|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Q & A @ NowGamer

Default BioWare - Q & A @ NowGamer

March 14th, 2009, 16:18
@DArtagnan: You have your definition of hardcore, be agree that it's not so obvious and some other people could have a different definition related to computer games.

Then do the next step and accuse of dishonesty is going too far, it means you pretend be in the head of someone else.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#21

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:20
The impression I got from this is that Dr. Muzyka sees BioWare less and less as a maker of games and more and more as a maker of interactive movies. The way he seems to see it, the immersion derived from clear visual depiction is worthwhile to the point of overriding all other goals.

Here in Southern California there's a long-running joke and truism that everyone jumps at the chance to get into the movie business. And everyone who's ever gotten a taste of it only ever wants more.

BioWare should stick to making games, IMO.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#22

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:25
Lol, you are probably partially right but quote: "The pillars are still the same – exploration, progression, customisation, combat and story."

It's not just movies/story here but I quote the cruel missing point, puzzling… Ha well it could be implicit to exploration and progression, but not highlight it shows something anyway.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#23

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:29
Originally Posted by Dasale View Post
Common, a game that requires 60 to 80 hours of dedicated play can be played only by a hardcore player.
A hardcore player and a hardcore game have to be defined differently. And any casual player can just spend more weeks or months playing the 60 to 80 hour game. WoW has no set length, are you saying that no casual players play WoW? You can say the hardcore players play a lot more hours per week, reducing the meaning of hardcore to the unemployed and useless members of society. So hardcore basically means an invalid.

We can all spout nonsense all day and never get anywhere, I know I have a lot of fun doing that pretty often. The problem comes from when people don't recognize that what they are spouting is nonsense.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#24

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:39
Cough cough, don't hate me and calm down.

It's quite clear that there isn't more hardcore than MMORPG.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#25

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:40
If people can define and redefine what hardcore means on the fly according to different situations that would nullify your original post and the core of your original argument.
I have no idea what you're talking about - I've used one definition only.

According to your first definition, the only qualifier you provided was games after BG were not free-roaming, so free roaming is the only barrier between hard-core and not hardcore. And greater effort in what? I had to make a greater effort in paying attention to dialogue in ME than I did with any other Bioware game so I could make a response I wanted. I have to make a greater effort in button clicking with JA. I honestly believe combat in all the games was challengeless and retarded. I made a far greater effort creating a working boot disk that got U7 to work on my old 386 than I ever had to, but I don’t think U7 is hardcore in the least.
No, free roaming is not the only aspect or barrier. I'm not sure why you think so, I mentioned it as an example of how it was more hardcore.

The character system, combat system, quest structure, loot system, and other aspects were all significantly more hardcore than what's present in Mass Effect. In case you forgot my definition, this means that all those aspects required more effort on the part of the player. The combat system had a lot more options and abilities - and many of the fights themselves required you to apply those wisely unlike JE/ME which I beat without ever really thinking tactically or strategically, and the quest structure was much less forgiving and didn't have precise explanations for everything you had to do - and a good amount of detective work was necessary for several of the quests, the loot system was infinitely more intricate and didn't consist of "Scorpion 1-10" ala Mass Effect, and finally the 2nd Edition AD&D rule system is vastly more complex than the simpleton Mass Effect system, which I consider about the worst (boring) CRPG system I've seen.

I certainly don't see how the dialogue system was any less hardcore in Baldur's Gate - but I can concede it was much less cinematic. The dialogue and character animations of Mass Effect are aspects which are very well done - and I don't see them as a step back.

The enthusiasm bit was to explain what motivates us to be hardcore - and as such it's not a definition but a clarification of what kind of people we are.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,809

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 16:49
Originally Posted by Dasale View Post
Cough cough, don't hate me and calm down.

