chevalier
Sat, 24th Jun '06, 11:59pm
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>
"You Must Make Haste" (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479244&forum=84&sp=120)
<hr />people not want to lose or have beloved characters fail or die... but sometimes (almost invariably,) you get better story from such stuff..<hr />
I would have to agree with that. If I asked my Sunday gaming group players if they were willing to have their character die in a heart-rendingly heroic fashion, there would stare at me with wide, horrified eyes and clutch their precious, precious character sheets to their chests and shake their heads no. But I'd do it anyway, and they'd thank me for it.
The setback is part of the Hero's Journey, after all, and ultimately all good stories break down to that.
But I think that's a slightly different problem from how you set it up in a game setting. It's all in the telegraphing and the mixed messages -- players will be babies because they will always be babies, and we pander to that desire at our own risk, even as we must also avoid stymieing players to the point of not being able to continue (or feeling they cannot). Writing prose is all about the author and his story... we cannot afford the same luxury. Or at least that is my observation.
Accents (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485109&forum=84&sp=30)
Our dwarves don't have a Scottish accent. We've de-scottified them. It takes a special aerosol spray, sort of like those bug bombs you use to clean out your basement.
Cursing (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485520&forum=84&sp=15)
I'm not a big fan of using made-up words in the place of real expletives. Every time someone says "frak" on Battlestar Galactica, I have to control an eye roll.
I will say that we've experimented with swears in DA. I'm not sure why, but every time they're used it just seems very jarring. Maybe because so many expletives are just considered very modern in their usage?
Mind you, nothing communicates a feeling quite so well as a well-placed "F***!!" or "SH**!!". I still remember when Caitlyn wheeled on Joey at the end of "Degrassi High" on Canadian prime time and screamed, "You were F***ING Tessa?!" -- sent shivers down my spine, man. Everyone was talking about it at school the next day. (We do that in Canada. I mean, really, it's just a nipple, people.)
I would almost prefer more archaic expletives, except that they aren't well understood anymore... to the point where one may as well almost use made-up words.
Whether or not we end up with them in DA will depend entirely on how distracting we feel they are, not on how afraid we are of using them.
Haste ii (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485634&forum=84&sp=15)
I can sympathize with LdyShayna's bad DM comment. I've encountered that, myself. You get a DM who gets pissed off at his players for unexpectedly killing their favorite enemy or not doing what they're supposed to -- hell, I even had one DM get pissy with our group because the plan we came up with to solve one situation was "stupid", and boy was he going to show us just what kind of consequences could happen for not thinking things through. Then we'd learn our lesson good.
Our group ended up feeling punished for no good reason and we were plenty upset. We could only operate on the information that the DM was providing us, after all, and even if he knew the plan was a stupid one we certainly didn't have the same knowledge that he did. We were only trying to do what we thought we should be, so was the fault ours for not knowing enough or the DM's for not leading us in the right direction?
As a DM you don't want to be so blatant as to resort to the omniscient/omnipotent NPC who solves all the players' problems for them or pulling out deus ex machina to save them from their own folly when they aren't being cautious... but part of being a good DM is leading your players where they need to be led without making them feel like you're leading them by the nose. And with game design it's not that different -- we're the DM's here, even if we can't be reactive ones.
So when you're leading the players into what is a story-required scripted event, how well it's going to come across all depends on the expectations you've given to your own players and how blunt you are in the implementation. (And I'm not suggesting that we at Bioware or I have always done this well... but we've learned what doesn't work enough to get a good grasp by now of what probably would).
If you've gone a whole long time in the game, for instance, with the player fighting and winning battles normally, suddenly springing a fight on them that they are not supposed to win might not be very fair. Just because *I* know they're not supposed to win doesn't mean they do. It's not about assuming that the player is an idiot or isn't paying attention, you have to ask yourself what is reasonable for the player to expect?
Using a cut-scene to "defeat" the player and advance the story is blunt -- and not ideal -- but it's better, in my opinion, then trying to frustrate the player by trying to make it look as if he lost a normal-seeming battle fair and square. At least then the player knows that this is how it was supposed to go. The only annoying thing there is if you suddenly make the player feel like a chump -- his mighty warrior has just taken out half a legion of trolls and suddenly someone sneaks up on him from behind and knocks him unconscious with a bag of marbles? Puh-lease. That doesn't have to it, though... let's say there was an explosion that knocked the player and everyone else around unconscious, or something similar -- if what's happened is reasonable enough, the player will probably swallow this blunt transition a bit more easily.
I think setting up the unwinnable encounter *can* be done outside of a cut-scene, but it needs a bit more careful set up. Let's say you want to put a monster obstacle that the player needs to get around but cannot fight. You get close to it and hear a roar or find evidence of its passing... a party member chimes in with a, "Holy sh**! That's a ******! We can't possibly survive a battle with that!" And when you get to the monster, what does it look like? Is it the same size as everything else you've faced in the game? Or this giant, impressive-looking bad-a** that makes the player gape? Perhaps a small cut-scene showing the monster doing something terrifying and powerful, and one of your party members wets their pants and yells, "Run!!"
It's not so unreasonable then to assume that the player has been given enough information to surmise that fighting is not really in the cards. I'm not sure that you wouldn't want to still give the player some way to defeat that monster -- maybe collapsing the roof on them or letting them come back later when they're higher level and can feel like they've accomplished something -- you just don't want to make the player feel like you're punishing them or giving them the impression that maybe if they were strong enough they could defeat that monster and find some fabulous treasure behind it. Like an easter egg -- but only if they're good enough, you know. Because chances are they're going to try it at least once, no matter what.
At any rate, these are my thoughts on the matter. I'll leave them at that, as I think I've rambled on enough.
Use of Voice Acting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485593&forum=84)
Inherent in that question is the idea that we must record VO for the PC responses in order to "do it right", correct? If you'll recall, we didn't do this in KotOR. I'm not sure I would like the idea of putting a voice in the PC's mouth... the sheer cost of such a design decision would necessitate that there only be very few versions recorded. Perhaps even one male, one female (which alone is budget-breaking, considering DA's size).
The idea is for DA to have full VO recording for all its dialogue, and so far that hasn't limited our volume of dialogue in the slightest (which, yes, means that it's a big part of the budget). Exactly how it's going to end up, however, may certainly change depending on any number of factors.
And I'm not so sure about just how "wrong" a decision this was for Oblivion, but that's a different topic.
More:
I'm ambivalent. Some voices, like Patrick Stewart or Sean Connery, are so iconic I think that you can't really use their voice unless the character in question essentially is who we'd expect upon hearing them.
Sean Bean is an example of an actor who is less recognizeable... but at that point why spend the money? Nobody's going to buy the game just to hear Sean Bean talk. Vin Diesel, maybe, but I digress.
I'd rather go with a celebrity who actually puts in a good performance, but I think the reason it's usually used is for the publicity. You could put Tara Reid into a game, I swear, and the gaming media would cry out "OMG!" in unison.
We wouldn't do it if it didn't work, after all.
More:
I'm not so sure that there's that much difference between an actor and a voice actor. A voice actor learns how to use solely their voice to do the same thing that an actor uses their entire body for -- so in that respect it's a specialization -- but the larger danger of using Hollywood actors as voice-actors is that you quickly learn those who have actual skill at acting and those who mostly rely on being real purty.
Even I gotta admit there's some actors that I go pitter-patter at the thought of getting for VO, regardless of how good they are at it. Nathan Fillion, for instance (he was actually in Jade Empire, come to think of it). It's nerd love, sure, but that's why it works.
More:
That's a curious question. Mass Effect has a much more cinematic style than Dragon Age. They could communicate with us all day long about how much they like having their PC speak and that doesn't mean it would be the right choice for our project.
More:
<hr />(assuming DA and ME sizes are comparable)<hr />
That's quite the assumption.
Never mind overall game length, even looking at density and style of dialogue we're talking about two completely different animals. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the differences in approach between the two games.
If you intend to start requiring justification for differences between one project you don't know much about to another entirely different project you know even less about -- well, you're bound to be either disappointed or confused.
More:
<hr />I noticed Nathan Fillion was mentioned for his role as Gao; and I've been wanting to ask for ages... Was it fun working with him? I've noticed a lot of you guys are Firefly/Serenity fans. Do you guys even get to meet the voice actors?<hr />
Naw, all the recording was done down in Los Angeles, I think. We didn't get to meet nobody. I even know people Nathan Fillion went to school with, and he has family here in Edmonton that he visits... but still no luck.
In other words, we are not immune to occasionally turning into gushing fanboys and fangirls, ourselves. In fact, we're professional geeks... you'd have to suspect that when we squeee we do so without equal.
