1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Dragon Age Forum News (Mar. 30, 05)

Discussion in 'Game/SP News & Comments' started by chevalier, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. chevalier

    chevalier Knight of Everfull Chalice ★ SPS Account Holder Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    16,815
    Media:
    11
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Remove all ads!
    Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, collected by NWVault. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end.

    David Gaider, Designer

    Forumuliac Story telling
    Huh.

    Well, I'll say this.

    I certainly agree that there is plenty of room for innovation for us, both in terms of overall game design as well as with storytelling specifically.

    I find it a bit funny sometimes when I see people who have obviously played a lot of RPG's and complain about them in a jaded tone of "oh, I just want something different" without really being able to adequately describe what that differentness is. Or perhaps it's that they do try and end up sounding like they are complaining about something else. That might be a bit presumptuous, though... I know there are some very specific things which annoy me about RPG's (both in general and ours specifically) and I wouldn't want someone to tell me I didn't mean what I was saying, but it seems to me that some interpretation is called for.

    I would disagree with the idea that all our stories are formulaic, but they are certainly pretty safe. When we serve up our spaghetti we stick pretty close to what most people expect from the dish, and for someone who eats a lot of spaghetti (even really good spaghetti) after a while you yearn for something a little spicier even if you recognize that most people are still quite happy with spaghetti and that us serving up linguini probably wouldn't go over pretty well. I think, too, that the idea of "maybe if you served linguini people might find they like it as much as they do spaghetti" has been pretty much disproven by history, much as we would like to believe otherwise.

    So, what? No variations in the spaghetti at all? Why not throw in a meatball or two, toss in some spices? Add some sun-dried tomatoes or bake the cheese on top? These things are all good, right? Why not mix it up a little?

    Spaghetti analogies aside, this being our own IP does free us up a bit... but on the same hand we want to try and ensure the IP is successful, so it's not like we're going to suddenly stop playing it safe, either, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. No doubt with DA you will be able to point out all the things that aren't different, if you like, and say that means it is more of the same. Or you can pick out all the things that are quality or fresh and different. Neither paints a complete picture. My feeling is that there will be more different things in the design than we've done previously (certainly the story doesn't fit anywhere into the pattern the first poster suggested), and while that may be enough for some the true test is that the overall experience is a good one. I'm sure that, really, if we wanted to we could probably drag out every cliche in the book... if those cliches are part of a kick-*** story and a fun game your enjoyment of such will color your overall view of them, sense of deja vu or no, and that's more important.

    To us, anyhow. And I don't think that's going to change.

    Forumuliac Story telling
    Mr. Gaider, I don't think your little pasta analogy applies to computer games. CRPGs are not food.
    Sure they are. And the analogy works fine, if you use a little imagination... which you claim to have in spades. Or maybe it doesn't work fine, since you seem to have missed the point.

    Quote: Also I can think of a dozen or so ways to create a different and engaging plotlines in a RPG that does not require the use of the archtypes but since I want to use them in my own writings and projects it would be inappropriate for me to blather on about them on a public forum.
    Well, it's good to know that you come so highly qualified. Personally, I don't like to be lectured by anyone who can't think of at least a dozen. :)

    Quote: All it takes is a little imagination and a bit of hard work to come up with them but a fine example of one is Planescape Torment. One of the best CRPGs ever made.
    Oh, is that all it takes? Gosh. Well, that's settled then. While we wait for the inevitable sequels and copycats that follow such huge success, let's discuss the commercial potential of this whole "no combat" thing you mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I'm intrigued.

    Forumuliac Story telling
    Quote: if those cliches are part of a kick-*** story and a fun game your enjoyment of such will color your overall view of them, sense of deja vu or no, and that's more important."
    *lol* certainly not for me. as you said it'll be the same old stuff and that would bore me to death. i would idkfa me to the end, if! i would complete the game.
    I didn't say it would be the same old stuff. We are going to do a number of new things in DA, as we have a lot more room to play when it's our own world. I just said that we weren't going to stray far from what we think is the traditional and commercially successful path. I think it will still be a great game and, in many ways, different from what's gone before.