It's quite clear that there isn't more hardcore than MMORPG.
I don't hate you; I love you

I just don't think you make any sort of sense or think before talking. You are like my wife in that respect. I love my wife. I love you. I love everyone. I just can't have any sort of meaningful discourse with you. And its not the language barrier. I was raised in a multi-lingual family and all of my siblings speak at least two languages. I am far from being what I consider competent in my native language and just can't seem to pick up another language, so I give you respect for at least being bi-lingual (you could speak 5 languages for all I know, my point is you have accomplished what I have yet to be able to do). What I am saying has more to do with analytical ability and filtering the content that comes out of your mouth to see if it makes any sort of logical sense before letting it go.
Last edited by Unrestigered; March 14th, 2009 at 16:53. Reason: poor English
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#27

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 17:33
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about - I've used one definition only.



No, free roaming is not the only aspect or barrier. I'm not sure why you think so, I mentioned it as an example of how it was more hardcore.

The character system, combat system, quest structure, loot system, and other aspects were all significantly more hardcore than what's present in Mass Effect. In case you forgot my definition, this means that all those aspects required more effort on the part of the player. The combat system had a lot more options and abilities - and many of the fights themselves required you to apply those wisely unlike JE/ME which I beat without ever really thinking tactically or strategically, and the quest structure was much less forgiving and didn't have precise explanations for everything you had to do - and a good amount of detective work was necessary for several of the quests, the loot system was infinitely more intricate and didn't consist of "Scorpion 1-10" ala Mass Effect, and finally the 2nd Edition AD&D rule system is vastly more complex than the simpleton Mass Effect system, which I consider about the worst (boring) CRPG system I've seen.

I certainly don't see how the dialogue system was any less hardcore in Baldur's Gate - but I can concede it was much less cinematic. The dialogue and character animations of Mass Effect are aspects which are very well done - and I don't see them as a step back.

The enthusiasm bit was to explain what motivates us to be hardcore - and as such it's not a definition but a clarification of what kind of people we are.
I disagree. The combat in the IE games had absolutely no options beyond picking a spell. So only casters had any sort of meaningful choice in combat. The only tough battle I can think of in any of the BGís was one in BG 2 vs. a red dragon. My group probably was not supposed to be able to beat him at that time, but it only took a some reloads before he was dead. All the other battles were basically click and sit back. The same with Kotor and NWN which was based on a more advanced D&D system. Click and forget and wait. My input only slowed combat down, which I did not want to do since it was so un-enjoyable to begin with. JA and ME at least required me to be involved.

The fact that we can have different opinions has to show you your definition is incorrect. Do you know any adult that just doesnít have the mental capacity to pick up and play an IE game (not factoring desire, just pure ability to play or not)? You canít say the same for Star Trail. I canít say it for Silent Hunter 3. Iím not saying I donít have the mental capacity to play SH3, or my wife is too stupid to play ST, Iím saying those titles are exclusive.

We have different tolerances, tastes and preferences of what we look for in a game or the qualities of a game that we consider appealing. I absolutely canít stand the combat in Gothic 1 and 2, probably because I suck at it. But it isnít hands-off like the BGís, Kotors, and NWNís. So now I have a contradiction, I like the combat in ME and JE more because it has more options and requires more input from me, but I dislike a title that has more options and needs not just input, but correctly timed input. Its taste and preferences, a discussion that is independent of hardcore.

If we say punk music we still have taste and preferences. East coast or west coast? Old-school or new school, etc, etc. But when we start talking about hardcore we see it as being versus the mainstream. Blood for Blood will never be mainstream, Sick of it All will never be mainstream, Ducky boys, swinging utters and the vandals will never be mainstream, but there are a bunch of bands that consider themselves punk but are pure mainstream. Are these bands hardcore? No, being hardcore and being mainstream have to be mutually-exclusive if the terms are going to have any sort of usefulness in any discussion. You could say ďhardcore for the mainstreamĒ if you are talking about something that skirts the fringes of mainstream accessibility I guess.

