Elder Scrolls V: How can Bethesda learn from Bioware
- Thread starter Fappy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I appreciate the conciseness of Bioware's narratives, but I also enjoy the sprawling freedom of Behesda's worlds.Slaanax said:
There's nothing really wrong with one OR the other, they both have their places in the grand scheme of things. I love both of their approaches to game design, but for entirely different experiences.
If Bethesda can jump a couple of technical hurdles in the animation department, and do more of what they did right in Fallout 3 as far as environmental density and rather unique set-pieces within a limited palette of environment-- face it, admit it, memory constraints and involved man-hours are the biggest hurdles in developing a world where every locale is 100% unique, when you're talking about the scale they work at-- then they could make very incredible games. The purposes of their games aren't necessarily to tell a specific story, but more to provide a world, and the story is there more for an impetus to explore certain parts of that world. Though, it's entirely possible to play Morrowind or Oblivion or Fallout for dozens of hours, without ever even touching a quest-line. I have, and do quite often. Bethesda's games aren't best suited for those driven to a particular narrative goal. I don't believe that's ever been their focus.
Bioware's scale has nothing on the scale Bethesda aims to achieve. They provide a limited selection of more highly-detailed areas, with a tighter focus on the story for each. It works great for the narrative that they aim to provide, but that is not necessarily Bethesda's aim with their open-world games. Bioware aims to tell a particular story, and designs their environments to suit that purpose. Despite certain appearances of non-linearity, the games are still largely designed to funnel the player from beginning to end, but with the illusion of free choice along the way. It's hard to pick up a Bioware game and play it with no particular goal in mind.
In short, Bioware provides a smaller world with the intent on telling a very specific story, the world is compacted more specifically for narrative purposes. Behtesda creates incredibly large worlds, with a potentially optional story that provides context in that world, but relies more on the player to make his own adventure. There's still a goal to work toward, but it isn't a requirement at all to play it. One can plug dozens of hours into exploration, and simply see what's out there (which, in Fallout's case, turns out to be a LOT)
I enjoy both styles fully.
Really, they shouldn't be compared to each other in the least, in my opinion.
Though, it could be said that it would be nice if the player's impact through choices on Bethesda's games could be more strongly indicated, beyond a simple numerical value of good vs. evil. You can be either, sure, but there's no strong reflection of those values, beyond evil-ness making most mundane tasks incredibly inconvenient. I will say that.
ed- I've made like a billion little edits for clarity.
Having been a loyal fan of both companies since their early days I feel safe asking one question.
Who says they need to be like each other? Both fill a niche and looking for this kind of blending is what's caused every other game to be released ending up as nothing more than pallet swaps.
Who says they need to be like each other? Both fill a niche and looking for this kind of blending is what's caused every other game to be released ending up as nothing more than pallet swaps.
Apparently, the GI people said there was something massive in the fantasy RPG genre that wasn't at E3 in the August edition. TES:V meets all those qualifications so it seems realistic for that to be it.Fappy said:
The only other thing I could think of is that EA/Todd McFarlane/R.A. Salvatore RPG that was reported to be in the works a few months ago. I have a feeling that's not far enough in production to write a story on however... thankfully, I want my TES V announcement.Omnific One said:
Yeah, they've been eliminating possible candidates. GI needs screenshots, and most of the possibilities aren't that far along.Fappy said:
Personally, I prefer Bioware's stories more then Bethesda's.. However, I prefer the actual gameplay of Bethesda games like Oblivion and Fallout 3..
Call me out if this is a bad idea, but I think that having more boss fights could be cool in TESV. By that, I mean that the bosses should be like a powerful sorceror with tons of buffs on him, such as Mankar Camoran, or a medium-sized wyvern, or a giant, or a big, winged daedra captain, or something beyond a "Conjurer Adept", whose only distinguishing factor from all the other mooks is that it has slightly better loot and doesn't die in one extra-powerful blast of magic/sneak attack with an enchanted longsword/poisoned arrow between the eyes. Not in every dungeon, mind you, and not respawning in three days like everything else. I just want to feel threatened by something other than several monsters/bandits ganging up on me, because the combat mechanics are such that fighting more than one foe is exceedingly difficult. I loved the Mankar Camoran fight and the Jyggalag fight from Shivering Isles. Or at the very least, have good bosses for the ends of guild questlines! I mean, come on, Mannimarco was pathetic!
