chevalier
Tue, 8th Aug '06, 2:25pm
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>
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=120)
If your interest in DA lies only in what the toolset can provide (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying if it is) then you're bound to be disappointed. Remember that unlike NWN (which you did not care for anyhow) our goal here is not to provide the end user with a toolset. If one comes with the game, and there are various forms that such a toolset could take (as opposed to the type of toolset that was NWN), that is strictly ancillary.
What's going on with the combat system? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=488812&forum=84&sp=45)
<hr />Well, geeze, then what the heck is Bioware being so darned cagey about? I can just picture all the other game designers slapping their foreheads and saying, "No AI? Pause-action? Why didn't WE think of that?"
"...Oh, wait, I just remembered: we did think of it - about 15 years ago."
New graphics, interfaces and storylines are always nice, but players expect their CPUs to handle a lot more of this stuff for them these days. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but not necessarily the best basis for computer game design.<hr />
Says you.
Frankly, some of the things that were mentioned aren't even going to be in the DA combat system. It's still evolving. Whatever it is you're (over)reacting to, take it with a grain of salt.
That said, it's fine if you say what you'd like to see in an RPG combat system. Implying that we're basically a bunch of idiots if we don't realize that combat can only be done in the exact manner you specify isn't about to make us listen to you for very long, however. Just saying.
And one other thing: just because something was thought of first 15 years ago doesn't make it bad gameplay. Sometimes things stick around for a reason.
More:
We haven't said very much about our combat system because we're not ready to talk about it. Yet here you are challenging us over things that DA may not even have, and then essentially daring us to prove you wrong -- and if we don't, then we're being cagey.
I don't think that helps the dialogue much, either.
It's an interesting discussion that going on here, I'm simply suggesting that it's a little early to start getting angry at us over anything just yet.
Being Evil (or Whatever) (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=489522&forum=84&sp=15)
If the good/evil dichotomy is an important aspect of the game... as it is in many games (Star Wars being a classic example). Dragon Age is now about good and evil, and they don't really exist as absolutes, nor do we track how good or evil your character is being outside of the expected consequences of your actions.
That is not to say that there is not the chance to be heroic or to be immoral, but you are going to find a lot more grey area and every decision doesn't rest on having a classical good and evil path through it. Needing to do that is a bit of a restraint in and of itself and a distraction from the kind of mature storytelling we'd like to pursue with DA.
More:
The goal is for us to tell a good, mature story.
I'm not sure what "moral openness" refers to, but not focusing on providing good and evil paths means we can simply concentrate on providing choices. Being good or evil is not even the point.
More:
How are all choices morally good? When did I say that?
And I don't really know what you mean by a "diverse storyline". There are plenty of options to be both moral and immoral, as well as choices that change the story. How is that not a diverse storyline?
After the End or Mommy, it's over! (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490187&forum=84)
I've chimed in on this topic several times in the past (including on the KotOR board). I think the reasoning here is mostly #1 as you put it -- a thinly-veiled desire to simply keep on playing.
It's understandable. You've invested a lot into the character and their story, why wouldn't you want to just continue on?
At some point, however, work on the game needs to end. We can't keep writing more dialogue for everyone to recognize who you are -- whether it be the saviour of the galaxy or whatever -- and would you really be okay with everyone just ignoring the events of the story? Or everyone just saying "hello, saviour!" and nothing else?
If the rest of the game was like that -- you wandered around and ultimately the story didn't end with anything changing regarding your place in the world -- then perhaps it could be done. But we've never done that. Our games are story-driven, and while someone might be happy enough to run around in the world and finish side-quests regardless of the fact that nobody recognizes the story has ended and keep going along those lines until they get bored enough to press "the end"... but I'm not convinced that would actually be an improvement. Desiring a better ending or some kind of denouement after the climax is one thing, continuing to play in the world even after the story is over so you can "dally around" is quite something else.
More:
That's what I mean by a denouement, as opposed to an epilogue (which we have had, like in ToB and HotU). A denouement in literature is the period of the book right after the climax, where everything gets wrapped up prior to the ending. Traditionally we've gone right from the climax to the ending, which is a bit jarring in my opinion. DA will have a playable section which will wrap up events as opposed to a simple cutscene.
More:
Improving the game is one thing -- talking from the viewpoint of a modder who has all the time in the world to focus on a very narrow issue as well as perfect hindsight doesn't have a great deal in common with the experience of actually making the game, however.
