Gaider on "Quality"

[Jed]

Saw this on nwn.ign.com, and couldn't resist.

Visceral Doom : A game I would make would have: Multiple beginnings based on character creation choices and background. Multi-tiered story path using a branching matrix campaign style. Multiple endings based on character choices and story path that was taken. I would also make sure the CORE story/adventure would be at least 40 hours long.

Oh, good Lord. Sorry, Visceris, but this betrays levels of cluelessness that I really had not suspected. There are limitations that one must deal with when a project begins... you can't just breeze about and go "Oh, I think I'd like to have multiple endings today! Lots of them!" and then pout when someone tells you it can't be done. What are you going to do? Throw something at them and say "You're not committed to quality!"?

Of course they're committed to quality. We all are. But you work with what you have. You put out the best based on the resources available. Pre-rendered movies are expensive... one can't always have more than one or two in a game. Multiple beginnings, endings and paths? Hey, there's a reason why this isn't done to the degree you're implying: time is limited, too. And making branching story paths doesn't always add value... most people are only going to play the game once. They won't care that they could have done the last plot fifteen different ways. They will, however, care that the plot's done and their game's over and only lasted three hours.

And you want to do all this and limit your audience to begin with? This is somehow supposed to give you more resources and not less? What world do you live in, exactly? Making a game is all about working around technical limitations and limited resources. As a fan, you're not required to think about those at all, naturally... you can just say you want what you want because you want it and it doesn't really have to be at all reasonable. You can even select various titles that have been released and pick and choose the particular things that made them great while ignoring the things they had to compromise on (because it's always a balance... do you really want to discuss the parts of Planescape: Torment and Fallout that were compromises... compromises other games didn't make... or continue to blithely ignore them?) and come up with an image of a Perfect Game that combines all the good elements without any of the compromises.

No, that's fine. That's what fans do and we expect it. Don't, however, say how you're going to come over to our side and do it better. Because even the most starry-eyed developer who owns his own company and can make his own decisions about the kind of game he wants to do still has to deal with these things. Fair enough? I trust I've made my point. You may back-pedal now if you wish and go back to the "I just want quality", but there's a big difference between saying what you want and saying what you would make in my world.

...or just wait for the fans to do all these things so you can incorporate it for your expansions. Free labor rul3z0rz!

 

[Araanor]

Gaider, defending half-ass design since 1998.

The fact that he's arguing with Visceris is itself pretty funny.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Funny how many developers with less resources than ol' Dave manage to pull it off. But then he thought 8 man-months for an expansion's entire campaign was a lot.

 

[Vault Dweller]

do you really want to discuss the parts of Planescape: Torment and Fallout that were compromises... compromises other games didn't make...

What compromises? The lack of dragons? The lack of directions as in visit every city and bring me 4 items from each?

Overall, what a lame speech! He really should get his head out of his ass and look around. "Most people play the game once" - especially if it's a garbage like NWN OC.

 

[Voss]

OK, here's the thing- I'm sure there were compromises on Fallout and Planescape. With multiple people working on the same thing, marketing departments making demands, etc... there *have* to be compromises. Its in the nature of the process.

But Fallout and Planescape managed to be good games despite them. Thats the trick.

Some guy spending 15 years in his parents basement can probably make a game without any compromises whatsoever. But he'll probably be the only person who will want to play it.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Interestingly enough, Visceris is decribing what Troika is doing with only 18 months time on Temple of Elemental Evil, almost to a "T". Meanwhile, Gaider is defending BioWare saying they can't do that because of time, when all of their games have had at least two years, more time, more people, and more money dumped in to them.

If you want the punchline to Gaider's little rant, there it is.

If you want to further laugh at Gaider's rant, just look at what Jeff Vogel does in a year's time.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Where did this happened? In a forum or online IRC chat, then posted onto a site? I got this urge to present Gaider to the ridiculesness of some statements there...

 

[Psilon]

It happened over at the BioWare forums, which have all the official developer posts copied at NWVault.

 

[Volourn]

You people do realize that even the Gaming God Cain has discussed compromises having to be mad eebfore when developing games ebfore. This really shouldn't be too shocking. Then again, this is Gaider posting so twisting his words to mean something they don't is a fun pasttime here. That is cool.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

What twisting? His words are pretty damning on their own. It's not that he uses the word compromise, it's what he thinks that rules out.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Infidel! How dare you to drag the name of the Gaming God Cain into a trivial discussion! :D

Then again, this is Gaider posting so twisting his words to mean something they don't is a fun pasttime here

Did the art of reading comprehension escape you completely? Do you not find the things Gaider speaks of absolutely ridiculous? Allow me to iilustrate:

There are limitations that one must deal with when a project begins... you can't just breeze about and go "Oh, I think I'd like to have multiple endings today! Lots of them!" and then pout when someone tells you it can't be done.