    It might not be different enough for you, though, that's true, and may indeed bore you to death. But considering how different some people seem to want their RPGs to be, that probably always would have been the case.

    Forumuliac Story telling
    talking of a bit of hard work, don't you get easter monday off work in Canada :( ?
    Normally, yes. Mostly everyone is gone, too... it was a four-day long weekend... but I am working anyhow. I would say that kinda sucks, but I'm certain that anyone who works in a hotel or restaurant would smack me. :)

    Forumuliac Story telling
    Mr. Gaider, if a group of people can make a CRPG that has spawned 2 sequels (one released and one currently being worked on) back in 1997 that the main PC can go through out the entire game, complete quests, and win without directly attacking or causing harm to others I think that you guys can do so in 2005.

    If you are wondering what game I am talking about it is this nice little ditty known as Fallout.
    Hey, you're the one that brought up Planescape as your poster child. As for the Fallout series, it was marginally more successful, yes, but the fact that you can go through it "as a total pacifist" is hardly what made it good or successful, in my opinion.

    And even if it was, that's not the kind of story we want to write. Period. The end. And DA will still be great, though no doubt not up to your standards. I guess we'll just have to live with that shame, sadly.

    I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish by coming here and moaning that people just aren't intelligent enough like you to appreciate the right kind of CRPG and how we at Bioware, if we just tried hard enough, could surely come up with a much better story just like you can. That hardly seems like the way to make a convincing point. But, hey, I hope it works for you. :)


    Forumuliac Story telling
    Then what kind of story do you guys want to write? I am just trying to give you guys ideas that will allow different styles of gameplay. After all, isn't choice one of the key things about role playing?
    Right. Now you're simply trying to have a civil discussion and supply us with ideas. There wasn't anything condescending or inflammatory about your arguments, we're just misunderstanding your attempts to inform us.

    Quote: If you want to do the same thing over and over again then what kind of role playing is that?
    Even if we were to make a game exactly the same as the one before it (which we are not), how would that make it less role-playing? Less innovative, perhaps, but that's not the same thing.

    There are going to be plenty of choices and role-playing in DA. Oh, but because we don't allow for the "total pacifist" path, well then we're just not innovating enough for you and it's not really role-playing then, I guess? Who are you kidding?

    Quote: You say your game will be great. All developers say their game will be great. Even the boys at Stormfront said that Pool of Radiance 2 would be great prior its release and we all know how bad that game was. Saying a game will be great doesn't make it so. Innovation is a contributing factor that makes a game great.

    Answer me this, Mr. Gaider. What will be innovative in Dragon Age's story and role play?
    So it sucks until I prove otherwise? I doubt I could convince you even if I rolled out a list of everything we're doing, which I won't, as it's obvious your criteria for "innovation" is pretty narrow-minded.

    Personally, I think I've said everything that I need to say on this topic. The answers to your questions are already there, I would just end up repeating myself.



    And I will say that EntropicKnight is quite right that insults and name-calling are not called for. I may disagree with EntropicKnight, even vociferously, but that does not mean I think he does not have the right to state what he thinks or that I think it should be open season on him for disagreeing with me. Please keep it civil or I will shut this thread down. Thanks.

    Forumuliac Story telling
    I suppose that's true, to a degree, Grom. Someone could definitely serve up linguini one day and it could be a huge hit and we would sit around and go "Huh. Who'd of thought?" and try to pick apart what made it so different from the linguini that went before it.

    The industry can make some pretty erroneous assumptions sometimes about why things do or don't work. Like the current assumption right now that turn-based = death. Someone who supports that notion might point to ToEE to support it, even though the turn-based combat in that game was in many respects it's true shining point.

