Poll: Bioware needs to grow up

[JamesStone]

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.

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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Hang on.. Obsidian was founded in 2003, Fallout was released by Interplay in 1997.

Black Isle, whose employees founded Obsidian, made Fallout 2, which I'm going to come out and say had a worse story, much worse setting consistency and some really cringe-worthy bits.

Black Isle was Interplay, though. It was basically their RPG division. They're as responsible for Fallout 1 as they were for Fallout 2. This wasn't a Fallout: New Vegas situation.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

well...can't really argue with that assessment. As much as I like Bioware they've let themselves go into a schtick they refuse to grow out of. I actually find the most challenging game narratives to be in the hands of their Japanese counterparts that take out artificial "choice" and just tell a story (well, except Tactics Ogre which had a morality mechanic that COMPLETELY changed how the narrative of the story went).

BTW, the pool is garbage. It's not a very good parody poll either

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

All right, I will! (furiously rushes typewriter)

Seriously though, this is a fallacious argument. I don't have to be a professional film maker, for example, to say that Transformers 2 is bad. And I'm not even insulting Bioware or their fans. I'm saying Bioware is eminently capable of more than this. I believe they have some of the best writers in the business. And I think they're churning out lazy tosh.

 

[Dastardly]

Tell us a real story.

PS - Poll added for shits and giggles. I'm sure the Escapist will eat it anyway.

And that's the problem: characters are story.

The "real story" isn't the list of events unfolding. It's the characters in them, the changes they undergo, the variety of their interactions...

I only recently played Mass Effect. It was $10, and I figured, "Let's see what the fuss is about." I didn't really enjoy KotoR from a story standpoint. I've never been into Dragon Age. This was pure experiment.

This story works well. Shepard is kind of a "blank slate," and not a terribly interesting character -- but rarely is the central character the most interesting! Even in great stories, the central character develops more slowly and has a bit less flavor. Otherwise, you end up getting sick of that "flavor" because the central character is always there.

But the other characters? They did a pretty good job of conveying a sense of personality, especially without knowing how much time any given player would spend with each character. I rarely ever used Kaidan, but even then I still got a sense of the guy.

And, for once, the threat was believable -- the Reapers want to "destroy the galaxy." Not for evil's sake. It's a harvest, to further their own mysterious ends (which are explained further in the second installment). That's a believable motivation (as opposed to the Sith, but Lucas is as much to blame for that as BioWare). But the threat isn't the story.

The events just move the timeline along. They don't make it a story. Games that focus too much on the events get into what I call "sitcom syndrome." It's "Here are some stock characters. Let's see what zaaaaany antics they get into this week!" and at the end, the characters stay the same... so we can reload to "zany" it up again next time.

In the best stories, it's the characters that drive things to greatness. The events provide a framework, and they should be interesting and have weight, but they are no substitute for good characters.

(As for the main character being a Mary Sue, that's an unfortunate byproduct of telling stories through games. You want the player to gain power as they go, and you want make sure they can succeed enough to actually see the whole story... and the result is that they're just a tad more powerful than a purely-written character would be.)

 

[DRTJR]

I like good ol' Heroic tales of Good Vs. Evil as well as more moarly gray tales. So if I think DA:O and DA2 are both really good RPGs, what does that mean... There both good and you sould really sit back and reval in the likable characters, good story, and and repetitive enviroments.

 

[Voltano]

It's just...I keep coming back to Planescape. Or even Mask of the Betrayer. Why can THEY do it? Why is Planescape oozing with imagination and mature, thoughtful, thematic depth, and a decade later I'm fighting "The Darkspawn" who are trying to take over the world. Why? Because they're evil, that's why!

"Planescape" was unique for its time because: A) It had a very original setting, atmosphere, and game-world often seen in RPGs (most of them were stuck in the medieval, magical fantasy world, such as "Baldur's Gate"); B) The overall goal of the game was different from the 'save the world' goal.

Part B is something that is guilty with -a lot- of video games, not just the Bioware ones. I just started playing an old Sega Genesis action/RPG called "Beyond Oasis", and the story basically boils down to "save the world" goal (some armlets of mass destruction are awakened, protagonist got the good armlet, you must stop the evil armlet from destroying/enslaving/f**king the world). Its a cliche that hasn't changed much from older games, and some theories speculate that it relates to children feeling underpowered. If they were in a fictional world, they want to feel powerful, so what better way to feel awesome than to "save the world" with your skill? It may explain why there is always some kind of variation of "Team Rocket" in the pokemon games that have to be defeated by a 10 year old's pets.

