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.
lol. Come on, man, you're just angry because you can't point out anything specifically wrong with it.
Also, this was the reaction off a Bioware chap (Patrick Weekes) when he saw it:-
"So I'm supposed to believe someone is smart enough to do a big Excel spreadsheet with color coding and stuff but not smart enough to know about Campbellian archetypes?Yeah, guys, every BioWare game has the same plot! See, things are kind of normal, and then things change and you have to go out and do stuff, and you go to crazy weird places! Aaaaaand so yeah, totally the same story.That's asinine.The core idea isn't that bad -- I sense that someone started out with a good concept, like "Hey, you go to four places a lot," and then they just decided to add some more filler rows to try to make a real zinger, except that when you actually read the cells, a lot of them are stretches.In any event, the "intro, four planets, finale" structure is something we have used often for a few simple reasons:1) It's easy. It's not as easy as making the player do everything in order, but you can generally just treat each area separately except for a few variables, which makes logic-testing and QA work a ton easier. What happens on Feros stays on Feros. BioWare knows how to make these games, make them solid and workable, and ship them -- and if need be, we can always cut areas, which sucks, but we can do it if need be. Some structures don't allow for that, which is why you end up with games where it's clear that the devs ran out of time or money at some point.2) Players can understand it. In usability tests on one project, we learned that players with more than four things to do at a time in any given area will feel frustrated -- they get overwhelmed and have no idea what to do first and get the names mixed up. So you don't dump twenty small planets on the player all at once. You hit them with a few big things that they can understand: "Go to Feros." And then once they're there, they unlock several different things to do that don't compete with the rest of the universe, because right now you're on Feros. "Kill Varren." "Get Power Cells." "Turn on Water Valves." "Go to ExoGeni." (And we even cheat a bit by giving you missions, which are big and obvious, and assignments, which we tell you are less important.)In testing out our missions for ME2, the single biggest lump of story feedback we've gotten has boiled down to Information Flow. When a mission feels clunky, nine times out of ten it's because we either told the player way too much all at once and expected the player to keep it all straight, or we didn't actually tell the player enough and so the player is kind of lost. Dividing up our game into four or five large worlds allows us to control information a bit better.(And to be clear, that four-worlds-and-out thing is a simplification that ignores major critpath events and makes it sound like you only visit four big areas in KotOR, which flat-out isn't true.)3) There's nothing wrong with it. It's a structure, like any other. Humorously snarking that our games have a beginning part that is streamlined and introduces you to the game, a middle that allows you the freedom to go to several places and have adventures, and then a tightly focused ending is like riffing on how romance novels generally start out with two people being attracted to each other but having emotional issues, then gradually building trust, then having a complication that splits them up, and then in the end they get together and are happy. People who create fiction in any form use a structure appropriate to that form. They do it because their audience understands and responds on an emotional level to that structure."
In my personal opinion, excusing your laziness with a combination of pseudo-intellectual bluster ("HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF A HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES OR CAMPBELLIAN ARCHETYPES YOU RETARD?") and a comment that basically means viewers are idiots ("PLAYERS GET CONFUSED AND ANGRY") is not an excuse for anything.
Honestly, though, Bioware fans. This is the contempt that one of the lead writers has for your intelligence. I hope you enjoy those plotlines.
Angry? No. Personally, I think Bioware has been on a downward trend for the last couple of years.
But explain this then. How is "going to four areas" a cliche?
It's not. It's just a common element in Bioware games, and a totally arbitrary one at that. You have to neglect large portions of the games to say that there are only four areas in each game. For it to be a cliche, there have to be large numbers of examples outside of Bioware games that use it, enough so that it's a commonly understood structure. Facts not in evidence.
This is the clearest example of something that was put in to pad the chart because a ) the originator is angry at Bioware and b ) the originator doesn't understand the meaning of the word cliche.
The contempt that the lead writer has is for *you* and those like you.
I think I share it.
(edited for frakking smiley interpreter)
I wouldn't say its an excuse, more like a "If you arn't on the same page as us, please STFU and GTFO, we love what we do - stop trying to change us".
To explain it further, all the spreadsheet is contrsucted from is a description of the aformentioned monomyth and the 4 places structure of bioware games.
Very few games don't follow the monomyth. Its so generic its almost impossible to do while creating a fun game.
I don't think he really meant cliché (although, technically, it COULD be a cliché if it was overused enough... which it is within Bioware itself), I think it should've just said, "Common elements of Bioware storylines", which is essentally achieving the same thing.
There are four main areas that you can choose to go to within all the games, four "plot threads" so to speak. Essentially the same thing.
Explained above.
Ah, people who want an original game design, instead of laziness and a general trend of becoming hacks. Yeah, I can understand why he'd hate someone who wants him to do a decent job. That might require WORK.