Do you think this statement is logical? Do you think that multiple beginnings and endings are impossible to do or design? Of course, if you ask for them in the middle of a project that is about travelling from point A to point B, it's likely that the answer would be no. If you plan these features or any other features for that matter in advance during the design stage, it would not be such a big deal.

But you work with what you have. You put out the best based on the resources available

He sounds like a guy who designs games with 2-3 people team in his garage, working after hours with a budget of 500 dollars. Unfortunately Bioware is a bit bigger then that, so his statement either reflects his inability to manage resources or complete cluelessness or both. Likely both.

And making branching story paths doesn't always add value... most people are only going to play the game once

This is good, this is really good. Hey, Gaider, guess what, here is an idea, there are many people who never finish a game, so let's design only half a game, 'cause you know time is valuable, resources don't grow on trees, and it's better to make a good half-a-game then a lame full game.

They will, however, care that the plot's done and their game's over and only lasted three hours.

Volourn, as the First Acolyte of the Church of Bioware, can you explain me what the hell he's talking about. I don't want to make a guess and twist his words accidentally.

do you really want to discuss the parts of Planescape: Torment and Fallout that were compromises... compromises other games didn't make

I'd like to know what compromises Fallout had that other games (like NWN I presume) didn't make. I'm about to twist his words again, but don't you think that his reference to Fallout was a bit negative? A reference that wasn't made in a response to a question directly mentioning Fallout?

 

[Walks with the Snails]

But you work with what you have. You put out the best based on the resources available

He sounds like a guy who designs games with 2-3 people team in his garage, working after hours with a budget of 500 dollars. Unfortunately Bioware is a bit bigger then that, so his statement either reflects his inability to manage resources or complete cluelessness or both. Likely both.

Or my vote, they're just lazy.

And making branching story paths doesn't always add value... most people are only going to play the game once

This is good, this is really good. Hey, Gaider, guess what, here is an idea, there are many people who never finish a game, so let's design only half a game, 'cause you know time is valuable, resources don't grow on trees, and it's better to make a good half-a-game then a lame full game.

He's way ahead of you, dude. http://nwn.bioware.com/shadows/

 

[Volourn]

Are you saying there were no compromises made when making Fallout? I think there. For starters, the joinable npcs are not fleshed out at all. It is also pretty short. See, compromise.

As for him mnetioning Fallout wihout being diretcly aske dabout it... we... if you were to post on the BIO boards even infrequently you would know that Visc likes to bring up Fallout a lot, and constantly mentions Fallout with its multiple endings. Basically, Gaider was using what Visceris had told them. Quite frankly, Gaider wa snot isnulting Fallout; he wa sjust saying that like all games, compromises had to be made for it to be as non linear as it was. Stop pretending, otherwise. However, for everybody on this board INCLUDING myself, those 'compromises' were worth it in the case of Fallout. To me, the compromises made in PST did not help it (even though I still like PST).

Just like the decision to go multiplayer, and have a toolset did compromise the NWN OC.

The bottom line is that every game has compromises that have to be made. This is undeniable, and has been shared by every game developer who has every posted in response to fans' concerns.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

Interestingly enough, Visceris is decribing what Troika is doing with only 18 months time on Temple of Elemental Evil, almost to a "T". Meanwhile, Gaider is defending BioWare saying they can't do that because of time, when all of their games have had at least two years, more time, more people, and more money dumped in to them.

yup that is what caught my attention. What is so grating to me about his response is...well plenty. He doesn't think multiple paths thru a game make it better - I think this statement so wrong as to be surrealistic. Multiple endings/beginnings can't be done?!
If someone said that then yes I would have to conclude that they are not committed to quality.
I agree with Walks...it is not so much that he suggests that compromises have to be made in any game (I think we all realize this) it is what those compromises are that matter. For example, I don't consider the exclusion of jump and climb in ToEE as too much of a compromise; I consider the design philosophy that "people don't replay games so why make them replayable?" a fairly serious compromise.

But apparently he would love to have a shitload of pre-rendered movies - oh sure that makes an RPG so much better than branching story paths.

I don't know *anyone* who only played FO once (assuming they liked it in the first place). Sweet jebus, I replay good games all the time - I'm pretty sure lots of other folks do too.

I was never all that anti-Bio, but I am getting there.

What a wanker.

 

[Volourn]

He never said that that multiple paths through a game doens't make a game better. Al he said is that ti doens't always add value. That is true. I go by PST. PST feels exactly like the saem game to me no matter hwo I play it which is why even though I like the game; I only played it to completion once.

Fallout is an example of where multiple paths DO add values as evinced by the fact I've played it three times through. And, he never said multiple endings/beginnings can't be done. People sure like to misread things.