Really we've got so much to balance prior to release that if the worst thing someone can say is something as minor as that -- well, I have hard time stirring myself up over it.
<a href="http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491046&forum=84" target="_blank">Another name?
</a>
Orik is very correct on all counts. And on top of that, I'll quote you Gaider's Law of Naming Stuff, to wit:
"Anything that is named which beforehand did not have a name will be equally loathed by just about everyone."
The Law also goes on to state:
"These very same people will one day come to associate the name with that thing and be unable to imagine it being called anything else."
There are also two ways to name something: one is to get the opinions of a bunch of people who will never agree on anything purely aesthetic, eliminate all the names which someone despises with every fibre of their being and end up with a middle-of-the-road name which nobody hates but nobody really likes, either.
Or you could just get one person to name the damn thing. Either way, the end result is the same (see Gaider's Law of Naming Stuff).
There may be a magical way of naming something that everyone will like, involving terrific synergies of words which by their very nature evoke majesty -- I just don't know what it is. And nobody else does, either. So for now Gaider's Law holds.
The nuclear family (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490006&forum=84)
I think his point is that having five or six children wouldn't make it more fun, necessarily. Sure we could have everyone in the game mention how many children they've had, and talk about the infant mortality rate, but why? If it comes up as part of the story, then great, but doing it solely as a nod to some perceived need for realism (a sticky notion at best in fantasy) isn't a good enough reason on its own.
More:
Even inside of fantasy (maybe especially inside of fantasy) you're going to want elements which the player is familiar with, things that they can recognize and identify with next to the alien elements. Otherwise you risk being alien to the point of putting off your audience.
Not that I wouldn't be fine with having an extended family as a part of the story, like a couple of people have already mentioned in the thread. Certainly if its used with a purpose it could be quite interesting. But doing something different just for the sake of being different is not a worthwhile goal.
Rewarding Kindness (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490335&forum=84)
There's no special reward for being nice, just as there's no special reward (or penalty, for that matter) for being a bastard... outside of whatever logical consequences might follow.
Giving a coin to a beggar nets you just what it would in real life: a smile and a thank-you. Plus maybe a happy party member or two. Or an angry party member, snatching that precious, precious silver back from the stupid beggar and giving you a dirty look.
More:
I would say there are occasionally purely immoral solutions to quests, but that's only where it's appropriate. Just as purely moral solutions also occur only when appropriate. Most often there are simply solutions, and the morality involved is pretty subjective.
As the earlier poster said, it doesn't make sense to split everything up into evil and good in DA as it did for D&D or KotOR, even if that makes it easier for you to think about. Doing so means that mentally you are assuming there are two paths for everything, the "good path" and the "evil path"... which simply isn't so. That's not part of the theme at all.
Dragon Age Setting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490265&forum=84)
We don't have a world as detailed as something like Faerun... but that's not a surprise, seeing as Faerun has been slowly detailed over many years of supplements. TheDAS is fully realized with various levels of detail ranging up to excruciating detail in the area of the world where this first game takes place -- and that's work that we will dole out at some point, I imagine. Obviously we're going to want to get some of y'all to buy into the setting prior to release.
A novel would be neat. Would you buy such a beast? Do people buy game-related novels?
More:
While you're right that us writers would find writing short stories more feasible, I can tell you with certainty that anthologies are as a rule far less popular than full novels.
More:
"It" being an official publication? The thing about fan-fiction is that it is, by its nature, unofficial. And very likely better off that way.
I know how big you are on the whole fan involvement thing, Melirinda, but there's unlikely to be much fan-fiction until there's some actual fans. And that first requires the release of the game or, at least, a novel.
More:
<hr />I would think the main point of 'fun' for you guys would be finding the right author to work with.<hr />
Maybe. We actually have some published novelists working for us here, too, mind you.
More:
Well, I don't know how fair a statement that is. We spend most of our time writing professionally, we just don't write novels. Does that mean that we couldn't write a decent novel, given the chance? No more than for you or anyone else.
More:
You may have a point there. Someone who doesn't believe in the setting will never make the reader believe in it. Not that a commissioned writer couldn't get to the point where they do believe in it, however... I think at that point it would take some kind of collaborative effort, though. I remember when the BG novel got showed to us, the hack who wrote it hadn't seen more than an outline of the story never mind had any love for or investment in the characters and setting.