Anyway, this is my idea, I personally think it's good, want feedback.
Anyway, this is my idea, I personally think it's good, want feedback.
If I've understood you correctly, you're not asking for Bethesda to make game like Bioware, but that they approach Characters and tell the story in a similar fashion to Bioware. I can agree with that. Bioware is very good at creating characters and engaging stories, (even ME2 was great, dispite it being the worst they've done in some time).
I'm not sure they can take the same path as Bioware though. Bethesda try to give you as many options as possible, as a result of that any structure the story might have had gets kicked in the teeth.
I don't think they can, and even if they could I'm not sure it would mean a better game.
I'm not sure they can take the same path as Bioware though. Bethesda try to give you as many options as possible, as a result of that any structure the story might have had gets kicked in the teeth.
I don't think they can, and even if they could I'm not sure it would mean a better game.
If I remember correctly, he killed himself when I fought him.Bek359 said:
Yeah you understood correctly. Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear, but for some reason many people seem to think I want Bethesda to do exactly what Bioware is doing, which is not at all the case. I just wanted to point out Bioware's strengths and see what among those Bethesda could learn from.... or maybe people just skimmed the OP... I wouldn't blame them I do it all the timeKnight Templar said:
I personally hate the VATS system, but I think Bioware's combat systems are pure genius. I also prefer the more traditional setup of Bioware's games as opposed to the gigantic Bethesdan open worlds. It makes Bioware's games feel more like actual designed experiences. Not to mention dialogue is done better by Bioware.
So basically, I don't really like Bethesda and I love Bioware.
So basically, I don't really like Bethesda and I love Bioware.
DYNAMIC is the word I've been waiting to see implemented since the start of this generation. I look back to TES 2: Daggerfall for inspiration. The world within was far to big to be 'hand crafted', so they obviously used scripts to build it. I've always wondered if they couldn't go back to this route and beef those scripts up while utilizing those multi processors we have now. I would envision something that's a cross of Civilization like map creation, Total War like world movement, and the standard TES first person exploration. Maps can be generated like in Civ, which then through scripts gets rendered into 3D. The world 'moves along' as it would in a Total War game, with cities building & going to war, bandits popping up, significant characters (Princesses, Priests, Assasins, Diplomats, etc) moving about on missions, all of which updates the ingame story & quest scripts in real time. This is all computed on one processor while the other is devoted to rendering what's going on in front of your character, as you explore a world that's moving along at it's own pace.Zeromaeus said:
There's just always been something a little off about the recent Bethesda games, which I've come to realize that they're basically equivilent to a 1998 Jim Carey movie The Truman Show. It pretends to be an immersive experience, and exploring can be, but try actually interacting with the world and you find that everyones revolves around YOU, as if it's all just one big reality TV show and you're the star.
Nope. Sorry. No.
I dont get why people say that Dragon Age was a "choose your story" kind of game, because we were obviously playing two different games. You choose your starting character, and have a different starting zone. They all lead you to becoming a Gray Warden. Duncan dies, OMG HUNT DOWN THE TRAITOR. Along the way you get a few quests that let you choose THIS person or THAT person. People will either join or leave your party. Big Epic Boss Fight; end of game. A game that truely had multiple endings, multiple pathes you could choose, multiple storylines based soley on your actions would be a "choose your story" kind of game. This one took an MMO property, slapped it on, claimed your choises mattered, then let you free. BioWare is JUST as static at Plot Telling as Bethesda, they just hide it better.
While BioWare really does have the character thing mastered, my only response is "Who cares?". Seriously, in Dragon Age they gave you TOO much information about your characters; to the point where I stopped giving a damn. It wasnt immersive to hear EVERY detail about their life and childhood, it was ANNOYING. While Bethesda should beef up how their characters, they should borrow from SquareEnix. Square's games have always made an immersive character (they grow, interact, have a back story, motives) without breaking the flow by dragging it on. I never hated Yuna, I hated just about EVERYONE in Dragon Age.
