He is... Actually completely wrong. Just because reviewers focused on graphics does not mean dev teams did. He's also ignoring the fact that game companies are focusing more on the graphical quality of their current games (I mean, it was one of the selling points for Crysis, as an example) instead of content.

Maybe reviewers and game designers have switched around in terms of focus, but I'm still getting "NOT PRETTY GAMES ARE BAD". Ask your average gamer if he could play Morrowind, and he'd say no.

I suppose you're right that artificial life versus biological is a theme, but I would hardly say it was explored. Read Ender's Game for an exploration of cultural clashes between alien races that come into contact with each other. It reads a lot better on the whole.

Still, I'm standing by that Bioware isn't exploring these themes, just throwing them in the game for a generic science fiction setting (we've seen all of these things done better in other places, after all, a few seasons of Babylon 5 are an almost direct corollary to Mass Effect's setting) like they did with Dragon Age (that game's religion is also another thing "inspired" by Bakker's setting, except Bakker does exploration of religion considerably better).

It's just that I don't think there's been enough focus to count anything as a theme. The whole AI versus biological thing is more just something that's been seen in pretty much every science fiction setting and Bioware felt it was a good idea to put it in.

Thank you for saying what i couldnt due to my poor english.

I'm complaining that the games storylines are exactly the same as a lot of the games produced before them by exactly the same company. It's not so bad (or at least not so obvious) if it's done by another company, but even Squaresoft realised that they couldn't make the same plot over and over again (have a look at Final Fantasy IV, the first game to shake the storyline up).

The fact they don't even attempt to explore anything deeper than "MORALS" is another complaint, but links in to the fact I can't stand the new Bioware. They're shovelling out the same repetitive plotline, and claiming that they're the best storytellers on the market at the moment.

I don't know, when games had a considerably smaller budget and smaller teams, I was quite happy with the games. These games now have a massive budget and yet are pumping out considerably less impressive games. It seems that, since production values have went, the concept of complex storylines or games have went down.

Have a look at Troika Games. They were a company that was constantly strapped for cash / time, barely ever advertised for and yet produced some of the absolute best RPGs of the last decade. The only trouble with the games was their bugginess, and that was because of publishers continually pushing them to release early which you don't get with the big studios because they're big studios.

Again, completely wrong. This is embarrassing.

Right, let me lay it out simply for you. The massive development cycle for games these days is not due to coding etc, but due to the huge requirements in terms of art assets. Look at how quickly production of Elemental has went these past few months, simply because there's no longer any real need (maybe need's the wrong word, maybe I should say there's simply no development of them) for art assets.

Elemental's had a long development cycle due to the game itself, but it would've been done far quicker if we'd've had graphics equal to MoM's. However, I doubt that'd match up to anyone's views of the game, (mine included) and therefore the much longer development cycle. Elemental's got nice graphics, but they're certainly not upto your average console game, and yet art assets are a bitch to develop.

Do you understand, yet?

Judging from your previous posts, I'm going to guess no, so I'll carry on. Due to current graphical requirements (of people and advertising, not of consoles or anything like that) graphics are still holding back gameplay in a great deal of ways.

If a game with X-Com's graphics came out these days (even if it was the best game in the world) it'd get trashed for poor graphics etc and therefore get a lower rated score than it would probably deserve. It'd have a much shorter development cycle in terms of art assets, however, and therefore more money (and people) could be applied to the conceptual design and programming aspects of the game.

I do love the way you use "pump", though. You do realise that's a verb generally used to making cheap copies of things, right? Maybe a Freudian slip through all this advertising you seem to do?

The difference between you and me is all you do is speculate. Anytime I reference anything you write it off as wrong or irrelevant. Graphics are not getting any better soon. This is a fact because consoles drive the industry and consoles have a limit. You continue to generalize games except you cannot even name one when graphics clearly and totally outweighed the rest of the game.

You're essentially making an argument with no proof. You simply keep repeating yourself that increased art assets ruin modern gameplay. Do you understand that yet? Or are you going to continue making things up? What kind of argument is "graphics are still holding back gameplay in a great deal of ways."?

KotOR, DAO and ME have pretty much the same plotline. Not counting sequels, that's literally half their games with the same plotline, and those have been the latest released. You also ignored the fact I'm saying they started to suck post-KotOR. Probably because it's convenient for you.

Considering your references thus far has been... One man's mention (that you attempted to take completely out of context) that he doesn't even review graphics in games so far, it's hilarious you're still arguing this.

You also ignored everything I wrote in that post. Go read it. It's like you just skim over it in a vain attempt to get something to support your argument.

( Here's a clue: Every console game that gets made needs art assets. They don't all have the same art assets. Increased graphical quality needs increased art asset quality which means increased development time or cutting down on other aspects of development. Why is this so difficult to you? Hell, I'll write it out in logic form for you if you like:-

• Art assets require time and money.
• Gameplay design and implemention requires time and money.
• The higher the quality of art assets, the more time and money is required.
• There is, within a development cycle, finite time and money.
• Therefore, if a game has a requirement of high graphical quality, a great deal of time and money is required for art assets, if a game has a requirement of low graphical quality, there is less time and money spent on art assets and more on gameplay.