I know that it wouldn't be very hard to work on a passion project set in TheDAS, myself. There's a lot of me in there. Some of the other Bioware writers may feel the same way, I don't know. The Ascension mod was such a project for me, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.
More:
I suspect most ancillary projects of this nature are considered to be mostly advertising for the main IP and not really expected to make money in and of themselves -- though if they did, I suppose that would be a pleasant surprise.
But it certainly wouldn't be required in order to play the game, and I'd think a novel is something that would be strictly in addition to the game and not used as a preview for it. There will be plenty of other tools that would be better for bite-sized chunks that excited players can digest to get a taste of what's to come (short stories might be a good idea for some of that, I suspect -- putting them online might not be a bad suggestion, either).
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
I have only two things to say about the end of E3, that affliction on developer productivity that brought the industry to a grinding halt every single year:
Thank God.
Spreading out the news to various events will be much more palatable than one giant spectacle where everyone attempts to out-scream each other in a vain effort to garner some attention. I mean, the little guy had no chance amidst all of that, either.
And frankly? If there's one thing the industry could stand a little less of it's booth-babes. Call me a heathen, but aside from the loss of a few opportunities for industry folks to network there's really not much in the way of downsides to this news.
Money (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490460&forum=84)
The economy is based on metal coins... though not on the gold/silver/copper standard. Coins are minted and have different names/denominations depending on who's doing the minting.
More:
Well, I suppose you got me there. In game terms you have the g/s/c breakdown -- with silver being the "standard" -- but the makeup of the coins are different and they'll be called different things in-game depending on where you go.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
What's going on with the combat system? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=488812&forum=84&sp=0)
And are you under the impression that we do not, in fact, have a combat system that works?
I'm not sure about you, but before I had a fully implemented combat system, I think I might like at least some vague ideas about appearance systems, possibly some equipping rules, some combat rules, a working server/client architecture, working AI, a scripting language, a graphics pipeline, an animation system, collision... etc.
My point is that, yes... in happy bunny land, combat would be done and we'd never have to look at it again. Unfortunately, in reality nothing can be done in isolation.
That said, combat is coming along nicely... it's still being iterated on and we're quite happy with the results we've been seeing so far. We have a pretty good idea about the end result we're shooting for.
The reason I'm not talking about specifics in the rules and whatnot, is because things are always changing (not necessarily on a large scale)... sometimes because of the interface, other times because of unforseen interactions with different systems imposing limitations, or opening up new things that we think would be interesting. Additionally, we're not in a "here's all the information on Dragon Age we have" marketing mode.
If you want answers regarding combat... ask questions, discuss things that you think would be interesting. We generally try to answer what we can to the best of our ability. But if you're expecting me to simply ramble on about various things we're thinking about... not too likely. Past experience and all that...
For example, you say 'more visceral'... that doesn't mean anything unless you explain what you mean or give it some better context. I could tell you that there's a gore/carnage system planned for Dragon Age... but that probably wouldn't tell you anything. The most likely result would be that people read that and take it out of context...
More:
<hr />Well, I, for one, don't want some kind of twitch system where you have to hit an arrow key, the ALT key, and the END key to finesse a fleche or some such. I'm not a 20 year old godlike being with ten years of combat training, and I'm sure not a hypercaffienated teenager. Have a system where you sort out tactics, do your buffs, adjust your equipment just so, point your cursor, and let the computer do the fighting.<hr />
And that is not what we're aiming for. The system and interface should be fairly easy to pick up (when first presented with it), but should have a lot of depth that unfolds as you learn new things. Paraphrasing what we have in one of our combat design docs.
More:
People need a sense of progression in a fight...
Am I winning? Am I losing? How do I tell? Traditionally, by looking at the amount of damage they're doing, how much the enemy is doing and figuring out that if things hold the same for the rest of the fight, yes... they're on track to kill the goblin (or whatever). Additionally, there is generally enough time to react and change your strategies so that you still have a chance to affect the outcome of the fight.
Looking at some kind of alternate system, where hits are few but significant (more realistic)... it becomes very difficult to determine who's "winning" a given fight. If you were concentrating on only one character you *might* be able to figure it out... but with x other party members, that's not incredibly likely.
Beyond that, modelling various other things that can affect a combat... we *are* interested in that. Cover, flanking, terrain, other types of situational modifiers. Of course, these things may or may not be in... but there's ongoing investigation.
