BioWare - The Steady Decline of BioWare

Witcher 3 is the best game of the generation

Author lost all credibility with that statement for me.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
I get that BG is a sacred cow to some people just as Gothic and Ultima 7 have been in the past. I love me some BG2 and feel its the best of the bunch combining the size and scope of BG with style and quality of IWD.

However, I stand by there alarming were signs in the game and from statements from BW themselves over their love of Diablo and how it affected development of BG2 and especially ToB. Something that was fully realized in NWN.

I don't think people are disagreeing with you because BG is some kind of sacred cow. I'd say it's simply a case of us having different views of what constitutes a "decline".

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
When was the last time you told your DM in your PnP game that you need to quit in the middle of battle, go to your personal safe place that operates in a different time and dimension, talk with your buddy Caspenar, grab your uber equipment to bring with you, then return to the same place you were just at.

This mechanic is straight out Diablo and has no place in D&D - not in Throne of Bhall, not in Neverwinter Nights.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

It's not a PnP session of D&D, it's a crpg based on D&D. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
Author lost all credibility with that statement for me.

Why? It's fine if you don't agree, but to say he has no credibility because he likes a particular game more than you do doesn't make a lot of sense. Would he suddenly be more credible if he had said Skyrim?

I found Witcher 3 is pretty mediocre let alone the best game of the generation. It certainly did amazing job in some aspects while other parts were average at best (imo). To me, it sounds like the journalist made the comment purely because TW3 is the new sacred cow that many seem to worship - so, he also lost credibility from me.

Aww, I don't mind Anthem. Of course I find the metaphysics of the setting ambiguous, so over vaguely symbolic magic and so far the narrative is a bit on the rails but the concept is fun and the characters are quite well done, grounded in typical social and political scenes but incorporated in a technological fantasy setting. It isn't the game I wanted but it's good enough and they are improving it. Admittedly my point of comparison is soul destroying survival MMOs that brutalize the player but hey.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
To me, it sounds like the journalist made the comment purely because TW3 is the new sacred cow that many seem to worship - so, he also lost credibility from me.

I'd be more inclined to believe he made the comment because, to him, it was the best game of the current generation. Not sure how that lessens his credibility to have an opinion on things.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Here's the video as linking to the forum post somehow destroyed the video(…)

Sorry Couch, it wasn't my intention.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Why? It's fine if you don't agree, but to say he has no credibility because he likes a particular game more than you do doesn't make a lot of sense. Would he suddenly be more credible if he had said Skyrim?

If they had said something like "For me W3 was the best game I have played in a generation" that would be fine. But they made it sound like a statement of fact that the W3 *IS* the *BEST* game of the generation. That is what I disagreed with.

The kicker is that hardcore RPGs are in vogue right now. Witcher 3 is the best game of the generation. Divinity Original Sin 2 has proven that there's still an audience for hardcore isometric RPGs. Even Assassin's Creed is an RPG now.

I didn't find anything in the article that indicated the person was saying for "them" it was the best. And, yes, of course I know it was their opinion. Doesn't change the fact I just tend to dislike when people write a public article like this and make a claim that comes across as if what they are saying is a fact.

And for the record I don't think Skyrim or FO4 are the best games of the generation either. I enjoy them but I know others do not.

EDIT: Also its clear I disagree with them on what is the best RPG of the generation and hence that raises the idea, in my head, that I would also disagree with what they consider a good RPG to be.

Since this article is based on certain ideas of what the author considers to be a good RPG, and since those ideas, to some degree appear to be different from mine, it puts some doubt in my mind about how much stock I should put in their argument. Especially if I already feel we have differing viewpoints on how to first define a good RPG .. which is needed if you want to then measure the decline of RPGS by Bioware against it.

I think you're getting way too hung up over a single statement, but ok.

I totally get what you're saying about when someone states an opinion like it's a fact. That irks me as well. However, I don't think it's significant in relation to the rest of the article. She's spot on with most of her points about Bioware. Regardless, I'm cool with your point of view even if I don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by henriquejr
Sorry Couch, it wasn't my intention.

It's not your fault it's a site bug that has never been fixed.

Originally Posted by JDR13
The mechanics in ToB were identical to SoA for the most part. The power gaming aspect comes from it being high-level D&D 2.0

As far as any additional mass market appeal compared to BG 1&2, I don't see it. If anything, I think ToB has less mainstream appeal due to the difficulty level and the need of being already familiar with the mechanics. While it's possible to play it without ever having played BG 1&2, I think most would find it a lot harder than the average RPG.

Yeah good point about high level d&d. It was just a feeling I had at the time that they hadn't put as much effort into the expansion as they should have. That and all the high level loot spam everywhere made me feel they were inching toward another game style.

Then right around the corner came Neverwinter Nights (which I was supposed to be able to import my BG character into but couldn't) and that games campaign and aesthetics were a mess. Expansions were decent through. I was waiting for BioWare to come back after BG. They sort of did for KotOR but not really, then just went more and more teh epic. I just lost interest completely after Mass Effect 2.

Bioware has certainly seen a massive shift in recent years. Not only in regards to their games, but upper management and office culture, too.

Game development for Bioware is so incredibly different versus what it was, say, 10 years ago. Bioware lost a lot of project leads and core staff. The acquisition of the company by EA certainly didn't do them any favors, as I'm sure the employees (nowadays which are recent computer science graduates) are constantly under fear of being let go after a project is complete. I don't think that was something a lot of the older employees really had to contend with back then nearly as much. The industry is so colossally huge now, and cutthroat as a result.

