chevalier
Sat, 13th May '06, 12:59am
Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum (http://forums.bioware.com/viewforum.html?forum=84). 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.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
The continuing Argument:Love Craft (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=479640&forum=84)
The Cthulhu mythos has some peculiarities to it which I'm not sure I like, personally.
For one, the evil involved is always a power that cannot really be defeated or touched in any way. It is unquantifiable and a player is punished should he come too close into contact with it. At best you might defeat its minions on this plane and perhaps thwart its plans temporarily... but always at great cost, usually to your sanity.
On an intellectual level I can appreciate that sort of thing in small doses, but the times I've played Call of Cthulhu in the past the end result broke down the same way with regards to gameplay: your characters died. A lot. And you were lucky if you got more than a tiny clue of what actually happened. And while the whole thing leant to a feel of helplessness and apprehension, I'm not sure I would say it was very fun in the long run.
Some elements of Lovecraft's world happen to coincide with things you'll find in Dragon Age, but without the entire helplessness/futility angle we're just not talking about the same thing at all, and I'm not sure it would be a very good fit for the game we're trying to make.
What type of NPCs would you like to see in DA? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479791&forum=84&sp=30)
I rather like seeing how people feel about characters we've done in the past, myself. From a writer's perspective, though, I'm not keen to revisit themes I've already used previously -- I'll tend to err on the side of innovation (personal, I mean... not the sort of innovation that makes PR types get all starry-eyed).
The one thing you simply cannot do is come up with a new character for me to write. As interesting as it might be to you, unless I find something in it to take ownership of I'm not going to be interested enough to write it well. I had a manager who decided that since I could write funny characters like Tomi and Deekin he could pass off a character concept he liked which he believed was the funniest thing since sliced bread. Naturally, I couldn't do a thing with it. Call it a failing if you wish, but personal inspiration plays a big part in my writing.
At any rate, I certainly hope that the characters we've come up with will be interesting to you all. I think I can safely say, as well, that there will be no male love interest with trust issues, no female love interest who betrays you and then becomes evil, no adorably sarcastic midgets and no pre-teens with emotional problems. Not because those weren't great characters but because we're movin' on.
More:
<hr />So will we get a thoroughly cynical character, who expects nothing/the worst, yet still tries to deal with it and makes the best of it?
I've seen hints of such behaviour in Steven Erikson's books, and it makes them very interesting...<hr />
That would be hard to pull off well in a game, I think. It's very easy for a character with whom you're talking to constantly to have such relatively minor quirks in their character seem exaggerated and very annoying. I call it "the Anomen Effect".
Not that you want to get a character to the point where they are completely inoffensive... it really depends on what you want to do with the character. But taking a sarcastic character and trying to make him approachable seems to be mixing purposes a bit.
More:
Yes, but I'd want a clear purpose for the character. I'd want him to be either all-out sarcastic to the point of being amusing... or I'd want to tone down his sarcasm and direct it at others beside the player if I wanted the character to be approachable and potentially a friend.
More:
<hr />it is common that he in someway critisizes the new NPC, and the new NPC either gives him the trashing of his life-time or in the worst-case scenario kills him on spot.<hr />
This is what I meant by "the Anomen Effect". It's not a reference to how much some people disliked Anomen, but rather an illustration of what can happen with characters that don't have a single, clear purpose.
Anomen was written first to be a somewhat arrogant companion who could be given his comeuppance later on in the story. Later it was decided to make him the male romance interest -- my reaction to which was something like, "That would have been very useful information to know YESTERDAY! Ahem."
If he'd had one clear purpose I would have toned down his initial criticism of the player, and some of his more annoying voice-over responses. Like the irritated "Yes?" he gives when clicked on. Some people just couldn't get past that to the actual romance. Those that did, I noticed, generally enjoyed the romance plot... but it's a lot to ask of a player.
Not that some nuance of character isn't fine, but I guess the short of it is that it's very easy for a character to be annoying or unlikeable and you as a designer have to decide whether that plays into the character's purpose or against it and stick with it. Otherwise your writing comes off as a bit schizophrenic.
This, at least, is the lesson I've learned over the years. Make of it what you will.
More:
<hr />You wrote the romances but didn't get to decide which NPCs would be romance options?
