619"]Quoting Annatar11, reply 137That is not true. Have you studied art by chance? All photographs are not art. Art is an expression, not just a thing. Art is not classified by what it is but what it expresses, what it conveys. If you walk around your house taking photographs of your stuff so you have an inventory of your things for insurance purposes, that is not art. If you walk around your house taking photographs of your life, of what you have accumulated and you intend to use those photographs to express that life, that would be art. There is a major difference between the two.This is completely irrelevant. There is no such distinction between games. It's like comparing a painting by Da Vinci and one by Picasso and arguing that one is art and the other one isn't.More like a painting of a shop sign to one of the great's as you mention.The one thing that seems to tie all of this silly art stuff together is that people often say art "means something". But things mean different things to different people.That inventory of your possesions might mean a lot more than a simple database in the event of a fire for example, it could 'represent the life you once had' lol. There is no art, only you.[/quote]
The means something part is the subjective part of art. Art can mean nothing to someone and everything to someone else. You are correct with your comparison although I think i might have compared a STOP sign to another sign for emphasis. Because art is subjective in the eyes of a the beholder, that's why it's so easy for people to argue about it, and not agree. That's also how you wind up with some people claiming all video games are art and the other group saying none of them are. I stand my original assessment. Some games are art, just like some, but not all, movies, architecture, model design, paintings, clothing, cakes, sugar etc are considered art.
Except, it didn't. That's what Half Life, Deus Ex, System Shock etc did years beforehand. Did you play any of these games?
Please, show me any evidence that points to these games having "More time spent on the graphics than anything else". I seriously doubt you'll be able to.
See, my trouble with the more modern game is that they're not advancing in terms of gameplay but only in terms of graphics. I'd hardly stay they were moving backwards (maybe in terms of plot design, but even then I've probably just got tired of the same rehashed plot) merely stagnating. We have amazingly powerful processors, and yet they're getting used to make more "photorealistic" graphics? Where the hell's the more epic gameplay, larger simulations etc?
I mean, imagine if Dungeon Keeper was updated with today's technology. (But not today's graphics.) You could have hundreds of monsters running around a dungeon with their individual needs being tracked etc. Or about a hundred much more need intensive creatures. It'd be brilliant, like running a miniature (and demonic) SimCity. Yet, nothing.
I think your mistake is thinking that defining art depends on the individual, but it does not. If I go out and proclaim that I don't believe the Mona Lisa is a piece of art, everyone will laugh at me. As I've said before, the only subjective part is whether or not you like it. Defining something as art is done by the society as a whole, not an individual. Our society does not recognize games as art. Until it does, trying to argue that some games are art while others aren't is completely fruitless and meaningless, because none are accepted to be art.
You never answered my questions, so I am going to go with no, you've never studied the concept of art.
This whole articles discusses the whole game vs art topic, but the very last sentences sums it up and puts a pretty bow on it.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070316/ochalla_03.shtml
"Games don’t all have to be the same thing to all people. They can—and should—be completely different depending on who’s making them. That’s one of the things that makes them art.”
Bioware has a history of supporting the mod community more than other companies so I'll give them a thumbs up. However, too many Bioware games suffer from same story, different setting syndrome.
I can stand of them, just I ain't a fan of their RPGs (and I hate Mass Effect).
Looking forward to The Old Republic, though.
Adam Sessler agrees with me about late 90s graphics.
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/703720/thefeed.html
I'm not talking about the generic Bioware good/evil alignment system.
In Mass Effect you recieve a strong message throughout the early game that conflict between Organic Intelligence and AI is inevitable. The AI thief on the Citadel, the Quarians and the Geth, indeed the main badguy is revealed to be an ancient 'berserker' AI bent, for unknown reasons, on destroying organic life in the galaxy. Except.. there are hints throughout that maybe things aren't that simple.
In ME 2 Shepard gets cyborged to hell and back, although without the obviousness of Saren's Geth arm from ME 1. We see that the Quarian/Geth conflict isn't as simple as we may have thought and the big denoument at the end was that the Reapers aren't pure AIs afterall, but apparently some kind of post singularity cybernetic racial gestalt. That you have a friendly AI on your ship is another kind of obvious exploration of this theme.
ME 3 is shaping up to be season 4 of Babylon 5. Shepard has to channel Sheridan and rope the entire galaxy, probably including the Geth (depending on choices you made in ME 2,) and the Rachni (if you didn't exterminate the Hive Queen in ME 1) to fight off the invading Vorlons. I mean Reapers.
There is, honestly, a lot going on in there. More in fact than in any other Bioware game I can think of. Probably because SF if a richer medium for exploring these themes than Fantasy is, and thet's their normal medium (KotOR not excepted.)
Art [ahrt]-noun1. The guy who changes my car's oil for $49.95. Plus tax. And potentially Credit Card interest.Usage: "Hey Art, how's it hanging?"-verb1. A second person singular present indicative of be. Like Romeo and shizzle.Usage: "How art thou milord?"
Seriously though, defining Art is like nailing Jello to the wall. Just when you think you have it, some one comes along and sells a pile of rotten fruit and dirty diapers from a random trashcan for like $10,000,000.00 (hyperbole is awesome) as "Art". And people accept it in the definition. And then you're all like "WTF?" because that was literally a pile of trash. And definitely a health hazard!
Get a print of the real thing, only $299.99! http://www.amazon.com/Garbage-National-Geographic-Collection-Eightfish/dp/B001NIP0BMOr pieces of the real thing for only $50.00! http://www.nycgarbage.com/
ART! Word.
On second thought, I'm glad video games aren't Art. I don't want them associated with garbage. Except E.T. for the Atari 2600. Worst. Game. Ever. Now that's Art!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
