Bioware's Shortcomings.

[Soviet Heavy]

I am not going to deny that Bioware is a great studio. They made my favorite Star Wars game ever, and that places them high on my list of priority developers.

But that doesn't mean that I am not concerned with a few of their recent design choices.
In particular, I want to talk about some of the shortcomings in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games.

Warning, this could be a little long.

1. Lack of a Clear Villain
Mass Effect 1 steers clear of this with the excellent Saren, but Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age both suffer from this to an extent. Like the Shamus Young article, Mass Effect 2's story goes sideways instead of forwards. The threat of the Reapers and the Collectors is barely evident, except when the game decides to push the story forward.

The Collectors, being the main enemy of the game, should get more screen time, and a much larger presence. If you were to put someone into a random area of ME2 without giving them any indication of the plot, they would assume that the main enemy was some sort of gang syndicate. The huge emphasis on the characters over the plot itself leaves the main goal of the game seriously disjointed. The side plots only advance the story for your companions, but gameplay wise give you nothing other than a boost to their survivability.

Dragon Age also suffers from this. With the threat of the Blight bearing down on the land, you'd think that the Darkspawn would be a bit more omnipotent than what you actually get. I know that the game's focus is on uniting the alliances against the Darkspawn, but each of the groups is dealing with an issue entirely independent of the invasion. This leaves the Darkspawn on the short end of the stick villain wise, since they get little screen time as genuine threats as a whole compared to the other issues plaguing your targets.

The strength of Knights of the Old Republic came from the Sith being the major enemy, in plain sight, and actively working against you. They were everywhere in the game, and even the simple random encounters with Dark Jedi hit squads made it seem like they were gunning for you, giving a sense of threat and urgency to the plot. Darth Malak was front and center, either as the evil overlord or as an enemy combatant. His presence gave the Sith a weight.

2. Lazy Story Structure
This is a holdover from Knights of the Old Republic. You get your tutorial world, your jumping off point, and then three or so locations to head to and complete in any order. After one or two main plots, story bump. Back when KOTOR did this, it was a nice and fresh take on the genre, replacing the linear progression with a more open feel. But then it has been replicated in every single Bioware game since. It is easy to draw comparisons with KOTOR for a few of the games.

Mass Effect 1: Eden Prime (Endar Spire), Citadel (Taris + Dantooine), Therum+Noveria+Feros+ Virmire (Tatooine Manaan Kashyyyk Korriban) Locked down on Citadel (Leviathan capture), Ilos (Rakata Prime), Citadel Attack (Star Forge)

Dragon Age: Origins: Origin Sotry (Endar Spire + Taris), Ostagar + Wilds (Dantooine), Orzammar+Brecillian Forest+Redcliffe+Circle Mages (Tatooine+Kashyyyk+Manaan+Korriban), Landsmeet (Leviathan) Redcliffe+Denerim (Rakata Prime+Star Forge)

Mass Effect 2 averts this by going sideways, and ignoring basic plot structure, but there are still a few elements. Every two or three recruitments, a story event pops up, and these can each be applied in the same method as the above two examples.

While it isn't inherently a bad formula, it is getting rather boring. Every one of their games is just rehashing the basic plot structure of KOTOR, but none of them are pulling it off quite as well. First time's the charm I guess.

3. Dialogue Limitations
Both Mass Effect games have made stutters with their dialogue systems, as well as Dragon Age.

The first Mass Effect suffered from limiting choices based off of your charm stat, which limited your options to an extent. It was sort of like the persuade option from KOTOR, except that instead of offering new dialogue like the persuade stat, it instead limited your available stats.

Mass Effect 2 removed this, but went too far in the other direction. In a game where choice is such a major factor, the new system is actually pretty limited. Dialogue options are now linked to Paragon and Renegade scores. This might work in theory, but not always in gameplay. First off, if you want everyone to survive, you are pretty much forced to choose one or the other, leaving no room for middle ground. Second, a player's perspective on Paragon or Renegade choices don't always match up with the developers ideas. Renegade play emphasizes badassery, but a number of choices that it offers are just stupid. Killing people for the fun of it, instead of exploiting them for a net gain is one of the limitations of this.

The other problem is that, with emphasis on Paragon or Renegade scores affecting your dialogue, this leaves the middle ground very uninteresting. There is no incentive to go for the neutral route, because it will just hamper you in the long run. Why even bother making these options available if you get nothing out of them?

Dragon Age takes a better approach. Paragon and Renegade are gone, and replaced with Approval. This system allows for far more options to choose from during missions and quests. You can play pretty much however you want to. Until you get to your companions at camp, where it all falls apart.

If you choose to disagree with your companions, it hinders you. You don't get their stat bonuses, side missions remain locked, and you run the risk of them abandoning you, leaving your party short. So, in order to keep people happy, you pretty much have to throw out all that earlier freedom, and choose the dialogue options that make them the most happy.


These are my three main criticisms of Bioware's games at the moment. I'm sorry it was long, but if I went any longer, I'd be doing a college presentation.