Of course, office environments are bound to change in time - it's inevitable as the business they're involved in explodes exponentially. But back then, games were more commonly designed by people who played and enjoyed them, and that's still the case today depending on who or what studio you're looking at, perhaps in a less obvious manner. These days, it's the biggest entertainment business out there. And people need to make a living. Those same people might not care about video games at all.

As for their games, they were really ambitious about doing something new for RPGs. Whether introducing elements of other genres into their games or widening their audience, they definitely weren't afraid to experiment.

I really do adore their older games. KotoR was something really special to me. However, I can see merit in their recent games too, and I think if there's anything Bioware got really, really good at over the years, it's combat. I look back at the original Mass Effect, and as much as I loved that game, combat is certainly rather dated and clunky. This is nowhere to be seen in their most recent game, Anthem, because Anthem's combat is deliberately satisfying and easily the best part about it, I feel.

The very clear tradeoff was a focused narrative being offered in return for satisfying combat, which isn't always a bad thing, but it certainly isn't what Bioware built their foundation with. Acquisition by EA, the desire to evolve from narrative driven games to such a stark opposite, and a shift in the process of game development meant they lost a lot of goodwill.

There are plenty of people out there who found anything after Dragon Age: Origins to be two steps backwards for the studio, myself included. However, from a story focused perspective, I wasn't really enthralled by anything after the first Mass Effect. I loved DA:O's characters, but I can't remember the story all that much aside from darkspawn and a big dragon (or dragons?).

On the topic of office culture, I listened a video recently that hosted Julian Jensen, initially the game designer for the Elder Scrolls, and he goes into detail how office culture for Bethesda shifted so drastically while he was their chief engineer from '87 to '98. It was rather fascinating. Great listen if you have the time (and trust me, you'll want to listen instead of watch - it's 3 hours).

Looking at Bioware - I still play SWTOR from time to time, and it is really sad to see how the developing resources were drained from that -
- I feel as if my old philosophy is now very clear to see : "A game that's treated as a tool to make money isn't a game anymore" - and these EA business decisions to treat games as tools to make money are *very* visible as a watermark now.

Shareholders don't like and want games. They like and want money.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Looking at Bioware - I still play SWTOR from time to time, and it is really sad to see how the developing resources were drained from that -
- I feel as if my old philosophy is now very clear to see : "A game that's treated as a tool to make money isn't a game anymore" - and these EA business decisions to treat games as tools to make money are *very* visible as a watermark now.

Shareholders don't like and want games. They like and want money.

When the founders of Bioware look back and talk about Baldur's Gate you can see much of the view that many indie developers have now of days. They loved playing pen & paper rpgs. They loved playing the gold box D&D games. They wanted to make a game they would like to play themselves and they had the hope and belief that this would somehow make them money. Once a studio begins to focus on making a profit they start judging features not by if they will improve the game, but if they will improve the profit. You can just feel this in certain major studio games. They aren't necessarily bad games, but they often seem to be sort of like a frankenstein of pieces sewn together that wouldn't organically fit together.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think you're getting way too hung up over a single statement, but ok.

I totally get what you're saying about when someone states an opinion like it's a fact. That irks me as well. However, I don't think it's significant in relation to the rest of the article. She's spot on with most of her points about Bioware. Regardless, I'm cool with your point of view even if I don't agree with it.

Lol aye I was. Probably too much coffee or cold meds yesterday … or both.

Apart from being an excuse to gather consent for massive data collection, reading lines like action over depth, the article is built around that claim

The Witcher 3 was just the sort of game people expected from BioWare: a story-driven action RPG with outstanding graphics, a deep story, and plenty of romance.

No matter how bad Bioware have been, they never hit a gameplay low as TW3.

They attracted players with various expectations, which was their undoings.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
When the founders of Bioware look back and talk about Baldur's Gate you can see much of the view that many indie developers have now of days. They loved playing pen & paper rpgs. They loved playing the gold box D&D games. They wanted to make a game they would like to play themselves and they had the hope and belief that this would somehow make them money. Once a studio begins to focus on making a profit they start judging features not by if they will improve the game, but if they will improve the profit. You can just feel this in certain major studio games. They aren't necessarily bad games, but they often seem to be sort of like a frankenstein of pieces sewn together that wouldn't organically fit together.

This applies even more to crowdfunded projects.

Such bashing is unfounded.
DA Inquisition shallow? No fking way. It was the best of the franchise and one of the best first person CRPG of all times.
Ending of KOTOR1? meh, this guy doesn't understand a thing.

Putting back the adblock on that site.

where is my post?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Looking at Bioware - I still play SWTOR from time to time, and it is really sad to see how the developing resources were drained from that -
- I feel as if my old philosophy is now very clear to see : "A game that's treated as a tool to make money isn't a game anymore" - and these EA business decisions to treat games as tools to make money are *very* visible as a watermark now.

Shareholders don't like and want games. They like and want money.

As if it was not possible to make money selling games.

Shareholders are neutral to gaming. They want money.

Their customers, though, are not neutral, and they do not want to play games.

A game as it goes older and older, is less and less satisfying to players who come to get content. At some point, what is left is gameplay only. So nothing to like when not liking games and do not want to play one.

Product like TW3, considered the alpha and omega, is an example of that: zero concern over gameplay.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Apart from being an excuse to gather consent for massive data collection, reading lines like action over depth, the article is built around that claim




No matter how bad Bioware have been, they never hit a gameplay low as TW3.

They attracted players with various expectations, which was their undoings.


This applies even more to crowdfunded projects.

I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of, but when I think of Lords of Xulima, Expedition:Conquistidors, or Legends of Eisenwald, these are three games that in my opinion contradict your statement. The developers stuck a lot of time and money into them before they were crowdfunded. I also can't see with their features how they could possibly have developed them with profit as their main motive.