Poll: Anti-BioWare backlash?

[ckriley]

They shacked up with EA. What did you think was going to happen?

This is the same EA that bought out and closed down Westwood, Pandemic, Bullfrog, Origin and Dice Canada (hours after buying Dice), as well as numerous divisions of their own in-house development teams.

Quite simply, if Bioware weren't pandering their recent games out to as large a demographics as possible, EA would have shut them down ages ago. Bioware may be whoring it, but with EA in charge, they're whoring it for their lives. The minute they stop whoring it is the minute they get a notice of closure from their owners.

It doesn't help that all the senior staff and writers who made all the great games so good have either been split up or quit the company. The creative lead on Dragon Age: Origins had nothing to do with DAII. He saw where that game was going, and decided to leave the company. You can read it on his blog, if only I could remember his name...

David Gaider?

 

[PureIrony]

Hasn't changed. I'm young. I only heard of Bioware like 3 years ago. They gained my respect because they showed they cared about their fans, about telling a story and about trying to further the medium.

Even if Dragon Age 2 wasn't perfect and the TOR launch has had some hiccups, so what? They don't feel like they've changed to me.

Maybe they used to be something different and I never knew it. Fair enough. But what I know is that what they are now is a good developer, maybe even a great developer. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

 

[Sabertooth]

To anyone here, who says they had to "sell out" to get money:
Dragon Age 2 made less money than Dragon Age Origins.

What was the difference in profits?

Dragon Age Origins was Bioware's most successful game ever, selling something like six million copies.

For whatever stupid reason, they decided to make the second game more like Mass Effect, a game series that has sold rather less than Dragon Age Origins. Dragon Age II then sells about the same as a Mass Effect game, but nowhere near as much as Origins.

Whatever fucked up logic Bioware were using when it came to designing DAII, it's not as it the results weren't predictable.

David Gaider?

Nope. Just checked Google, the man I'm thinking of is Brent Knowles.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4982457/1

http://blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

Got to say, when the lead designer of your most successful ever game doesn't really like where yoru sequel is going, you have to stop and wonder exactly where you're heading as a company...

Well, then it was a poor error in judgment. I haven´t played DA, but I can how a shooter mechanic might not apply to a hack and slash RPG.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

There's nothing wrong with casual games, or the people that play them. The problem is that developers are increasingly turning towards this market to the exclusion of other types of games. There are increasingly fewer places to turn if one wants a game in the vein of Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Morrowind, etc. Certain styles and genres are just being left by the wayside, and I think many people are irritated that Bioware, a developer who had a hand in the creation of many beloved 'traditional' rpgs of the past, is abandoning this style of game. There isn't really anywhere to turn to for games of that style, and it somewhat feel like they are shunning those who historically have been consumers of their games. The problem isn't 'casual gamers' they are after the same thing in games as the rest of us, after all (fun). The problem is that other folks are getting marginalised, and there is something of a feeling of 'betrayal' among many folks as a result of it.

The problem is the market for those old school RPGS was small, and shrinking. The genre almost died on the vine along with adventure games. Cost of development too high, returns too low. A lot of old school CRPG nuts hate on Bioware and Bethesda, but they re-popularized the genre. I'm not sure Witcher 2 even exists if not for them, certainly not with the development budget it ended up having.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up with the Ultimas and Wizardry's and Bard's Tales. Once upon a time, Baldur's Gate was the new fangled casual RPG everyone was hating on (I believe it was Scorpia who claimed it wasn't a "real RPG"). I acknowledge something has been lost as the RPG has evolved in this medium. But there are things to love about these new games, too. And there are games like Avernum to cater to the niche group of fans who just can't let go.

To be fair, Bioware was one of the groups that did make many of those old school rpgs, small and shrinking market or not. This *was* a group that Bioware was catering to in the past, and quite effectively. The fact that they have decided that this group is no longer worth their time is definately a good reason for fans to lose their faith in them, especially considering that many of their recent games are designed to draw the attention of this group (TOR and DA) They just don't seem to be willing to commit to actually make a game for this group anymore, so it's something of a bait and switch deal.

Exactly. I think it's a real shame, if I'm honest. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say the market for traditional RPGs is "small and shrinking". It's certainly big enough to turn a healthy profit, as DA:O demonstrated, but it's not the biggest market. It's not enough for the biggest profit imaginable. And with the new ultra-profit-driven paradigm that the games industry has taken on over the last ten years, only the biggest profit imaginable is enough. That means every game has to appeal to the largest possible number of people, which means games get less and less unique, more and more homogenized.

Capitalism and art are compatible up to a point. The games industry is getting past that point.

And it pisses me off when people say "that's the real world, deal with it". Yes, I know that's the real world, I don't have to fucking like it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Maybe they used to be something different and I never knew it.

