Bioware VS Larian - What's the difference?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- Bioware and Larian have both had a profoundly successful un the RPG genre.
Both are similar on the surface level with beautiful cinematics and wonderful characters. But are they so similar beyond the surface? So, lets explore what is the difference between Bioware and Larian.
Here are the links and sources I have used:
felassan.tumblr.com/post/6304...
www.pcgamer.com/how-an-obsess...
/ 1594337046004666370
• The Making of Divinity...
www.pcgamer.com/larian-ceos-a...
za.ign.com/baldurs-gate-iii-1...
Unfortunately I can't link the Bioware: Stories and Secrets from 25 Years of Game Development because there is no free version. - Hry
If you enjoyed the video please like and or subscribe. If you have any thoughts on said video perhaps leave a comment.
Larian owns themselves, BioWare is owned by EA. EA made a lot of calls on dragon age, that didn’t go over well with the fans or the developers. Heck dragon age 4 has a sliver of the original team that made dragon age. Much of the reasons Larian pulled out of bg3 expansions and bg4 due to Hasbro laying off the lore team at WotC that worked directly with Larian. When you keep loosing the talent that made the projects special to begin with. You lose your heart and desire to keep pressing on the same story, when everyone is gone.
Larian's continued success is due to them being their own company but that doesn't dispute the difference that each company has. The decisions EA made for Bioware are things like Frostbite and making Dragon Age less tactical. They didn't say to Bioware, "You should make the story and characters more important," that was Bioware's choice.
Even in BG1 and BG2 Bioware was restrictive on what the player can do. The player couldn't be anyone else but the Bhaalspawn who was Gorian's Ward.
As for Larian having lore issues because of Hasbro's layoffs; that will contribute to it but as I said in the video just looking at their own series Larian just isn't that interested in lore or world building. DOS2 has very little relationship to DOS1 or the rest of the franchise. Larian is inconsistent with their lore and world building. That's fine. They have their strengths.
@@Knight1029 I think the story must've been impacted though. You see it SO clearly in the Mass Effect franchise too. Where in ME2 Cerberus is in a sort of grey-area between good and bad. And there are many factions with questionable motives, but you could make a case for a lot of them. And then came in EA and Bioware had to simplify everything; YOU GOOD, THEY BAD. And everyone starts going insane because of the reapers. They just turned a super intricate story into a very black-and-white good vs. evil climax.
I find it hard to believe that wasn't EA's hand, similarly do I find it hard to believe that EA doesn't influence the story. Within the Dragon Age franchise, I really only take Origins seriously. Imo inquisition was 'pretty good' but felt so unpolished.
@@TIMxisxHEREEA definitely affected the quality of ME3, but indirectly. I don't think they forced Bioware to simplify the story, but they did rush the game. ME2 had a 3-year development cycle, but Mass 3 only got 2 years. That meant they had to simplify a lot of factions and scrap a lot of plot points.
@@TIMxisxHERE it's kind of hard to make the Reaper gray when they are literally trying to genocide all of intelligent life. And additionally people going mde because of Reaper influence doesn't undermine them being gray at one point. It just shows how powerful the Reapers are.
But to whether EA influenced them or not; they didn't. You can blame Mac Walter's for that. They are the ones who made Cerberus into the big bad and then made them a huge threat. The way EA influences Bioware is through gameplay and monetization. Not story.
@@CynicalWarlock And even with that simplifying the game was still good. The biggest issue with Mass Effect 3 was and will always be (unless they do a remake) the ending. I honestly thing if ME3 just had the destroy ending play after you talk to Anderson and then fade to black people would be okay with that. It wouldn't be the best ending for the series but it would be acceptable.
Excellent analysis. Still have a bit to get through, but I wanted to write this down, lest I forget. This key difference between Bioware and Larian - storytelling vs choice, respectively - I think it's something Bioware struggled with, throughout its lifespan, and didn't fully own. It flirted with the endless freedom of DnD, and silent, blank slate protagonists, but their heart was more set on grand, pre-made stories. And that's why Mass Effect is their greatest creation, because it's the only franchise where they completely owned that, via the fully voiced, pre-built Commander Shepard.
You can't play a deep, elaborate, immersive story if you can't be a part of it. You can't be part of it, if you're a nobody.
That's very true. Bioware's biggest struggle through all of their games is them not fully understanding that they want to tell stories. And to tell said stories they need characters. That is why Mass Effect is so popular. It understood what it was and did it well. Using choices and consequences as a tool of storytelling. It honed in on that aspect.
