BioWare - What They're Trying to Do @ Kotaku

[Dhruin]

Kotaku reports BioWare's Vision Statement (http://kotaku.com/5497736/what-the-people-behind-mass-effect-and-dragon-age-are-trying-to-do) and the advantages they see in the RPG genre to deliver those benefits:
I spoke to the men running the studio behind many of the world's biggest role-playing games a couple of weeks ago, to discuss a variety of things. I left with a bonus: The BioWare Vision Statement.
Here is that vision, from the mouth of Ray Muzyka, EA's general manager for (as he named them) BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Mythic and BioWare Montreal: "Create, deliver and evolve the most emotionally engaging gaming experiences in the world. That's the vision for the BioWare group across the four studios, and they all have different ways to approach that."
Thanks, Omega.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=14642)

[SveNitoR]

"Create, deliver and evolve the most emotionally engaging gaming experiences in the world."

Sounds like a typical political/commercial slogan :p

[screeg]

Who is supposed to get excited by this sort of pap? Fans? Investors? I hope they don't think it's going to inspire their staff. To be fair, it's hard to imagine a mission statement that would succeed. The whole idea is a lame MBA cliche.

[DArtagnan]

Emotionally engaging?

Maybe they should be in the movies or be writing books.

I tend to play games for the gameplay, and I don't have to find it emotionally engaging to keep playing. Intellectually stimulating, perhaps, but that's not the same thing.

Then again, I don't represent the norm.

However, if they REALLY want to emulate Hollywood with a bit of interaction on top - then maybe they should consider focusing on the writing being less clichéd and unoriginal. Then again, that's exactly what Hollywood is about - so…

[Malk]

What's Hollywood's got to do with any of this? Hollywood usually doesn't make "emotionally engaging films". Gameplay is the most important thing to me too, but I like it when RPGs are emotionally engaging. It may not be inspiring, but I totally understand what they're saying. Like when you connect with NPCs, when you actually get to know them.. In Dragon Age I got the feeling they were real people. I'm glad Bioware's doing that kind of thing. But they do lack originality, that is true...

[DArtagnan]

What's Hollywood's got to do with any of this? Hollywood usually doesn't make "emotionally engaging films". Gameplay is the most important thing to me too, but I like it when RPGs are emotionally engaging. It may not be inspiring, but I totally understand what they're saying. Like when you connect with NPCs, when you actually get to know them.. In Dragon Age I got the feeling they were real people. I'm glad Bioware's doing that kind of thing. But they do lack originality, that is true…

What's Hollywood got to do with this?

Well, it's what Bioware games remind me of. They're interactive movies more than anything else, and that's simply not what I'm looking for in a game.

[dagoo7]

What's Hollywood got to do with this?

Well, it's what Bioware games remind me of. They're interactive movies more than anything else, and that's simply not what I'm looking for in a game.

I sadly have to agree here with respect to ME2 at least. If you take out the pure shooter gameplay from ME2, what you are left with is basically the same type of interactive movie found in Heavy Rain, although with arguably less ability to influence the story.

[DArtagnan]

Speaking of Heavy Rain - that's about as far away from my kind of game as you can possibly get.

It's basically a pure movie, but everything good about the movie is ruined by the utterly horrid idea of having the player figthing a pathetically stupid interface to make characters do whatever the movie requires them to do.

It's what I would call a gameplay-void interactive movie. The player being the poor hamster having to keep the wheel running, so the movie can continue.

From my point of view, it's what happens when people with zero understanding of gaming and the history of gaming get into the industry - with a motive to change what they don't understand into something they DO understand, which is apparently how to make a compelling movie. This is where I have to stand and wonder: why not simply make a movie? If nothing else, then just tell the story through cutscenes and do away with the interaction bits altogether, because that's clearly not where your talents lie.

Bioware seems to be heading in the same direction, but at least their gameplay is simply boring - rather than frustrating.

[Naked Ninja]

Big companies tend to generate Mission Statements, it's the kind of things HR departments come up with in order to justify their existence and execs love because they read a book about raising employee morale or something. Eye-rolling cheese, but that is what life is like in the business world.

We got a big speech at work the other day about working smarter, not harder. That, given the option, we should always choose to try to work smarter, instead of harder.

No shit, really? Could you be more patronizing, please?

[Dhruin]

From my point of view, it's what happens when people with zero understanding of gaming and the history of gaming get into the industry - with a motive to change what they don't understand into something they DO understand, which is apparently how to make a compelling movie.