More:
<hr />Some characters, like hk-47, morte and minsc, owe quite a bit o' their popularity to the voice actors.<hr />
Not to quibble, but insofar as HK-47 goes that would be LucasArts who was responsible for the VO. And I think they did a stellar job -- easily the best VO direction we've ever had (the director down in LA not only knew his VO stuff but was also was an RPG fan so understood what we were going for... which is a very hard combination to get, believe me.)
Romantic vs Friendship Track. (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485190&forum=84&sp=15)
Hmm. A rivalry is an interesting idea, but I'm not certain it would be very easy to pull off. It's my experience that players tend to react very poorly when a party member tries to out-Alpha them in any way. Look at Carth, as a for instance: he's suspicious of you at the start (justifiably, as it turns out) and there are some people who go on and on about how whiny and hostile he is as if this is the worst thing in the world.
Any negative response from a party member towards the player seems to stir outrage. And, equally strange, I have found that party members simply cannot be follower-ish enough that people consider them sycophantic rather than loyal (Deekin and Minsc being good examples).
Not everyone responds the same way, obviously, but in general I've found responses to party member personalities tend to be much more visceral than logical. I suspect someone could say "I think a party member being a rival to my character would be interesting" and yet respond completely different when actually confronted by it.
Not that it couldn't be done, I suppose... maybe my writing skills just aren't up to it... nor am I suggesting that every party member should be a loyal "yes man"... that would be boring... it's just an observation I've had from my years of doing this.
More:
I agree that making a romance more integral to the story would make it a better romance tale. Most adventure stories that you see have a romance bound up in their main plot, after all, and that's how it usually works.
We work with what we have, however. For whatever reason, it has become convention with games (or at least our games) that romances must be optional. Making those optional romances that there are be with characters that are integral to the plot (such as Bastila) opens up other issues such as forcing characters into a party, which flies in the face of normal RPG convention. Not only that, you suddenly limit your romances -- how many characters in the party can you have that are integral to the storyline before it becomes unwieldy?
It's a little like the bit about defining the protaganist. The more you define the protaganist, the more you can make the story about the protaganist, and the better a story you can generally craft. Same goes with romances and how tied into the overall plot they are.
As for party members, we do have a couple of plot-integral characters who come with you, though they are rarely forced into the party. Everyone else is optional to take along and becomes available during the course of the story. If you turn them down, however, they're gone. They don't go off to some other place to await the eventual changing of your mind, nor would it be logical for them to do so.
This, of course, being the current plan and subject to plenty of change should we decide otherwise, even on a whim just to spite y'all.
More:
Maybe. But if the story isn't about the player's character, then it must be about someone else -- someone whom the player did not create and who can only ever be a product of the writer's imagination and therefore will be that much harder to get the player to buy into.
There are plenty of instances of games that do just that, it's not such an innovation, and the story in them generally suffers the more they disassociate themselves from the player's character.
More:
<hr />charwood were possibly the most often praised portion o' nwn... and your character, the pc, though he/she advanced story and controlled outcome to some degree, were a relatively minor actor in that little drama. most of us were content with that, no?<hr />
As a single side-quest, sure, but is there enough there to inform the story of an entire game? I doubt it. Just because a single chapter is well-written does not mean the entire book will be.
More:
No, don't be like that. The type of story where the protaganist is a nobody (or anybody) has its place. You can write a good adventure yarn like IWD or Oblivion, and I guess you are right that you could even expand Charwood so that it was a much larger adventure.
I guess my belief is that while such a tale can certainly be fun and worthwhile, unless at some level the story becomes about the player's character it's never going to feel personal to the player... and therefore there are limits to how good it will ultimately be. Probably, however, a well-done tale where the PC could be anyone is better than a poorly-done tale where he is.
I suspect you believe the same as I do and you're just playing Devil's Advocate here, but what do I know? My expertise relates only to the writing and production of CRPG stories -- not necessarily the appreciation of them.
More:
<hr />Does it mean that those putative party members act like normal plot-critical NPCs when you didn't pick them? I.e. appear at certain plot points and do their thing?<hr />
Pardon? I'm not sure I get what you're asking here. You come across the various potential party members through the course of the story, and at some point in your interaction they have a reason to come with you. So they already "appear at certain plot points". The plot-critical party members that I mentioned are just more integrally tied into the main plot.
<hr />Also, you say that they are "rarely" forced into the party. But what happens when they are? Does an NPC whom they displace vanish forever?<hr />
Of course not. That would be silly.
<hr />I'd also give the other joinable NPCs at least one more cameo each further into the plot after the first encounter, where you'd have a second chance to pick them up. "One strike and you are out" seems a little harsh.<hr />
Why? If they didn't interest you enough to take along the first time, what makes you think that a brief cameo later on will change your mind? You came across them as part of the story, they had some reason to offer to join your cause, you said "no, thanks" and so they moved on and made other plans.
<hr />BTW, isn't it generally convenient to use unchosen joinable NPCs as normal plot NPCs? I mean, you already have a detailed model, animation, voice set. Wouldn't it be economical to integrate such an NPC into the plot if they are not picked by the player, rather than create a completely new NPC?<hr />
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, here. The party members you find are already part of the plot. Even if you never take them into your party, you will have still interacted with them in whatever part of the plot they are involved in.
<hr />I also hope that it is possible to influence those 2 plot-critical joinable NPCs if they are members of the party, so that perhaps there are some small differences at certain critical points. That they'd warn you of betrayal or some such. Too late to be of use, of course, except to let the player prepare better for the fight, but important to show that there is some sort of a relationship between them and the PC.<hr />
I'm not quite sure what you're picturing here. You will interact with the more plot-critical party members to a degree because they are critical to the overall plot. Like Carth and Bastila, I suppose, though there are differences.
Perhaps I just shouldn't bring up stuff like this without going into detail on what the entire system involved is going to be like, as I appear to have only confused you. I apologize, as I can't give out those details. I'll just have to leave it at this and say that we'll talk more about what's involved with the party system later on.
Single character or party based? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=486134&forum=84)
<hr />Will the game have the option for persistent worlds?<hr />
I doubt it, since DA has very different goals as a project from a game like NWN, but just as with NWN we aren't specifically ruling it out. Remember that even with NWN the fact that PW's were possible was only happy circumstance -- they were never an intended nor a supported feature.
Cameos (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=484131&forum=84&sp=75)
Actually, it wasn't originally our intention for the Gromnir in ToB to play the role he did (with the voice-over and everything). As happens sometimes, instead of getting cut the opposite happened, and he happened to fit a role we suddenly needed and got magnified. Possibly we should have simply changed the name at that point, but Grom has such a fun personality that I got carried away with the writing. Oh well.
It really was the last straw, at least for me, with regards to forum "cameos" (which normally is just using a forum member's name for a character we intended to put in anyhow -- Gromnir literally was the only true cameo where we used someone else's personality). Considering that it was just a wink of acknowledgement between us and the forums and that 95% of the people who played the game would never even know the difference, the display of hurt feelings and jealousy and such that I've already mentioned elsewhere was just too much.
Not to mention that Gromnir probably had to (and may still have to) tell folks over and over that, no, he didn't copy the name from ToB.
It's pretty silly and was just a case of developer whimsy -- writing hundreds of thousands of words of dialogue can sometimes be drudgery, folks, and sometimes you just gotta slip in an "I did it all for the wookiees." The fact that some people take everything so seriously makes me do this eye-rolling/gagging/exasperated thing which I use to end every design argument with James that totally drives him up the wall. Really, it's true.
More:
I'm not sure why I always assumed you were a half-orc, prior to you sending me your story. Karzak was the half-orc, after all. Making Gromnir a half-orc in ToB anyway seemed really funny at the time, just like the idea that Draconis in ToB was so tough that people would be cursing his name made me grin.
What can I say? I'm a little twisted.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=60)
<hr />I'd definitely be a lot more interested in an MMORPG that didn't charge me every month.<hr />
I'd definitely be a lot more interested in an MMORPG with a minimum age requirement, myself. And bouncers.
Climbing, Swimming, Flying: Are they in? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=481950&forum=84&sp=30)
None of the creatures in NWN that were "flying", from the Beholders on down, were actually doing so... they just had legs that you couldn't see.
So that kind of hovering is not an issue, and not really what I thought was being suggested.
More:
I see. So it's solely our lack of vision that we don't realize how important such things as climbing, swimming and flying are. When we say that these features require trade-offs and investments that we feel are not quite worth it considering the kind of game we are making, what we really mean is that we feel these features are of no use to anyone and that we would never consider including them in a game we make.
Hmm. I need my coffee.