Yeah, if you liked Dragon Age 2, you might like some of their earlier games. For instance, Dragon Age: Origins is like Dragon Age 2, except that it doesn't suck.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Exactly. I think it's a real shame, if I'm honest. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say the market for traditional RPGs is "small and shrinking". It's certainly big enough to turn a healthy profit, as DA:O demonstrated, but it's not the biggest market. It's not enough for the biggest profit imaginable. And with the new ultra-profit-driven paradigm that the games industry has taken on over the last ten years, only the biggest profit imaginable is enough. That means every game has to appeal to the largest possible number of people, which means games get less and less unique, more and more homogenized.

Capitalism and art are compatible up to a point. The games industry is getting past that point.

And it pisses me off when people say "that's the real world, deal with it". Yes, I know that's the real world, I don't have to fucking like it.

50 seconds on Google turned this thread up:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/researching-the-death-of-the-crpg-industry.60314/

And there's plenty of information in there I won't bother cutting and pasting. I'm not pulling it out of my ass, the CRPG market was in real trouble for a while there. Gaming was becoming more mainstream, and the CRPG was still a niche market. The games were huge, costly, and time consuming to make, and they gave a terrible ROI compared to shooters and the CRPG's stupid younger brother, the ARPG.

Everyone craps on Bioware and Bethesda for "abandoning their roots" and making a more accessible product, but without them doing that you'd never even SEE a DA:O. And DA:O is hardly a throwback. Some people suggested it was, in some ways, a "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate II, but nowhere near as hardcore, and Baldur's Gate was mocked at the time for being a brain-dead streamlining of the genre.

At the end of the day we're just fans. I'm happy that they're still making RPGS. This isn't an X-Com scenario where they turned it into a FPS and told everyone that strategy games weren't contemporary any more. No, the RPG doesn't look exactly like it used to, and yeah, sometimes that makes me sad, but there's lots to love about where the RPG is going, too, not just where it's been.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

where's the 'indifferent because i'm not dumb enough to get emotionally attached to a business' option? because its stuff like that which leads to stupid asinine occurences like the 'console wars' and the 'ford vs holden' debate

seriously, i honestly don't care either way whether bioware has 'changed' or 'sold out', demographics shift, so long as the end product is good thats all that matters. same with buying a car, it doesn't matter what the badge or label is, just that it's reliable, fun, and has a manual gearbox

 

[Daniel Weisman]

My first Bethesda game was DA:Origins, and since I have a ps3 it then went to ME2. I consider those two in my top five games of all time. Then DA2 came out. I love DA:O and ME2 for the story, which DA2 failed at. ME3 should be good but I am worried about the focus on the kinect and multiplayer. (I do like the idea of playing as a krogan though.)

 

[Oroboros]

Exactly. I think it's a real shame, if I'm honest. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say the market for traditional RPGs is "small and shrinking". It's certainly big enough to turn a healthy profit, as DA:O demonstrated, but it's not the biggest market.

Again, I feel this is a point worth repeating: Dragon Age Origins was Bioware's best selling game, ever. It considerably outsold both Mass Effect games.

If Bioware were to look purely at their sales data, they'd perhaps come to the conclusion that the old-school RPG demographic is their biggest market, considering that more people bought their latest old-school RPG than bought any of their newer adventure RPGs. If they had any sense, they would not have turned Dragon Age into more of a Mass Effect type game. They'd have turned Mass Effect into more of a Dragon Age type game. Whatever your most popular game is, that's the one you need to study if you want to try and replicate its success.

And Bioware properly borked that.

It's not enough for the biggest profit imaginable. And with the new ultra-profit-driven paradigm that the games industry has taken on over the last ten years, only the biggest profit imaginable is enough. That means every game has to appeal to the largest possible number of people, which means games get less and less unique, more and more homogenized.

Capitalism and art are compatible up to a point. The games industry is getting past that point.

And it pisses me off when people say "that's the real world, deal with it". Yes, I know that's the real world, I don't have to fucking like it.

True. But what I don't understand is why EA and Bioware decided to ignore the fact that with DA:O, they managed to capture bottled lightning: an old-school RPG that sold millions upon milions of copies. Is there perhaps an underlying trend to be examined there? Are there potential demographics we can market these sort of games to? To other similar game releases, such as The Witcher and (later, obviously) Skyrim perhaps suggest there is a market for uber-successful, deep fantasy RPGs?

When faced with those sorts of questions, why would you then decide to make a generic hack and slash built off the design philosophies of your lesser selling game? For once, if you will, EA released a game where art and financial profit met up in a spectacular form of success, and they decided to ignore it completely. It's just so... frustrating!

