Larian Studios - The Halo Effect

[Stingray]

I prefer the list for Felipe Pepe's book about CRPGs.

I think the best piece of evidence for the point here, though, is the graph they have in their thread:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/rpg-codexs-top-50-crpgs-results-and-reviews.89680/

On the doc you linked, though…jesus, 1994/1995/1996 were so bad for RPGs. Unless you count XCOM/JA as RPGs, in which case I guess '94 was half-decent. You can see that period on the graph above as well.

 

[Couchpotato]

Sorry Stingray as an RPG veteran I have no problem with Bioware games.

So I can't agree with you once again. And with that I'm through as I learned it doesn't pay to express my views on these topics on this forum.

Update: It has nothing to do with the discussions as I enjoy them sometimes. It's just that my views are the minority among jaded old gamers.

 

[HiddenX]

On the doc you linked, though…jesus, 1994/1995/1996 were so bad for RPGs. Unless you count XCOM/JA as RPGs, in which case I guess '94 was half-decent. You can see that period on the graph above as well.

I agree that 1994 & 1996 were pretty boring, but I like nearly all games listed for 1995.

And the graph from the Codex shows more the average age structure of this site.
Contrary to us most are between 20 and 30 years old and started playing CRPGs with Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Arcanum.
Many games from the late 80s and early/mid 90s are not in top 70 list at all.

 

[Stingray]

Sorry Stingray as an RPG veteran I have no problem with Bioware games.

So I can't agree with you once again. And with that I'm through as I learned it doesn't pay to express my views on these topics on this forum.

I don't get what you could possibly mean by the "doesn't pay" comment. What kind of "payoff" did you expect? Convincing others of your opinion that the last decade of RPGs was great? Won't happen, and I'm not expecting to convince anyone of my opinion either (especially not someone who still thinks BioWare is great . I wouldn't have even had to elaborate on my own opinion if you hadn't decided to post and challenge it. Forums are for discussion, that's all, if you're not interested in discussing, then sure...there's no point in posting.

 

[Stingray]

I agree that 1994 & 1996 were pretty boring, but I like nearly all games listed for 1995.

I haven't played many of the 1995 ones. So I suppose I shouldn't be so harsh. But it also means that, at the time they came out, none of them caught my eye, etc. 20 years later, I couldn't really tell you why I wish I had time to go back and play old games I missed, but I barely have enough time to keep up with the new ones I want to play, especially with how crazy things have gotten in the last year or so.

And the graph from the Codex shows more the average age structure of this site. Contrary to us most are between 20 and 30 years old and started playing CRPGs with Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Arcanum. Many games from the late 80s and early/mid 90s are not in top 70 list at all.

True enough, I've noticed in threads over the years, on both sites, that Codex posters are probably around 15 years younger than Watch posters on average. Regardless of the 80s representation though, the chart still shows a large decline in RPG quality (in the opinion of everyone polled, obviously) from 2005-2013.

 

[Moriendor]

1994 had Realms of Arkania Star Trail and 1996 had Realms of Arkania Shadows over Riva.
Those games alone are reason enough to call both of these years pure AWESOMENESS!!!11

 

[HiddenX]

1994 had Realms of Arkania Star Trail and 1996 had Realms of Arkania Shadows over Riva.
Those games alone are reason enough to call both of these years pure AWESOMENESS!!!11

But these games were like oases in the game-wasteland…

 

[Moriendor]

Well, System Shock (1994) wasn't that bad either although clearly a RPG/shooter hybrid, of course .

 

[Stingray]

1994 had Realms of Arkania Star Trail and 1996 had Realms of Arkania Shadows over Riva.
Those games alone are reason enough to call both of these years pure AWESOMENESS!!!11

In the US, Shadows over Riva wasn't released until 1997 though.

 

[Turjan]

And the graph from the Codex shows more the average age structure of this site.
Contrary to us most are between 20 and 30 years old and started playing CRPGs with Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Arcanum.

Or it's like with me, who started with Might&Magic VI and Baldur's Gate when I was already older and finally switched to PC from my good old Atari 1040ST, which was more the realm of Sierra adventures.

 

[rune_74]

I don't see mass effect 3 as a bad game though, I didn't see any of the mass effect games as bad. They were by no means hardcore rpg's but they were above average ones....same with dragon age....not the 2nd one though.

It is kind of funny on these sites how the big names like bethesda/bioware get beat up even if they provide quality gaming whereas other companies get praised for doing similar things. I tend to find a bit of enjoyment in most games I play, not every rpg is great, but they don't have to be to be fun. I'm not elitist enough to think my view of a game should be shared by all. I have been playing rpg's since the old apple 2c days, found lots to like and lots of differences over the years.