Almost all FPS games provide a greater challenge to me than rpgs. I suck at twitch games. Are these FPSís hardcore? No. If a seven year old who canít even get an erection or spell testicles correctly can kick my ass in it, and it sells 8 billion copies world-wide, it canít be hardcore. Hardcore is not what I consider it, it is what the market considers. If the game was made for a specific demographic not being served by the mainstream, and sells well and is critically acclaimed by that market, but ignored by the mainstream, it is probably hardcore. Itís also probably challenging as well. But even if it wasnít, would it not be hardcore? What if, like punk music, itís just challenging for the mainstream to appreciate, or its core qualities just doesnít lend itself to a broad appeal?
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#28

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 17:50
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
I disagree. The combat in the IE games had absolutely no options beyond picking a spell. So only casters had any sort of meaningful choice in combat. The only tough battle I can think of in any of the BGís was one in BG 2 vs. a red dragon. My group probably was not supposed to be able to beat him at that time, but it only took a some reloads before he was dead. All the other battles were basically click and sit back. The same with Kotor and NWN which was based on a more advanced D&D system. Click and forget and wait. My input only slowed combat down, which I did not want to do since it was so un-enjoyable to begin with. JA and ME at least required me to be involved.

The fact that we can have different opinions has to show you your definition is incorrect. Do you know any adult that just doesnít have the mental capacity to pick up and play an IE game (not factoring desire, just pure ability to play or not)? You canít say the same for Star Trail. I canít say it for Silent Hunter 3. Iím not saying I donít have the mental capacity to play SH3, or my wife is too stupid to play ST, Iím saying those titles are exclusive.

We have different tolerances, tastes and preferences of what we look for in a game or the qualities of a game that we consider appealing. I absolutely canít stand the combat in Gothic 1 and 2, probably because I suck at it. But it isnít hands-off like the BGís, Kotors, and NWNís. So now I have a contradiction, I like the combat in ME and JE more because it has more options and requires more input from me, but I dislike a title that has more options and needs not just input, but correctly timed input. Its taste and preferences, a discussion that is independent of hardcore.

If we say punk music we still have taste and preferences. East coast or west coast? Old-school or new school, etc, etc. But when we start talking about hardcore we see it as being versus the mainstream. Blood for Blood will never be mainstream, Sick of it All will never be mainstream, Ducky boys, swinging utters and the vandals will never be mainstream, but there are a bunch of bands that consider themselves punk but are pure mainstream. Are these bands hardcore? No, being hardcore and being mainstream have to be mutually-exclusive if the terms are going to have any sort of usefulness in any discussion. You could say ďhardcore for the mainstreamĒ if you are talking about something that skirts the fringes of mainstream accessibility I guess.

Almost all FPS games provide a greater challenge to me than rpgs. I suck at twitch games. Are these FPSís hardcore? No. If a seven year old who canít even get an erection or spell testicles correctly can kick my ass in it, and it sells 8 billion copies world-wide, it canít be hardcore. Hardcore is not what I consider it, it is what the market considers. If the game was made for a specific demographic not being served by the mainstream, and sells well and is critically acclaimed by that market, but ignored by the mainstream, it is probably hardcore. Itís also probably challenging as well. But even if it wasnít, would it not be hardcore? What if, like punk music, itís just challenging for the mainstream to appreciate, or its core qualities just doesnít lend itself to a broad appeal?
The reason we have definitions at all, is because the meaning of words aren't about opinions. That's why you might consider the color black to be blue, but that doesn't influence the actual definition.

Now, you might not have considered Baldur's Gate hardcore - and that's a valid opinion - but about the concept in itself, we must agree.

Since we apparently don't agree on the definition, and I'm supremely confident in my own - and since I severely disagree with you about pretty much everything you've said about Baldur's Gate - then I see no point in taking this discussion any further. It would requite a lot of time and effort - and the chance of a meaningful or worthwhile outcome is rather slim. Your opinion about Baldur's Gate is about as far from my own reality that I wouldn't even know where to start. Pick a spell? I guess you didn't make any kind of conscious choice regarding character creation, gear, and I suppose things like stealth, ranged weaponry, positioning, etc. didn't mean anything to you. I spent at least 10 tries during the final fight - figuring out the optimal tactics for success. I have no idea what game you were playing - but I can't see how it's the same one.

Beyond that you're ignoring the main points of what I'm saying - and you've done so more than once - which is extremely indicative of a mind unwilling to open itself to the possibility of being wrong. Then you go on about FPS as if the genre was irrelevant.

