Dragon Age Forum News

Remove all ads!

(Originally posted by chevalier)

Here are today's BioWare 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

Handling Resurrection

---------------
From dev announcements, it seems the game will support both styles. But that does leave us with a legitimate argument about how to handle death and resurrection.
---------------

Yes, let's not forget that there will be a seperate single-player and multiplayer game here. By necessity they will have to operate on slightly different rules.

What I find a bit amusing are the people who cling to the D&D principles of permanent death as if this is the only way to go, as if having characters repeatedly dying and being cheaply ressurected was indicative of not only a good RPG but their tenacity as a player. Quite simply, such systems allow quick death simply because magical healing and revival are also readily available.

You want to have a system that introduces downtime or setbacks for having party members defeated, true, but not have it be so punishing either that all but the most stubbornly hardcore reload and try the battle again to get around the sheer annoyance.

Multiple Attacks Per Round are awkward
I think the concept of the "6-second round" is the real culprit here.

Please don't start the game with a city under siege.

---------------
1) I also dislike the "...you're our only hope..." storylines, unless a) you're Obi-Wan Kenobi, or b) it's a peasant farmer saying it. In other words, it makes no sense for powerful NPCs to be entrusting everything to 1st level characters.
---------------

Not without good reason, no, I would tend to agree. Concurrently, it isn't much fun if there are folks around who are all better than you and send you to fetch the water buckets. Let's hope we can find a happy medium.

---------------
Quote: 2) Why does the Big Plot always have to involve unleashing ancient magical powers that threaten to destroy the world? Personally I'm happy with just vanquishing the bad guy. Well, and getting lots of loot. EVERY adventure doesn't have to involve saving the world.
---------------

Every adventure doesn't. But the epic ones often do. Well, maybe not "the world", but the stakes involved are generally pretty high and that's appropriate. If you're expecting a plot where nothing much is at risk and you can wander around willy-nilly for half the game before you even find out what it is... well, that's not exactly a story-driven game at that point, is it?

I sense that's not the point of most of the posters anyway, though. My sense is that we're being mostly asked to try hard and avoid tired cliches. Or at least to disguise them real well.

More:
---------------
My personal preference tends to stories which start out personal, but that gradually reveal that the players involvement is really a tiny corner of a much larger plot. But then, even that can become cliche.
---------------

Some people are going to tiredly dismiss whatever plot we come up with as cliche, no matter what we do. And for every person that would prefer more personal motivation as opposed to exterior motivation, someone else would cry that they didn't buy into personal motives because that's not what their character would do (like, for example, rescuing Imoen).

But we know that going in.

I can say that we haven't taken this kind of path with a story before (which I like as a writer) and that the multiple origin paths do allow for a great deal of personalization for your character's involvement in the overall plot. That said, there's no dilly-dallying around and it's definitely story-driven, but in the end either you buy into that story or you don't, regardless of what it is. Our job is to choose our course and make that story as easy to buy into and as enjoyable as possible.

Evil:
I don't think "evil" needs to necessarily involve killing at all. Not unless it's necessary, as someone with no morales wouldn't let a simple thing like murder stand between them and whatever it is that they want.

Really good evil motivations are more long-term, however, then simply what you're going to do with a damned puppy... and they're the ones that are hard to do in a CRPG as ulterior motives aren't easy to handle. We deal with what the player does, but we don't get into why he does it much.

As for those who feel the need to be psychos ("why can't I slaughter this whole village?"), they're really in the wrong ballpark to begin with.

More:
---------------
Where's my option to kill the boy's parents and feed them to the puppy, and then convince the boy it was all his fault? Not to mention than raising the (now tormented) boy and puppy to believe in what I believe in? Besides - I gotta raise my doggy up to be big and strong, with a taste for human flesh.
---------------

We'll eagerly await the release of your module "A Boy and His Dog: A Family Story". As for our efforts along such a line, see the part of my post regarding psychos.

More:
Look for the X-Box / PC title Enclave.

---------------
I know it's a FPS type game but that's not the important part. It has a Good and an Evil story. The stories are not identical and as the game is mission based the Good and Evil mission are very different.

What it does do is tell the same story from opposing sides.
---------------

And it does so in a very different manner from a CRPG, considering that it's mission-based.

---------------
Quote: So, I'd say that you can have an Evil option. But I'd also say that it will need a seperate story arc. Will we see that in Dragon Age? Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on BioWare
---------------

A completely seperate arc? No, not at all. There will be evil options and evil goals, but there is no seperate story where you wander around being the villain. Period.

More:
---------------
You know, this might work. You could create an evil motivation where you do wander around being the villain, such that the villain needs to do all the same things the hero does is his own story arc. Same dialogue - same plot points - different implicit motivation. Aside from the beginning and the end the game wouldn't actually be that different.
---------------

But the things the hero must accomplish are heroic. The villainous player being forced to accomplish heroic acts is what is being objected to here in the first place, if I'm not mistaken.

Brenon Holmes, Programmer

Pace of combat

---------------
How about something similar than in Drakan or Legacy of Kain - Soul Reaver 1&2? Maybe a few combat moves and basic attack and defence (like primary attack left mouse button and defence right mouse button and special moves from key combos or maybe F.. keys). It would have worked like a dream in Drakan if it had been made better. This would also require either mouse+keyboard combination or Soul Reaver style "console like" keyboard use. I don't think it's a bad idea.

We are playing PC games that's true, but I have to admit that using a contoller for attacking sounds much more intriguing than clicking a mouse.
---------------

You most likely won't see this sort of thing for a couple reasons...

1) Again, this is something that's relying on the skill of the player as opposed to the skill of the character. We're looking to involve the player in other ways besides timing moves (eg. hit spacebar when the screen flashes to do 2x damage!) or fighter style moves (eg. roll bottom to forward + B for a fireball).

2) The party. Fighter game style moves don't translate well to party based games, yes it can work when you're only controlling one character - however the style of game for these types of control schemes is usually instant feedback without the ability to queue up multiple actions...

Percentage done?
*clears throat*

*looks around and taps the mike*

It'll be done when it's done.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on the concept demo, as most likely you'll be wrong (too pessimistic or optimistic).