While I think that a "realistic" simulation of an actual fight would be interesting, I don't think it's a good fit for the type of game we're making. ie: Party based.
Close in combat only? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=489908&forum=84&sp=15)
Something I've always been interested in is a nicer form of ranged combat. You should be able to shoot more than a screen (which has traditionally been about 30-35 meters). Ranged combat can be pretty frustrating when you're only able to get an arrow or two off before having to pull out the melee weapon. At that point, it's basically a secondary weapon you use to soften up your target before getting to the meat of the matter (melee).
A lot of how ranged combat works in the end is probably going to depend on the interface. If for example you needed to have a character in the party scout out the enemy while your archer got to some higher ground... does that make sense from an interface point of view?
There are some balance issues as well... but at this point we're not really going to concern ourselves too much with that as that can always be tweaked...
Anyways, these are just some idle thoughts. We haven't made any firm decisions on what it will end up being one way or the other... (so don't read too much into this).
Terrain (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=490877&forum=84&sp=0)
Yep, if we do the uber range on ranged weapons we'll probably be looking at some pretty hideous accuracy penalties for hitting a target a long distance aways.
Which might be a better option than simply limiting the ranges of the actual weapons themselves. In the past, we've usually been limited by the screen distance... so actual range has never really been an issue. As a result there wasn't much of a point in picking one weapon over another besides damage... which was unfortunate.
More:
Implying no more than I mentioned in the previous topic about ranged weapons... that we're looking into removing those limitations.
Screen limit ranged weapons fire, though not ideal, will always probably be a fall back position.
More:
That in particular is something I'm all for. I'm not certain that that level of "realism" is necessarily going to make the cut, though. Personally, I think it's one of those 'annoyances' that adds to the fun factor... we'll have to see how it plays out.
I've never really like the unerring accuracy of hits *and* misses that pass through the horde of twenty monsters to hit the broad side of the barn on the other side of the melee.
More:
Ugh... possibly. However, requiring camera mode changes is a bad thing... especially if you're looking at modifying the interface at all. Keep in mind, the visible range in NWN at max is just under 30 meters.
I would think that if we were going to do this feature we'd want to handle it a bit more elegantly. Either via a panning camera or possibly a higher zoom ability... something along those lines.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Chris Priestly, Quality Assurance</font>
Close in combat only? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=489908&forum=84)
Do bows & arrows or magic spells like fireball or magic missle count as close in combat now?
I agree that we have traditionally predominantly featured close in combat, with martial arts or longswords or whatever, but I do think things like slings, crossbows and magic spells probably should fall outside the realm of "close in combat".
More:
I think part of the issue is that you are using the Army definition of range and close quarters in a Fantasy game setting. In games, like DnD for example, you have to take into consideration things like movvement speed and encumberance. An elf armed with a dagger wearing standard clothing moves "one screen" faster than a dwarf wearing full platemail armed with a huge axe. And they both move slower than a ranger riding a horse.
Now, if you are talking about a game where you can sit at point X, send off an ICBM type spell (or whatever) to take out the mage on the mountain top 60 miles away at point Y, I do agree with you. We have not made any games like that. But, in my opinion, that isn't really what players of Fantasy games are looking for. Thats more an RTS type "Command and Conquer" type thing.
More:
As a one off, plot type thing, sure. I think that could be really cool. You venture into the mad wizard's den and using his scrying pool and "really huge wand mounted on tracks with a rangefinder attatchment" destroy his summer home on the sunny side of the country.
But I don't see it as being a really practical weapon to be used a lot in combat. If you're suprised one night at camp by a party of wandering goblins, your ability to fire off a railgun has only limited value compared to the guy who can pick up a sword and start defending the group. Even creating something like a Long Range Bombadier class would only have limited appeal due to it's basic infrequent use in the game world.
More:
Speak not to a Drama/Shakespeare major about Henry V and the battle of Agincourt.
You know why the English longbow worked so well at Agincourt against the Fench (ok, one of the reasons) sheer numbers. An army of archers destroyed the French mounted fighters and foot soldiers as they turned the sky black with arrows. However, I truely doubt 1 archer would have made a lot of difference. You know how one soldier defeats one bowman at range? He waits for the arrow to arc and then runs out of the way. Repeat till you get within charging room and hope for a stout shield.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea and I'm not saying it is or isn't going to be a part of DA. But I am saying that long range bowmen (with the exception of plot stories like mentioned before) are not good CRPG materials and belong more to RTS games.
