Company News Bioware pop quiz at XBN

[Volourn]

1. Sorry. As we all are well aware the vast majority of reviewers are etarded so we all know we can't take what they say seriously so no dice. Pooe xamples. Why would asnyone take what theyw rite seriously. In fact, I use Exhibit A: Most of the mainstream audience probably doens't even read these gaming sites - even the well known Gamespot. They go into the store, see a boxed game that looks 'cool' and asks the cashier what they think of it then make their decision. Or they hear from their friends who are "hardcore" gamers. So, please, try again. :D

P.S. Good links that would *normally* prove your point; but alas shinkered again.

2. See my post above.

3. Yeha, the reasons are: Poor advertising 2. Came out when rpgs weren't doing so well 3. Mixed bag (I loved it; but even Troika geeklings had lots of complaints about it). Don't blame the 'morons" for those games' misfortunes, bad luck, or stupdiity.

4. No one; but it seems those are the only options you think count. That is error.

5.Irrelevant.

6. However, the chocies do change things. If you say the dream choie doens't change anything then you are wacked, if you think the Hell changed doesn't change anything you are wacked, if you think the Red dragon quest choices don't change anything you are also wacked.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As we all are well aware the vast majority of reviewers are etarded so we all know we can't take what they say seriously so no dice.

Dice! My point was that morons were turned off by ToEE "complexity". There are two factors here: their own experience and "respected" opinions of game sites. So, first, most of the reviewers mentioned the complexity making casual gamers believe that they have no chance to figure that out on their own, and second, if the reviewers - people who play games a lot and claim to be PnP players, had problems with TOEE, then it's reasonable to assume that for everybody else the game was like a puzzle.

Why would asnyone take what theyw rite seriously.

That I do not know, just like I can't figure out what kinda morons are influenced by 99% of TV commercials. One of the mysteries of life, I guess.

In fact, I use Exhibit A: Most of the mainstream audience probably doens't even read these gaming sites - even the well known Gamespot.

Is that a fact? It's like saying that advertisement doesn't work. In your own words, please try again

Poor advertising

True, that's contributed, but wasn't an important factor, imo. The term "sleeper hit" indirectly proves that.

Came out when rpgs weren't doing so well

That's why Fallout, Diablo, and BG tanked so bad.

Don't blame the 'morons" for those games' misfortunes, bad luck, or stupdiity.

I'm a man of science, I need to blame somebody

No one; but it seems those are the only options you think count. That is error.

Well, that was my opinion, I could be mistaken, but so far I see nothing in your arguments to prove that.

However, the chocies do change things. If you say the dream choie doens't change anything then you are wacked, if you think the Hell changed doesn't change anything you are wacked, if you think the Red dragon quest choices don't change anything you are also wacked.

I'm wacked then. Now that we have established that, can you explain what are they changing, affecting, or whatever it is that they do. I mean, it's obvious that I don't see what you see, so show me.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Hence why i said there were choices, albeit with less significance than those of other games.

 

[Spazmo]

That's stupid. Most of those "choices" amount to "do sidequest" or "do not do sidequest." It's within the sidequests that choice is lacking. That said, I must compliment BioWare on their ability to cram tons and tons of shit into BG2 without it ever getting old--it makes for lots of enjoyable content and a hefty bit of replay value. There are the odd choices here and there (for instance, the Trademeet Tomb quest where you can give the thingamabob to three different people for three different reasons), but simply not enough to provide meaningful role playing and far too few main plot decisions.

 

[Rosh]

Okay, if you do work in the industry, why aren't you more specific? It'd add a lot more weight to your comments (without which it currently sounds like 100%, grade-A BS).

I like for them to stand on their own weight, however inable some are to understand them.

Linking to a dictionary site's entry for context gives me the impression that you agree with my comment that being polite isn't ass-kissing and that you use different forms of language to express different things in different situations. If you don't agree, perhaps you can be a little less obtuse.

Perhaps it means you need to learn how to read in context. Try again.

Ah, so people are PO'd that GZ's negative comments are for the same things which you attribute to BioWare's games.

Mentioning that they are ironic is hardly worth the quantification of "pissed off". Maybe you need to work on the perspective and actually read the conversation rather than jump halfway in with sound bites and assumptions. It's rather obvious, especially in how you fail to read in context.

Speaking of irony, for those a little unable to get it, I will put it into simple terms.

GZ makes a comment about DX2.
The comment can ironically be applied to most BioWare games.
Nomad assumed they could read sufficiently without bothering to think about context, missing the slang meaning of "tipped off", which would infer laugher, which is a common result of irony.

I guess it's a matter of degrees. I haven't played DX2, but I don't recall feeling _too_ terribly constrained in NWN or SW. Yes, I did feel like I was on rails as far as the main plot was concerned, but there was enough freedom (for me) in the side-quests.

Again, I will use the parallel of "If it's the first in the genre you've played, that doesn't mean it's the best or anywhere near today's standards."

Of course, I don't generally re-play RPGs anyway, so the lack of an evil path or different paths for different kinds of characters is not obvious to me and has no bearing on how much I enjoy a game.

Might I suggest books? They sound like a very economically wise decision for you to consider.

I really don't see anything wrong with the other quote you mention. They don't say that they _always_ innovate in every way on every game or that JE is the first RPG to have a real-time fighting system. They say that they try to push the boundaries in their games and that JE will _have_ a real-time combat system.

Have you ever had the feeling you've said something and said the entire point in the last sentence, then wonder why people look at you as if you shat yourself when you still seem like you can't understand it?

I never said that games that sell more copies are better.

Neither did I imply that.

\You're the one that started the whole "If it wasn't for D&D BioWare..." comment. I'm simply saying that it's more than the license or else Troika would have sold more copies of ToEE.

I think I already pointed out what it was. Try to read better next time. Wait, no, go back and read the entire thread and if you still have some confusion or you think the same after trying to learn how to read in context, just close the browser.

The fact that you're saying timing was also a factor proves my point. BioWare was able to capitalize on their opportunities (license, timing and product) - and that's wrong because...?

Again, you're good at setting up the pieces, but not too good at playing the game. Therefore, your train of thought still remains at the boarding station. Context.

@ToEE/BioWare:
ToEE was D&D. The funny thing is that a lot of D&D munchkins don't even like to play D&D, and I can say that from the experience of a competition DM. This is especially obvious in how the core game has been steadily tooled to cater to these powergaming kids. BioWare work isn't D&D, but rather some flavored amalgam that panders to the lacking attention spans of crack children.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Volourn: Posting to say that ToEE is a turn-based D&D game that implements a far larger amount of 3E/3.5 combat rules than any other game. Can you give me examples of games that are more "hardcore" than ToEE?

I like for them to stand on their own weight, however inable some are to understand them.

Props.

EDIT: o hay i have a new avatar lol

 

[Volourn]

I've never argued that TOEE had the most D&D rules implemented, and more accurately than any other D&D game made. I haven't disputed that. That's pretty much a fact.

As for more "hardcore"; that depends on your definition. If you say ahrecore emans most accurate to the rules than it's TOEE; but when i think hardcore; I think of challenging games in every way possible (combat, puzzles, more than a basic simple story, et.cetc.).

As for examples of games more 'hardcore" than TOEE: FO series, BG series, Arcanum, NWN, PST (not counting th combat which was a tad too easy), so, on and so forth.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Volourn: Posting to say that ToEE is a turn-based D&D game that implements a far larger amount of 3E/3.5 combat rules than any other game. Can you give me examples of games that are more "hardcore" than ToEE?

Eye of the Beholder had Climbing. :D

EDIT: o hay i have a new avatar lol

We're fast on a few things.

PS. Bumped in to Romero yet in the halls?

 

[Whipporowill]

Hillsfar had horse riding. Ehum.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Eye of the Beholder had Climbing. :D

And mounts. EDIT: Beaten. Also, active lockpicking.

PS. Bumped in to Romero yet in the halls?

He's my boss, in the office right next to me.

 

[Spazmo]

Will Gauntlet 3000: The Phantom Menace have ridable mounts and climbing?

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

As for more "hardcore"; that depends on your definition.

I say it means intentionally catering to a smaller audience and knowingly having a difficult learning curve.

 

[Volourn]

Wouldn't that, by definition, be those games rated Adult or Mature ala Fallout, and its ilk when it comes to cateirng to smaller audiences?

And, I don't think TOEE had that difficult of a learning curve. At least no more than any other game I've played.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Wouldn't that, by definition, be those games rated Adult or Mature ala Fallout, and its ilk when it comes to cateirng to smaller audiences?

Fallout, yes. A game like BMXXX, no. A game like GTA3, no.

And, I don't think TOEE had that difficult of a learning curve. At least no more than any other game I've played.

There are many more rules to understand and remember in ToEE than, say, Baldur's Gate. Attacks of Opportunity alone accomplish that.

 

[Sheriff05]

[There are many more rules to understand and remember in ToEE than, say, Baldur's Gate. Attacks of Opportunity alone accomplish that.

Both games were designed for D&D fans not friggin Deer Hunter Fans, yeah those automated AoO's were sooooo tough to figure out in ToEE

 

[Volourn]

More rules don't mean more difficult. The learning curve itself for TOEE isn't that dififcult. It just means more - relatively simple - rules to learn which are expalined quite clearly multiple time in the rule book and in game.

What i mean is this: One can start a game of TOEE without reading any of the manual and play it and complete it. Thinsg will be made more challenging but the game itsle fisn't that overly complex. Knowing the rules just makes the game easier. Same as Bg and the rest.

TOEE's one claim to fame when it comes to 'hardcore' talk are the amount of rules; but like I said it takes more than sheer volume of rules to make a game truly hardcore, imo. If we're talking rules wise; then yes TOEE is as hardcore as they come with only a few games matching it or at last within the same range - those being ones like NWN or FO or I'm sure strategy/tatical games that I haven't played so can't comment on.

Why not BMXXX, or GTA3? Because they tnd to cater to those who love a 'lower class' of entertainment? They still have a narrowed audeicne due to their Mature rtaings. Of cours,e under ager still paly them; but then again, how many people were underage who also bought and played FO. I doubt the numbers are any different.


edit: heh, Sherriff said what i was thinking. people who cna't figure out what AOO are quickly need help - espciially sicne its in game focused on D&D geeks.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Both games were designed for D&D fans not friggin Deer Hunter Fans, yeah those automated AoO's were sooooo tough to figure out in ToEE

I guess I was going out on a limb, then, and assuming that players would want to understand what actions provoke an AoO and how the system works in general. Sometimes, moving around an enemy provokes an AoO. Sometimes, it doesn't. Understanding how those rules work is very beneficial to the player.

 

[Whipporowill]

Just because you could play ToEE without reading (or knowing) the rules, doesn't mean you don't benefit from knowing them. My first few battles I just walked into attack range and hacked away - then I realized I could charge. Whoaaa, that changed quite a bit.

And Volourn. Hardcore usually implies that it caters to a certain market of dedicated fans. The Fallout fans are such a group of "purists", and the D&D rules lawyers would be another. Then there's the hardcore RT fans and so on. I wouldn't call a GTA player hardcore, unless he basically only plays those games and measures everything by it. And it's not like GTA was anything special really... it just lets you loose in a big sandbox.

Enough of that insane mumbling now, sheesh.

 

[Sheriff05]

I guess I was going out on a limb, then, and assuming that players would want to understand what actions provoke an AoO and how the system works in general. Sometimes, moving around an enemy provokes an AoO. Sometimes, it doesn't. Understanding how those rules work is very beneficial to the player.

I was just getting the feeling your trying to imply that it's neccesary to "dumb the rules down" to attract more of an audience. It should be pretty clear thats the fastest way to trainwreck a franchise. I know Bioware did it somewhat successfully with NWN, but they have built their fanbase through "brand" loyalty as opposed to "product" loyalty.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

PS. Bumped in to Romero yet in the halls?

He's my boss, in the office right next to me.

Holy crap. I'm stunned. Seems like a nice guy, but is he better at managing people these days? More importantly, did he grow his hair back? And have you played Doom 2 deathmatch with him yet?

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

More rules don't mean more difficult. The learning curve itself for TOEE isn't that dififcult. It just means more - relatively simple - rules to learn which are expalined quite clearly multiple time in the rule book and in game.

Meaning the time that it will take to understand everything going on will be longer. Even if you abstract rules into unrealistic units of time like 3 minutes of gameplay, more rules = more time.

What i mean is this: One can start a game of TOEE without reading any of the manual and play it and complete it. Thinsg will be made more challenging but the game itsle fisn't that overly complex. Knowing the rules just makes the game easier. Same as Bg and the rest.

I can pick up Quake and play it without reading a manual and complete it. I can do the same with ToEE. Does that mean they both have equal learning curves?

TOEE's one claim to fame when it comes to 'hardcore' talk are the amount of rules;

And the fact that it was a turn-based RPG. It's a niche within a niche market.

Why not BMXXX, or GTA3? Because they tnd to cater to those who love a 'lower class' of entertainment?

Those games have extremely shallow learning curves and are in a genre (action) where moderate successes are far more common. RPGs generally are either blockbusters or sit near the low end of the spectrum.

RPGs are still considered a relatively niche market compared to action games (first person or otherwise). Making a game turn-based within that niche limits you even more. Take the average person and sit them down with Fallout and GTA3. They are going to "get" GTA3 far more quickly than Fallout. I have seen RPG virgins pick up a game like Icewind Dale and stumble through it. I have not seen an RPG virgin do the same thing with ToEE. In fact, I've seen people moderately familiar with RPGs pick up ToEE and be thoroughly confused by it.

You might write these people off as idiots. Well, I hate to break it to you, but you don't have to present a Mensa card when purchasing a game.

edit: heh, Sherriff said what i was thinking. people who cna't figure out what AOO are quickly need help - espciially sicne its in game focused on D&D geeks.

How long did it take you to realize that drinking a potion was not provoking AoOs as it was supposed to?

Baldur's Gate was also a game theoretically oriented towards D&D geeks. I have yet to see more than a tiny handful of people comment on the complete absence of 80% of all racial modifiers in that game -- or on things that were just blatantly wrong. The Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters did nothing differently against shapeshifters. The people who don't notice these things are supposed to have the keen minds to intuit how AoOs work?

 

[Sheriff05]

How long did it take you to realize that drinking a potion was not provoking AoOs as it was supposed to?

Not long it became irritating very quickly, As far as I've read this was a bug,
are you saying this was intentional?

Baldur's Gate was also a game theoretically oriented towards D&D geeks. I have yet to see more than a tiny handful of people comment on the complete absence of 80% of all racial modifiers in that game -- or on things that were just blatantly wrong. The Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters did nothing differently against shapeshifters. The people who don't notice these things are supposed to have the keen minds to intuit how AoOs work?

I remember the old "council of six" BG2 boards quite differently also as NWN was being developed countless regulars lobbied for a better and strict adherence to the ruleset.

and "theoretically'- WTF?

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

I was just getting the feeling your trying to imply that it's neccesary to "dumb the rules down" to attract more of an audience. It should be pretty clear thats the fastest way to trainwreck a franchise. I know Bioware did it somewhat successfully with NWN, but they have built their fanbase through "brand" loyalty as opposed to "product" loyalty.

An established franchise? Sure, that can be bad for an established franchise. However, that assumes that a healthy amount of people liked the game to begin with. If you make Abomination: The Game and it sells 10,000 units and averages D+ reviews from gamers, modifying that franchise (assuming you even want to use it again) isn't a bad idea.

However, even with an established franchise, there are things you can do to improve the series and draw in new players. You just have to walk a fine line between keeping an audience in mind and pandering to an audience. Ultimately, in many cases, you want to keep elements that the veterans (lol) view as fundamental to the game and remove things that 1) are not and b) keep other people from wanting to play it.

 

[Sheriff05]

However, even with an established franchise, there are things you can do to improve the series and draw in new players. You just have to walk a fine line between keeping an audience in mind and pandering to an audience. Ultimately, in many cases, you want to keep elements that the veterans (lol) view as fundamental to the game and remove things that 1) are not and b) keep other people from wanting to play it.

Fair enough, but I would argue it's better to bring in new players by bringing them around to *your way of thinking* instead of catering to theirs or making design concessions based on industry "trends" . You want people to willingly join your team because they think they are getting *in* on something special. If you simply bend over in the effort to make something *easier* or make "everyone" happy (which you know you can't) your really only making your core fanbase feel stupid and your shooting yourself in the foot.I sure you see how screwing with the Fallout franchise was a disaster. A fine line indeed.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Not long it became irritating very quickly, As far as I've read this was a bug,
are you saying this was intentional?

No, not at all. But it took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on. There was what was written in the book, and what was happening in the game. When it happened, I had to start keeping track of who had provoked an AoO earlier in the round -- or was it last round. In short, I had to monitor the context of what was happening to finally come to the conclusion that it was a bug.

And, I mean, frankly, even among the people that I play/played pen and paper D&D with, I am one of the very few people who can remember all of the various actions and how they provoke AoOs. The general idea of AoOs is simple, but all of the conditions that surround it are a lot of little details to remember.

I remember the old "council of six" BG2 boards quite differently also as NWN was being developed countless regulars lobbied for a better and strict adherence to the ruleset.

No, not countless. Definitely less than 100. Probably less than 50. Certainly a minute fraction of the number of people who bought the game and played it.

and "theoretically'- WTF?

Almost no racial bonuses. A strange and limited selection of multiclassing options. Game effects that simply didn't do what they were supposed to do.

I think the first time I took Xan into my party to deal with the sirens up the coast, I felt pretty cool. After all, I had an elf enchanter in my party. Charm effects? Forget about 'em! The first time I came face-to-face with the sirens, BAM, Xan charmed. Huh. Must have been an unlucky roll to get by that 90% resistance to sleep and charm. Again. BAM. Charmed. BAM. Charmed. Over and over again. No Wisdom modifiers to my save, either. Geez, dwarves didn't even get their proper poison and magic bonuses, much less AC bonuses against giants. Knowing AD&D rules was actually a detriment to me when playing the game.