More:
I have now had my Giant Mug (tm) of morning coffee and I see that I was a bit quick to jump all over that. What I meant to say is:
"We don't think flying has no use. It's just not cheap enough a feature, design-wise if not tech-wise, for us to put in this particular game. I know different kinds of RPG's that are either more tactical or more freeform put more of a focus on freedom of movement, and that some players want the best of both worlds, but either kind of games have to make trade-offs for what they want."
See? Wouldn't that have been nicer of me? Sorry, Metok.
Story-telling structure and tricks in a CRPG: what's OK and what's not? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485831&forum=84&sp=0)
Well, let me point to the way the origins supply your background and tell me whether that is an acceptable trick or not.
We supply you with the facts of your background -- this person is your mother and this person is your friend and this is your current situation -- but not how you feel about anything. You may be desperate to get out and adventure, for instance, or you might be content with your life and not want to leave. Up to you.
If there are options about your relationships or your activities in the origin, they come up in dialogue through a third party -- and as soon as they are selected by you, that is treated as the truth by them and everyone else from that point on.
There may be times when you are forced in a certain direction because that is where the story is going, but I think we are pretty conscious never to assume your motivations. In pretty much every instance so far when it seemed like there was only one direction to take because the player should "want" to do something, we've pretty much abandoned it or went out of our way to provide alternate paths.
More:
The player isn't warned, but the instances aren't exactly world-altering. It's more a matter of the origins picking up on the cues of the player. Let's say your friend talks to you and you have a variety of responses and you pick the one that tells him to get lost -- he might respond that he hates it when you get this moody and will treat you afterwards as if this is the norm for your relationship.
As opposed to "Ha ha! You're such a card! I know you love me best, really, you big kidder you!"
More:
We are establishing that you have a past and a place in the world. In some origins, this might mean only family -- or no family at all. In some origins, this might entail having a mentor or a friend. The only alternative would be to say that you have no connections at all.
I don't believe it's so unreasonable for us to say that here is a friend, a person with whom you have spent time in the past. We don't dictate the level of affection between you, nor is there a situation where we force you into a certain course of action due to this person being your "friend" -- it's just an established, pre-existing relationship the same as you having a mother and living in a certain town. If you have a problem with that, you will probably have a problem with the origin stories as a concept.
More:
I'm sorry... are you still going on about Imoen? And this is the source of your whole anti-friend rant? And we're talking BG1 here, right?
Wow. That's some grudge.
I really don't think there's any point in trying to dissuade her, folks. She doesn't like being provided a friend because she pictures Imoen -- end of story. I really imagine she won't like those origins that do so -- being provided someone that she is told her character has historically been friendly with seems wrong to her. Fair enough.
It's still going to happen, though, even though it will be nothing like Imoen in the BG series. I mean, get over it already.
More:
Heh. I'm not knocking her... she's entirely correct. There are a number of inconsistencies in the story between BG and BG2 and ToB. That's what happens when you get that much story over that long a period of time combined with short memories and not enough fact-checkers.
What we really needed was someone in that one meeting to remind us in their best Comic Book Guy voice about that one letter you could find in Gorion's office waaaaay back at the beginning of BG1. Someone would have snorted, "Who the hell put that there, anyhow?" And then there would have been a glum, awkward silence as we realized we needed to come up with some other solution to whatever problem we were tiredly dealing with.
In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I just find it cute that someone could accept the FR canon at face value, along with its many hand-waves and plot-holes that it has accumulated over the years, and use it to knock one of our own hand-waves. Not that hand-waves are a good thing, Melirindia is very right -- but, geez, even BG2 came out more than six years ago, already. Give us a break.
More:
Well, I would point out that back then we didn't have much of a QA department (none at all for BG1, in fact), and now we do. And they can be pretty picky, so there's our fact checkers right there.
Except for Stan. I don't know what he does, to be honest. http://forums.bioware.com/_commonext/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif</img>
More:
Hmmm. And yet I played Planescape:Torment and I would say that it felt very interactive, indeed. If I felt like I was reading a book while playing it, that was far more due to its volume of text rather than its lack of interactivity. I don't think that providing context and background for a player's character necessarily removes any elements of choice and interactivity.
It might remove some element of personal connection to the story, but that's slightly different. Even there we have degrees. I'm not sure that I've seen a great number of RPG's that didn't at least offer some context for the player character to exist in -- a great number don't even offer character generation as a feature.
Even if you say that those aren't really RPG's in your definition, I find it strange that some people approach CRPG's with the idea that they should be able to come up with a character concept before ever touching the game, and if they are unable to play that concept they are put out. It simply seems a bit odd to me.
More:
The origins are based on race and/or class. So you will pick those first... and at each selection you will see blurbs that give you the rundown on what the choices available are and what they mean. What is this race like in DA? What does this class do? These are the basics that most people will want to consider first, after all.
Then you will see the origin options (if there is an option) for that race/class combination. Again there will be a blurb explaining what's involved in each. This will determine where you start in the game and what your role in the world -- at least to begin with -- will be. After that you will flesh out the concept with stats and skills and so forth, as seems natural (to me, at least).
What Jennifer meant by it being playable is that we're not talking about some detailed origin story that predefines everything about your character. Certain details are set down, but we don't set your motivations or dictate how you feel about things. Each origin story has a whole segment of the game which is unique -- we're not talking a 30-second vignette a la Temple of Elemental Evil, but more of a lengthy playable prologue with combat and treasure and its own story... and hopefully enough room left for you to play whatever personality or motivations you desire, within the context of that race/class. We do this as a means of introducing our world to you and as a way of making the story that follows seem firmly rooted in the choices you made.
Starting with the origin is a bit backwards -- but for those who absolutely must see all the options before they choose I don't imagine it will be very difficult to do so. Possibly they will even be re-printed in the manual for perusal, I coudln't say. But hand-wringing at this point over whether or not you'll be able to find an origin that's suitable is a bit premature.
More:
Well, I will go and tell the producer, then, that there is already a great deal of angst being generated over whether or not folks will have enough information at their fingertips on the available origins or if they will be forced to painfully navigate through all those menus or -- and here's where it gets painful -- possibly end up having a childhood friend sprung on them when what they were really aiming for was a churlish loner. Which would be bad.
And I promise to remain completely serious throughout the entire conversation.
More:
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84)
Which is great if you have enchanting and/or other types of crafting in your game.
Personally I find crafting to be one of those elements best left to MMORPG's or stories that accomodate being able to wander the world willy-nilly and not really concern yourself with the plot (which is definitely something some folks like to do).
If you (as in we) decide not to have crafting, however, what are you doing all that wood-chopping and flower-picking for?
More:
And that can, indeed, be very interesting. I assure you, however, that it's not just going to happen by accident. We're talking about taking this sort of interaction into account in the level design throughout the entire game -- so you have to make sure that there is a stream that cannot be passed unless you either roll a rock into it or build a boat to cross it, in order to provide value to that feature.
Just like if you have swimming you are going to need to provide areas where swimming is necessary -- and if you have horses you are going to need to provide vast areas that provide horses to speed across, opportunities for mounted combat and take into account in every level that the player might have a mount. Or what is the point? Putting in the ability to push a rock, chop down a tree or knock over a chair should surely have some use beyond the player doing it once and going, "ooOOooh IMMERSION!" and then never doing it again, no?
Perhaps you disagree, but even if you are not concerned about the cost/benefit analysis we at least have to consider what kind of game we want to make and where it's best for us to spend our time.
More:
It's a magic word.
Why add feature X? Because it adds to the IMMERSION!
Everyone nods their heads. Yes, indeed, that's a very good reason. Why can't the developers see this?
What exactly immersion adds to the game -- or what makes it a better RPG in and of itself -- is never quite clear. It adds immersion. What else need be said?
There are a few other words like this, but this one is my favorite
More:
"cinematic", certainly -- though we toss that around ourselves just as much. We put features forward and say it will be more cinematic that way, and that sounds fine until someone asks if being more cinematic is really the goal... which, if you haven't thought about it, makes for a jarring moment. Buzz words used as reasons to do or not do things is lazy thinking.
And that's really my only objection, when a buzz word is used as someone's entire argument. People throw them out sometimes amidst other discussion, and I don't have an issue with that so much.
Just for the record, my other choices for most-hated buzz words are "innovation" (as you surmised), "options" and "linearity". Thankfully, "epic" has fallen out of favor here at the office, as well.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Ferret Baudoin in DA? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=483510&forum=84&sp=90)
Unfortunately for QA, it's our job to stick our noses into every little thing in order to test it thoroughly. It's especially unfortunate for us design-side testers whose job it is to analyze and report on the story elements, dialogue, and plots.