Except, it's not. It's focused on the specific elements that're carried through Bioware RPGs. The monomyth is VERY, VERY generic (but requires a pretty specific order) and contains elements not mentioned within this thread.
Go look it up instead of claiming it's all a part of the monomyth.
Are you serious?
The spreadsheet goes:
Monomyth (normal life)
Monomyth (start of adventure)
Monomyth (help in your adventure)
Monomyth (gaining power)
Biowares strucutre (4 major side stories)
Basic threat to mission stuff, I think thats part of the myth too. Its in all films/games.
Dreams are something every human knows and a great place to do werid/strange stuff. Very common and cool.
Ancient civilisaiton? Again very common, half the games I have ever played have this.
Where is the bioware specific stuff (apart from the 4 places thing)?
Oh, you know, backstabbing and twists you can see coming from almost a mile away, like the you-are-Revan and Bastila-turns-Sith scenes from KotOR and the Kreia-is-an-evil-Sith scene from KotOR2 (made by Obsidian, but used BioWare's story style).
I haven't played far enough into NWN2 to discover anything resembling a storyline (got the mountains past Neverwinter, but that's it) or played NWN at all, so someone else should tell me what the twist and/or backstab is.
I couldn't finish NWN2 either. It just didn't grab me. NWN wasn't too bad, but unlike the modern games, you didn't really, at least to memory, have much say in where you went and what you did. Even though I don't have a problem with games not being driven by prize winning novelist (for that I can actually go read a book. <gasp> I know, such a novel idea!). It is still frustrating to not be able to to stop problems you see coming or even start them. Bioware gives you the illusion of control, but it is still an illusion. I won't fault them for that. Several other RPGs that have been brought up in comparison lack enough variety from me in terms of characters and choices, starting with being able to play a female. I have little patience these days for developers who don't give a shit they have a female audience.
But the Witcher is a male, that just wouldn't work. Thats not serious btw, I usually play females (and no, they arn't all lesbians) so I appreciate that feature.
I actually liked NWN2, but it was happered by the DnD setting which is too... tech fantasy, at this point.
Yeah it's not really a surprise to me that male players wouldn't see a problem that these niche rpgs pretty much always only go with a male character.
While I edited that post to indicate it was a 'joke' (imagine a smiley face after all of my sentences or something), "The Witcher" is based on the books and that is about the male character so it would be strange to tell a story about 'the witcher' as a female... ya know?
NWN2 was Obsidian. Again.
Heh, I see that. My apologies. I get that comment all the time so i figured you were being serious at not taking my complain seriously.
Well sure I understand that (about the book), but it's not like it's alone in the problem. I love being able to play a female character in RPGs, and not just as a skin but the fact that in Bioware games, gender is actually acknowledged. I mean some of the Might and Magic games let you choose a female but it didn't really matter. It was just a generic story. Boy you think Bioware games are cliche, try some of the older western rpgs and the jrpgs not too long ago.
It was all the same. I've been a fan of the Breath of Fire series, and that game always starts the same, some blue haired kid, normal life, suddenly turned upside down by monsters, oh and by the way, he's a dragon but doesn't know it. Really though I don't mind the repeat.
Back to these niche RPGs primarily coming out of Europe, a lot of them are male centric, male only games with absolutely no attempt to cater to female gamers. In this decade, that matters to me. Now I primarily play female characters, but not always. I keep waiting for a game to come out and allow me to play a huge black male minotaur wielding a battleaxe and showing attitude where-ever I go. That's not going to happen. Hell Bioware pretty much wants some boring generic human to star in all their games now. blah.
Yeah, and whenever they do a sequel to a BioWare game, they copy BioWare's storytelling method. I think Obsidian is owned by Activision, so obviously they're not going to be making Dragon Age 2, but if they weren't owned by one of EA's competitors I would be extremely surprised if BioWarEA didn't license the IP to make a quick buck off a game that gets rushed and released buggy and un-polished.
It's obvious you lack the basic level of intelligence needed to look at time stamps on a forum thread before making wild accusations. Furthermore I'd have thought it would be fairly obvious I was responding to you given how I kept on quoting what you were saying and responding to your posts. There's a big difference between providing a link to a side that points out some similarities between games and outright stating that every game is exactly the same. But then, you seem to have a penchant for making outlandish claims with little to no substance in them.
Finally that chart you included is fairly laughable - just playing around with the first row you can have them all different (at least for the ones I've played out of the list): BG2: You are the son of a god, a hero, and have beaten many powerful foes
NWN: You are the top student in an academy of heroes, without equal amongst your peers, trained while there to be able to save your city from destruction
KOTOR: You're the evil ruler of the galaxy responsible for many henious crimes, but are suffering from amnesia (or something similar, can't remember the precise details). Even at the start when you're not aware of the full details you're given hints that there's something else other than you just being some faceless person
Jade Empire: You think you're just a peasant but in reality you're the last child of an order or ruler or something (can't remember now)
DA: Origins: You're the youngest son of a proud noble family, and are betrayed by a family friend, seeing your parents cut down as you flee for your life
I'm struggling to see those are exactly the same. Some have twists about who you are, some don't. In some you start off in a position of power, in others you start from nothing.