Sounds odd. Wonder how that came about...<hr />
Only for BG2. We were already well into writing the characters when the final decision came down on adding romances.
Afterwards we knew which characters were slated to be romances right from conception.
More:
<hr />Well, to be brutally honest the romance to me felt like what Anomen really needs is a grand-mother who'd buy him a prostitute, not a lover; it was neither inspiring, nor romantic, nor Anomen came accross as a man, let alone a grown-up man.<hr />
I'm okay with that criticism. It's far from universally felt... really, if there's anything that's primarily subjective it's one's romantic inclinations.
Really, a big part of the problem (if one wants to call it a problem) was that Anomen was the only type of romance available for female players. Our initial plan had three romances for each sex, covering the typical range of romantic types... men got the "girl next door", "damsel in distress" and the "sex kitten" (which covered most bases, I think) and girls were supposed to get "the Lancelot", "the strong, stoic type" and "the bad boy".
Naturally we ended up running out of time, as implementing our first conception of the romances ended up taking far longer than we'd anticipated. It wasn't really an intentional short-changing of the girls as some thought, but neither was it thought to be a great tragedy as some might moan considering the gender ratio amongst players. Some players were upset at what they perceived to be sheer unfairness, although where fairness comes into that equation I'm not really sure.
Anyhow, only "the Lancelot" ended up being implemented... and for those people who just weren't into what Anomen was offering there wasn't much in the way of options. Just as there's men who didn't find any of the three female romance types to be to their specific tastes, as well. I really don't think it's feasible to appeal to everyone when it comes to potential romance characters... indeed, by the very nature of the subject matter I'd question making the attempt.
More:
<hr />What do you see in common between Lancelot and Anomen?<hr />
Mostly the noble but fallible knight in shining armor thing. I decided to cut in a bit of bad boy into that mix, as well, once the decision came down that we wouldn't have time to do the others, but that wasn't in the original plan.
<hr />And another, if I may: did much of the material for the cut Haer'Dalis' romance went into NWN Valen?<hr />
No. There was no material for the cut Haer'Dalis romance. It had been planned, but was never started. Valen I wrote more in the mold of the "strong, silent type" I had originally planned for Valygar.
More:
<hr/>It was absolutely inappropriate for any Lauwful Good character. They just don't joke about wiping out a nation (or even a family) because they are annoing.<hr />
They certainly do. Not to start an alignment debate, but Lawful Good happens to encompass those holier-than-thou fanatics, as well, and doesn't mandate proper manners. It's Lawful Good, after all, and not Lawful Nice.
More:
<hr />I agree that it was inappropriate, but still, why are you using the phrase "wiping out"? I don't recall Anomen specifically calling for genocide or castration. I still think you are reading into it more than was intended. If you read the actual quote, it wasn't about race at all, which is what you can't seem to let go of.<hr />
But I would agree with Melirindia that what Anomen said, even in jest, was wildly inconsiderate and inappropriate.
But, then, Anomen is practically the King of Inappropriate. It's part of his delightful charm.
More:
<hr />No, he definetly never was CN in my games.<hr />
I would point out that the event you describe (him killing Saerk's son and daughter) is what leads to his change in alignment to Chaotic. It is, after all, in contravention to his Lawful alignment as you point out -- but that's not going to stop people from occasionally being driven to extreme acts.
<hr />I bedded him while telling him I don't love him because otherwise the romance would have broken down.<hr />
If you didn't love him, I find it strange that you would have wanted the romance to continue.
<hr />No, you don't get an option to kill Anomen in the dialogue in Saerk's house. He always kills the kids first.<hr />
I'll just point out here, as well, that Saerk's son and daughter were not children.
<hr />At the time Anomen's was the only female romance, so if I wanted any banter at all, I had to go through with this<hr />
And obviously he didn't click with you. I don't get the idea that you were somehow forced to endure his banter if you didn't find it enjoyable, and now seem determined to point out that he was somehow deficient by way of alignment or not measuring up to your view of a knight or whatever.
Perhaps you need to take this debate over to the BG2 forum, but I don't really see what the issue is except that you didn't like him.
Magic system (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=477127&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />What I would really like to see is a 'Warhammerish' type of magic system with 'winds of magic' or the like.<hr />
If I had my druthers, it would be the magic system out of Ars Magica.