 

[Jed]

People sure like to misread things.

Yeah, like the fact that no one here was saying that good games don't compromise, but that it is the compromises made that qualify a game as good or bad.

 

[Volourn]

I guess you misread again. Some people are stating that Gaider thinks that multiple paths doesn't add value to the game when he actually said that it doesn't ALWAYS add value to the game. That's what happens when people misread.

I agree basically what you said, and if I were to hazard a guss; I'd bet that Gaider agrees with you too.

 

[Spazmo]

Who the fuck cares if it doesn't always add to value? Given the time, money and resources BioWare has to work with, they have no excuse for making such linear tripe. Gaider, as is the norm for BioWare developers ("NON-LINEARITY MEANS EXPONENTIALLY MORE DESIGN WORK!!!"), is full of shit.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

He never said that that multiple paths through a game doens't make a game better. Al he said is that ti doens't always add value. That is true. I go by PST. PST feels exactly like the saem game to me no matter hwo I play it which is why even though I like the game; I only played it to completion once.

Fallout is an example of where multiple paths DO add values as evinced by the fact I've played it three times through. And, he never said multiple endings/beginnings can't be done. People sure like to misread things.

You are right my bad - he didn't say that multiple beginnings/endings can't be done. However he does imply that if someone said that it would be kneejerk to reply "you don't care about quality". My point, admittedly poorly made, was that retort might not be kneejerk but warranted.

I never really considered PS:T as having multiple paths, so excluding that as an example can you name a game that had legitimate branching storylines/paths wherein it did not improve the quality of the game? I am not suggesting that every game include this as a feature, but I have yet to see it implemented where it did not materially improve the game.

 

[Jed]

I guess you misread again. Some people are stating that Gaider thinks that multiple paths doesn't add value to the game when he actually said that it doesn't ALWAYS add value to the game.

No one here is reading that any differently than you, it's just hard to take at face value since Gaider's never made a game with multiple paths!

Who the fuck cares if it doesn't always add to value? Given the time, money and resources BioWare has to work with, they have no excuse for making such linear tripe. Gaider, as is the norm for BioWare developers ("NON-LINEARITY MEANS EXPONENTIALLY MORE DESIGN WORK!!!"), is full of shit.

And when the design work is so minimal to begin with, how much more time would "exponential" actually add anyway?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Gaider, as is the norm for BioWare developers ("NON-LINEARITY MEANS EXPONENTIALLY MORE DESIGN WORK!!!"), is full of shit.

Which explains why he doesn't have any space for brains left

 

[Volourn]

Tuvok: Hmmm.. Other than PST? Hmm.. To be honest, other than that game; there's TOB which has multiple endings/paths which while I like TOB; I'd be the first to say the multiple endings don't add much value to me. Though; others swear by them. MW has presumably multiple paths; but if it adds value I wouldn't know since I couldn't stand playing the game more than four hours, anyways.

The FO series si probably the best example of multiple paths/endings adding LOTS of value to a agme. Without these, I really can't say it would have been anymore than average; if that. FO is the premium of multiple paths.

 

[Spazmo]

There are all of three TOB engings and the only thing that affects them is a handful of extremely superficial and obvious dialog options along the way to godhood. Of course, for David Gaider, that's probably incredibly immersive gameplay and I'm sure it tripled the length of the Throne of Bhaal development cycle

 

[Jed]

I didn't even remember ToB having those. Much like the Deus Ex scenario, though, all you get is multiple endings, not paths--a vast difference. That just means a couple more pre-rendered movies, Dave!

 

[Sol Invictus]

What most people don't get about BG2/TOB is the fact that it didn't feature multiple paths. It featured multiple ending scenes. Dissapointing - to be certain. I was, for a moment, happy that the early part of Baldur's Gate 2 offered two choices (the Thieves Guild or Bodhi) but when I replayed the game, I soon discovered that the choices didn't make the least bit of difference, aside from the rewards.

That isn't what I'd call quality design. Quality design is, for example - betraying Morte to the Pillar of Skulls, or forgiving Trias and subsequently having the Mercykiller execute him for his sins if you have him around in your party. Likewise, most people didn't even find out about Nordom, and I myself did not even venture through the Player's Maze because I did not want to cross the Lady of Pain the first time I played through the game. That's quality replayability. Simply deciding not to do a certain quest in Baldur's Gate 2, on the other hand because you 'choose not to' isn't a very compelling decision. Deciding not to engage the wrath of the Lady of Pain, on the other hand, is.

As I see it, David Gaider has no excuse - other than laziness. Don't get me wrong, I reall enjoyed Baldur's Gate for what it was, but in comparison to Planescape Torment, Geneforge and Fallout, it was severely lacklustre.