Why is this so complex to you? )

Oh, you want examples? You didn't say that before. Crysis, Haze, Empire Total War, the new Turok, Grand Theft Auto IV (maybe not so much, but definitely a disappointment in gameplay compared to the rest of the games). There, four games off the top of my head?

inb4: "BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EXAMPLES BECAUSE I SAY SO". GTFO, man.

Because it's dull, predictable and shows a lack of innovation that you can also experience in gameplay? I just find BioWare games ploddingly dull, nowadays.

Bioware puts a lot, a lot of focus on their characters. Not all stories are character driven like that, but a lot of Bioware games are. I am going to give them credit for that. So what if some of the story-line is a bit recycled. As has been mentioned a dozen times before, pretty much all the modern authors do this, whether they want to admit it or not. It's the flavor, the twist, the tweak, whatever you want to call it that makes an idea  their own. Do I think they are greatest storytellers in the west? No. I wish they would stop touting story, story, story like they are. It is a disservice that they do this really. Sure, they're stories are good, really good coming out of the game industry, an industry that all but brags they don't bother to hire actual writers. Their stories don't hold up against some of the better novels or even movies in the same genre though. I am still going to shrug. It's engaging enough for most people. While there are a couple characters in ME2 I could careless whether they die or not, by and large I want them to live. I care enough to want to see more out of them.

Just because I like Bioware games doesn't mean I am going to say they are perfect or claim I don't have gripes. I understand the camp that doesn't care for Bioware games and certainly don't need to demonize them to justify my stance. I don't know where the graphic argument came in, but I will say this. DA and ME2 might not be as appealing to me if I was looking at icons and reading text instead of watching vibrant characters that seem plausibly alive and hearing their voice. For this kind of game, graphics are important to me, more so than other games. I don't know that I need it "better" than it is now, whatever better might be... sweat dripping down a liars face maybe.

1st post of the day, boom

No, it's not half their games. I've already been through 4 of their games which have different storylines, and the best you can still come up with is 3 and then say that 3 is half of their games - it doesn't add up.

I'm also starting from BG2 because that's where I started playing bioware games. I haven't played BG1 or earlier games. I'm also not commenting on mass effect because I've not played it (yet). However out of all the games I have played the 4 I mentioned plus KOTOR the stories were all different. About the only thing that I could say was similar would be the very rough structure of having four big areas for DA, KOTOR and NWN, but the actual stories in these three games were all different. Besides you didn't say 'the stories started to get similar from KOTOR onwards', you said:

Try and backtrack all you want but that statement is wrong. However. You. Interpret it.

ToR will sell whether it is good or not. How do I know this? STO sold very well, and that is a crap game with a strong IP. The problem isn't selling boxes but maintaining subs. STO is rumored to be going F2P.

I disagree as well. It's not as as formuliac as you claim. Besides, do you want to spend 20-80 hours playing a game so you can lose? What would be the point in that. Most people like to win. At least in DA there is a loss, sort of, depending on the choice.

It's obvious you don't read posts in this thread, otherwise you'd've seen the one just above yours.

To be honest, even that chart got it wrong, Dragon Age fits considerably more stronger than it appears to. 2, 3 and 4 ALL fit perfectly and Mass Effect's 2 should definitely be a blue considering the Geth are virtually unknown.

What were you saying again, aeortar?

Have a look at all of the best '90s RPGs, the Troika RPGs, the Obsidian sequels and you'll see what an RPG can be with a little bit of originality.

A concept straight off the top of my head: Fantasy GTA. You play as a gang member in a run down section of a pretty typical fantasy town. It'd fit Bioware's plotline (if they wanted it to) and yet it'd give them the ability to invert or subvert all the clichés they usually use which would result in a far more interesting story and more interesting game.

It'd also allow for actual moral choices, instead of your typical "SAVE CAT KILL CAT" of Bioware games. You might find the slave trade despicable but not have any problem with the drug trade etc.

Also, it'd be pretty damn fun.

Just a couple of adjustments and you open up a new world of story telling.