Party Size (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=480373&forum=84&sp=0)
The total size of the part (including the player) is still between 4 and 6. The exact size hasn't been settled on yet.
More:
Hmm. I can see a larger party offering more in terms of banter, but how does it make combat more interesting?
Or is that more in terms of having full control over your party makes the combat interesting... and not the large size?
Because I've seen more than one person now claim that large parties make for more interesting combat and I'm curious where that perception might come from. It sounds like the typical "more is better" attitude, and I wonder how much thought has been given to the idea. I always thought that the 6-person party in BG/BG2 bordered on the unwieldy, myself (without quite going over the edge).
More:
That's a good question.
A large part of it is in the implementation. I know that if we mention having a different party size, like 4 or 5, people immediately imagine what it would be like to play BG2 with 4 or 5 characters and react accordingly -- but with a different balance and interface, the feel could be quite different indeed.
But there's some room for personal preference, I suppose. Myself, I like the idea of a smaller party... but not small enough so that there's too few opportunities for banter.
More:
Only to a point. Not knowing anything else about the system, balance or interface, people on the forums are almost always going to lean towards "more is better". And why wouldn't they?
More:
<hr />Not as good information for the devs to follow verbatim, but as information to draw from when making decisions.
If the majority of people really want six, perhaps four becomes less of an option, but you decide five might not upset them as much.<hr />
To a small degree, perhaps. We would have to look at why they're deciding they want however many in their party. Saying 4 or 5 might "upset" them, but since they're operating on limited information how much can we really worry about that?
After all, I'm afraid the primary determination of party size has more to do with the interface design than anything else.
Not that having preferences expressed isn't useful on a great number of things, but in this case considering all the factors that you guys can't factor into your expressed preference, it's not really telling us anything we didn't already know.
This world's name?This world's name? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=480432&forum=84&sp=0)
<hr />Am I alone in liking "Thedas" as a name much better than "Ferelden?"<hr />
The planet does have a name. It will be present in the game, but more in the academic sense.
Ferelden is not the name of the world, but rather the Kingdom where the story primarily takes place. Other nations are referenced, and it's not unlikely that other stories will take one beyond Ferelden... you've got to start somewhere, after all.
[ May 18, 2006, 18:52: Message edited by: chevalier ]
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
The continuing Argument:Love Craft (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=479640&forum=84)
The Cthulhu mythos has some peculiarities to it which I'm not sure I like, personally.
For one, the evil involved is always a power that cannot really be defeated or touched in any way. It is unquantifiable and a player is punished should he come too close into contact with it. At best you might defeat its minions on this plane and perhaps thwart its plans temporarily... but always at great cost, usually to your sanity.
On an intellectual level I can appreciate that sort of thing in small doses, but the times I've played Call of Cthulhu in the past the end result broke down the same way with regards to gameplay: your characters died. A lot. And you were lucky if you got more than a tiny clue of what actually happened. And while the whole thing leant to a feel of helplessness and apprehension, I'm not sure I would say it was very fun in the long run.
Some elements of Lovecraft's world happen to coincide with things you'll find in Dragon Age, but without the entire helplessness/futility angle we're just not talking about the same thing at all, and I'm not sure it would be a very good fit for the game we're trying to make.
What type of NPCs would you like to see in DA? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479791&forum=84&sp=30)
I rather like seeing how people feel about characters we've done in the past, myself. From a writer's perspective, though, I'm not keen to revisit themes I've already used previously -- I'll tend to err on the side of innovation (personal, I mean... not the sort of innovation that makes PR types get all starry-eyed).
The one thing you simply cannot do is come up with a new character for me to write. As interesting as it might be to you, unless I find something in it to take ownership of I'm not going to be interested enough to write it well. I had a manager who decided that since I could write funny characters like Tomi and Deekin he could pass off a character concept he liked which he believed was the funniest thing since sliced bread. Naturally, I couldn't do a thing with it. Call it a failing if you wish, but personal inspiration plays a big part in my writing.
At any rate, I certainly hope that the characters we've come up with will be interesting to you all. I think I can safely say, as well, that there will be no male love interest with trust issues, no female love interest who betrays you and then becomes evil, no adorably sarcastic midgets and no pre-teens with emotional problems. Not because those weren't great characters but because we're movin' on.