That said, I found that Jade Empire was and is (I'm testing for Jade PC now) still enjoyable to play, even though it holds no more secrets from me. I still have fun in the combat, still have fun with Focus running, trying out the various styles, and levelling up in different ways. Hopefully, Dragon Age will also hold my interest like that too.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />If the finished game does not meet your quality standards, I'd prefer it being released at half-price with a disclaimer over it not being released at all...<hr />
We wouldn't. It'd be like handing in a term paper with a disclaimer saying "Sorry it's not as good as I'd originally hoped, but I've been busy."
Your general audience isn't going to care about you being busy or having to work two jobs or needing to take your significant other out for his/her birthday. He's just going to to see that it's half-done and will grade it accordingly.
If the game does not meet our quality standards, it isn't done. We work very hard at the tail end of a project to ensure that most if not all of the fun-stopping and game-killing problems are dealt with. Part of what makes BioWare games so great is BioWare's "release when it's done" attitude towards game development.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Chris Priestly, Quality Assurance</font>
"You Must Make Haste" (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479244&forum=84&sp=120)
<hr />in spie of heroic story telling in crpgs, the heroes don't lose in crpgs. why?<hr />
Because, unlike books and stories, CRPGs have message boards where people who play the game come and complain about not being able to defeat the whatever (monster, villian, puzzle, etc). If enough listeners to the original Beowulf had complained about the outcome 1000 years ago, it's quite possible that the minstrels and bards of the time would have changed the end so that he won.
Cursing (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485520&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />Why do people keep on saying the "f-bomb" and again why do people keep on just associating it with sexual connitations.<hr />
I don't think that they do. I think that people mostly use the "f-bomb" because they are too poorly educated to use much else. What I mean is when you hear people say "That f-in truck" or "I had to go to the f-in store". This contains zero aspect of sexuality. The person using the expletive is only using it as they are trying to add emphasis to what they are saying but lack the ability to choose a better descriptive term, so rely upon a common expletive.
I'm not saying that all people who curse are dumb. Or that all people who use the "f-bomb" lack education. But I do think that people who have a better education can usually come up with something more unpleasant to say. (Personally, I like hearing poeple who come up with creative ways to violently express displeasure. I think it shows creativity in the face of extreme duress.)
As far as Dragon Age goes, I don't know as I'm not a writer on the project (something you should all be greatful for as my writing stinks). Knowing our writing staff I think they would likely be able to come up with more interesting swears than "Fighter comes up a hill to find 1000 ocrs and says "F*** thats a lot of orcs.". As to exactly what they come up with and how often/how much etc, you'll need to saty tuned and see what happens.http://forums.bioware.com/_commonext/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif</img>
Use of Voice Acting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485593&forum=84)
But we never sold the game based on Mr Cleese's voice. Sure he was in it and had a cool little role, but we never marketed the game like "Jade Empire featuring John Cleese" or whatever. Infact, we were prohibited from doing so. A professional actor like Mr Cleese has (at least) 2 sets of fees. We got the "cheap" version wheer we promised not to market the game with his name or likeness. We could have done so, but his fee would have been larger.
It depends on the game. If I was playing a known title based on a TV show or movie, I would want to hear the actor's voices I know. That's what Start Trek/Wars games, 24, or whatever pays it's stars what they do and market's the games as such. As we are coming up with our own game without sorce reference, we can cast the actor, whether local or professional or international, that will do the best job.
More:
<hr />The fellow who did Irenicus... I've seen him in movies before but I can't remember his name. Anyone know off-hand?<hr />
David Warner. You might remember him from things like Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits (He played Evil, a role I very much enjoyed him in), Titanic (he was the nasty bodyguard to Billy Zane, The League of Gentleman's Apocalypse (as Dr Erasmus Pea) and about a million different voice overs in cartoons like Freakazoid, Batman, Winnie the Pooh, and many more.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=15)
I think vaporware is when a small dev team/house tries to make a game and get in over their heads. Soon, their resources and funding dry up and they are left with incomplete promises. BioWare doesn't have this problem at all. We remain dedicated to Dragon Age and, since announcement, have never stopped working on it (infact the team keeps growing). Sure, we're also making Mass Effect and other "secret projects", but this doesn't mean we're ignoring DA.
Dragon Age is going to be a huge title for BioWare/Pandemic and we're focused on it's success. I know there isn't much in the way of "eye-catching" materials right now (screenshots and the like), but there will be when the team is ready. And when it comes, we'll put all those nasty rumors to rest. Stay tuned.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
What to do while waiting for Dragon Age...? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=484580&forum=84&sp=30)
I'd say possibly only a handful of developers can afford the multi-multi-million dollar development price tag on their own. LdyShayna is quite correct that publishers almost always cover the development costs.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Sheryl Chee, Writer</font>
Romantic vs Friendship Track. (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485190&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />First off, what's the deal with romances being so important? It's just one aspect of the game....
...There's no chance all those people are single loners dying for some surogate of real-life romantic interaction.
Frankly, what makes people look forward to game romance so much? If something isn't working out in real life relationships, perhaps it's time to seek counselling rather than look around for some lovey dovey happiness elsewhere. And if you actually are single, it's probably better to start going out instead of clinging to virtual stuff for dear life.<hr />
I feel I have to respond here. I've seen this sentiment expressed so often and it is started to bother me a bit. "People who like romances in-game are probably experiencing problems with real life relationships or are lacking those altogether." Just because you like role-playing and character development doesn't mean you're socially awkward and can't find friends/lovers elsewhere. Of course, this would be true of some of the players, but you can say the same of any group of people, regardless of the hobby they indulge in. I'm sure some knitters use knitting as a form of escapism because they "have no life". I'm tired of hearing people say "I don't role-play, or care about NPC interactions because I have a real girlfriend! You losers should stop playing video games and go outside. LOLZ."
What makes me look forward to the romances? Character development of both the NPCs and my PC. My PC grows with her NPCs as she gets to know them and I get to experience her story. No story is complete without friends that care about you and people that love you and I want my PC to have that. Having NPCs with no personality following me around is just dull. If I want an action game, I'll play an action game. My best memories of BG2 were the romance and the banters. The battles were great, sure, but knowing that my character was doing it with her friends made it that much better.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
How much mysticism? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=483622&forum=84)
<hr />From what I read until now here, Bioware prefers to have things logically explained.
And besides, its ultra ultra hard for modern people to create stories like Archilles or Siegfried - because sadly these stories are based on a totally different way of thinking which is very uncommon for computer geeks.<hr />
Yes, in order for systems to have rules and limitations... you sort of have to have an idea about how they work.
However, just because the system is known doesn't necessarily mean that it will be presented that way. I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the world of DA that will have their own theories on how magic works... where it comes from... etc.
Some of them may even be right...
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84&sp=45)
It's assuming you're doing enough physics computations to actually make it worth while. Physics cards won't be useful until they can categorically prove that there is a tangible benefit to using them... which has yet to be done.
They need buy in from both developers and from the gaming public... and yes, you can pull the 3D graphics "card", but there was a clear difference in the quality and speed of a software 3D render and a hardware accelerated render.
I won't even get started on AI cards... I'd love to see a hardware developer talk about hardware AI acceleration with a straight face...
More:
I think that's a good generalisation. I'm not saying that physics cards won't be useful, long term... just that they haven't proven themselves yet. Even some of the more physics intensive simulations today are still not even necessarily *that* complex...
Do you ever really see five thousand balls tumbling down a curved slope in a game, all colliding and bouncing realistically? Usually not.
The use of physics in games is becoming more prevalent, especially with the advent of some nice physics libraries like Novodex, (also the folks on the fore front with the physics cards) but I think in a lot of cases, we just don't have enough things that we need to simulate (yet).
Of course, this is from a rather subjective position. Someone working on a FPS game might have different thoughts on the matter... though, from some of the things I've seen done *without* the use of a hardware physics card... I'm not so sure.
More:
For sure, but the question is... if you were to run that in software, and then with the accelerated hardware... would you as a user be able to tell the difference? That's the test that needs to pass...
You need to look at that second version and your jaw needs to hit the floor. You need to be excited, pointing and thinking: "Damn, I need to get me one of those!".
More:
Depends on what kind of chairs you're talking about. There could potentially be multiple kinds... ones that you cannot interact with (assuming we have interaction with chairs) would probably not be movable. Other ones could be destructible, I suppose.
The major thing that's probably going to affect this sort of thing is interiors and how they're built. We don't have a complete picture on all the implications yet... so sadly, I can't give you a definitive answer.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Jennifer Hepler, Writer</font>
Story-telling structure and tricks in a CRPG: what's OK and what's not? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485831&forum=84&sp=90)
To clarify -- the origin stories are playable game segments; there is no "text of the backstory," which can be provided in the manual. There will be short blurbs about each story which you can pick from, however, to decide not only what kind of character you want to play, but which type of play experience sounds like a more entertaining way to start your game.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
"You Must Make Haste" (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479244&forum=84&sp=120)
<hr />people not want to lose or have beloved characters fail or die... but sometimes (almost invariably,) you get better story from such stuff..<hr />
I would have to agree with that. If I asked my Sunday gaming group players if they were willing to have their character die in a heart-rendingly heroic fashion, there would stare at me with wide, horrified eyes and clutch their precious, precious character sheets to their chests and shake their heads no. But I'd do it anyway, and they'd thank me for it.