 

[Vindicator]

On the doc you linked, though…jesus, 1994/1995/1996 were so bad for RPGs. Unless you count XCOM/JA as RPGs

1994 was a pretty good year… Ultima 8, TES1: Arena, Dark Sun, Menzoberranzan, and RoA2: Star Trail. Good non-rpgs I played that year included: System Shock, X-Wing, Wing Commander 3, Heretic, Outpost, and Pacific Strike.

1995 wasn't too bad… TES2: Daggerfall, Dungeon Master 2, and Stonekeep.
Notable non-rpgs included: Tie Fighter, Hexen, Bioforge, Command & Conquer, Dark Forces, Wing Commander 4, Wings of Glory, and Crusader: No Remorse.

1996 was a horrible year for RPGs. In fact, I don't remember playing any.
From my notes, the only games I played that year were Quake, Duke Nukem, Civ2, MOO2, and Crusader: No Regret.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I have too many games to play to Kickstart more games, though I know I'm in the minority. I also think that giving money first sometimes encourages bad behavior, you can see that with games that seem to stay in Early Access perpetually. Unless it is phenomenal and absolutely makes the difference between thriving and closure for the little guy, I prefer to stay out.

 

[Gaxkang]

It is kind of funny on these sites how the big names like bethesda/bioware get beat up even if they provide quality gaming whereas other companies get praised for doing similar things.

I think one reason is that they used to serve a fanatical and mobilized niche market and now they serve a mass market. If you were one of those loyal niche customer who gets no enjoyment out of mass market stuff, then suddenly finding you have no-one that serves you is a bit of a let down. You will find faults in your former provider's mass market offerings while overlooking the existing mass market players. Perhaps in some deluded hope that you can persuade the provider back into the niche...

If otoh you are an omnivore in gaming terms, then I agree, not much has happened and the fuss is hard to understand.

 

[Myrthos]

They have been paid for the extra features and they cut them for budget reasons.
That is simply unacceptable.
The nerve they have if they ask for more money in KS.

Why didn't you ask the money you pledged back?

 

[rune_74]

Why didn't you ask the money you pledged back?

Is that the answer? We don't hold them accountable other then asking for our money back?

I like the game a lot, but I also feel they cut this to save money....money they already made. It wouldn't be acceptable from any other game company.

 

[TomRon]

Pretty much agree with Gax. And to me, the Bioware games especially had been a decline. I was severy dissapointed in DA:O, DA2 I never even tried to play.

Mass effect I have no problem with however, as it never claimed to be something it wasn't. They're good games in my book.

 

[Myrthos]

Is that the answer? We don't hold them accountable other then asking for our money back?

It is next to impossible to estimate the effort correctly for any type of development that lasts longer than a few months. In the end it always comes down to making a choice between investing more money and time or reducing the features. That is not only applicable to game development, but to any type of development.

The available amount of money they had did not match the time they still would need to finish this game. Swen has written about this before at length. He kept everybody involved on their decisions and people could offer feedback on that. In the end they needed to make money to survive and there was not really another option open to them but to release the game.

If you think they are the evil company you present them to be, then yes, getting your money back and never buy anything from them again were a few of your available options at the time these changes were announced.

 

[rune_74]

It is next to impossible to estimate the effort correctly for any type of development that lasts longer than a few months. In the end it always comes down to making a choice between investing more money and time or reducing the features. That is not only applicable to game development, but to any type of development.

The available amount of money they had did not match the time they still would need to finish this game. Swen has written about this before at length. He kept everybody involved on their decisions and people could offer feedback on that. In the end they needed to make money to survive and there was not really another option open to them but to release the game.

If you think they are the evil company you present them to be, then yes, getting your money back and never buy anything from them again were a few of your available options at the time these changes were announced.

really? I made them out to be an evil company? I made them out to be a company nothing more. That is awfully dramatic, I never said that and said many times I think it's a good game..playing it right now.

These changes, they were announced on the kickstarter page? That they wouldn't have that dungeon? Did I miss that update?

The only thing I could find on the kickstarter page was talking about diligently working on the lair.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/larianstudios/divinity-original-sin/posts/561299

Sven, didn't keep people updated on the removal of the dungeon, it wasn't even brought up as far as I can tell until someone made a post about it their forums.

This isn't about turning them into an evil company(which is really weird position to take in the first place, objectivity aside) it is about upholding ideals and promises used to attract backers. It is also about accounting correctly when designing.

 

[Stingray]

These changes, they were announced on the kickstarter page? That they wouldn't have that dungeon? Did I miss that update?

The only thing I could find on the kickstarter page was talking about diligently working on the lair.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/larianstudios/divinity-original-sin/posts/561299

Sven, didn't keep people updated on the removal of the dungeon, it wasn't even brought up as far as I can tell until someone made a post about it their forums.

I can agree with this part....very poor communication.