Bethesda did a lot better job at the options and sacrifice thing. Some options really made me wonder and made me second guess in Fallout, Oblivion and Marrowind. Not as much so in Dragon Age; I knew what I wanted and how I wanted to get it. The only difference is Dragon Age hits you with the SACRIFICE over the options. Almost every option given to you in that game meant you either had the chance to or you HAD to give up something (be it an item, party member, whatever). It breaks the flow of immersion when I have to wonder every Dilogue if what I say is going to bone me somewhere else down the line.
If you want my opinion, BioWare makes bad games, but presents them in a way that people like. They have a niche-appeal, mostly with the gamers who think of themselves as "high-brow". I have yet to play a BioWare game that I enjoyed in the slightest; while Bethesda has made continuous great games. Just because something sells doesnt mean its good; look at MW2. Just because people on a forum think its good doesnt mean its good either (Niche appeal to "high-brow" gamers; The Escapist Forums has mostly...). Bethesda does its own stuff really well; they do have room for improvement, but it shouldnt be done by mimicing another game company to do it.
I dont get why people say that Dragon Age was a "choose your story" kind of game, because we were obviously playing two different games. You choose your starting character, and have a different starting zone. They all lead you to becoming a Gray Warden. Duncan dies, OMG HUNT DOWN THE TRAITOR. Along the way you get a few quests that let you choose THIS person or THAT person. People will either join or leave your party. Big Epic Boss Fight; end of game. A game that truely had multiple endings, multiple pathes you could choose, multiple storylines based soley on your actions would be a "choose your story" kind of game. This one took an MMO property, slapped it on, claimed your choises mattered, then let you free. BioWare is JUST as static at Plot Telling as Bethesda, they just hide it better.
While BioWare really does have the character thing mastered, my only response is "Who cares?". Seriously, in Dragon Age they gave you TOO much information about your characters; to the point where I stopped giving a damn. It wasnt immersive to hear EVERY detail about their life and childhood, it was ANNOYING. While Bethesda should beef up how their characters, they should borrow from SquareEnix. Square's games have always made an immersive character (they grow, interact, have a back story, motives) without breaking the flow by dragging it on. I never hated Yuna, I hated just about EVERYONE in Dragon Age.
Bethesda did a lot better job at the options and sacrifice thing. Some options really made me wonder and made me second guess in Fallout, Oblivion and Marrowind. Not as much so in Dragon Age; I knew what I wanted and how I wanted to get it. The only difference is Dragon Age hits you with the SACRIFICE over the options. Almost every option given to you in that game meant you either had the chance to or you HAD to give up something (be it an item, party member, whatever). It breaks the flow of immersion when I have to wonder every Dilogue if what I say is going to bone me somewhere else down the line.
If you want my opinion, BioWare makes bad games, but presents them in a way that people like. They have a niche-appeal, mostly with the gamers who think of themselves as "high-brow". I have yet to play a BioWare game that I enjoyed in the slightest; while Bethesda has made continuous great games. Just because something sells doesnt mean its good; look at MW2. Just because people on a forum think its good doesnt mean its good either (Niche appeal to "high-brow" gamers; The Escapist Forums has mostly...). Bethesda does its own stuff really well; they do have room for improvement, but it shouldnt be done by mimicing another game company to do it.
Bioware produces tight, good stories that drag me in whereas Bethesda create many shorter stories (figters guild, mage, etc) that make the whole game feel broken up. It was for this reason I disliked Mass Effect 2 because Bioware had decided to take this route and because the whole game feels like a prologue to its final mission.
I remember Baldur's Gate II which had the sort of middle non linear section but i found that when presented with this the second time, at the end of the game, I was compelled to press on with the main quest - I was approaching the finale and I wasn't going to be dragged off by some random side quest.
Oblivion (i can't really comment on Morrowind) lacks this sense of urgency. At no point did I feel I had to hurry on - the impending apocolypse would stay pending till I was ready to deal with it. This was also true of Dragon Age which i felt was a bit of a grind (particularly the dwarven mines).
I remember Baldur's Gate II which had the sort of middle non linear section but i found that when presented with this the second time, at the end of the game, I was compelled to press on with the main quest - I was approaching the finale and I wasn't going to be dragged off by some random side quest.
Oblivion (i can't really comment on Morrowind) lacks this sense of urgency. At no point did I feel I had to hurry on - the impending apocolypse would stay pending till I was ready to deal with it. This was also true of Dragon Age which i felt was a bit of a grind (particularly the dwarven mines).