You might as well call Tetris hardcore because you don't care for it, or Tic Tac Toe. I suppose if you considered Hearts of Iron 2 easy - it wouldn't be hardcore, even if it's because you're a veteran grognard.

Hears of Iron 2 is hardcore because it's geared towards enthusiasts of that particular genre. The exact same thing goes for all genres, and that's why a FPS might be hardcore if only FPS enthusiasts truly enjoy it.

In effect, you haven't been listening to a word I've said, and that's why I don't feel like going on, because I know it'll be about endless repetition and circular arguments.

My definition might very well be flawed - but it would require AT LEAST someone willing to actually listen to what I'm saying and understand the relatively simple concepts I'm using to clarify my opinions before I'd be willing to have a debate about it.

Back to the original point of the thread I guess.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,809

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 18:21
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
The reason we have definitions at all, is because the meaning of words aren't about opinions. That's why you might consider the color black to be blue, but that doesn't influence the actual definition.

Now, you might not have considered Baldur's Gate hardcore - and that's a valid opinion - but about the concept in itself, we must agree.

Since we apparently don't agree on the definition, and I'm supremely confident in my own - and since I severely disagree with you about pretty much everything you've said about Baldur's Gate - then I see no point in taking this discussion any further. It would requite a lot of time and effort - and the chance of a meaningful or worthwhile outcome is rather slim. Your opinion about Baldur's Gate is about as far from my own reality that I wouldn't even know where to start. Pick a spell? I guess you didn't make any kind of conscious choice regarding character creation, gear, and I suppose things like stealth, ranged weaponry, positioning, etc. didn't mean anything to you. I spent at least 10 tries during the final fight - figuring out the optimal tactics for success. I have no idea what game you were playing - but I can't see how it's the same one.

Beyond that you're ignoring the main points of what I'm saying - and you've done so more than once - which is extremely indicative of a mind unwilling to open itself to the possibility of being wrong. Then you go on about FPS as if the genre was irrelevant.

You might as well call Tetris hardcore because you don't care for it, or Tic Tac Toe. I suppose if you considered Hearts of Iron 2 easy - it wouldn't be hardcore, even if it's because you're a veteran grognard.

Hears of Iron 2 is hardcore because it's geared towards enthusiasts of that particular genre. The exact same thing goes for all genres, and that's why a FPS might be hardcore if only FPS enthusiasts truly enjoy it.

In effect, you haven't been listening to a word I've said, and that's why I don't feel like going on, because I know it'll be about endless repetition and circular arguments.

My definition might very well be flawed - but it would require AT LEAST someone willing to actually listen to what I'm saying and understand the relatively simple concepts I'm using to clarify my opinions before I'd be willing to have a debate about it.

Back to the original point of the thread I guess.
In only the Twilight Zone could someone come to this conclusion. I’ve read, comprehended, and replied to every major point you made. You ignored most of the content and points of my posts and just showed comprehension isn't your strong suite. Read what I said about FPS’s, and read what you just wrote about what I said about them. Read what you said about the actual definition of hardcore and then what you just said. Or just reread the whole thread and tell me what you just posted isn’t crazy twilight zone nonsense.

I specifically said the IE games were easy enough not to require my input, and were click and forget games, and my input only slowed the combat down. You think its super-challenging and requires constant micro-management for its super-tough fights against endless hordes of filler and pathetically weak enemies. Tell me what secret combat options your warriors had? Just because my opinion on a game you like differs from yours doesn’t give you grounds to have a hissy-fit and undermine the content of and lie about my posts, which completely undermines your original point in this thread and just makes you look wishy-washy and overly emotional as well as completely lacking in reason and rationale.