 

[HellspawnCandy]

Your reasoning is understandable, Bioware follows a formula that is pretty predictable. It's funny how in their games they talk about choices, you make choices but you have to go to the same places still. It's sadly linear, but I've always liked Bioware's games but I don't spend as much time playing them after my first round. Bethesda games however somehow seem to keep taking me in, I've played Morrowind for so long and it never really gets old. But Bioware is smart, they'll change up a bit.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Your reasoning is understandable, Bioware follows a formula that is pretty predictable. It's funny how in their games they talk about choices, you make choices but you have to go to the same places still. It's sadly linear, but I've always liked Bioware's games but I don't spend as much time playing them after my first round. Bethesda games however somehow seem to keep taking me in, I've played Morrowind for so long and it never really gets old. But Bioware is smart, they'll change up a bit.

Which is why I am looking forward to Dragon Age 2 so much. It seems to be taking the dialogue issues of both Mass Effect and Origins and blending them into something great.

The approval system is now revamped that your companions are now allies or rivals, and how you react to them affects their judgment of you. They develop a grudging respect, instead of deciding to piss off or kill you if you don't agree with their singular mindset.

They've also changed the wheel system to work like the excellent Alpha Protocol Styled attitudes. No Paragon or Renegade checks, but options to be heroic, sadistic, manipulative, or whiny (if you want to).

I have no doubt that the plot can relate to the KOTOR structure, but that's to be expected at this point.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Don't fix what isn't broke?

They take out the mako because the more vocal fans cried about it, and after taking it out the fans who had liked the mako spoke up and attacked them for caving in to pressure. They take out RPG elements for ME2 after people complain about micromanagement, and immediately a whole group springs up who no longer think ME can be accurately described as a full RPG because of this.

If they changed the story structure, either to make it more linear or more open, a large group of people somewhere would complain that it was better the other way. If they had clear villains all the time people would complain they were being cliched with 'dark lords' etc, if they changed dialogue, everyone would complain.

Look at Alpha Protocol, which had absolutely labyrinthine dialogue trees, there were multiple bugs and glitches because they hadn't been able to account for every single option that could be taken. BioWare are putting out massive triple A titles, if there were problems with dialogue on the level of AP they'd have been crucified for it. AP is actually a pretty good standard to hold against BioWare, more open, but has problems with its continuity, and sometimes glitches mean you know or don't know things you found out in the previous levels, at least BioWare remains consistent, much more open dialogue, but you always have to be (as Yahtzee puts it) an asshole, because otherwise the game doesn't work, because it has too many options to deal with.

BioWare games are huge, with hundreds of characters to talk to and interact with, and most of them have some sort of limited conversation tree which alters as you talk to them. I can't even programme a simple morality system into RPG Maker, they've built they're own system and I have to say I think it works much better than anyone has a right to expect.

And also, especially with ME, the whole point of the Paragon/Renegade choice is your reputation, what it is and how it precedes you. If you were wishy washy, always caught between two options and trying to be neutral, it's realistic that you would have less of a commanding presence and thus less of a say over how people reacted. If you were faced with someone who you knew had butchered the last man who got in his way, or else had always been kind and gentle to everyone he met, you'd be more likely to help him than if you'd never heard of them because they never made much of an impact.

But eventually, like I say, they're in a no-win situation, if they change they'll be called out for changing, if they don't they'll be called out for not changing. People have been hapy with what they've done so far, so why change it too much to try and please the more vocal of the fandom?

'Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make, the sooner you shut out their shrill tremulous voices the happier you'll be.'

 

[Vault101]

I love bioware, though no dev is ever perfect and keeping having perspective n regards to expectations is a good thing (But I REALLY looking forward to dragon age 2, not because its bioware but because of the changes, its liek they were reading my mind)

as for ME2's plot so what if it moves sideways? its still epic it gives you more insight into the world of ME and I imagine things will really start rolling in ME3

I think With a reputation liek Biowares some people set their expectations a little to high

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Snip

I can understand why some people might think that way. What I am trying to get across is that these are improvements that could be made, not changes.

The formula that Bioware has works, otherwise I wouldn't have bought their games. But since these mechanics are so apparent in their titles, it makes them more open to scrutiny, looking for the shortcomings. Finding ways to improve upon some of the rougher edges of solid mechanics can only make them better right? Not an outright change, but a refinement.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

For me, the biggest problems are linearity and lack of good side missions. The two problems are kind of intertwined. Because their games are so story driven, the main storyline always takes precedence and is laid out in a pretty linear fashion. Side missions don't really have a natural world to exist in and pretty much end up as fetch quests in mission hubs.

This is problem really evident in ME1+2, DA:O, and Jade Empire. NWN got around this by having large tracts of land to tool around in before you get to the main mission areas. But even then, the game was largely linear in the sense that 90% of areas were not worth going to twice. You went through, opened every container, killed every critter, finished the missions, left, never looked back. That really takes away from the feeling of an 'organic' living world and thereby damages immersion.

If Bioware wants to keep pushing the envelope, first they should try an open world engine for a change. Maybe license something from Rockstar or Bethesda. Or, just create games with several large missions hubs with areas to explore, rather than a long string of linear missions. Second, they need to work on side missions and factions in their games so that these have gameworld significance, a believable role in that world, a strong impact on how the game plays out, and a strong influence on how the player character develops.