    But even that is only my opinion. When it comes to me saying "people don't want linguini when they expect spaghetti" that's also my opinion, but I think it's also a pretty safe bet based on years of making spaghetti. Quip about us having a funny view of history if you like, to not heed it at all would be far worse.

    And anyway, this all was originally about us innovating or not. And whether or not we are trying to keep things safe and traditional as we see it, we are also going to be innovating inside of those boundaries we set for ourselves. That is a far cry from someone telling us that our mandate should focus on making something radically different for its own sake.

    Dragon age length
    Yep... as I mentioned before, I think full voice-over was a possibility that came about from having shorter games rather than a reason to make those games shorter. As 3D modeling becomes more detailed and more intricate, the expense of putting together a single area increases astronomically and is a long way from the 2D paintings of BG2. As nice as those were, it doesn't seem as if that is really acceptable any longer. Argue against it or not, the prevailing notion is that RPG's must now contend with the likes of shooters and such on a graphical level as well as having story and dialogue and all their normal gameplay.

    Tall order. And, to be honest, when there are games that are 10 or 20 hours long that come out and sell just fine it has to make the money guys figure that, for most, overall game length is just not a big factor towards success and unnecessary game length thus hard to justify considering the cost involved.

    Elves should be the supreme beings in DA
    Sorry, but this thread needs to be ended for length. Feel free to start over in a new thread, if you feel it necessary.

    Story Blueprint and DA
    My guess (based on what has been hinted at before) would be that each and every one of these will have a completely unique "prelude" section. That's one hell of a big deviation just there. I suspect that these unique preludes will then lead on to the same "linear start" section, although possibly not all in the same way.
    That is absolutely correct.

    As someone said, there is still a lot of room for us to play around inside of the traditional structure. Both the prelude and the epilogue portions of DA are much larger in scope than we traditionally have done, for instance.

    Story Blueprint and DA
    I'm not sure if that was so much a loaded question as a vague one. What is being asked, exactly? Why would we do an expansive epilogue now and not before? What's changed?

    Part of it is due to feedback. And part of it is the people involved. While I've never been a fan of games that let you continue to play once the story is finished in a rather pointless and empty fashion, I've equally never liked the fact that we always tended to end our games at the climax (for one reason or another). I've always wanted to have an actual denouement that is considered right from the start, as opposed to just coming to an abrupt halt once the Big Bad is taken down.

    Then, too, the existence of the DA preludes begs for a proper epilogue, so this becomes the right project to do it.

    Hope that answers the question. And if not... meh.

    Story Blueprint and DA
    Sorry. Sarevok and Irenicus wanted to become gods... so they could rule the world. I find it funny, though, that you're willing to wax poetic over their motivations and yet overly simplify the others'. Must be because you feel it helps your argument.

    BG2 level interaction?
    So... we should spend time arranging matters so you can hoop the plot completely just in case you feel like screwing around? And this is some kind of reward?

    Or we spend time (and a lot of it) making sure that there are "appropriate" consequences and dialogue for such psychotic actions as killing random peasantry and plot-important characters so... what? You have the illusion that you're free to do so? Or would you prefer that we not implement anything... you kill peasants and nobody cares. Or you kill plot characters and nobody notices and you just can't finish anything and wander around for a while in the countryside because you can?

    I'm honestly mystified.

    Long Flowing Hair
    And the funny thing is, after Bioware Failed to produce that long flowing hair or the cloak or what not, with in a few weeks, much of what people wanted started showing up in the hakpaks, yet even after that, after 2 more releases of NWN's Bioware still had dont almost nothing for character looks. and seemed to resent that people had added long hair to their modules due to hakpaks.

    I guess they didnt like people doing hakpaks because it showed them up so badly, and they didnt get to sell us a module 5 years later that had one or 2 more hairstyles in it.
    Heh.