The setback is part of the Hero's Journey, after all, and ultimately all good stories break down to that.
But I think that's a slightly different problem from how you set it up in a game setting. It's all in the telegraphing and the mixed messages -- players will be babies because they will always be babies, and we pander to that desire at our own risk, even as we must also avoid stymieing players to the point of not being able to continue (or feeling they cannot). Writing prose is all about the author and his story... we cannot afford the same luxury. Or at least that is my observation.
Accents (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485109&forum=84&sp=30)
Our dwarves don't have a Scottish accent. We've de-scottified them. It takes a special aerosol spray, sort of like those bug bombs you use to clean out your basement.
Cursing (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485520&forum=84&sp=15)
I'm not a big fan of using made-up words in the place of real expletives. Every time someone says "frak" on Battlestar Galactica, I have to control an eye roll.
I will say that we've experimented with swears in DA. I'm not sure why, but every time they're used it just seems very jarring. Maybe because so many expletives are just considered very modern in their usage?
Mind you, nothing communicates a feeling quite so well as a well-placed "F***!!" or "SH**!!". I still remember when Caitlyn wheeled on Joey at the end of "Degrassi High" on Canadian prime time and screamed, "You were F***ING Tessa?!" -- sent shivers down my spine, man. Everyone was talking about it at school the next day. (We do that in Canada. I mean, really, it's just a nipple, people.)
I would almost prefer more archaic expletives, except that they aren't well understood anymore... to the point where one may as well almost use made-up words.
Whether or not we end up with them in DA will depend entirely on how distracting we feel they are, not on how afraid we are of using them.
Haste ii (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485634&forum=84&sp=15)
I can sympathize with LdyShayna's bad DM comment. I've encountered that, myself. You get a DM who gets pissed off at his players for unexpectedly killing their favorite enemy or not doing what they're supposed to -- hell, I even had one DM get pissy with our group because the plan we came up with to solve one situation was "stupid", and boy was he going to show us just what kind of consequences could happen for not thinking things through. Then we'd learn our lesson good.
Our group ended up feeling punished for no good reason and we were plenty upset. We could only operate on the information that the DM was providing us, after all, and even if he knew the plan was a stupid one we certainly didn't have the same knowledge that he did. We were only trying to do what we thought we should be, so was the fault ours for not knowing enough or the DM's for not leading us in the right direction?
As a DM you don't want to be so blatant as to resort to the omniscient/omnipotent NPC who solves all the players' problems for them or pulling out deus ex machina to save them from their own folly when they aren't being cautious... but part of being a good DM is leading your players where they need to be led without making them feel like you're leading them by the nose. And with game design it's not that different -- we're the DM's here, even if we can't be reactive ones.
So when you're leading the players into what is a story-required scripted event, how well it's going to come across all depends on the expectations you've given to your own players and how blunt you are in the implementation. (And I'm not suggesting that we at Bioware or I have always done this well... but we've learned what doesn't work enough to get a good grasp by now of what probably would).
If you've gone a whole long time in the game, for instance, with the player fighting and winning battles normally, suddenly springing a fight on them that they are not supposed to win might not be very fair. Just because *I* know they're not supposed to win doesn't mean they do. It's not about assuming that the player is an idiot or isn't paying attention, you have to ask yourself what is reasonable for the player to expect?
Using a cut-scene to "defeat" the player and advance the story is blunt -- and not ideal -- but it's better, in my opinion, then trying to frustrate the player by trying to make it look as if he lost a normal-seeming battle fair and square. At least then the player knows that this is how it was supposed to go. The only annoying thing there is if you suddenly make the player feel like a chump -- his mighty warrior has just taken out half a legion of trolls and suddenly someone sneaks up on him from behind and knocks him unconscious with a bag of marbles? Puh-lease. That doesn't have to it, though... let's say there was an explosion that knocked the player and everyone else around unconscious, or something similar -- if what's happened is reasonable enough, the player will probably swallow this blunt transition a bit more easily.
I think setting up the unwinnable encounter *can* be done outside of a cut-scene, but it needs a bit more careful set up. Let's say you want to put a monster obstacle that the player needs to get around but cannot fight. You get close to it and hear a roar or find evidence of its passing... a party member chimes in with a, "Holy sh**! That's a ******! We can't possibly survive a battle with that!" And when you get to the monster, what does it look like? Is it the same size as everything else you've faced in the game? Or this giant, impressive-looking bad-a** that makes the player gape? Perhaps a small cut-scene showing the monster doing something terrifying and powerful, and one of your party members wets their pants and yells, "Run!!"
It's not so unreasonable then to assume that the player has been given enough information to surmise that fighting is not really in the cards. I'm not sure that you wouldn't want to still give the player some way to defeat that monster -- maybe collapsing the roof on them or letting them come back later when they're higher level and can feel like they've accomplished something -- you just don't want to make the player feel like you're punishing them or giving them the impression that maybe if they were strong enough they could defeat that monster and find some fabulous treasure behind it. Like an easter egg -- but only if they're good enough, you know. Because chances are they're going to try it at least once, no matter what.
At any rate, these are my thoughts on the matter. I'll leave them at that, as I think I've rambled on enough.
Use of Voice Acting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485593&forum=84)
Inherent in that question is the idea that we must record VO for the PC responses in order to "do it right", correct? If you'll recall, we didn't do this in KotOR. I'm not sure I would like the idea of putting a voice in the PC's mouth... the sheer cost of such a design decision would necessitate that there only be very few versions recorded. Perhaps even one male, one female (which alone is budget-breaking, considering DA's size).
The idea is for DA to have full VO recording for all its dialogue, and so far that hasn't limited our volume of dialogue in the slightest (which, yes, means that it's a big part of the budget). Exactly how it's going to end up, however, may certainly change depending on any number of factors.
And I'm not so sure about just how "wrong" a decision this was for Oblivion, but that's a different topic.
More:
I'm ambivalent. Some voices, like Patrick Stewart or Sean Connery, are so iconic I think that you can't really use their voice unless the character in question essentially is who we'd expect upon hearing them.
Sean Bean is an example of an actor who is less recognizeable... but at that point why spend the money? Nobody's going to buy the game just to hear Sean Bean talk. Vin Diesel, maybe, but I digress.
I'd rather go with a celebrity who actually puts in a good performance, but I think the reason it's usually used is for the publicity. You could put Tara Reid into a game, I swear, and the gaming media would cry out "OMG!" in unison.
We wouldn't do it if it didn't work, after all.
More:
I'm not so sure that there's that much difference between an actor and a voice actor. A voice actor learns how to use solely their voice to do the same thing that an actor uses their entire body for -- so in that respect it's a specialization -- but the larger danger of using Hollywood actors as voice-actors is that you quickly learn those who have actual skill at acting and those who mostly rely on being real purty.
Even I gotta admit there's some actors that I go pitter-patter at the thought of getting for VO, regardless of how good they are at it. Nathan Fillion, for instance (he was actually in Jade Empire, come to think of it). It's nerd love, sure, but that's why it works.
More:
That's a curious question. Mass Effect has a much more cinematic style than Dragon Age. They could communicate with us all day long about how much they like having their PC speak and that doesn't mean it would be the right choice for our project.
More:
<hr />(assuming DA and ME sizes are comparable)<hr />
That's quite the assumption.
Never mind overall game length, even looking at density and style of dialogue we're talking about two completely different animals. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the differences in approach between the two games.
If you intend to start requiring justification for differences between one project you don't know much about to another entirely different project you know even less about -- well, you're bound to be either disappointed or confused.
More:
<hr />I noticed Nathan Fillion was mentioned for his role as Gao; and I've been wanting to ask for ages... Was it fun working with him? I've noticed a lot of you guys are Firefly/Serenity fans. Do you guys even get to meet the voice actors?<hr />
Naw, all the recording was done down in Los Angeles, I think. We didn't get to meet nobody. I even know people Nathan Fillion went to school with, and he has family here in Edmonton that he visits... but still no luck.
In other words, we are not immune to occasionally turning into gushing fanboys and fangirls, ourselves. In fact, we're professional geeks... you'd have to suspect that when we squeee we do so without equal.
More:
<hr />Some characters, like hk-47, morte and minsc, owe quite a bit o' their popularity to the voice actors.<hr />
Not to quibble, but insofar as HK-47 goes that would be LucasArts who was responsible for the VO. And I think they did a stellar job -- easily the best VO direction we've ever had (the director down in LA not only knew his VO stuff but was also was an RPG fan so understood what we were going for... which is a very hard combination to get, believe me.)
Romantic vs Friendship Track. (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485190&forum=84&sp=15)
Hmm. A rivalry is an interesting idea, but I'm not certain it would be very easy to pull off. It's my experience that players tend to react very poorly when a party member tries to out-Alpha them in any way. Look at Carth, as a for instance: he's suspicious of you at the start (justifiably, as it turns out) and there are some people who go on and on about how whiny and hostile he is as if this is the worst thing in the world.
Any negative response from a party member towards the player seems to stir outrage. And, equally strange, I have found that party members simply cannot be follower-ish enough that people consider them sycophantic rather than loyal (Deekin and Minsc being good examples).
Not everyone responds the same way, obviously, but in general I've found responses to party member personalities tend to be much more visceral than logical. I suspect someone could say "I think a party member being a rival to my character would be interesting" and yet respond completely different when actually confronted by it.
Not that it couldn't be done, I suppose... maybe my writing skills just aren't up to it... nor am I suggesting that every party member should be a loyal "yes man"... that would be boring... it's just an observation I've had from my years of doing this.
More:
I agree that making a romance more integral to the story would make it a better romance tale. Most adventure stories that you see have a romance bound up in their main plot, after all, and that's how it usually works.
We work with what we have, however. For whatever reason, it has become convention with games (or at least our games) that romances must be optional. Making those optional romances that there are be with characters that are integral to the plot (such as Bastila) opens up other issues such as forcing characters into a party, which flies in the face of normal RPG convention. Not only that, you suddenly limit your romances -- how many characters in the party can you have that are integral to the storyline before it becomes unwieldy?
It's a little like the bit about defining the protaganist. The more you define the protaganist, the more you can make the story about the protaganist, and the better a story you can generally craft. Same goes with romances and how tied into the overall plot they are.
As for party members, we do have a couple of plot-integral characters who come with you, though they are rarely forced into the party. Everyone else is optional to take along and becomes available during the course of the story. If you turn them down, however, they're gone. They don't go off to some other place to await the eventual changing of your mind, nor would it be logical for them to do so.
This, of course, being the current plan and subject to plenty of change should we decide otherwise, even on a whim just to spite y'all.
More:
Maybe. But if the story isn't about the player's character, then it must be about someone else -- someone whom the player did not create and who can only ever be a product of the writer's imagination and therefore will be that much harder to get the player to buy into.
There are plenty of instances of games that do just that, it's not such an innovation, and the story in them generally suffers the more they disassociate themselves from the player's character.
More:
<hr />charwood were possibly the most often praised portion o' nwn... and your character, the pc, though he/she advanced story and controlled outcome to some degree, were a relatively minor actor in that little drama. most of us were content with that, no?<hr />
As a single side-quest, sure, but is there enough there to inform the story of an entire game? I doubt it. Just because a single chapter is well-written does not mean the entire book will be.
More:
No, don't be like that. The type of story where the protaganist is a nobody (or anybody) has its place. You can write a good adventure yarn like IWD or Oblivion, and I guess you are right that you could even expand Charwood so that it was a much larger adventure.
I guess my belief is that while such a tale can certainly be fun and worthwhile, unless at some level the story becomes about the player's character it's never going to feel personal to the player... and therefore there are limits to how good it will ultimately be. Probably, however, a well-done tale where the PC could be anyone is better than a poorly-done tale where he is.
I suspect you believe the same as I do and you're just playing Devil's Advocate here, but what do I know? My expertise relates only to the writing and production of CRPG stories -- not necessarily the appreciation of them.
More:
<hr />Does it mean that those putative party members act like normal plot-critical NPCs when you didn't pick them? I.e. appear at certain plot points and do their thing?<hr />
Pardon? I'm not sure I get what you're asking here. You come across the various potential party members through the course of the story, and at some point in your interaction they have a reason to come with you. So they already "appear at certain plot points". The plot-critical party members that I mentioned are just more integrally tied into the main plot.
<hr />Also, you say that they are "rarely" forced into the party. But what happens when they are? Does an NPC whom they displace vanish forever?<hr />
Of course not. That would be silly.
<hr />I'd also give the other joinable NPCs at least one more cameo each further into the plot after the first encounter, where you'd have a second chance to pick them up. "One strike and you are out" seems a little harsh.<hr />
Why? If they didn't interest you enough to take along the first time, what makes you think that a brief cameo later on will change your mind? You came across them as part of the story, they had some reason to offer to join your cause, you said "no, thanks" and so they moved on and made other plans.
<hr />BTW, isn't it generally convenient to use unchosen joinable NPCs as normal plot NPCs? I mean, you already have a detailed model, animation, voice set. Wouldn't it be economical to integrate such an NPC into the plot if they are not picked by the player, rather than create a completely new NPC?<hr />
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, here. The party members you find are already part of the plot. Even if you never take them into your party, you will have still interacted with them in whatever part of the plot they are involved in.
<hr />I also hope that it is possible to influence those 2 plot-critical joinable NPCs if they are members of the party, so that perhaps there are some small differences at certain critical points. That they'd warn you of betrayal or some such. Too late to be of use, of course, except to let the player prepare better for the fight, but important to show that there is some sort of a relationship between them and the PC.<hr />
I'm not quite sure what you're picturing here. You will interact with the more plot-critical party members to a degree because they are critical to the overall plot. Like Carth and Bastila, I suppose, though there are differences.
Perhaps I just shouldn't bring up stuff like this without going into detail on what the entire system involved is going to be like, as I appear to have only confused you. I apologize, as I can't give out those details. I'll just have to leave it at this and say that we'll talk more about what's involved with the party system later on.
Single character or party based? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=486134&forum=84)
<hr />Will the game have the option for persistent worlds?<hr />
I doubt it, since DA has very different goals as a project from a game like NWN, but just as with NWN we aren't specifically ruling it out. Remember that even with NWN the fact that PW's were possible was only happy circumstance -- they were never an intended nor a supported feature.
Cameos (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=484131&forum=84&sp=75)
Actually, it wasn't originally our intention for the Gromnir in ToB to play the role he did (with the voice-over and everything). As happens sometimes, instead of getting cut the opposite happened, and he happened to fit a role we suddenly needed and got magnified. Possibly we should have simply changed the name at that point, but Grom has such a fun personality that I got carried away with the writing. Oh well.
It really was the last straw, at least for me, with regards to forum "cameos" (which normally is just using a forum member's name for a character we intended to put in anyhow -- Gromnir literally was the only true cameo where we used someone else's personality). Considering that it was just a wink of acknowledgement between us and the forums and that 95% of the people who played the game would never even know the difference, the display of hurt feelings and jealousy and such that I've already mentioned elsewhere was just too much.
Not to mention that Gromnir probably had to (and may still have to) tell folks over and over that, no, he didn't copy the name from ToB.
It's pretty silly and was just a case of developer whimsy -- writing hundreds of thousands of words of dialogue can sometimes be drudgery, folks, and sometimes you just gotta slip in an "I did it all for the wookiees." The fact that some people take everything so seriously makes me do this eye-rolling/gagging/exasperated thing which I use to end every design argument with James that totally drives him up the wall. Really, it's true.
More:
I'm not sure why I always assumed you were a half-orc, prior to you sending me your story. Karzak was the half-orc, after all. Making Gromnir a half-orc in ToB anyway seemed really funny at the time, just like the idea that Draconis in ToB was so tough that people would be cursing his name made me grin.
What can I say? I'm a little twisted.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=60)
<hr />I'd definitely be a lot more interested in an MMORPG that didn't charge me every month.<hr />
I'd definitely be a lot more interested in an MMORPG with a minimum age requirement, myself. And bouncers.
Climbing, Swimming, Flying: Are they in? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=481950&forum=84&sp=30)
None of the creatures in NWN that were "flying", from the Beholders on down, were actually doing so... they just had legs that you couldn't see.
So that kind of hovering is not an issue, and not really what I thought was being suggested.
More:
I see. So it's solely our lack of vision that we don't realize how important such things as climbing, swimming and flying are. When we say that these features require trade-offs and investments that we feel are not quite worth it considering the kind of game we are making, what we really mean is that we feel these features are of no use to anyone and that we would never consider including them in a game we make.
Hmm. I need my coffee.
More:
I have now had my Giant Mug (tm) of morning coffee and I see that I was a bit quick to jump all over that. What I meant to say is:
"We don't think flying has no use. It's just not cheap enough a feature, design-wise if not tech-wise, for us to put in this particular game. I know different kinds of RPG's that are either more tactical or more freeform put more of a focus on freedom of movement, and that some players want the best of both worlds, but either kind of games have to make trade-offs for what they want."
See? Wouldn't that have been nicer of me? Sorry, Metok.
Story-telling structure and tricks in a CRPG: what's OK and what's not? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485831&forum=84&sp=0)
Well, let me point to the way the origins supply your background and tell me whether that is an acceptable trick or not.
We supply you with the facts of your background -- this person is your mother and this person is your friend and this is your current situation -- but not how you feel about anything. You may be desperate to get out and adventure, for instance, or you might be content with your life and not want to leave. Up to you.
If there are options about your relationships or your activities in the origin, they come up in dialogue through a third party -- and as soon as they are selected by you, that is treated as the truth by them and everyone else from that point on.
There may be times when you are forced in a certain direction because that is where the story is going, but I think we are pretty conscious never to assume your motivations. In pretty much every instance so far when it seemed like there was only one direction to take because the player should "want" to do something, we've pretty much abandoned it or went out of our way to provide alternate paths.
More:
The player isn't warned, but the instances aren't exactly world-altering. It's more a matter of the origins picking up on the cues of the player. Let's say your friend talks to you and you have a variety of responses and you pick the one that tells him to get lost -- he might respond that he hates it when you get this moody and will treat you afterwards as if this is the norm for your relationship.
As opposed to "Ha ha! You're such a card! I know you love me best, really, you big kidder you!"
More:
We are establishing that you have a past and a place in the world. In some origins, this might mean only family -- or no family at all. In some origins, this might entail having a mentor or a friend. The only alternative would be to say that you have no connections at all.
I don't believe it's so unreasonable for us to say that here is a friend, a person with whom you have spent time in the past. We don't dictate the level of affection between you, nor is there a situation where we force you into a certain course of action due to this person being your "friend" -- it's just an established, pre-existing relationship the same as you having a mother and living in a certain town. If you have a problem with that, you will probably have a problem with the origin stories as a concept.
More:
I'm sorry... are you still going on about Imoen? And this is the source of your whole anti-friend rant? And we're talking BG1 here, right?
Wow. That's some grudge.
I really don't think there's any point in trying to dissuade her, folks. She doesn't like being provided a friend because she pictures Imoen -- end of story. I really imagine she won't like those origins that do so -- being provided someone that she is told her character has historically been friendly with seems wrong to her. Fair enough.
It's still going to happen, though, even though it will be nothing like Imoen in the BG series. I mean, get over it already.
More:
Heh. I'm not knocking her... she's entirely correct. There are a number of inconsistencies in the story between BG and BG2 and ToB. That's what happens when you get that much story over that long a period of time combined with short memories and not enough fact-checkers.
What we really needed was someone in that one meeting to remind us in their best Comic Book Guy voice about that one letter you could find in Gorion's office waaaaay back at the beginning of BG1. Someone would have snorted, "Who the hell put that there, anyhow?" And then there would have been a glum, awkward silence as we realized we needed to come up with some other solution to whatever problem we were tiredly dealing with.
In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
I just find it cute that someone could accept the FR canon at face value, along with its many hand-waves and plot-holes that it has accumulated over the years, and use it to knock one of our own hand-waves. Not that hand-waves are a good thing, Melirindia is very right -- but, geez, even BG2 came out more than six years ago, already. Give us a break.
More:
Well, I would point out that back then we didn't have much of a QA department (none at all for BG1, in fact), and now we do. And they can be pretty picky, so there's our fact checkers right there.
Except for Stan. I don't know what he does, to be honest. http://forums.bioware.com/_commonext/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif</img>
More:
Hmmm. And yet I played Planescape:Torment and I would say that it felt very interactive, indeed. If I felt like I was reading a book while playing it, that was far more due to its volume of text rather than its lack of interactivity. I don't think that providing context and background for a player's character necessarily removes any elements of choice and interactivity.
It might remove some element of personal connection to the story, but that's slightly different. Even there we have degrees. I'm not sure that I've seen a great number of RPG's that didn't at least offer some context for the player character to exist in -- a great number don't even offer character generation as a feature.
Even if you say that those aren't really RPG's in your definition, I find it strange that some people approach CRPG's with the idea that they should be able to come up with a character concept before ever touching the game, and if they are unable to play that concept they are put out. It simply seems a bit odd to me.
More:
The origins are based on race and/or class. So you will pick those first... and at each selection you will see blurbs that give you the rundown on what the choices available are and what they mean. What is this race like in DA? What does this class do? These are the basics that most people will want to consider first, after all.
Then you will see the origin options (if there is an option) for that race/class combination. Again there will be a blurb explaining what's involved in each. This will determine where you start in the game and what your role in the world -- at least to begin with -- will be. After that you will flesh out the concept with stats and skills and so forth, as seems natural (to me, at least).
What Jennifer meant by it being playable is that we're not talking about some detailed origin story that predefines everything about your character. Certain details are set down, but we don't set your motivations or dictate how you feel about things. Each origin story has a whole segment of the game which is unique -- we're not talking a 30-second vignette a la Temple of Elemental Evil, but more of a lengthy playable prologue with combat and treasure and its own story... and hopefully enough room left for you to play whatever personality or motivations you desire, within the context of that race/class. We do this as a means of introducing our world to you and as a way of making the story that follows seem firmly rooted in the choices you made.
Starting with the origin is a bit backwards -- but for those who absolutely must see all the options before they choose I don't imagine it will be very difficult to do so. Possibly they will even be re-printed in the manual for perusal, I coudln't say. But hand-wringing at this point over whether or not you'll be able to find an origin that's suitable is a bit premature.
More:
Well, I will go and tell the producer, then, that there is already a great deal of angst being generated over whether or not folks will have enough information at their fingertips on the available origins or if they will be forced to painfully navigate through all those menus or -- and here's where it gets painful -- possibly end up having a childhood friend sprung on them when what they were really aiming for was a churlish loner. Which would be bad.
And I promise to remain completely serious throughout the entire conversation.
More:
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84)
Which is great if you have enchanting and/or other types of crafting in your game.
Personally I find crafting to be one of those elements best left to MMORPG's or stories that accomodate being able to wander the world willy-nilly and not really concern yourself with the plot (which is definitely something some folks like to do).
If you (as in we) decide not to have crafting, however, what are you doing all that wood-chopping and flower-picking for?
More:
And that can, indeed, be very interesting. I assure you, however, that it's not just going to happen by accident. We're talking about taking this sort of interaction into account in the level design throughout the entire game -- so you have to make sure that there is a stream that cannot be passed unless you either roll a rock into it or build a boat to cross it, in order to provide value to that feature.
Just like if you have swimming you are going to need to provide areas where swimming is necessary -- and if you have horses you are going to need to provide vast areas that provide horses to speed across, opportunities for mounted combat and take into account in every level that the player might have a mount. Or what is the point? Putting in the ability to push a rock, chop down a tree or knock over a chair should surely have some use beyond the player doing it once and going, "ooOOooh IMMERSION!" and then never doing it again, no?
Perhaps you disagree, but even if you are not concerned about the cost/benefit analysis we at least have to consider what kind of game we want to make and where it's best for us to spend our time.
More:
It's a magic word.
Why add feature X? Because it adds to the IMMERSION!
Everyone nods their heads. Yes, indeed, that's a very good reason. Why can't the developers see this?
What exactly immersion adds to the game -- or what makes it a better RPG in and of itself -- is never quite clear. It adds immersion. What else need be said?
There are a few other words like this, but this one is my favorite
More:
"cinematic", certainly -- though we toss that around ourselves just as much. We put features forward and say it will be more cinematic that way, and that sounds fine until someone asks if being more cinematic is really the goal... which, if you haven't thought about it, makes for a jarring moment. Buzz words used as reasons to do or not do things is lazy thinking.
And that's really my only objection, when a buzz word is used as someone's entire argument. People throw them out sometimes amidst other discussion, and I don't have an issue with that so much.
Just for the record, my other choices for most-hated buzz words are "innovation" (as you surmised), "options" and "linearity". Thankfully, "epic" has fallen out of favor here at the office, as well.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Ferret Baudoin in DA? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=483510&forum=84&sp=90)
Unfortunately for QA, it's our job to stick our noses into every little thing in order to test it thoroughly. It's especially unfortunate for us design-side testers whose job it is to analyze and report on the story elements, dialogue, and plots.
That said, I found that Jade Empire was and is (I'm testing for Jade PC now) still enjoyable to play, even though it holds no more secrets from me. I still have fun in the combat, still have fun with Focus running, trying out the various styles, and levelling up in different ways. Hopefully, Dragon Age will also hold my interest like that too.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />If the finished game does not meet your quality standards, I'd prefer it being released at half-price with a disclaimer over it not being released at all...<hr />
We wouldn't. It'd be like handing in a term paper with a disclaimer saying "Sorry it's not as good as I'd originally hoped, but I've been busy."
Your general audience isn't going to care about you being busy or having to work two jobs or needing to take your significant other out for his/her birthday. He's just going to to see that it's half-done and will grade it accordingly.
If the game does not meet our quality standards, it isn't done. We work very hard at the tail end of a project to ensure that most if not all of the fun-stopping and game-killing problems are dealt with. Part of what makes BioWare games so great is BioWare's "release when it's done" attitude towards game development.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Chris Priestly, Quality Assurance</font>
"You Must Make Haste" (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=479244&forum=84&sp=120)
<hr />in spie of heroic story telling in crpgs, the heroes don't lose in crpgs. why?<hr />
Because, unlike books and stories, CRPGs have message boards where people who play the game come and complain about not being able to defeat the whatever (monster, villian, puzzle, etc). If enough listeners to the original Beowulf had complained about the outcome 1000 years ago, it's quite possible that the minstrels and bards of the time would have changed the end so that he won.
Cursing (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485520&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />Why do people keep on saying the "f-bomb" and again why do people keep on just associating it with sexual connitations.<hr />
I don't think that they do. I think that people mostly use the "f-bomb" because they are too poorly educated to use much else. What I mean is when you hear people say "That f-in truck" or "I had to go to the f-in store". This contains zero aspect of sexuality. The person using the expletive is only using it as they are trying to add emphasis to what they are saying but lack the ability to choose a better descriptive term, so rely upon a common expletive.
I'm not saying that all people who curse are dumb. Or that all people who use the "f-bomb" lack education. But I do think that people who have a better education can usually come up with something more unpleasant to say. (Personally, I like hearing poeple who come up with creative ways to violently express displeasure. I think it shows creativity in the face of extreme duress.)
As far as Dragon Age goes, I don't know as I'm not a writer on the project (something you should all be greatful for as my writing stinks). Knowing our writing staff I think they would likely be able to come up with more interesting swears than "Fighter comes up a hill to find 1000 ocrs and says "F*** thats a lot of orcs.". As to exactly what they come up with and how often/how much etc, you'll need to saty tuned and see what happens.http://forums.bioware.com/_commonext/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif</img>
Use of Voice Acting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=485593&forum=84)
But we never sold the game based on Mr Cleese's voice. Sure he was in it and had a cool little role, but we never marketed the game like "Jade Empire featuring John Cleese" or whatever. Infact, we were prohibited from doing so. A professional actor like Mr Cleese has (at least) 2 sets of fees. We got the "cheap" version wheer we promised not to market the game with his name or likeness. We could have done so, but his fee would have been larger.
It depends on the game. If I was playing a known title based on a TV show or movie, I would want to hear the actor's voices I know. That's what Start Trek/Wars games, 24, or whatever pays it's stars what they do and market's the games as such. As we are coming up with our own game without sorce reference, we can cast the actor, whether local or professional or international, that will do the best job.
More:
<hr />The fellow who did Irenicus... I've seen him in movies before but I can't remember his name. Anyone know off-hand?<hr />
David Warner. You might remember him from things like Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits (He played Evil, a role I very much enjoyed him in), Titanic (he was the nasty bodyguard to Billy Zane, The League of Gentleman's Apocalypse (as Dr Erasmus Pea) and about a million different voice overs in cartoons like Freakazoid, Batman, Winnie the Pooh, and many more.
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=15)
I think vaporware is when a small dev team/house tries to make a game and get in over their heads. Soon, their resources and funding dry up and they are left with incomplete promises. BioWare doesn't have this problem at all. We remain dedicated to Dragon Age and, since announcement, have never stopped working on it (infact the team keeps growing). Sure, we're also making Mass Effect and other "secret projects", but this doesn't mean we're ignoring DA.
Dragon Age is going to be a huge title for BioWare/Pandemic and we're focused on it's success. I know there isn't much in the way of "eye-catching" materials right now (screenshots and the like), but there will be when the team is ready. And when it comes, we'll put all those nasty rumors to rest. Stay tuned.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
What to do while waiting for Dragon Age...? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=484580&forum=84&sp=30)
I'd say possibly only a handful of developers can afford the multi-multi-million dollar development price tag on their own. LdyShayna is quite correct that publishers almost always cover the development costs.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Sheryl Chee, Writer</font>
Romantic vs Friendship Track. (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485190&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />First off, what's the deal with romances being so important? It's just one aspect of the game....
...There's no chance all those people are single loners dying for some surogate of real-life romantic interaction.
Frankly, what makes people look forward to game romance so much? If something isn't working out in real life relationships, perhaps it's time to seek counselling rather than look around for some lovey dovey happiness elsewhere. And if you actually are single, it's probably better to start going out instead of clinging to virtual stuff for dear life.<hr />
I feel I have to respond here. I've seen this sentiment expressed so often and it is started to bother me a bit. "People who like romances in-game are probably experiencing problems with real life relationships or are lacking those altogether." Just because you like role-playing and character development doesn't mean you're socially awkward and can't find friends/lovers elsewhere. Of course, this would be true of some of the players, but you can say the same of any group of people, regardless of the hobby they indulge in. I'm sure some knitters use knitting as a form of escapism because they "have no life". I'm tired of hearing people say "I don't role-play, or care about NPC interactions because I have a real girlfriend! You losers should stop playing video games and go outside. LOLZ."
What makes me look forward to the romances? Character development of both the NPCs and my PC. My PC grows with her NPCs as she gets to know them and I get to experience her story. No story is complete without friends that care about you and people that love you and I want my PC to have that. Having NPCs with no personality following me around is just dull. If I want an action game, I'll play an action game. My best memories of BG2 were the romance and the banters. The battles were great, sure, but knowing that my character was doing it with her friends made it that much better.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
How much mysticism? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=483622&forum=84)
<hr />From what I read until now here, Bioware prefers to have things logically explained.
And besides, its ultra ultra hard for modern people to create stories like Archilles or Siegfried - because sadly these stories are based on a totally different way of thinking which is very uncommon for computer geeks.<hr />
Yes, in order for systems to have rules and limitations... you sort of have to have an idea about how they work.
However, just because the system is known doesn't necessarily mean that it will be presented that way. I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the world of DA that will have their own theories on how magic works... where it comes from... etc.
Some of them may even be right...
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84&sp=45)
It's assuming you're doing enough physics computations to actually make it worth while. Physics cards won't be useful until they can categorically prove that there is a tangible benefit to using them... which has yet to be done.
They need buy in from both developers and from the gaming public... and yes, you can pull the 3D graphics "card", but there was a clear difference in the quality and speed of a software 3D render and a hardware accelerated render.
I won't even get started on AI cards... I'd love to see a hardware developer talk about hardware AI acceleration with a straight face...
More:
I think that's a good generalisation. I'm not saying that physics cards won't be useful, long term... just that they haven't proven themselves yet. Even some of the more physics intensive simulations today are still not even necessarily *that* complex...
Do you ever really see five thousand balls tumbling down a curved slope in a game, all colliding and bouncing realistically? Usually not.
The use of physics in games is becoming more prevalent, especially with the advent of some nice physics libraries like Novodex, (also the folks on the fore front with the physics cards) but I think in a lot of cases, we just don't have enough things that we need to simulate (yet).
Of course, this is from a rather subjective position. Someone working on a FPS game might have different thoughts on the matter... though, from some of the things I've seen done *without* the use of a hardware physics card... I'm not so sure.
More:
For sure, but the question is... if you were to run that in software, and then with the accelerated hardware... would you as a user be able to tell the difference? That's the test that needs to pass...
You need to look at that second version and your jaw needs to hit the floor. You need to be excited, pointing and thinking: "Damn, I need to get me one of those!".
More:
Depends on what kind of chairs you're talking about. There could potentially be multiple kinds... ones that you cannot interact with (assuming we have interaction with chairs) would probably not be movable. Other ones could be destructible, I suppose.
The major thing that's probably going to affect this sort of thing is interiors and how they're built. We don't have a complete picture on all the implications yet... so sadly, I can't give you a definitive answer.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Jennifer Hepler, Writer</font>
Story-telling structure and tricks in a CRPG: what's OK and what's not? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485831&forum=84&sp=90)
To clarify -- the origin stories are playable game segments; there is no "text of the backstory," which can be provided in the manual. There will be short blurbs about each story which you can pick from, however, to decide not only what kind of character you want to play, but which type of play experience sounds like a more entertaining way to start your game.