The closest Dragon Age got to that is with Hawke. A similar pre-made character who had a pre-made story with choices that enhance the story.
I hope the rest of the video is to you liking. It's definitely not the best but I think the script itself is really good.
Larian is on the upswing and Bioware has a cement block named EA weighing them down and cannot compete with Larian going forward.
Bioware isn't competing with Larian. They aren't even trying to make the same kind of RPG.
12:35 That best describes why I still prefer DAO over the BD3 . The story is more compact and focus. If I want to play whatever I want then I would just play some sandbox game and make my own story.
For the gameplay. Both are good as long as I can I loot everything and end up with millions, I'm happy.
Sure I grew up on DOA so I prefer real time with pause. It's a video game so I don't see reason why those rolls could't be under the hood and with pause button you can make game fast as much as you want.
For the rolls in conversations, I'm not big fan, I would much more prefer something similiar like in fallout games, cause if I want to make that one choice then I will just reload as much as posible.
One thing I saw nobody complain is a music cause the only track I remember from BG3 is main menu. In the other games or movies when the ost is then I gladly re re-listen to it, but in BG3 why bother when you can't remeber what track is boss fight (except for Raphael of course, but that is a song then normal ost.).
I rewrote a lot until I got that description down. It's hard to tell the difference because there is a lot of surface level similarities with the games. I am glad I was able to get it right.
My preference is DAO because for one I actually like it a lot and for two I don't like turn based combat. It just slowly down the game way to much. Some of the later fights in BG3 just grind to a craw.
Oh, yeah. I also don't get the dice rolling dialogue checks. It's cool and what not because it's DnD but all it really does for me is save scumming. I want an outcome thus I save scum.
I remember the battle theme and down by the river but I do agree with you. I can't remember to many ost's from the game.
I am glady you liked the video. I put a lot of effort into it and I hope it shows.
I agree with those points on the rolling. I know the game is suppsoed to be based on Dungeons and Dragons, so I get why it's there, but I would really prefer a non-RNG version. I think it's really silly that you can just be, ''really intelligent'' but then it still depends on luck whether you're smart enough. Or even worse, the opposite; You can have next to no intellegence and still roll high on the most impossible things. I much rather have the fallout system as well, youre either smart enough, or not. Strong enough, or not. Charming enough, or not.
@@broomstickog my personal preference is skill checks similar to Fallout because all the random dice does for me is just have me reload to get the outcome I want. And this is seemingly allowed in BG3 because you can save in dialogue. Not even Fallout 3 allowed that. But to the claim it is realistic; this depends. I think it can be realistic but if the game describes what knowledge a character has. A wizard like Gale probably knows a lot about magic but he can still fail those checks if he hits a 1. I think a better system (but still not my preferred) would be where certain classes and characters can't roll below a certain number. You can still fail technically but it still recognizes that a character with 20 strength can lift something heavy.
But that is just my preference. As you said, I did say that it is part of the fun. A great thing about tabletop is that if you do critical fail or succeed there is a story out of that. My big brain wizard rolled a 1 and somehow can't figure out this easy to understand rune. Yet the dumbass barbarian with 1 intellect rolls a 20 and figured it out. Through that a characterization and personalities can form. The wizard just didn't know or thought that the runes were beneath him. The barbarian knows about these runes because it is apart of their culture. And then a story can form around that. The DM then uses the runes more to give the barbarian something to do and possible form a deeper connection with the wizard and barbarian. I may not like it in video games but dice rolling is very important in tabletop.
@@TIMxisxHERE I think a comprise that BG3 could have done (but it still wouldn't be my preferred option) is have characters with a high stats not be able to roll low. It would sill have the random element but still show that high stats mean something. Though I would just like a system like Fallout.
Drakensang the dark eye vs bg 3
Sure. Though it might take a bit because I have literally no idea what Drakensand the Dark Eye is beyond just what I quickly looked up. Looks great though!
@@Knight1029 will wait
@@__mart__-xk8kk well thank you. I hope you enjoyed the video!
Larian gives the illusion of freedom of choice. None of the choices you make in BG3 matter. You get railroaded into the same main plot points, and the same ending for the main storyline no matter what you do. BG3 ending was literally the ME3 ending, but with 1 less option lol...
I don't disagree. Most RPGs do this. With the expectation of Fallout New Vegas. But even then it all ends the same at Hover Dam. The difference is who you sided with coming out on top.
What Larian did well was the fact that the game had immediate reactivity. If you did side with someone then the game would reflect that. Or if you killed someone the game would show the consequences immediately. It is something Larian does well. But for the long term choices and consequences its about the same as every RPG.