But as older people playing video games, we see that goal cliche and annoying. I played "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", "Portal 2", and "Beyond Oasis" in the past and each of them has a variation on this goal toward the end. This is what makes the "Bladerunner" film seems so engaging to adult audiences because it doesn't revolve around that goal, but the conflict between the androids and humans.

 

[ACman]

I miss Black Isle. I really do.

Bioware has the problem that you're usually choosing between mawkish virtue or illogical evil. (Or in the case of mass effect "by the book cop"/"jerky racist maverick cop"

And they're usually not really choices either. So many of Bioware's "choices" lead to the same result and the only point to dialogue selection is drawing information or hitting the trigger for the next game event.

The closest that I felt to actually having realistic moral quandaries in a video game recently was Witcher 2. And at the risk of starting a flamewar, Witcher 2's combat system was fundamentally broken.

 

[Michael Hirst]

I remember seeing a chart the proved every Bioware game is infact the same game. I still like some of the games definitely but...they do have a cookie cutter for stories now. Their morality meters are always completely stupid and often have no logical sense for the evil option at all.

The only recent game I've played that had a good depth to its "morality" system was The Witcher, everything is rather grey in that game and I love it, the first couple hours were boring gmaeplay wise but I really like it now though it definitely lacks the depth of Planescape Torment... nothing can ever breach those cavernous depths.

Know what else I hate about Biowares writing? Daddy Issues, for crying out loud if I get another party member who hates/was abandoned by their father I will vomit rivers of blood. Lets look at Mass Effect 1/2. Ashley, Tali, Liara (technically speaking) Wrex, Jack, Jacob, Miranda, Grunt and Thane all have parent issues like that's the only way to be a tormented individual, okay I'll let Wrex off because he's a bro. For the reasons above it's why I find Legion and Mordin interesting, they have something other than daddy issues in their lives.

 

[Silenttalker22]

They could make the holy bible of games and you'd still have a group of people who come on these forums, declare that the game, company and anyone who likes it are shit and stand on some moral high ground about it.

I've come to like the escapist for it's smart forums, but loath many of it's opinion threads for that very reason. i.e. People being ceaselessly contrary or antagonistic to seem smarter or more worldly.

OT: I agree with OP that the whole story of the Qunari was great, if it had been more focused as the main plot, and the Arishok is one of my favorite characters in recent memory. "I have a growing lack of disgust for you". I replayed all of his scenes several ways to see what he'd say lol.

Either way, their stories are good, their characters are great-ish, with some exceptions like Ashley, who I never saved, and if Fenris could shut up for 3 seconds about hating mages. So their games are still typically a cut above. Seems like a lot of complaining over not that big a deal.

 

[bz316]

This is an interesting thought, but I have to disagree. Bioware has generally made games with excellent conflicts concerning the true nature of morality and how best to deal with the situation in front of you "correctly". Even in the KOTOR games, set in the Star Wars universe notorious for over-generalizing the concept of good and evil, has hidden complexity in the subtext. One of the reasons there is so much support for the Sith in those games is the implication of centuries of oppression by the upper classes of Republic elite grinding the poor and minority 'neath their heel and decades of government corruption. Even choosing to go to the Dark Side is put into a greater context in KOTOR 2 and TOR, due to the revelation of the "true Sith" and Revan's quest to prepare the galaxy for a wider threat by any means necessary. The story thus takes a detour from "good vs. evil" to "greater evil vs. lesser evil" and "ends vs. means." Same for the Mass Effect series. Even though it takes place in the wider context of ancient machines coming to cull all life, the means by which you try to prevent that show a great grasp of the concept of complex morality. Do you release the Rachni Queen hoping for aid against the coming tide and out of concern for your personal detestment of genocide, or do you kill her, eliminating a potentially massive risk to the galaxy from returning again? Do you re-write the Geth Heretics for new allies, or do you destroy them in an acknowledgement of their right to self-determination (i.e. is submission perferrable to extinction, something your old nemesis argued with you?)? Yes, it is easy to denounce the decisions you're presented with as black and white, but I think in the larger picture, the subtext found in Bioware games points to a hidden sophistication not being recognized by this thread author.

 

[DracoSuave]

The 'standard Bioware plot' is, in fact, the 'standard rpg plot' where you are faced with a menace, gather resources and information to defeat the menace through ever increasing stakes, and eventually meet the menace.

This is, of couyrse, the quest, and it is pretty much the story of every videogame.

It's the story of every Elder Scrolls game, the story of Arkham Asylunm, the story of every Zelda game, every Final Fantasy, every Persona, every Mario game....


It is, in fact, THE quintessential story in storytelling, and it's older than dirt. Why?

Because it's a good frame to build all adventure stories on.

It's not the framing that makes a story good. It's what you fill it with.

snip

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes, it is easy to denounce the decisions you're presented with as black and white, but I think in the larger picture, the subtext found in Bioware games points to a hidden sophistication not being recognized by this thread author.

I think I recognize it just fine. I've credited Bioware numerous times throughout the thread for having the talent to do better. I hear what you're saying about burying your complexity in the subtext, but the sophistication you're speaking to is a little too hidden and a little too scattershot for my taste. Ethical dilemmas like the Rachni or the Genophage exist, but they're few and far between, and stand out all the more for their scarcity. They could do better. A lot better.

 

[S-Unleashed]

I don't play bioware games and don't really give a rat's ass about them.

 

[maeson]

I have grown to think that character based stories like the ME games and the DA games. And anything else you can think of, will fall flat some way or another. Always there is something to nit-pick on.

That's why I like games like STALKER, Brink, Earthrise and Fallen Earth. You are not playing "The Hero" fighting against "The Villain". The best story, for me, is not the characters (though they play a part in it) but the lore. The world, the place where you run around in. Everything about the game has to ooze that the game revolves NOT around just YOU, and everything else is filler. But you are the filler in the world.

For instance, I named Brink. The story in that game isn't that great, in your character sense. The dialog can be pretty good (mostly on the ARK-Sec side) but it's the audio logs, the maps. They tell their story, something bigger, something OTHER than "You here, you important" is going on.

 

[x-machina]

Bioware characters and stories are not well written. If compare any of their games to a great book/movie/TV series you see that. Bioware is revered as great story tellers because they try. They actually attempt to write stories, with interesting characters. They even write romantic subplots.

So while your certainly correct their stories could use some improvement. They are one of the few companies in the industry who care about story and character development. A bit of a backhanded compliment, but there it is.

 

[Zarmi]

The stories they do are not really that good, but why should they change it? Their games sell, a lot and people love the games. They don't have to change the way they make their stories, and that's enough reason for them not to do so.

 

[Avatar Roku]

snip
KotoR 2: Not really better than KotoR in the story department (although I'll admit I liked it more). Also, setting appropriateness is off. KotoR felt like a star Wars game in the way it's sequel never did.
snip

I disagree. KotOR1 is about stopping an evil overlord from taking over the galaxy, oh noes! KotOR2 is an inward journey dealing with shades of gray and a plot that is not spoonfed to you. That last part is important, but also, I feel, why people didn't like the story; all the important, interesting parts of the story have to be pieced together by the player, you're only outright told the bare minimum you need to get through.

Tell us a real story.

PS - Poll added for shits and giggles. I'm sure the Escapist will eat it anyway.

And that's the problem: characters are story.

The "real story" isn't the list of events unfolding. It's the characters in them, the changes they undergo, the variety of their interactions...

I only recently played Mass Effect. It was $10, and I figured, "Let's see what the fuss is about." I didn't really enjoy KotoR from a story standpoint. I've never been into Dragon Age. This was pure experiment.

This story works well. Shepard is kind of a "blank slate," and not a terribly interesting character -- but rarely is the central character the most interesting! Even in great stories, the central character develops more slowly and has a bit less flavor. Otherwise, you end up getting sick of that "flavor" because the central character is always there.

But the other characters? They did a pretty good job of conveying a sense of personality, especially without knowing how much time any given player would spend with each character. I rarely ever used Kaidan, but even then I still got a sense of the guy.

And, for once, the threat was believable -- the Reapers want to "destroy the galaxy." Not for evil's sake. It's a harvest, to further their own mysterious ends (which are explained further in the second installment). That's a believable motivation (as opposed to the Sith, but Lucas is as much to blame for that as BioWare). But the threat isn't the story.

The events just move the timeline along. They don't make it a story. Games that focus too much on the events get into what I call "sitcom syndrome." It's "Here are some stock characters. Let's see what zaaaaany antics they get into this week!" and at the end, the characters stay the same... so we can reload to "zany" it up again next time.

In the best stories, it's the characters that drive things to greatness. The events provide a framework, and they should be interesting and have weight, but they are no substitute for good characters.

(As for the main character being a Mary Sue, that's an unfortunate byproduct of telling stories through games. You want the player to gain power as they go, and you want make sure they can succeed enough to actually see the whole story... and the result is that they're just a tad more powerful than a purely-written character would be.)

Hm...now those are good points, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I'd always thought of a "good story" vs "good storytelling" dichotomy, but it never occurred to me that the good storytelling may, in itself, be a good story. I dunno why; I always go on about KotOR2, and that game was really all about the characters: the Exile, Kreia, Atris, the Council (those, of course, just being the one's the main plot is concerned with). With the same plot and different characters, it would not have been even close to as good as it was. But it just never occurred to me, go figure.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

Long Version:

I think the issue is broader then just Bioware and their cookie cutter plots. Plots/narrative in games are a means to an end, a medium to give action purpose. Ultimately gameplay is more important then the narrative and I would appreciate more time spent on making a game fun, then making a game soul piercingly deep.

Granted, a strong, well structured and intriguing narrative is the difference between a fun diversion and a singular experience. Unfortunately the industry isn't at the point yet where as much an investment can go into a plot as goes into graphics or gameplay coding.

By all means, have your concerns and voice them. But you also have to realise that games as an industry is only 30~ years old... of which only 15-20 years have been experimenting with actual narrative/plot as more then a means to an end and only 12~ years since games started to be considered a genuine medium and not just a childs plaything by the greater masses.

What's more, the userbase still has to mature. Gamers still rant on about aesthetics over gameplay (completely superficial, immersion is not being achieved by higher pixel counts or pretty textures, or at least not advancing at any notable rate) and some even think that games are already good at story telling (on a whole, they aren't frankly).

Personally, I think the industry has made leaps and bounds of progress in all things over the last decade and a half... we have had many games that have shone brighter then others as paragons of the industry, but we have yet to see a game that truly nails narrative without sacrificing interactivity, which is the sole reason people play games over watching a film.

As long as debates don't become deconstructive or turn into pissing matches about who's opinion is better then the others... then all we have to do is remain vocal, praise the right aspects of games and in time games will change to meet those standards.

There has been a lot of hearsay about the industry hitting a plateau in terms of graphics. Maybe the next decade will open up an avenue for narratives to grow in triple A titles.

TL/DR

You're right, Bioware is still playing it safe with plots and not taking risks or breaking from the formula (though they experiment in their sub-plots at least).

But that isn't an issue with bioware: The industries current focus is graphics and "gimmicky" game mechanics, though graphics seem to be heading off now and other aspects are being scrutinised because of it. I suspect the next decade will hold the biggest leap for narrative in games.

Gamers are also a culprit for lacklustre plot development. This in itself is worth an entire thread (or even forum) for a thorough analyses. But in brief, gamers standards are confused and consequently the developers are making poor calls based off of this confusion.

It's all well and good to cite flaws in games, but don't forget to commend strong aspects... less the developers dump it along with the crap. A little leeway might also be giving considering how young the game industry is.

PS: I chose the last option, cause I genuinely laughed when I read it...

 

[MightyRabbit]

The way I see it the broader you draw the plot the more room you have for the characters and setting to go in strange new and interesting directions. They actual story may not be revolutionary or original (though I'd hardly use the term juvenile). The plot of stuff like Star Wars or Persona 4 were pretty damn broad (at least until Persona 4's endgame) and they're remembered very fondly as works of storytelling.

By contrast, if you have a tight plot like, say, Portal, the characters and setting are constricted by the story you want to tell (despite how fantastic they still may end up being.

Basically, I think Bioware keeps the overarching plot simple so the details along the way can be more interesting.

Not to mention that if they had a more tightly constricted plot, a lot of the choice would be gone. Not just all those juicy (or stupid, depending on the game) moral choices, but also things as simple as which dungeon you go to first. I think Bioware are getting better, though their efforts with DA2 & ME2 were a rather mixed bag, storytelling-wise.