FreneticPony

The Witness is out this year! When? The fuck knows, but hey it's something. I want it for PC, which it's supposed to come out for eventually. But it's something.

You know, you never hear about a popular movie director quitting major movies to do indies or something else. I wonder what it is about the games industry that drives game designers to either quit big productions and god indy or just leave altogether.

To Bioware, from a gamer that loves rpg's and wishes games had better stories.

You know, as a company I really started to like your games around 2007. You developed two excellent games in a row with Mass Effect 1 and then Dragon Age 1 in 2009. Previously the only game of in your history I really enjoyed was Knights of the Old Republic. I know a lot of people associate you with earlier successes, but for some reason people get you and your frequent partner Black Isle confused.

You, as a company, were a partner that also made RPG's, and even had your logo on Baldur's Gate 2. I can see how some people were confused. But to me, Kotor, DAO, and Mass Effect 1 were your good games. Admittedly, they all had "that character". The "normal" person, he was a guy, vaguely heroic, whiny, generically semi handsome. No one really liked him, and he was always the first npc in your party. But otherwise these games all had good, clear game mechanics, and good stories, and were liked by all.

But now you seem to be in a bit of a crisis. Now your fans are complaining and, some would say, whining a lot. Certainly they're being melodramatic. And then other people, posing oddly enough as the "reasonable" types, chastise the melodrama and tell you, as a company, to "stick to your guns". As if both capitalism were utterly a nonexistent component of video games and even the desire to see people enjoy your creations were somehow abhorrent.

It's all very strange, and frankly a bit nonsensincal. So here's the plain and abject truth. You aren't communicating well about what your're games are about, both in terms of marketing and in terms of gameplay itself. And your writing has turned into utter nonsense.

On the first part, people's enjoyment and purchases are driven largely be expectations of one kind or another. The backlash over Dragon Age 2's drastic change in gameplay focus was driven, in my humble view, largely by a vast miscommunication over what the game was actually about. I don't blame you, or any developer, for trying to change gameplay. In fact I personally love new types of gameplay and to see games change. The industry already has its games that never really change and are sold every year.

But you never communicated these drastic shifts in gameplay to players. You called the game "Dragon Age 2", which for many evoked assumptions then and there that it would feel similar to Dragon Age 1. You then spent a lot of time trying to communicate that the tactical gameplay from Dragon Age 1 would remain, when anyone who played the game knew it hadn't. Of course far more than this was changed, and also was not clearly communicated. And so players bought the game expecting one thing, and then received another. Is it any wonder they were angry? I would have been.

Another example is the ending of Mass Effect 3. When one spends 3 titular game titles and ninety hours teaching a player that they have many choices, and that these choices will lead to a myriad of different outcomes, then this is what they'll naturally expect of the future. So, when the ultimate emotional climax of this potentially ninety hour journey is delivered in a manner that is contrary to what has been established over aforementioned ninety hours of experience it's little wonder that some people will be disappointed, confused, and perhaps even angry.

And before I get to the second part, let me reiterate that. People can get angry over such things. If we are to go off the outspoken designer Peter Molyneux's own proclivities, then provoking an emotional response from players is an incredibly desirable goal from video games. In fact it has been an established goal from many forms of fiction. So to those baffled by anger then being provoked by "mere entertainment" I would remind them of the very goal stated above and say that if emotional responses are indeed a design goal, then why should unintentional emotional responses somehow be less valid?

Moving onto Bioware's writing of late. Well it started with Mass Effect 2. Among many, many problems the story contracted something too common to video games. Let's call it "heroitis". Usually the symptoms are a very obvious threat to just about everything in the settings relatable existence, and absolutely everyone but the protagonist being unwilling or unable to do anything about it for little apparent reason. Mass Effect 2 even went the route of having most people being unable to even recognize that the blazingly obvious threat even exists. Why should you, the hero, feel invested in saving a group of people so utterly oblivious that they can't even make the mental connections to realize that they are under threat?

Of course there were/are other problems. The change from the first games semi acknowledgment of scientific explanations for things to an utter disregard for anything as such. The vast inconsistencies from the first installment to the next. A major enemy threat (the giant humanoid robot thing) that is not only ridiculous on the face of things but has no previous mention to even try and lessen the bizarreness of such a thing suddenly appearing. The list for this game goes on.

But it's more than that. From what I saw and played (the demo) of Dragon Age 2 the visual style and writing style had a very clear disconnect from each other. Story is not just about writing, but also takes place visually. And it's hard to believe one is part of a gritty, grounded fantasy world when seeing high fantasy, anime like demons appearing, every woman with an impressive E sized chest, and fighting that consists of jumping around like a jackrabbit on crack. Story and visual representation need to be cohesive, not two separate things.

Meanwhile Mass Effect 3, from the very beginning, is no better than the above two. From the very opening (all I played) the dialogue is stilted, the pacing is nonexistent, the visuals are incoherent; E.G. Ashly Williams now looks like a totally different person, and far more like a primped supermodel about to go on a catwalk run than a tough military officer ready for combat.

I'm sure there are people who will defend all three. I would ask each and every person who does this a question: If these things I mentioned were in a movie or a book would you still defend them? Would Alien(s) Ripley have been a credible character if she had been walking around with a perfect complexion and perfectly styled hair all the time? Would you really watch a fantasy movie where the fight scene looked like the Matrix 2 and 3's, except with the conceit that it was supposed to be gritty and close to reality and there was no explanation for such? If we wouldn't accept these things in other media why should they be particularly better in video games?

Bioware, I believe in you. I believe in you because you have people who are willing to listen. I believe in you not because you are "sticking to your guns" but because you believe in change and adaptation. If your goal is to make the best story driven games out there, then make sure the story is well written, and cohesive, and makes sense. Make sure people know what your game is about, both those who are designing it and those who would buy it, and then stick with that both in marketing and in the actual design.

You can do all of these things. You can make great things happen, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that would love to see what these great things are. Thanks for reading

This is an open letter to Bioware, who collectively seem to be very open to response and criticism.

Here's a link if you don't want to read it on here. http://biowareletter.blogspot.com/2012/03/open-letter-to-bioware-to-bioware-from.html

Or you can see the next post for the actual letter if you want to read it on here.

What happened to the art director for Morrowind? It seems like he quit and Bethesda just decided "eh, we don't need one."

Skyrim looks as generic as Oblivion did : (

I'm not talking about the "art" itself here. That looks as well built as ever. I'm talking about the actual style of the game. Ok, I'm a bit of an art geek, but we need love to! All the concept art from Skyrim seems as if you could plug it into any other fantasy game out there and no one would notice. The giants are big, lumbering, wrinkly things that could be in any D&D Edition monster guide, same with the dragons and most of the other creatures. The architecture design could be put piece for piece into the original Dragon Age and few would be able to tell.

All I'm asking is where all the cool, unique designs went. If you take a look at almost any screenshot from Morrowind you can instantly tell it's FROM Morrowind. Not so with Skyrim : /