More:
<hr />So will we get a thoroughly cynical character, who expects nothing/the worst, yet still tries to deal with it and makes the best of it?
I've seen hints of such behaviour in Steven Erikson's books, and it makes them very interesting...<hr />
That would be hard to pull off well in a game, I think. It's very easy for a character with whom you're talking to constantly to have such relatively minor quirks in their character seem exaggerated and very annoying. I call it "the Anomen Effect".
Not that you want to get a character to the point where they are completely inoffensive... it really depends on what you want to do with the character. But taking a sarcastic character and trying to make him approachable seems to be mixing purposes a bit.
More:
Yes, but I'd want a clear purpose for the character. I'd want him to be either all-out sarcastic to the point of being amusing... or I'd want to tone down his sarcasm and direct it at others beside the player if I wanted the character to be approachable and potentially a friend.
More:
<hr />it is common that he in someway critisizes the new NPC, and the new NPC either gives him the trashing of his life-time or in the worst-case scenario kills him on spot.<hr />
This is what I meant by "the Anomen Effect". It's not a reference to how much some people disliked Anomen, but rather an illustration of what can happen with characters that don't have a single, clear purpose.
Anomen was written first to be a somewhat arrogant companion who could be given his comeuppance later on in the story. Later it was decided to make him the male romance interest -- my reaction to which was something like, "That would have been very useful information to know YESTERDAY! Ahem."
If he'd had one clear purpose I would have toned down his initial criticism of the player, and some of his more annoying voice-over responses. Like the irritated "Yes?" he gives when clicked on. Some people just couldn't get past that to the actual romance. Those that did, I noticed, generally enjoyed the romance plot... but it's a lot to ask of a player.
Not that some nuance of character isn't fine, but I guess the short of it is that it's very easy for a character to be annoying or unlikeable and you as a designer have to decide whether that plays into the character's purpose or against it and stick with it. Otherwise your writing comes off as a bit schizophrenic.
This, at least, is the lesson I've learned over the years. Make of it what you will.
More:
<hr />You wrote the romances but didn't get to decide which NPCs would be romance options?
Sounds odd. Wonder how that came about...<hr />
Only for BG2. We were already well into writing the characters when the final decision came down on adding romances.
Afterwards we knew which characters were slated to be romances right from conception.
More:
<hr />Well, to be brutally honest the romance to me felt like what Anomen really needs is a grand-mother who'd buy him a prostitute, not a lover; it was neither inspiring, nor romantic, nor Anomen came accross as a man, let alone a grown-up man.<hr />
I'm okay with that criticism. It's far from universally felt... really, if there's anything that's primarily subjective it's one's romantic inclinations.
Really, a big part of the problem (if one wants to call it a problem) was that Anomen was the only type of romance available for female players. Our initial plan had three romances for each sex, covering the typical range of romantic types... men got the "girl next door", "damsel in distress" and the "sex kitten" (which covered most bases, I think) and girls were supposed to get "the Lancelot", "the strong, stoic type" and "the bad boy".
Naturally we ended up running out of time, as implementing our first conception of the romances ended up taking far longer than we'd anticipated. It wasn't really an intentional short-changing of the girls as some thought, but neither was it thought to be a great tragedy as some might moan considering the gender ratio amongst players. Some players were upset at what they perceived to be sheer unfairness, although where fairness comes into that equation I'm not really sure.
Anyhow, only "the Lancelot" ended up being implemented... and for those people who just weren't into what Anomen was offering there wasn't much in the way of options. Just as there's men who didn't find any of the three female romance types to be to their specific tastes, as well. I really don't think it's feasible to appeal to everyone when it comes to potential romance characters... indeed, by the very nature of the subject matter I'd question making the attempt.
More:
<hr />What do you see in common between Lancelot and Anomen?<hr />
Mostly the noble but fallible knight in shining armor thing. I decided to cut in a bit of bad boy into that mix, as well, once the decision came down that we wouldn't have time to do the others, but that wasn't in the original plan.
<hr />And another, if I may: did much of the material for the cut Haer'Dalis' romance went into NWN Valen?<hr />
No. There was no material for the cut Haer'Dalis romance. It had been planned, but was never started. Valen I wrote more in the mold of the "strong, silent type" I had originally planned for Valygar.
More:
<hr/>It was absolutely inappropriate for any Lauwful Good character. They just don't joke about wiping out a nation (or even a family) because they are annoing.<hr />
They certainly do. Not to start an alignment debate, but Lawful Good happens to encompass those holier-than-thou fanatics, as well, and doesn't mandate proper manners. It's Lawful Good, after all, and not Lawful Nice.
More:
<hr />I agree that it was inappropriate, but still, why are you using the phrase "wiping out"? I don't recall Anomen specifically calling for genocide or castration. I still think you are reading into it more than was intended. If you read the actual quote, it wasn't about race at all, which is what you can't seem to let go of.<hr />
But I would agree with Melirindia that what Anomen said, even in jest, was wildly inconsiderate and inappropriate.
But, then, Anomen is practically the King of Inappropriate. It's part of his delightful charm.
More:
<hr />No, he definetly never was CN in my games.<hr />
I would point out that the event you describe (him killing Saerk's son and daughter) is what leads to his change in alignment to Chaotic. It is, after all, in contravention to his Lawful alignment as you point out -- but that's not going to stop people from occasionally being driven to extreme acts.
<hr />I bedded him while telling him I don't love him because otherwise the romance would have broken down.<hr />
If you didn't love him, I find it strange that you would have wanted the romance to continue.
<hr />No, you don't get an option to kill Anomen in the dialogue in Saerk's house. He always kills the kids first.<hr />
I'll just point out here, as well, that Saerk's son and daughter were not children.
<hr />At the time Anomen's was the only female romance, so if I wanted any banter at all, I had to go through with this<hr />
And obviously he didn't click with you. I don't get the idea that you were somehow forced to endure his banter if you didn't find it enjoyable, and now seem determined to point out that he was somehow deficient by way of alignment or not measuring up to your view of a knight or whatever.
Perhaps you need to take this debate over to the BG2 forum, but I don't really see what the issue is except that you didn't like him.
Magic system (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=477127&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />What I would really like to see is a 'Warhammerish' type of magic system with 'winds of magic' or the like.<hr />
If I had my druthers, it would be the magic system out of Ars Magica.
Party Size (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=480373&forum=84&sp=0)
The total size of the part (including the player) is still between 4 and 6. The exact size hasn't been settled on yet.
More:
Hmm. I can see a larger party offering more in terms of banter, but how does it make combat more interesting?
Or is that more in terms of having full control over your party makes the combat interesting... and not the large size?
Because I've seen more than one person now claim that large parties make for more interesting combat and I'm curious where that perception might come from. It sounds like the typical "more is better" attitude, and I wonder how much thought has been given to the idea. I always thought that the 6-person party in BG/BG2 bordered on the unwieldy, myself (without quite going over the edge).
More:
That's a good question.
A large part of it is in the implementation. I know that if we mention having a different party size, like 4 or 5, people immediately imagine what it would be like to play BG2 with 4 or 5 characters and react accordingly -- but with a different balance and interface, the feel could be quite different indeed.
But there's some room for personal preference, I suppose. Myself, I like the idea of a smaller party... but not small enough so that there's too few opportunities for banter.
More:
Only to a point. Not knowing anything else about the system, balance or interface, people on the forums are almost always going to lean towards "more is better". And why wouldn't they?
More:
<hr />Not as good information for the devs to follow verbatim, but as information to draw from when making decisions.
If the majority of people really want six, perhaps four becomes less of an option, but you decide five might not upset them as much.<hr />
To a small degree, perhaps. We would have to look at why they're deciding they want however many in their party. Saying 4 or 5 might "upset" them, but since they're operating on limited information how much can we really worry about that?
After all, I'm afraid the primary determination of party size has more to do with the interface design than anything else.
Not that having preferences expressed isn't useful on a great number of things, but in this case considering all the factors that you guys can't factor into your expressed preference, it's not really telling us anything we didn't already know.
This world's name?This world's name? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=480432&forum=84&sp=0)
<hr />Am I alone in liking "Thedas" as a name much better than "Ferelden?"<hr />
The planet does have a name. It will be present in the game, but more in the academic sense.
Ferelden is not the name of the world, but rather the Kingdom where the story primarily takes place. Other nations are referenced, and it's not unlikely that other stories will take one beyond Ferelden... you've got to start somewhere, after all.
[ May 18, 2006, 18:52: Message edited by: chevalier ]