1) You're not of humble origins, just unknown. You hail from a different land, a secret order, or have some unheard of gift. You're already a hero but don't deserve it. You're already a hero but this new threat can not be handled by the abilities you currently have.
2) You start with either one or no companion. This companion might be completely useless but valuable to you and still requires your protection. (i.e. little sister, etc...) Companions only join you in exchange for favors, and not usually willingly.
3) You're not recruited in to an elite organization. You're already a member, the founder, are exiled from one as part of the story, or are never part of one. Maybe you choose which of these you go with. Maybe there is no elite organization, you're trying to found it in response to a threat.
4) You experience no tragedy at the beginning. Instead, you expereince tragedy in the second act when the stakes are much higher. Or it turns out your actions are a tragedy unfolding. You may or may not know this. You may or may not have a choice about it. (Oracle at Delphi?)
5) You're presented with 7 optional hubs from the start. Only 2 can be completed, with the rest being considered failures and hurting your relationships, or limiting them, appropriately. You choose what's important and what you have to give up. (Optionally you can play your strengths against your enemy's weaknesses and keep up to 4 open. You're not told this, you must discover it.)
6) The enemy has trouble tracking your movement at first. They can't begin to thwart you until you finish at least 1 hub. Further, they try to recruit you, and can do so sucessfully. Sometimes their inteference backfires, instead providing you with an advantage.
7) There are 3 different enemies in the game, and they're not working together. You can side with one or more of them. Depending on whom you work against they even help you at times. There are also 2 different "Good" organizations. Alliances can work in many of the tangles this web offers. Optionally sides taken and alliances formed and broken affect the hub selection.
8) Morality is not decided in simple decisions, only in decisions of great personal sacrifice vs great personal gain at the sacrifice of others. Otherwise it only affects your relationships with others involved.
9) Lowering your "Favor" with a companion is not always bad. Sometimes you need a hard boiled egg who doesn't like you all that much but is still on your side. Quoting Alpha Protocol "If they like you too much their emotions might get in the way of their decisions."
10) Your companions do not wait for you to act. Sometimes you need to catch up to them, sometimes you need to rescue them, and sometimes they leave and find you when you need them most.

Any one of those changes the formula. More than one and you start to get something really new and fresh. The numbers can be tweaked as well. Some of these I've not even seen before and some I've seen elsewhere, either done well or could have been done better.

Again, this is already found in bioware games. DA and ME2 have companions that are not willingly or at least begrudgingly joining your cause which is why they can become disloyal at certain points. Not all companions are heroes doing it for the good for all kind.

Again, DA origins allows you to start as a member of some important organizations or you can be of nothing. Of coure, they're getting rid of the origins so I might see where you could take issues with this one. I hoped they would expand on them myself, sounds like they are just throwing them away.

Tragedy tends to get people to act who would not act before. It's just a part of human nature. Having said that, I don't necessarily see a problem with this suggestion except that it's not really changing anything so much as shifting it around.

This can certainly be done, but I think a lot of people would throw this in the not fun category. This is still a game. You're talking about a no win situation here. There are some of those in DA and ME2.  You need to get past discovery ideas though, the internet pretty much destroys surprises. Hell you don't even have to be looking at a guide, just coming to this forum and reading comments reveals a lot of spoliers. Again, not an impossible idea, but one I wouldn't like.

I see a potential problem with this idea. Your essentially calling for two games to be wrapped into one. I don't know if i would choose a 10 hour game over a 20-30 hour game because you can join the bad guys. I don't find much appeal in joining bad guys kind of scenarios, so I wouldn't play it a second time through. Essentially, you cut the game in half for a person like me which would definitely me in the not good category. As for tracking you down, some of the games its not even apparent who the real enemy is so they having them track you means little. I assume by tracking you mean they show up and you fight them of course.

This could be an interesting idea, but a complex one. We're dealing with companies who want to give less game for more money. It seems highly unlikely they'd offer this kind of complexity without stripping the game down to the barebones. I am not saying I oppose the idea, just very skeptical it could ever happen.

I am not a big fan of morality points or systems at all actually. I'd get rid of them if i could, or at least provide enough flexibility that you don't have to be good or bad ALL the time in order to have enough points towards the end. I think the system you are suggesting almost reflects DA's system where you don't take someone with you, they don't really react to your actions. I do think it might be nice if all the companions showed up for the really big decisions. I mean really, what the hell are they doing while you are knee deep in tunnels fighting darkspawn anyway?

I already mentioned I haven't been a fan of the morality, favor, paragon, whatever the hell Bioware wants to call it at any given time system. I hate focusing on points. For a company who claims to be all about story, they sure spend a lot of time trying to get you to base your story on their point system. Between the two, DA's was better than ME 2 for me.

For me, you present interesting ideas, but I am not sure many of them would actually create the kind of changes you are looking for so much as shuffle things around. 7 certainly has a possibility. You have to keep in mind, Bioware is also trying to do this story driven thing which, so far, works for them which means, like a movie, they're looking at pacing. They want to get you involved and interested right away and plan for climaxes and things like that. Shuffling things around might work in theory, but there is a lot of drive in that basic questions "who the hell is responsible for this mess" that can keep some going.

Autarkhos

Fantasy GTA, I can think of fewer games I would want to play less than what that name implies. I don't like the GTA series, haven't since the first one actually. I would suggest you take your suggestion to them, Rockstar, and not Bioware. They managed to put out a western after all that is getting good reviews, and not just from GTA fans.