Given both the critical success and - anecdotally - the positive feedback I've seen from many gamers (including on this site), I'd suggest you just don't get it. It wouldn't work - and isn't just - a movie because the interactive parts are critical to investing players.

Heavy Rain certainly isn't a traditional game form and I can understand not everyone would enjoy but I'd rather see some experimentation with narrative form than not.

[dagoo7]

Given both the critical success and - anecdotally - the positive feedback I've seen from many gamers (including on this site), I'd suggest you just don't get it. It wouldn't work - and isn't just - a movie because the interactive parts are critical to investing players.

Heavy Rain certainly isn't a traditional game form and I can understand not everyone would enjoy but I'd rather see some experimentation with narrative form than not.

It is true that the goal of the game as interactive movie is to make the player feel a more visceral connection and involvement with the story. And I think it succeeds in doing this. However, I think one could justifiably argue that a lot of the interactivity here is meaningless and just busy work that in many ways distracts from the narrative. In fact the narrative often stops in order to provide some form of meaningless interactivity (oftimes silly and pedestrian) simply for interactivity's sake.

While this does keep one busy and helps distract from the logical inconsistencies (of which there are more than a few) in the narrative, they really don't advance the narrative or mean anything. In that sense, it could be said that the "game" elements of this often fail, or do not help achieve narrative goals. Frankly, I would prefer if you keep interactive movies and games largely separate and distinct, but I think I am a minority.

[DArtagnan]

Given both the critical success and - anecdotally - the positive feedback I've seen from many gamers (including on this site), I'd suggest you just don't get it. It wouldn't work - and isn't just - a movie because the interactive parts are critical to investing players.

Heavy Rain certainly isn't a traditional game form and I can understand not everyone would enjoy but I'd rather see some experimentation with narrative form than not.

I don't get it?

Maybe I just don't like it - and others do?

I don't get why Avatar is being hailed as basically the best movie ever, either.

Maybe it's because I have weird ideas about movies needing a strong story or characters to be truly great, and games needing strong gameplay for that same achievement.

Basically, I suspect people are simply shallow and fall in love with the spectacle too easily.

[JuliusMagnus]

I don't get it?
... and games needing strong gameplay for that same achievement.

Basically, I suspect people are simply shallow and fall in love with the spectacle too easily.

Well, sports and racegames are as close to pure gameplay as one can get (no stories or interactivity with the surroundings) but that's not the type of game I like.

I guess the RPG equivalant of a sports game is a diablo clone or roguelike and I don't like those those either.

[DArtagnan]

Well, sports and racegames are as close to pure gameplay as one can get (no stories or interactivity with the surroundings) but that's not the type of game I like.

At least I recognize the appeal of sports and racegames, even if I don't personally enjoy them.

But I don't care particularly about "pure" gameplay. I'm looking for mentally stimulating gameplay, and as I said - I personally find Heavy Rain to be about as far away from that as I can imagine. There's absolutely no meaningful thought involved, and my hamster-wheel analogy is still the best I can come up with. You simply do what the game tells you to do, and you don't enjoy the interaction. At least, I can't see how anyone COULD enjoy the interaction.

Maybe it represents an illusion of player involvement - but it certainly doesn't work for me.

It would be exactly like watching a movie with a ton of pauses. Like someone taking the remote control, putting the movie on pause, and asking you to perform some arbitrary movement or hand signal to simulate what's happening on screen and then resuming the movie when he's satisfied you did something that got close enough.

I guess the RPG equivalant of a sports game is a diablo clone or roguelike and I don't like those those either.

I don't really see much sense in direct genre comparisons, because that would be ignoring why genres are there in the first place.

[purpleblob]

Muzyka's colleague, BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk offered his way of looking at it: "People are thinking about our games after they play them. The average game.. you play it, you experience it, your go back to work or home and it doesn't stick with you. Somehow, our stuff sticks with you. It's the character interactions, all these things that Ray discussed. It all lives with you after."

I loled at this. What are they smoking? Epic fail.

[DArtagnan]

I loled at this. What are they smoking? Epic fail.

They certainly seem to be a bit full of themselves ;)

[fatBastard()]

They certainly seem to be a bit full of themselves ;)

And yet "Game of the Year" after "Game of the Year" awards, huge sales figures and a GENERALLY very positive feedback from GAMERS to all of their games suggest that perhaps they're on to something.

I don't like mafia themed anything, so naturally I find the Godfather trilogy about as exciting as having all my teeth undergo root canal treatment at the same time without anesthetics … but I'm not conceited enough to imagine that just because I don't like something nobody else should.

[DArtagnan]

And yet "Game of the Year" after "Game of the Year" awards, huge sales figures and a GENERALLY very positive feedback from GAMERS to all of their games suggest that perhaps they're on to something.

I don't like mafia themed anything, so naturally I find the Godfather trilogy about as exciting as having all my teeth undergo root canal treatment at the same time without anesthetics … but I'm not conceited enough to imagine that just because I don't like something nobody else should.

You seem to be under the impression that I don't think anyone should like their games. That's a mistake on your part.

I like Bioware games and I consider them quality products. That's not the same as thinking they're what I would prefer - or that I support their ideas about making interactive movies. I think their games would be infinitely better with a different mindset - but that's just me.

I personally don't want a movie when I'm playing a game, and I think it's a bad idea because we already have movies. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a decent sci-fi movie with a bit of interaction and samey shooter gameplay - which is what I consider Mass Effect 2 to be. I'd just prefer they focus on gameplay instead of the movie aspects.

I have no problem with other people thinking differently, and I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion unless you already had it before reading.

Still, I think they're a bit full of themselves claiming their games are unique in how they make people think about things. That would be conceited, if anything.

[fatBastard()]

You seem to be under the impression that I don't think anyone should like their games. That's a mistake on your part.

I like Bioware games and I consider them quality products. That's not the same as thinking they're what I would prefer - or that I support their ideas about making interactive movies. I think their games would be infinitely better with a different mindset - but that's just me.

I personally don't want a movie when I'm playing a game, and I think it's a bad idea because we already have movies. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy a decent sci-fi movie with a bit of interaction and samey shooter gameplay - which is what I consider Mass Effect 2 to be. I'd just prefer they focus on gameplay instead of the movie aspects.

I have no problem with other people thinking differently, and I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion unless you already had it before reading.

Still, I think they're a bit full of themselves claiming their games are unique in how they make people think about things. That would be conceited, if anything.

Nobody questions that Chess has excellent gameplay/replay value but I doubt anyone has ever thought about how the poor pawns are being exploited and used for cannon fodder or wondered whether the queen was cheating on the king with one of the bishops or not. But then again that was never a part of the whole Chess concept.

What the Bioware Vision Statement and what the quote from Greg Zeschuk suggests, however, is that Bioware's focus in making games is not, I repeat NOT, on making a Chess killer but to make games where you DO wonder about the indiscretions of the queen or why the rook prefers to prance around outside instead of staying home with the wife and kids.

You can dispute whether they succeed or not and your own emotional complexity/simplicity may find the topics they treat fitting or trivial, but with a clear statement in place of what they were trying to achieve it is no longer valid to argue that ME2 should be more like Chess because that was never what they were aiming for.

[Omega]

Hm, yeah, I know, this is the place where people talk about the doings of Bioware.
But the next lines got my attention.
But I don't care particularly about "pure" gameplay. I'm looking for mentally stimulating gameplay
Nobody questions that Chess has excellent gameplay/replay value

I recently discovered a board game called Twilight Struggle (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle). Since then I have played it several times; it's addictive, but it takes a whole evening to finish the game. It's mentally stimulating, challenging, thrilling. The theme, 'cold war', didn't appeal to me, but the strategic thinking involved makes me sweat. :)

DArtagnan, do you know it by any chance? I think you'd like it.
Here's a review:
http://sophistigames.com/Sophistigames/blog/6/

Chess, BTW, for some reason or other, has never been my 'thing'.

[dagoo7]

Nobody questions that Chess has excellent gameplay/replay value but I doubt anyone has ever thought about how the poor pawns are being exploited and used for cannon fodder or wondered whether the queen was cheating on the king with one of the bishops or not. But then again that was never a part of the whole Chess concept.

What the Bioware Vision Statement and what the quote from Greg Zeschuk suggests, however, is that Bioware's focus in making games is not, I repeat NOT, on making a Chess killer but to make games where you DO wonder about the indiscretions of the queen or why the rook prefers to prance around outside instead of staying home with the wife and kids.

You can dispute whether they succeed or not and your own emotional complexity/simplicity may find the topics they treat fitting or trivial, but with a clear statement in place of what they were trying to achieve it is no longer valid to argue that ME2 should be more like Chess because that was never what they were aiming for.

Not sure what you are trying to say and seem to being missing the point here with that metaphor. What you are talking about is complexity of a story and divorcing it from gameplay. A movie or interactive movie can have a complex or satisfying narrative, but that is "movie" not a game. Narrative complexity or quality does not = game complexity or meaningful interactivity.

Well written stories are great and make great movies, but they don't by themselves make a great "game" or even a game at all. Using your metaphor, if the narrative demands only allowed me to move pawns to a limited number of squares and prevented me from moving certain pieces altogether, I would no longer be playing chess at all. Might make for a great story but a very, very limited game.

[Tragos]

I always feel that the long narratives , the excessive dialogues and the overuse of cut-scenes are limiting my gameplay ; i feel like playing a coin up game (like pacman) going from level to level with some small musical tune playing at the end of each.
The above was the case in DAO not KotOR

[DArtagnan]

Nobody questions that Chess has excellent gameplay/replay value but I doubt anyone has ever thought about how the poor pawns are being exploited and used for cannon fodder or wondered whether the queen was cheating on the king with one of the bishops or not. But then again that was never a part of the whole Chess concept.

I think Chess is fine for what it is, but as for gameplay I think it's simplistic and boring. Something I would never play for the gameplay, but rather for the competitive element of "outthinking" a human opponent. That's why I've never played chess against the computer, at least not since Battlechess.

The game is "pure" and "pure" gameplay is, again, not what I'm looking for. That's boring, but I understand the concept and respect that others like it.

What the Bioware Vision Statement and what the quote from Greg Zeschuk suggests, however, is that Bioware's focus in making games is not, I repeat NOT, on making a Chess killer but to make games where you DO wonder about the indiscretions of the queen or why the rook prefers to prance around outside instead of staying home with the wife and kids.

I got that the first time. My point is that they're not the only ones making games that make you think. That's why I think they're full of themselves.

Take a look at Planescape or Fallout - and you'll discover why their bold claim of being unique in this way, is bullshit.

You can dispute whether they succeed or not and your own emotional complexity/simplicity may find the topics they treat fitting or trivial, but with a clear statement in place of what they were trying to achieve it is no longer valid to argue that ME2 should be more like Chess because that was never what they were aiming for.

What you seem to be missing, for some reason I can't understand, is that I don't CARE what they're aiming for. I'm saying what I think of the game, and whether or not they - themselves - are satisfied with it is not part of the equation.

It's my subjective opinion based on my subjective tastes - and that's it.

[Malk]

While Heavy Rain and Mass Effect do have certain similarities they're still fundamentally different games. If you strip ME of it's shooter elements you'll get something similar to HR, but you can't deny it's got those shooter elements which makes it a real game
What's Hollywood got to do with this?

Well, it's what Bioware games remind me of. They're interactive movies more than anything else, and that's simply not what I'm looking for in a game.
Only Bioware game which can be called "interactive movie" is Mass Effect. Apart from that, they made Dragon Age, NWN, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate... none of which are interactive movies. Thus, saying that Bioware is heading in the same direction as Heavy Rain (opinion which is based on only one of their games) is wrong.

[dagoo7]

While Heavy Rain and Mass Effect do have certain similarities they're still fundamentally different games. If you strip ME of it's shooter elements you'll get something similar to HR, but you can't deny it's got those shooter elements which makes it a real game

Umm that's basically what I said when I made that comparison initially. However, if you are claiming, like many people are , that ME2 is a great "game" beyond the shooter elements or more than a shooter, this fact is important. Don't tell me I am playing some great game beyond a shooter where there are meaningful choices, complexity, or interactivity, when once pure shooter elements are stripped away, all that is left is interactive movie.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I don't like mafia themed anything, so naturally I find the Godfather trilogy about as exciting as having all my teeth undergo root canal treatment at the same time without anesthetics …

This sounds very grim.

I did have tooth root canal treatment WITH anesthetiscs ... Twice, I remember. Could have been three times also. It wasn't pretty.

[DArtagnan]

While Heavy Rain and Mass Effect do have certain similarities they're still fundamentally different games. If you strip ME of it's shooter elements you'll get something similar to HR, but you can't deny it's got those shooter elements which makes it a real game

I've never said they were the same games, that's in your head.

Only Bioware game which can be called "interactive movie" is Mass Effect. Apart from that, they made Dragon Age, NWN, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate… none of which are interactive movies. Thus, saying that Bioware is heading in the same direction as Heavy Rain (opinion which is based on only one of their games) is wrong.