That's fascinating, and gives Bioware even less of an excuse for its behaviour. Really baffling that they would go the route they have been going in light of that.

where's the 'indifferent because i'm not dumb enough to get emotionally attached to a business' option? because its stuff like that which leads to stupid asinine occurences like the 'console wars' and the 'ford vs holden' debate

seriously, i honestly don't care either way whether bioware has 'changed' or 'sold out', demographics shift, so long as the end product is good thats all that matters. same with buying a car, it doesn't matter what the badge or label is, just that it's reliable, fun, and has a manual gearbox

Your car analogy is horribly flawed. The situation is more aken to going to a car dealership after seeing an ad for a pickup truck for a company that makes good pickup trucks, buying a pickup truck, and then getting handed the keys to a SUV. That may or not have flat tires. The point of this whole Bioware thing is that Bioware is not delivering on the product that folks have come to associate with Bioware (rpgs/pickup trucks) instead, we are getting a completely different genre (action rpgs/SUV)and then there are the complaints that on top of this, their quality is slipping.

 

[PureIrony]

Maybe they used to be something different and I never knew it.

Yeah, if you liked Dragon Age 2, you might like some of their earlier games. For instance, Dragon Age: Origins is like Dragon Age 2, except that it doesn't suck.

I played that game. Before Dragon Age 2. I like them both. I'll admit that there are lots of things that the original does better, but then there are things the sequel does better then the original.

I love how you assumed that my post I hadn't played their earlier games. I've played both DAs and MEs. I've played Jade Empire. I'm currently playing Baldur's Gate, and it seems to hold up pretty well.

What I was referring to was that I didn't understand what sort of status they might have held before, how people might have viewed them over the years. Thats lost to me.

I can tell how perceptions have changed in 18 months I've spent on this site. Opinion of Bioware has gone down an incredible amount so far, and for what? One game that wasn't what people expected, and a haphazard MMO launch? Also, don't even try to bring up ME2. Nobody seemed to have had that much of a problem with it until after DA2's launch.

I honestly don't get the Bioware hate. Its all so...disproportionate. Honestly, why even bother to call yourself a fan of something if you're going to turn on it the second it makes something you don't like?

 

[Smeggs]

Nope. Every company has good days and bad days. Bioware makes some games I like, and some I don't.

 

[GiantRaven]

I don't get it. I simply just don't get it. Dragon Age 2 was a perfectly good game, if containing some questionable design choices. Mass Effect 3 looks to be a barrel of fun and every major 'complaint' I see seems more like pathetic nitpicking to me.

At the end of the day, Bioware are only a studio making videogames. It's not that big a deal. It isn't worth getting this worked up over.

 

[Windcaler]

From where Im standing I see bioware trying a new direction that isnt so much bad as it is different and lets be honest: More often then not Gamers fear change. In the case of TOR they tried (and IMO succeeded) in putting story into MMO's which was sorely lacking from just about every MMO Ive played. It didnt end there though, they went a step even further and put in their own interactive story style which I believe has changed the genre for the better. The other problem with TOR is a lot of people really just wanted KOTOR 3 and dont want to play TOR as KOTOR 3. I personally dont understand why we cant have TOR and get a KOTOR 3 in the future but when you dont meet certain peoples expectations they want to complain

In the case of Dragon age 2, it really wasnt the train wreck most people make it out to be. I dont say it was a great game but it wasnt bad either. They tried to make a game that continued to appeal to their core audience but clean up the game a bit and make it more interactive. Ill be honest the original DA:O was a fantastic game but the combat system left a lot to be desired for me. There were many times I was waiting for what seemed like an eternity for attacks to happen and it took away the interactive part. Bioware tried to fix that issue in DA2, it didnt work but the fact that they're trying new things can only be a positive thing

 

[Zhukov]

It's amazing how fickle people's opinions can be. In 2010 Bioware was well regarded around here.

Then DA2 comes out, makes a number of nasty mistakes and generally fails to live up to the expected standard. All of a sudden Bioware are terrible people who rape small children and deserve to die painful deaths, their every word is picked apart in search of things to hate and ME2 is retro-actively declared to be the work of Satan.

*shrug*

Ah well.

Personally, I like 'em. Sure, they've goofed from time to time, but who hasn't?

At the end of the day, I am perfectly happy to forgive their occasional screw-ups because they remain one of the only game developers in existence capable of creating decent characters. In that department they stand head and shoulders above the rest of the turgid shit the industry produces.

 

[scorptatious]

I loved both Mass Effect 1 and 2. And I'm anticipating the third.

That being said, I can't help but feel a little worried about how the final product is going to come out. Bioware has made some decisions about the game that seem a bit odd. Like adding multiplayer and Kinect. Not that I particularly mind the two. But it doesn't really sound like they belong in a game like Mass Effect.

It doesn't really help that there's a large group of overreacting people on here and other sites that like to cry foul every time Bioware does something they don't agree with. Not to mention EA is considered the Anti-Christ on this site for whatever reason. As much as these people annoy me, I can't completely dismiss them as some of them do make good points.

So I'm not really sure what to feel about Bioware. I'd like to believe Mass Effect 3 will be really good. But it's kind of hard to feel optimistic with what's going on right now.