What is the main similarity though? In all of them you start off at your weakest, and over the course of the game you gain skills and become stronger. What a surprise, given they're all RPGs!
I also had to laugh at one of the later points 'you have 2 companions of martial+magical prowess'. Who'd have thought - an RPG which allows noticeably different gameplay roles (i.e. mage, warrior), and then when it gives you companions it allows you to experience this variety rather than giving you a choice of 10 identical warrior companions, and no mages/rogues. That's almost nothing to do with story, and everything to do with gameplay and good game design.
With that sort of logic, 99% of RPGs are the same - you start off with few skills. You pursue some goal which ultimately ends up with either the fate of many depending on you, and by the time you save the world/city/race etc. you're very powerful. Oh and the game's final battle will be with some evil protaganist who is meant to be very powerful. You will also get a choice of how you progress your skills, and if you have companions to help you they will tend to hail from a variety of backgrounds with different roles (some may be mages, others warriors, others thieves).
Oh get over yourself. We're talking about RPGs in general now. I know your fanboi radar can't really comprehend that.
Sure, taken individually the critique made on each point can lead you in a certain direction. Now start to combine them and see a bigger picture emerge. We're talking choice, at a fundamental level here. Small changes accumulate toward a larger paradigm shift. But they have to start somewhere. Start shaking off the old, that's all I was pointing out. This list of 10 took me maybe half an hour? Now give a team this kind of mindset, and give them months. Look at where we could go!
Obsidian is independent.
And Nesrie, stop being such an asshole? You're taking the internet way too seriously. I can call people names too. I wonder if you're that grumpy and mean in real life...
Wow, I am amazed at the emotional response this thread has evoked. I haven't replied until now, but I just want to say I happen to enjoy Biowares games.
I am not a game developer, a graphic artist, a programmer, or anyone involved in the making of games. I just wanted to throw that out there since some people feel the need to post a resume before giving an opinion. I am just someone who enjoys playing games in my free time.
That said, I personally enjoy all their games. I try to enjoy them for what they are and not put too much thought into the development process. go ahead and flame me if you want, but I like them. I also like chocolate ice cream too if you want to flame me for that.
Do I think the Bioware could mix things up and get a different result than they have before, sure they could. Problem is, they mixed things up and now we have DA being swallowed by ME. I am not saying your ideas are bad persay, but I can see where they exist already or at least partially and how they could lead to worst results.
I understand what you are saying though. It's worth looking at, and I hope most developers do try something fresh once in awhile.
I agree, it could all go horribly awry. But I too think it's still worth trying, for to stop trying is worse than to try and fail. In other words...
loved kotor, was into mass effect 1. Haven't been able to get into DA or MA2. I also enjoyed Jade empire.
OK, well, I think some people are equating "structure" to "story", which isn't a good thing to do.
However, I do agree that Bioware should at least experiment with a different formula. The Intro, 4 Places, Twist, End does lend itself to predictability. Formulas aren't necessarily bad. I love House even though it's the exact same episodes over and over again. But I'd love a more explorative RPG like Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate I or II.
That being said... well... I simply love the Planescape Torment characters. Even the shittiest of them are some of the most complex, entertaining, or in the case of Annah downright sexy characters of gaming history. Truly. I don't think games now have characters as awesome. I'd rather Bioware ditch generic protagonist backgrounds and let the player start out with a single well-written character.
Dammit... who wants to make a dialogue and character heavy RPG with me?
So name one Dev who has made 6+ games and didnt repeat itself at least twice.
WTF??! There is nothing deeper and more personal then morals. What the hell are expecting? Give us a hint what you think they could do better. You are just ranting about how the produce shit, but arent giving any better ideas.
-- EDIT: I see you give some examples a bit lower in the thread. But really your ideas are not new or special. What you describe has been done with Morrowind and Gothik series. And in my opinon both suck big time, cause IMHO fantasy doesnt lend itself well to this style of gaming.
Troika? Really? We are talking about games here, not books. They made bad games. If you cant make a good game around your story, write a book ... oh wait, i already said that. I dont pay €50 for a great story packaged in a shit game, but i do for a good game with a good story. And Bioware nails it mostly with that balance, for me at least.
Yeah, I must say that I am also a huge fan of Bioware games. My favorite has always been Jade Empire, which I played on XBox. And I did enjoy Mass Effect, as well, but I haven't played DragonAge or Mass Effect II yet.
I will agree that some of the storyline, from Mass Effect, did get a little cheesy but, overall, I still enjoyed the game.
I did miss out on KoTOR, though. Not really sure why. It's been on my list of games that I need to buy for ages now...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