    Funny. :lol:

    Formuliac Story Telling: Take 2
    I think the best thing to do is simply wait and see how the reviews come out for Dragon Age. It seems that Bioware has already decided on what to do (and what not to do) in the game.
    Ah, yes. The Sour Grapes argument. Bioware isn't agreeing with me so therefore they won't listen to anything, ever. :shake:

    Brenon Holmes, Programmer

    Monks !
    What a cryptic and useless outburst... Can't even answer the question straight. :rolleyes:
    Punching/kicking a guy in full plate with your fists is not effective. Spiritualize it all you want, without the inclusion of some kind of "magic" (read into that how you will, whether that's the channelling of inner ability, ki/chi... whatever) unarmed combat versus armed combat is ultimately not effective.

    I don't mean to trivialize martial arts, as they have their place. As an addition to armed combat, they can be useful as they augment the abilities of the combatant by providing them with more options in a given situation.

    However, pressure points and joint locks break down in a lot of situations... pick any non-humanoid and you'd probably have difficulty applying at least some of the moves you learn in martial arts. Most of which are geared towards fighting other humans. (ie: Where would you punch/kick a tiger? Can you effectively block it when it attempts to bite/claw you?)

    In any case, to all those gaping mouths who decry the inclusion of monkly classes in Dragon Age: Believe it or not, some people expect more than Fighter, Mage, and Thief.
    Really? They probably won't be disappointed then...

    There is not a snowflake's chance in the Nine Hells that I will buy Dragon Age if they don't include monks (i.e., mystical or spiritual masters of unarmed combat) as a player class - I don't care one whit if they invent a hundred in-game languages that leave linguists in awe for generations.
    Sorry to hear that.

    Ultimately, we'll have the type of character you describe if:

    a) it fits the culture of the area of the world our story is told in
    b) humanoids have the ability to channel their "inner energies"
    c) it fits with the setting

    We will not be including that type of character "cuz they're cool" though... sorry.

    <snip>
    ...
    </snip>

    That is the type of character I am looking for. One that is skilled enough in combat that he can effectively defend himself without weapons and skilled enough outside of combat to get things done. One thing that most game developers seem to forget is that obvious weapons tend to be noticed while someone just walking down the street unarmed is not.
    And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the ability to defend yourself in unarmed combat (like a bar brawl, or maybe if someone has a knife/no armour).

    The issue is the idea that an unarmed fighter with no armour can fight toe to toe with another fighter in full armour, be it chain/plate/whatever and an array of edged/blunt/piercing weapons designed specifically for causing grievous bodily harm. Or even a large predatory animal whose entire evolutionary chain has led it to become a lean, mean people eating machine...

    Monks !
    Sorry but that is a ridiculous argument, how is any kind of weapon or armour or technique supposed to work against non-humans, how does plate armour protect you agains a tigers bite?

    My point is that armaments give you an inherent advantage. Armour protects our frail human bodies. Pointy things allow us to hurt things which we might not otherwise be able to hurt.

    Tigers have very powerful jaws and could easily crush metal how do you effectively parry a tigers claws with a sword? Plate armour protect you against an ogre's strength? I have my doubts. How do you fight non-humans with anything.
    It is preferrable to parry a claw swipe from a big cat with a blade than with your arm.

    I have to say that there is alot of BS spoken by both sides in this discusion. First of all, all good martial arts have some form of weaponry as a part of the training, so it is common sense to prefer to be armed than unarmed.

    Secondly in all weaponry you should be using your arms, elbows, knees feet and head to strike and grapple as you are fighting(given the appropriate situation). armed and unarmed combat aren't mutually exclusive they can be used at the same time. so it is common sense to be skilled at unarmed combat as well as armed combat
    Yes. The main issue is with the idea that an unarmed combatant is expected to have the same effectiveness with bare fists and long flowing robes as an armoured foe with a blade.

    So in DA if the warrior class is to be depicted as truly skilled they would have to have both armed and unarmed combat to some degree.
    That would be ideal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2018
    chevalier, Mar 30, 2005
    #1
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.