No, it's not wrong. I'm saying Bioware is heading towards interactive movies and I mean it.

Dragon Age has plenty of gameplay that goes deeper than Mass Effect - but if you compare it with Baldur's Gate, you would have to be blind to miss their focus on the cinematic and "emotionally engaging" stuff, rather than evolved gameplay.

I'd say Dragon Age is a significant step down from BG and NWN in terms of stimulating gameplay, but a huge step up in terms of the cinematic experience.

In effect, they're heading towards the interactive movie with each game in their respective "series".

I'm not saying Bioware is emulating Heavy Rain in any other way than the focus on the cinematic aspects.

So, no, I don't think I'm wrong at all.

[Malk]

That's true if you compare it with BG, but not with NWN… Why is NWN deeper than DA? Yes, it's less focused on presentation, but that doesn't make it more complex.

My point is there's nothing wrong with added emphasis on interactive movie dialogues and cut-scenes, when the rest of the game isn't watered down. I actually like cinematic dialogues a lot more than dialogue trees.
Umm that's basically what I said when I made that comparison initially. However, if you are claiming, like many people are , that ME2 is a great "game" beyond the shooter elements or more than a shooter, this fact is important. Don't tell me I am playing some great game beyond a shooter where there are meaningful choices, complexity, or interactivity, when once pure shooter elements are stripped away, all that is left is interactive movie.
I am not. Without it's shooter elements, ME is only a good interactive movie. Which is not necessarily bad, as long as it's fun to be a part of it.

[DArtagnan]

That's true if you compare it with BG, but not with NWN… Why is NWN deeper than DA? Yes, it's less focused on presentation, but that doesn't make it more complex.

Ehm, have we been playing the same game?

The D&D character system is infinitely more interesting and diverse than anything in Dragon Age.

I also happen to consider the multiplayer aspect of NWN to be incredibly rich and the toolset/DM approach a great step forward in terms of user content and persistent servers hosted by players.

DA is a significant step backwards to me, but obviously I can't decide what it is for you.

My point is there's nothing wrong with added emphasis on interactive movie dialogues and cut-scenes, when the rest of the game isn't watered down. I actually like cinematic dialogues a lot more than dialogue trees.

I can't speak objectively about what's wrong or right. What I can do, is lament the focus on what I think is wrong for the gaming industry. To me, it makes sense to take the good aspects of movies and books and integrating them into games where they make sense, but to downplay EXACTLY what I consider the strength of gaming for the strengths of other kinds of entertainment - is what I think is a mistake. But that's me.

[DeepO]

Don't tell me I am playing some great game beyond a shooter where there are meaningful choices, complexity, or interactivity, when once pure shooter elements are stripped away, all that is left is interactive movie.

Those shooter elements, however, are there, aren´t they?
You can´t just strip them of.
While those doctors surely love hyperboles, Mass Effect 2 indeed is an engaging game on more than one level.
It´s the mix of well written and voiced characters, solid shooter mechanics and combat scenarios, well developed lore and high production values that makes Mass Effect 2 a great experience.

However I agree that if there´s anything in a need of improvement, it´s the "pure gameplay" aspect. Namely more complex character development, better loot mechanics and more open ended zones with less emphasis on cover system.

[Malk]

Ehm, have we been playing the same game?

The D&D character system is infinitely more interesting and diverse than anything in Dragon Age.

I also happen to consider the multiplayer aspect of NWN to be incredibly rich and the toolset/DM approach a great step forward in terms of user content and persistent servers hosted by players.

DA is a significant step backwards to me, but obviously I can't decide what it is for you.

Both games have the same gameplay mechanics - fighting, loot, side quests, fighting, loot, etc. NWN's got MP and it's character development is a bit more complex… so what? The gameplay itself is basically the same. Besides, even if that wasn't the case, you couldn't say Dragon Age is watered down because of its cinematic cut-scenes and dialogues (which I think you implied by saying that BioWare is heading more in interactive movie direction, downplaying the pure gameplay aspect). Character development is different than their older DnD games because they chose to cater to new WoW audiences.
To me, it makes sense to take the good aspects of movies and books and integrating them into games where they make sense, but to downplay EXACTLY what I consider the strength of gaming for the strengths of other kinds of entertainment - is what I think is a mistake. But that's me.
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's just that I think they're not downplaying "the strength of gaming" (except in ME's case).