I’m willing to forgive and forget if you are willing to actually read my posts and tell me exactly what you disagree with or how I am wrong (beyond the merits of a game’s combat or the challenge it provides, which we will obviously never agree on).
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#30

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 21:57
I think I'll live without your forgiveness and oblivion
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,809

Default 

March 14th, 2009, 22:12
Well, you and Dasale have made it this far in life without comprehension, analytical skills, or sensibility so I say good for you! Keep on truckiní, cowboys
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#32

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 15th, 2009, 07:15
Well, I for one think BG2 was the apex of Bioware's games. I'm so sick of 'action RPGs' that I want to puke. Its like they removed game design mechanics and complexity in exchange for some button mashing, twitch factor, and cut scenes. But if Ray truly thinks his new games are 'hardcore' as ever, then he is sorely mistaken or is completely blowing smoke. My money is on the later.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#33

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

March 15th, 2009, 11:09
Pathetic and don't worth any time.
Dasale is offline

Dasale

SasqWatch

#34

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,096

Default 

March 16th, 2009, 01:48
The correct English would be: "Pathetic, and you don't be worth no time." It would actually be more correcter with a yo or dog at the end. And since this statement is probably an exclamation a few !!!! would do wonders getting your point across. And a hyphen between Pa and thetic would add some nice spice, like this: PA-thetic. It's very dramatic and more awesomer that way. Don't forget to vote in my poll and tell me what a big jerk-head I am while you are at it.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#35

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 16th, 2009, 04:18
If we've reached sarcastic grammar corrections, this thread has run its course.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#36

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,968

Default 

March 16th, 2009, 22:22
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
The expression is "tilting at mills." Don Quixote was a crazy guy who would see Wind Mills as being monsters, and would charge at them with a lance.
Yes, but here in Germany we say "fighting them", nevertheless.


Back to the topic: I'm not surprised at all about the replay from Bioware.

It just shows - in my opinion, from my point of view - so much the direction into everything is going.

If you step *several* steps back and try to get a more broad view of the current development on computer role playing gaming, you'll see it much better.

One point I don't really want to mention because I said it already so often, but imho is a strong part of all this development is the stronger inclusion of "action" parts in current games.

Current games have a much faster pace in overall gaming and in overall fighting. The almost abscense of turn-based fightings in current games is a very clear sign of this, imho.

Compared to older, "old school" titles one had to be much more cautious in advancing - as a character or a party - and needed much more planning in order to survive within the game world.

The simple need to surviving (let's take the first steps within Stonekeep just as an example) isn't emphasised that much anymore, imho. The direction goes imho into speeding things up so that a character can go much earlier into "fast combat mode" than before. The whole game experience is sped up.

What is also more and more reduced is social interaction in games. The current design philosophy seems to consis of "who needs social interaction anyway ? It just spoils the FUN !". With "fun" meaning any kind of action. Even social interaction is going to be performed as some kind of "action-thingy".

Because gamers become bored sooo fast …

"Dumbing down" means to me to take away anything that might bore a player - from the point of view of the current designing philosophies - and that includes everything that involves heavy thinking & planning.

Cutting of planning and thinking in order to speedup the overall pace in/of a gaming experience …

That's why Chess is so unpopular in younger generations …

ď Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius Ė and a lot of courage Ė to move in the opposite direction.ď (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#37

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,002

Default 

March 16th, 2009, 22:54
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
…one had to be much more cautious in advancing - as a character or a party - and needed much more planning in order to survive within the game world.
That's a good point, I think. Recently a poster over at The Codex scoffed at the thought that running away could ever be a valid strategy in an RPG. No one disagreed with him, either. But from the very beginning running away was always the most successful strategy. Reading that, I wondered to myself when that had changed.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#38

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

March 17th, 2009, 15:17
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
What is also more and more reduced is social interaction in games. The current design philosophy seems to consis of "who needs social interaction anyway ? It just spoils the FUN !". With "fun" meaning any kind of action. Even social interaction is going to be performed as some kind of "action-thingy".

Because gamers become bored sooo fast …

"Dumbing down" means to me to take away anything that might bore a player - from the point of view of the current designing philosophies - and that includes everything that involves heavy thinking & planning.

Cutting of planning and thinking in order to speedup the overall pace in/of a gaming experience …

That's why Chess is so unpopular in younger generations …
Interesting that you mention both chess and social interaction.. in my experience the two were rather mutually exclusive
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#39

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Q & A @ NowGamer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:35.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch