Poll: Bioware needs to grow up

[NerfedFalcon]

Get Mother 3. However you have to. It's probably already been said, but this game is probably the most mature thing I've ever played. Not in the area of gore physics - as far as I'm concerned, that's hardly something to place a 'mature' label on. In the story, where you like it. Not bad for a game with no real 'choices' and a protagonist younger than average.

 

[Nulmas]

Snip.

Oh, well. I guess this is what I get for not researching a game I haven't played in over a decade. I figure I got mixed up because Planescape still plays similarly to Baldur's Gate. Did they work with the same engine?

Actually yes I looked this up the other day. Planescape Torment was using it first in development but Bioware used it to make Baldur's Gate. I also learned that Planescape Torment was unfinished. Ok quick question to anyone reading this were the Fallout games unfinished too? Seriously it's like they have never finished a game. I still like them but good grief.

You got it almost right. Bioware developed the Infinity Engine for Baldur's Gate, but Black Isle started using a slightly modified version of it to develop PS:T before Baldur's Gate was released.

Regarding the Fallout games, FO1 was completely finished as far as I know.

Fallout 2 had some side quests and such removed, but I think the main game itself was completed. Unfortunately, one of the removed sidequests was quite pivotal for one of the companion NPCs so you kinda feel something is missing. Fortunatelly there's a Restored Content Mod now

 

[Hobonicus]

If you like it, play them. If you don't, shut the fuck up, stop thinking you're some be all end all guru of gaming and the major companies will all change how they make games ot satisfy you.

It's getting ridiculous how often this argument is being used. I'm so tired of people just automatically taking the companies' sides in these situations, as if they aren't making a product for us and we somehow aren't allowed to give our opinions and suggestions.

We should all just take what we're given and never ask for more, right? As free thinking individuals we should never have opinions on subjective matters unless it's positive, right? And only people who love a game are allowed to judge it, right? That's why every game is rated 10/10, right?

No no Bioware, you don't need to improve, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by criticizing your game. I had no right.

Congrats on not only missing the point, but somehow getting a one way ticket to Antarctica to boot.

Yes you have the right to criticize. Everyone does. My beef is with the people who think because they have an opinion, that it's the only right one and everyone has ot agree and acknowledge it.

But that is my point. Everytime someone says this they're assuming that the opinion is being preached as absolute truth, and that's hardly ever the case. It's gotten to the point where if someone doesn't constantly remind their audience that "This is totally my opinion" then the others assume they have some sort of narrow-minded agenda. It's conjecture on your part to automatically believe someone is so entirely self-centered that they don't understand the concept of opinions, but it happens so commonly on the internet that somehow it's fallen to the unfairly accused to defend themselves instead of just allowing everyone to be understanding.

What I'm saying is the conflict here starts with you. Nobody actually states their opinion thinking that they are objectively correct, it's you and your pessimism arbitrarily creating conflict where it wasn't before and pointing your finger at the victim.

You don't like the game? don't play it. Stop trying to tell everyone else they should not like it as well.

The "then don't play it" argument is a ridiculous cop-out that totally avoids the issue. By saying that you've basically justified what I said in my previous post. If I don't like a game, that means I have criticism for it. But not playing a game means my criticism is invalid. So you're saying if I don't like a game, then my criticism should be invalid (which, ironically, is the exact mentality that you think you're arguing against).

Simply avoiding a game I don't like without giving criticism is exactly what I was referring to when I sarcastically said "We should all just take what we're given and never ask for more, right?" You say if someone doesn't like the game they shouldn't play it, meaning you only want people who like the game to judge it... Exactly what I was referring to when I said (also sarcastically) "And only people who love a game are allowed to judge it, right?" So I'm not missing the point.

And again, because it bears repeating, nobody is telling others what they shouldn't like. They're stating their perspective and reasoning, you're the one taking offense that was never intended.

So you don't like Bioware's games? Guess what, millions do. So guess they doing something right eh? But then again, I'm just a brainless fanboi so guess my opinion don't count either eh?

Again, you take the company's side, deciding that a collective fanbase is somehow enough to overrule someone's opinion. You're the one making this objective. You tell him that he's not allowed to claim he's right, then use majority rules as an argument. And sure millions like it, but that in no possible way can be used to argue against someone's personal opinion.

People like the TC make these threads and neglect to remind us every few lines that it's "just my opinion guys" because we're not idiots, and we don't take offense from a different perspective. That's where the discussion value comes from, debating subjective matters.

Also, I never said anything about any "brainless fanboi", not sure where that came from. (And for the record I like Bioware games, even Dragon Age 2. I was just making a point, although you can still criticize something you like anyway.)

I hope that cleared some things up.

 

[The Pinray]

No one has to grow up. We're all entitled to enjoy what we want. You seem very bitter.

But honestly, when it comes to cliche, I dare you to find something that ISN'T "cliche." Even then, people will have something to complain about it.

 

[DaJoW]

I've been complaining about Biowares "Intro - gather a team from 4-5 places (you can go to these places in any order you want! It's completely non-linear!) - Finish" setup for a while now, especially the "gather your group" stage - you may be able to choose the order yourself, but there's always a best order which you can usually work out on the first run. Add to that the fact that I find it feels impersonal to go to one place, solve their problems, get your team member and move on, and I genuinely dislike it. I like the games overall, but it is kind of dull to be able to predict the layout of their games (and usually the team member concepts) the day they're announced.

The black-and-white morality system I'd be alright with if it had no impact on gameplay, and if they made sense. Why is it "renegade" to kill an oncoming battledroid with Garrus' sniper rifle one minute, and then perfectly fine to do it with your own the minute later?

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

If you like it, play them. If you don't, shut the fuck up, stop thinking you're some be all end all guru of gaming and the major companies will all change how they make games ot satisfy you.

It's getting ridiculous how often this argument is being used. I'm so tired of people just automatically taking the companies' sides in these situations, as if they aren't making a product for us and we somehow aren't allowed to give our opinions and suggestions.

We should all just take what we're given and never ask for more, right? As free thinking individuals we should never have opinions on subjective matters unless it's positive, right? And only people who love a game are allowed to judge it, right? That's why every game is rated 10/10, right?

No no Bioware, you don't need to improve, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by criticizing your game. I had no right.

Congrats on not only missing the point, but somehow getting a one way ticket to Antarctica to boot.

Yes you have the right to criticize. Everyone does. My beef is with the people who think because they have an opinion, that it's the only right one and everyone has ot agree and acknowledge it.

But that is my point. Everytime someone says this they're assuming that the opinion is being preached as absolute truth, and that's hardly ever the case. It's gotten to the point where if someone doesn't constantly remind their audience that "This is totally my opinion" then the others assume they have some sort of narrow-minded agenda. It's conjecture on your part to automatically believe someone is so entirely self-centered that they don't understand the concept of opinions, but it happens so commonly on the internet that somehow it's fallen to the unfairly accused to defend themselves instead of just allowing everyone to be understanding.

What I'm saying is the conflict here starts with you. Nobody actually states their opinion thinking that they are objectively correct, it's you and your pessimism arbitrarily creating conflict where it wasn't before and pointing your finger at the victim.

You don't like the game? don't play it. Stop trying to tell everyone else they should not like it as well.

The "then don't play it" argument is a ridiculous cop-out that totally avoids the issue. By saying that you've basically justified what I said in my previous post. If I don't like a game, that means I have criticism for it. But not playing a game means my criticism is invalid. So you're saying if I don't like a game, then my criticism should be invalid (which, ironically, is the exact mentality that you think you're arguing against).

Simply avoiding a game I don't like without giving criticism is exactly what I was referring to when I sarcastically said "We should all just take what we're given and never ask for more, right?" You say if someone doesn't like the game they shouldn't play it, meaning you only want people who like the game to judge it... Exactly what I was referring to when I said (also sarcastically) "And only people who love a game are allowed to judge it, right?" So I'm not missing the point.

And again, because it bears repeating, nobody is telling others what they shouldn't like. They're stating their perspective and reasoning, you're the one taking offense that was never intended.

So you don't like Bioware's games? Guess what, millions do. So guess they doing something right eh? But then again, I'm just a brainless fanboi so guess my opinion don't count either eh?

Again, you take the company's side, deciding that a collective fanbase is somehow enough to overrule someone's opinion. You're the one making this objective. You tell him that he's not allowed to claim he's right, then use majority rules as an argument. And sure millions like it, but that in no possible way can be used to argue against someone's personal opinion.

People like the TC make these threads and neglect to remind us every few lines that it's "just my opinion guys" because we're not idiots, and we don't take offense from a different perspective. That's where the discussion value comes from, debating subjective matters.

Also, I never said anything about any "brainless fanboi", not sure where that came from. (And for the record I like Bioware games, even Dragon Age 2. I was just making a point, although you can still criticize something you like anyway.)

I hope that cleared some things up.

Nope. The conflict starts with someone coming on and posting that they believe Bioware is is need of "growing up" because they think the games are not written to their standards and are lacking any real "shades of gray". Too black and white as he put it. My point is that the games are fine and obviously not to his satisfaction so why bother to complain about something that he doesn;'t approve of and that isn't going ot change?

So you say I'm the problem by pointing out the obvious? Sorry mate, sometimes the majority rules because the majority is right. In this case, the majority of Biowares clientele are happy enough with how Bioware writes their games to continue on their current course. They aren't going to change what is obviously working for them. If they make ME3 and it tanks, they'll take a long hard look and see why it tanked and fix the issue. If they decide the issue was writing, they'll change it. Not enough tits? well DA3 will have a tit judging contest for the main character to arbitrate.

Also, you're points are taken to the general, while mine are taken to the specific. I agree with you about blanket statements. I was directly referring to the OP, who very specifically slammed Bioware's writing and their need to "grow up" and have more shades of gray. So my argument was two pronged and I see you very neatly ignored the second part entirely to focus on one point which then gets taken out of context because you don't have the second point.

So what's your views on the actual point the OP raised Hobo? Furthermore, how about my counterpoint to the OP's views that people sometimes don't want shade of gray in a release mechanism such as gaming, but black and white. They want Garrus to kill Sidonus or spare him, not have a multi-day group counseling session where they talk about each other feelings and motivations and how their actions impacted the other. If you talk about my second point, the criticism of "don't play if you don't like" becomes extremely valid as you can argue that the whole point of the game is to not have realism, but crazy extremes and if that's the reason for the game, complaining about it and wanting it changed is nothing more than an exercise in either misunderstanding or entitlement.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So you say I'm the problem by pointing out the obvious? Sorry mate, sometimes the majority rules because the majority is right.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

They want Garrus to kill Sidonus or spare him, not have a multi-day group counseling session where they talk about each other feelings and motivations and how their actions impacted the other.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Also, you're points are taken to the general, while mine are taken to the specific.

I wouldn't be giving any formal debating lessons if I were you. =\

 

[Continuity]

The poll is kind of bias.

Personally I'm happy with the Mass Effect storyline. I thought the narrative was interesting and the characters were quite interesting. I can kind of see where you're coming from though, it does seem like Bioware likes to use the same basic story structure for their games.

Although I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with "growing up".

He's basically saying that they are writing stories for kids rather than adults...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

He's basically saying that they are writing stories for kids rather than adults...

"Kids" might be a bit extreme. This strikes me as "Sword of Shannara" level literature. The kind of thing you'd find next to Twilight at your local library.

 

[Continuity]

He's basically saying that they are writing stories for kids rather than adults...

"Kids" might be a bit extreme. This strikes me as "Sword of Shannara" level literature. The kind of thing you'd find next to Twilight at your local library.

When you're my age... lots more people fall into the "kids" bracket I can only guess that when i'm 80 i'll be referring to 60 year olds as kids.

Anyway, I think the point is that the stories are unsophisticated and clichéd. No to say they are bad but rather than they haven't really been pushing the envelope in anyway, and for a story based genre that's a bit of a shame.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Their storytelling? Fine, im satisfied with it. It's not perfect but they make it gripping enough.

Their gameplay? (you know the much more important bit?) sucks in everything except Mass Effect 2. But then I don't think RPG fans really care about gameplay.

you know you don't have to like it fine, but i DO care about the gameplay, and i buy RPG's because i LIKE the gameplay, alot actually. (not to say i don't like ME2, because i do, it is awesome)

is it really that hard to understand? i don't need super action packed twitch killz every 5 seconds to find the gameplay enticing. i like the turn based set in real time action, which is why i've played kotor 1 + 2 for a combined total of over 100 playthroughs, while DA:O and neverwinter nights i've done probably at least 10 playthroughs on those too.

I'll admit my post was pretty harsh, I should have been more personal about it rather than making a judgment of all RPG players. I'm sick and irritable today (got a bad cold, blocked up throat, can hardly breathe and hurts when I cough). So I apologize for taking it out that way

I don't necessarily need instant gratification either, but I just find the DnD and Turn Based style gameplay incredibly dull because they are nonsensicle in terms of a real fight and unimmersive. I do need my games to be immersive and make me feel like I'm really there in my characters shoes. And it annoys me somewhat their arent many great RPGs with gameplay that I can actually enjoy, because the actual concept of RPGs highly appeals to me.

ha tis all good mate

but i do get what your saying, they don't really have rpg's out right now that show good detailed action with the rpg side still intact, it's either action with next to no RPG, or RPG with DnD based stats/items.

while i love fable, it did drop nearly all of it's rpgness it had to it...and DA2 wasn't what it could've been.

have you tried witcher 2 perhaps? the first one is a bit dry to get through, but the 2nd one's gameplay is a blast IMO (a little punishing, but still fun) and balances out a nice action vs stats type rpg.

I have indeed, the Witcher is my favorite RPG and Witcher 2 was excellent too.

ah you are one of the few on here who liked the first one also! *kudos*

i haven't played through the "witcher 2.0" patch update yet, but i plan to over thanksgiving/winter break hopefully, do you know if it makes any significant difference?

Haven't tried it yet, going to wait until I feel like doing another playthrough

 

[Zay-el]

"Kids" might be a bit extreme. This strikes me as "Sword of Shannara" level literature. The kind of thing you'd find next to Twilight at your local library.

No. Just no.

I don't mind people bringing about legitimate criticism about Bioware, because there are indeed grounds for that, but this is just going off the deep end and acting like a complete ass about it. I enjoyed ME1-2 and Dragon Age for the most part as well, but considering the RPG genre contains some of the biggest ups-and-downs in terms of storytelling quality, putting it on Shannara level really looks like an example one would bring when they know it's hip to insult something.

Honestly, amongst the huge amount of unbearable drivel the genre manages to put forwards, Bioware is still amongst the better ones, even if they have a definitive line they tend to follow. Take that as you will.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No. Just no.

I don't mind people bringing about legitimate criticism about Bioware, because there are indeed grounds for that, but this is just going off the deep end and acting like a complete ass about it. I enjoyed ME1-2 and Dragon Age for the most part as well, but considering the RPG genre contains some of the biggest ups-and-downs in terms of storytelling quality, putting it on Shannara level really looks like an example one would bring when they know it's hip to insult something.

Honestly, amongst the huge amount of unbearable drivel the genre manages to put forwards, Bioware is still amongst the better ones, even if they have a definitive line they tend to follow. Take that as you will.

I expected to take shit for the "Twilight" reference, not the relatively benign "Shannara" one. If you can think of some more appropriate young adult literature to throw into the mix without bringing up whimsically ageless series like "Harry Potter", be my guest.

You should be happy I'm comparing it to a book at all. Most of the storylines in video games are sitcom quality, if that.

 

[Hobonicus]

Nope. The conflict starts with someone coming on and posting that they believe Bioware is is need of "growing up" because they think the games are not written to their standards and are lacking any real "shades of gray". Too black and white as he put it. My point is that the games are fine and obviously not to his satisfaction so why bother to complain about something that he doesn;'t approve of and that isn't going ot change?

That's not the conflict, that's the discussion. He thinks the games are too black and white, and he's arguing his point. He complains about them because that's what criticism is. You think the games are fine, he has some issues with them. But while he accepts and debates your perspective, you say he's not allowed to voice his own issues because you think he's telling people how to feel. You're telling him what to do out of a misguided assumption that he's telling you what to do. That is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black, how do you not see this?

So you say I'm the problem by pointing out the obvious? Sorry mate, sometimes the majority rules because the majority is right. In this case, the majority of Biowares clientele are happy enough with how Bioware writes their games to continue on their current course. They aren't going to change what is obviously working for them. If they make ME3 and it tanks, they'll take a long hard look and see why it tanked and fix the issue. If they decide the issue was writing, they'll change it. Not enough tits? well DA3 will have a tit judging contest for the main character to arbitrate.

You've done a complete 180. Earlier you said: "Yes you have the right to criticize. Everyone does. My beef is with the people who think because they have an opinion, that it's the only right one and everyone has ot agree and acknowledge it."

Now you're claiming a one right opinion based on the majority, as if that overrules the OP's perspective. You say he has the right to criticize but also want him to shut up because his opinions aren't those of the general fanbase? The OP obviously doesn't think his opinion is objectively the only correct one, but you accuse him of it then use the same thing you argued against as your justification.

Also, you're points are taken to the general, while mine are taken to the specific. I agree with you about blanket statements. I was directly referring to the OP, who very specifically slammed Bioware's writing and their need to "grow up" and have more shades of gray. So my argument was two pronged and I see you very neatly ignored the second part entirely to focus on one point which then gets taken out of context because you don't have the second point.

I haven't been specifying the OP much because before you said "I hate to have to say that cause it sounds like I'm ripping directly into the OP, who actually says in his post he still enjoys them and would prefer more variety." ...which sounded like you weren't directly referring to the OP. But yeah, he would like more shades of gray, he thinks Bioware should step away from the black and white story telling. He's allowed to have that opinion.

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your second point was then. I covered you telling him how to behave, and I covered you using the Bioware fanbase as backup. The only other point you made - where you said you want black and white in a game - was your own personal opinion on the matter, which is totally fine and entirely separate from what we're talking about. We could debate that if you want, though I'm fine with you having that view. What I'm not fine with is you wanting to censor the OP to protect Bioware and shitting on the entire point of subjective debate in the process.

So what's your views on the actual point the OP raised Hobo? Furthermore, how about my counterpoint to the OP's views that people sometimes don't want shade of gray in a release mechanism such as gaming, but black and white. They want Garrus to kill Sidonus or spare him, not have a multi-day group counseling session where they talk about each other feelings and motivations and how their actions impacted the other. If you talk about my second point, the criticism of "don't play if you don't like" becomes extremely valid as you can argue that the whole point of the game is to not have realism, but crazy extremes and if that's the reason for the game, complaining about it and wanting it changed is nothing more than an exercise in either misunderstanding or entitlement.

Personally, I agree with the OP. Though I do enjoy Bioware's games, their stories have gotten tiresome. And I'm fine with other people wanting black and white, I often do too. Just like I'm fine with people wanting shades of gray, because one isn't inherently better than the other. We all have different perspectives, and we're all allowed to voice them, including dissenters. This isn't a greater good argument, it's a discussion about Bioware's trend in storytelling.

You, on the other hand, have this notion that video games have one narrowly objective purpose and should be restrained lest they gain depth, and your evidence is a conceptual group of people to whom you arbitrarily attribute certain beliefs in order to suit your argument. You used the unbelievably vague line "Shades of gray is real life. I get enough real life in well... real life." You realize the OP was referring to Planescape Torment as "shades of gray", right? Lord of the Rings is more "real life" than Planescape Torment, hell Mass Effect is more "real life" than Planescape Torment.

And one cannot just argue "that the whole point of the game is to not have realism, but crazy extremes" any more than one can argue the same for books or movies. What gaming god said unto thee that games are only allowed to be shallow? But regardless, a game's realism has zero to do with the "don't like, don't play" mentality, you literally just put two different concepts in the same sentence and called it an argument.

It's not a misunderstanding because he clearly gets Bioware's style. It's not entitlement because he never says that he personally deserves literal change from Bioware.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

snip

Eh, not every game has to be a super-complex multi-layered political/social drama. Some things are intelligent and well-developed, but based on simplicity and charm for example. Chrono Trigger and Knight of the Old Republic were good for the same reasons, they had a primary simplicity and charm, they had an epic scope.


If you want a more complex multilayered drama, both of them had sequals that served that purpose, and they provide wonderful contrasts to the initial products.


Also, Dragon Age origins, while it had a primary antagonist which was very obviously simplistic, had many multi-faceted and ambiguous decisions throughout the game. It was structured in a mature an interesting way that actually made you think, in spite of a seemingly simplistic endgame.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip for truth

You sir, are absolutely right. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and anyone who says otherwise is a plebeian bottom feeder, and is unworthy of basking in just how correct you are.

Sorry I thought you might need a little positive feedback for saying what needed to be said.

Bioware has never been about story telling, and the Dragon Age games have always been the gold standard for that kind of thing. Origins was a master piece that had the best moral choice system I've ever seen by omitting the "good, neutral, evil" connotations from all the dialog options, and letting you pick what you actually want to pick. The Warden is the best non-defined character in all of videogaming history. And Dragon Age 2 *Despite having the worst Moral choice system in any game ever
[sub]Seriously who at Bioware thought the only way to make a moral choice system better would be to remove the middle ground option and replace it with something that's even farther extreme than good and evil? And by changing the pre choice dialog depending on what you've been picking up to that point just further cements Hawke into which ever personality you picked at the first option making it neigh impossible to change your attitude based on outrageous circumstances and not be thrown out of the experience like you're on a Trebuchet.[/sub]
But assuming it doesn't conflict with your own nature to pick either "good" "ponce" or "evil" for every choice, some of the choices you make actually matter in determining how Hawke actually feels about the deeper political situation in Kirkwal.
[sub]And I'm only talking about the Quanari thing. not the Mage/Templar thing. That's like having a World War 2 game where you can side with the Nazis if you wanted to. it makes me sick.[/sub]

But back to the Story telling.

The way Bioware does stories is bland. The universe/ world is in danger and you are the only one who can stop them is plagiarism from chapter one of the book entitled "How Not to Tell a Story". But there is a good reason Bioware does this.

And NO! it's not because the bland story telling makes the colorful characters "pop" more.
It's because they're lazy they need a goal that is universal enough that any character on the moral spectrum will feel compelled to complete it. and they're lazy.

If you'll indulge me I'll brake this down act by act, attitude by attitude. and explain why Dragon Age 2 was bad, from a storytelling perspective.

Spoiler: Will you indulge?

Act 1 The treasure hunt.
The name of the game in act one is money. It takes money to make money, and you want money because money is money. Simple enough.

Goody-goody: Why do you want money again? to find a place to live? You have a place to live. With your uncle remember? surely a good character wouldn't feel the compulsion to increase their net-worth by any means necessary. Why are we working with this sketchy Dwarf? I appreciate that he stopped that pick pocket but did he really have to shoot him?
If this was a well told story you could have completed Act 1 by getting a job in the city or at the very least finding another residence in Lowtown that you could afford.

Ponce: Well yeah money is money, and I suppose you would like to move up to Hightown just to make the hoity toity feel uncomfortable when you tell bad jokes or streak down the street, or what ever it is your silly ass does in the spare time.

Dick: A chance to get money? Okay, so you're in. But why do you want to move back to Hightown? You'd be surrounded by rich cunts who will look down on you for being a Doglord no matter how much status you have. wouldn't you take this money and use it to wash your hands of this infernal city? and go back to Lothering. Granted you wouldn't know the blight was over until after you got back from the expedition but wouldn't it be enticing?

Act 2: The Quanari
So A bunch of ugly foreigners are offending the racist residents of the city by simply existing and you of all people are the only one who's allowed to talk to them. for some reason.

Mr. Niceguy: It makes sense. You're nice, you won't be abrasive, you'll show respect. you can be trusted to deliver a message. and when all hell breaks loose and they start slaughtering civilians you'll lead the charge against them. Good deal.

Captain Silly Bollocks: Why are you a negotiator? I'm loosing faith in Kirkwals ruling party. Do you even give a crap about what the Quanari are doing? If you go in to talk to the Arishok and open with a joke, your head'll end up on a pike before you get to the punchline.
But when they attack you might be the type to strike back, so it works out in the end.

Douche-bag Jones: Congratulations, you finally meet someone who hates this place as much as you do! Let's team up and paint the town red with the blood of squishy mortals, What do you say? That's your plan all along? Super! Wait why do I have to kill you? No, no seriously I'm on your side? Come on let's join forces and take over this place. I know Isabella stole your book we can go look for her together! I want to gut that ***** my self, You'd make a much better party member than her!!! Act 3 might actually be fun! What? No dice? I have to kill you? I don't know why but okay.

Act 3 Mages vs. Nazis
So in the thrilling conclusion (and I use the words "thrilling" and "conclusion" very loosely) you're forced to choose between siding with the innocent victims of a corrupt power. or curb stomping the little guy while he's down. Or are you?

Saint: So you're siding with the Mages because Meridith has gone bat shit crazy with power and has condemned the every mage in the world to death for the actions of one mage who had a valid point to make. Albeit he made it in a very extreme way. You have to run to the aid of the mages so even more innocents don't get hurt and... Hold the phone? why are the mages trying to kill me? Don't they know I'm on their side and Could easily stop the Templars with their help? Well I guess I'll have to kill them. Alright Meridith the mages are all dead you can stop this now! Oh what? you're going to try to kill me too, so much pointless death, but I guess I'm used to it by this point.

Clown: So a mage walks into a Chantry and blows it up, And a Templar decides it's enough reason to kill every mage in the world. That's not a funny joke? Well, *flips a coin. sides with the mages. They all use blood magic, hypocrites. kill them. Hey Meridith I played double agent like a good little Hawke. can we be friends now? No? alright. Kill her. None of this was very funny.

Satan: What one mage did something bad after years of persecution? All mages must die! None shall survive Adolf Hawke's wrath. They're using Blood magic now! Forcing people into desperate situations to get the justification I needed to make my murders seem just makes Hawke so wet. Alright I did it! I did the Maker's work and removed this blight from his otherwise perfect world. Lets rule with an iron fist Meridith! Huh? You want to kill me too? AhHHH this is the Arishok all over again!!

Act 1 only works if you're a goof, act 2 only works if you're nice and act 3 doesn't work at all.

Bioware writes good characters, so their dialog can be as intricate and free form as they need it to be. Bioware writes crap stories so they need to stick as close to cliche as possible so they don't reveal how bad their writing really is. If they were any good at story writing they could make a free flowing story where the actual situation can be adjusted depending on the personality of the main charter. But that would take a lot of work and Bioware is lazy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Eh, not every game has to be a super-complex multi-layered political/social drama. Some things are intelligent and well-developed, but based on simplicity and charm for example. Chrono Trigger and Knight of the Old Republic were good for the same reasons, they had a primary simplicity and charm, they had an epic scope.

Are we back to this? No, not every game has to be. I'm not yelping about epic storytelling in "The Sims" or "Just Cause 2" or "Left 4 Dead" over here. I'm asking the self-styled masters of the RPG to up their game a little bit, and at least TRY to rival what Black Isle was doing 12 years ago instead of just coasting along on a trite little formula and hanging the interesting bits on the fringes like garlands. "Epic scope" is easy. Any moron can write up "epic scope". And they have. MANY TIMES NOW. Let's have something different from them, shall we?

Bioware writes good characters, so their dialog can be as intricate and free form as they need it to be. Bioware writes crap stories so they need to stick as close to cliche as possible so they don't reveal how bad their writing really is. If they were any good at story writing they could make a free flowing story where the actual situation can be adjusted depending on the personality of the main charter. But that would take a lot of work and Bioware is lazy.

Bioware writes LOVEABLE characters. I'm not sure how "good" they are. Some are pretty strong. Others are extremely basic and styled around extremely commonplace and accessible archetypes. Again there's nothing WRONG with this. It's better than most people do. But they have the budget and personnel and clout to do something more complex and interesting. And there's naught to say it wouldn't sell well, either. George R.R. Martin subverted a lot of fantasy tropes, and was rewarded with one of the most successful fantasy series of all time. There's no rule that says you have to constantly pander to the most common of formulas in order to move boxes.

And no, that's not aimed at you, I just went off on a tangent there.

 

[Mikeyfell]

No, no, no no no no no. If you can´t understand the hidden meaning behind Mass Effect 1 and 2 about society I´m not gonna be the one to explain it. I´ll just say this: you can make a good story out of anything, as MovieBob once said. The big deal is not the actual point of the story (big giant squid robots gonna crush Earth, we stop them bang bang), but the layers of complexity hidden behind the game itself. Almost every Bioware game has this characteristic that makes them one of the best companies in the market in terms of complex storytelling.

Mass Effect's story had the deeply woven integral thread of racism, but the problem is that it was equal prevalent from both sides, and a lot more drastic from the aliens, and yet everyone still looks down on the humans because they represent white people. It could be argued that this is a satire on modern society of minorities "getting back" at white people for years and years of racism, as they fail to realize that it's still racism them selves. But in Mass Effect the "Paragon" options are still Shepard siding with the Aliens, so that goes out the window. Honestly the Illusive Man is the only person in the galaxy who knows what's going on, the only one who figured out that all Shepard's "paragon" actions condemn humanity to an existence of "taken' it" from the aliens, just because they don't like us. Which no one ever refers to as "wrong". You're a worse person if you didn't give the Illusive Man the baby reaper.


That's also not the point that was really being made here.
The problem is that the only thing Bioware has done to make us (The player) want to see Shepard succeed is to put the entire universe in his/her hands alone. That's the big problem with how Bioware tells stories the answer to "Why do I care?" is always "Because everything will get fucked up if you don't." There's no personal motivation involved. It's altruism on so grand a scale that you'd have to see it through to completion even if you picked all the Dickheadest options. Bioware is incapable of delivering a personal narrative with out railroading the serious choices into one way situations (Why Dragon Age 2 sucked)

And you know what? If you are in such a big previligied position to insult professional writers and everyone that appreciates their stories and maybe the stories' actual meaning, write something yourself. And I´m not talking about a summary of the plot or some text saying "you´ll have epic decisions like (random case most likely Good 'r Evil cliché)", I´m talking about a great complex story. And you don´t have to show it to me, just go on and try to publish it. Let´s see how good it will go.

Do you mean write a better version of a Bioware story? or just a novel? The thing about game stories like that is that they have to have such a broad goal so the protagonist's personality doesn't interfere with completion. Any Bioware stile game has to have a bad story unless it gets narrowed down to a more personal objective, then in that case every action you choose will have to effect the every subsequent choice you make.
Take Dragon Age 2 for example. If your Hawke's personality made it so he didn't care about getting out of Lowtown why did you even go on the expedition in the first place?
If Hawke wanted to side with the Arishok why did you have to kill him?
And in Act 3 no matter who sides with what you have to kill the mages and the templars. The story is a mess. None of that had to happen depending on how you played. but it didn't matter.
Lots of work for a good story with a customizable protagonist, less work for a bad story with a customizable protagonist. If you don't have to account for the choices of the players you could write a masterpiece (relatively) easily.

 

[Mikeyfell]

oops double post.