BioWare Head: Wii 'Like a Toy Experience'
"[Wii] experiences are much more like a toy experience," Zeschuk told GameDaily. [People] are playing, together or not, but you're not 'gaming' anymore...If gaming is defined by story, then generally Wii may not be."
BioWare CEO Ray Muzyka disagreed, suggesting that while the Wii focuses on casual experiences, the console offers a different brand of narrative.
"I think it IS gaming," Muzyka insisted. "When you look at a moment to moment experience what a player does on a Wii game, it's different, lighter, and more toy-like. But there's also a narrative between the players outside the game and kind of fulfills the same things games do. Games are 'toys' in the sense that they're fun."
BioWare, which created such story-centric titles as the Baldur's Gate (PC) series, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (PC, Xbox) and Mass Effect (PC, X360), is currently working on Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood for the Nintendo DS as well as an unnamed MMO strongly rumored to be set in the KOTR universe.
-
Derringer
replyI don't think games are defined by story.
If you only go so far back as the NES, Super Mario Bros does not have a story per se. Is he saying that Super Mario Bros is not a game?-
well if you look at it from bioware's perspective (that of a company known for making games with complex and compeling stories) you can see where he is coming from. and also, he is not comparing NES games to Mass Effect, he is comparing modern games and what is becoming the definition of a game (that what gamers demand to have in their games)
-
I would disagree that gamers are demanding more involved story-lines based on what's popular these days.
The Wii and DS are not selling like mad because of their games with deep stories.
I do agree that from his perspective based on what his company has made, that is where he is coming from.
I still think he's wrong and that a game isn't validated by a story.-
What they need to understand is that games are not defined only by their definition alone. I love epic stories and deep characters more than the average gamer, but at the same time, it's not the only thing that defines a good game. They would negate half the market if that's how they based the definition of a game. Sports? Racing? Puzzle? Platformer? MP shooters? There are many fans of these type of games and they don't have strong-cohesive stories. Not only that, there are many games with crap stories that are still good games.
-
-
-
Yeah, if you read the article both of their arguments are pretty scattered. Which is fine. The best toy vs. game distinction is the one I read when I picked up the SimEarth manual for the first time at the tender age of 9: most video games are *games* because they give you specific goals. SimEarth was a *toy* because you were encouraged to make your own goals. Soccer vs. soccer ball.
-
games are defined by gameplay first and many companies don't understand this anymore. This "every game must have a in-depth story" crap is getting annoying, not everything needs a story. Some things greatly benefit from having a good one, but even if a game has a weak ass story if it is fun to play who cares? RPGs by nature try to have a good story (bioware's focus as a company), and that can mask boring elements of gameplay. Some people trudge through a game's actual gameplay if the story is good enough just to see the rest through cut scenes usually. I mean what is more of a chore, playing a game that sucks but has a good story or a game is that fun but the story is completely nonsensical? I would gather most would say the former because that is a reason why must people play games, they are fun.
-
