chevalier
Sat, 15th Jul '06, 2:08pm
Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum (http://forums.bioware.com/viewforum.html?forum=84). Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
The Thievery problem (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=487606&forum=84)
I think a lot of the issues with NWN are that it was a party-based system being used in a single-character game. Indeed, even the one henchman you got was only added very late in the process. So lots of little changes had to be made to more than just the Rogue class to ensure that no character was left completely vulnerable if off by himself -- the nature of a single-character RPG is that one is forced to become a jack of all trades.
But DA is a party-based RPG that will have its own system, so discussing NWN seems a bit pointless.
Beyond that, the problem with the "thief" as it is conceived of in the heads of many RPG players is that it is, by its very nature, not a party-friendly role. Unless the entire party can stealth as well as the thief (which is a silly concept), the thief always has to go off on his own to do his thing: to scout, to burgle, to assassinate, etc. So in order to be accomodated, the thief must either constantly split up from the rest of the group (and the layout of every -- or at least most -- of the missions and levels built to accomodate this) or his ability to be a thief is very compromised.
The problem from a design perspective then becomes whether the role you really want from that character is for them to be a stealthy thief-type or for them to be a more skill-based, party-oriented adventurer-type (like the rogue). And if you choose the adventurer, there had better be enough applications for those skills to make the concentration worth it... or you run the risk of having a character who is only pulled out in very specialized situations but who is outshined every other time by other classes.
That's my two cents on the thievery "problem", from the design side at least. Take it for what you will.
Climbing, Swimming, Flying: Are they in? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=481950&forum=84&sp=60)
Right. And then you have to look at the design implications, as well. If you allow the character to jump over everything, does that mean he can now jump into spots he can't get out of? Worse, are we going to have AI issues where the player can jump onto a table or on the other side of that patch of mushrooms and suddenly the enemy AI can't pathfind properly or has difficulty deciding exactly where the player is in combat?
Suddenly your small feature has suddenly gone from a very small thing that enhances realism a bit to being a big pain in the *** which must be accounted for in every level design and which introduces a whole slough of bugs and problems for the programmers.
Not that not having jumping means you automatically are going to have impassable mushrooms and immobile tables. Simple physics are much cheaper, if all you want are chairs you can knock out of the way and such, without necessarily having any impact on design.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
Power in Specialization (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=487856&forum=84)
Interesting idea. My 2 cents on it is that if you are going to make abilities build on each other it's probably better to spend the time making cross-class ones complement each other. I think party-based games are fun because you have a cool variety of tools to overcome challenges, and it's better to encourage more variety in a party so a player gets to see all the cool stuff Class X, Y, and Z has to offer.
Encouraging people to build same class parties means they may not have as much variety over the course of the game, which could definitely impact someone's enjoyment of a game. Not everyone's enjoyment would suffer, I admit, but enough that it would give me pause for thought.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
The Thievery problem (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=487606&forum=84)
I think a lot of the issues with NWN are that it was a party-based system being used in a single-character game. Indeed, even the one henchman you got was only added very late in the process. So lots of little changes had to be made to more than just the Rogue class to ensure that no character was left completely vulnerable if off by himself -- the nature of a single-character RPG is that one is forced to become a jack of all trades.
But DA is a party-based RPG that will have its own system, so discussing NWN seems a bit pointless.
Beyond that, the problem with the "thief" as it is conceived of in the heads of many RPG players is that it is, by its very nature, not a party-friendly role. Unless the entire party can stealth as well as the thief (which is a silly concept), the thief always has to go off on his own to do his thing: to scout, to burgle, to assassinate, etc. So in order to be accomodated, the thief must either constantly split up from the rest of the group (and the layout of every -- or at least most -- of the missions and levels built to accomodate this) or his ability to be a thief is very compromised.
The problem from a design perspective then becomes whether the role you really want from that character is for them to be a stealthy thief-type or for them to be a more skill-based, party-oriented adventurer-type (like the rogue). And if you choose the adventurer, there had better be enough applications for those skills to make the concentration worth it... or you run the risk of having a character who is only pulled out in very specialized situations but who is outshined every other time by other classes.
That's my two cents on the thievery "problem", from the design side at least. Take it for what you will.
Climbing, Swimming, Flying: Are they in? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=481950&forum=84&sp=60)
Right. And then you have to look at the design implications, as well. If you allow the character to jump over everything, does that mean he can now jump into spots he can't get out of? Worse, are we going to have AI issues where the player can jump onto a table or on the other side of that patch of mushrooms and suddenly the enemy AI can't pathfind properly or has difficulty deciding exactly where the player is in combat?
Suddenly your small feature has suddenly gone from a very small thing that enhances realism a bit to being a big pain in the *** which must be accounted for in every level design and which introduces a whole slough of bugs and problems for the programmers.
Not that not having jumping means you automatically are going to have impassable mushrooms and immobile tables. Simple physics are much cheaper, if all you want are chairs you can knock out of the way and such, without necessarily having any impact on design.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
Power in Specialization (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=487856&forum=84)
Interesting idea. My 2 cents on it is that if you are going to make abilities build on each other it's probably better to spend the time making cross-class ones complement each other. I think party-based games are fun because you have a cool variety of tools to overcome challenges, and it's better to encourage more variety in a party so a player gets to see all the cool stuff Class X, Y, and Z has to offer.
Encouraging people to build same class parties means they may not have as much variety over the course of the game, which could definitely impact someone's enjoyment of a game. Not everyone's enjoyment would suffer, I admit, but enough that it would give me pause for thought.