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84&sp=90)
Well, I suppose that would depend on what you think of as immersive. Certainly if I am trying to create a baker I can see that. But if I'm trying to make a fighter, I don't see it adding much. Yes, little things like being able to bake a loaf, or paint a picture or catch a fish or whatever adds a tiny degree to the character, but unless at some point in the game it has some relevance I consider it more of a time waste than immersion. "Wow you're a Deathmage of Uber Evil AND you can do laundry? Cool!"
For example, you are playing your character who can make a loaf of bread. I am playing a basic fighter. I say to you "What did you do last night" and you say "I spent about 3 hours collecting ingredients and baking some bread for my character. What did you do?" and I say "I went on a mini-dungeon crawl, killed a big beastie and looted this cool sword." Now the most important thing is that we both had fun with our characters. If you genuinely liked spending 3 hours on Sim-Bread, thats all that matters. But to me, as far as fantasy rpgs go, I prefer to do the sort of thing I created my character to do rather than distractions that are non related to plots or story.
Soon I know, but will there be more than 1 title? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490500&forum=84)
I think that any time a game company creates a new Intellectual Property (IP) it has hopes that it will do very well. I'm sure Scott G, Ray & Greg and the rest of the company would love to see Dragon Age be a very popular title that allows for us to make numerous sequels and ancillary products (Like books, toys, movies, etc).
But we are smart enough to realize that the only way to become so popular that people want sequels and stuff is to make Dragon Age a huge awesome game. We have to get it right for when it is released so that all of you out there want more of it. We can't just make it "ok" and assume you'll want more later. We have to create the demand from you by creating a truely epic game.
That's what the team is concentrating on now. I'm sure Scott G and his team have some idea os "if this does well, we can take these elements (like the setting, the back story, the money, language, etc) and make more games", that's just good planning. But basically I think the team is concentrating on making Dragon Age an event title that you'll all want more of later.
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
For BioWare, imo, it essentially changes nothing. BioWare is now established enough that when we announce a game or as we become closer to completion on announced titles, we can attract the attention of gamers or attention from the press without too much difficulty.
I do think this will harm smaller gaming companies, especially non-North American ones, who used E3 to become known (such as this past year I saw some very good things from Fun Com).
But it is still early. E3 isn't completely dead yet and you never know what may rise up to replace it.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Another name? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491046&forum=84)
And it doesn't follow the Noun of Place formula, either. I've always found that one amusing: Hordes of the Underdark, Shadows of Undrentide, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Tales of the Sword Coast, Pirates of the Sword Coast, Legend of Kyrandia, Might and Magic III: Isles of Terra. Okay, those last few aren't ours, but still...
One of the (very many) early suggestions for Hordes of the Underdark was NWN: Black, which I thought had a really nice ring to it but it apparently didn't really work from a marketing perspective. I'm a fan of simple names. Long, unwieldy names might be good for branding, but they're a mouthful to say, like Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.
The nuclear family (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490006&forum=84)
The nuclear family model is the most familiar to gamers, much like modern English is used as the default language in games released in North America. This is also why you'll find that creatures have only two genders, monsters have no real activity cycles, and merchants have oodles of weapons, armour, and potions in stock even if they're in a one-horse town.
It's all about what's familiar to the audience. After all, it would hardly be a fun game if all the people you met in a fantasy game had 5 or six children, in addition to the 3 or 4 who've died in their first year of life. Or seeing everyone dirty and prone to disease, or already suffering from some disfiguring problem. Or having a protagonist who's got all the disadvantages of his low birth and dies in the first combat because he's weak and has no training.
Realism does not always equal fun. In fact, the more "realistic" you make a game, the less fun it usually is. A game where you have to manually eat and excrete, sleep and maintain weapons and armour, while "realistic", isn't going to be that much fun.
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
You remember "Star Search" back in the day, hosted by Ed McMahon? I do, and one of the types of "stars" competing for the next round was the spokemodel, the pretty girls who work the booths or show off the displays or provide an easy way to catch the eye of a passerby who might be interested in the product or service if only they could be convinced to come over and see what you're selling.
Booth babes are the same thing, only without the euphemistic "spokemodel" name. They are in the same category as the girls who show off the new models of cars at car shows, beer tub girls at bars and clubs, Vanna White, and the girls on The Price is Right. They are there to draw the eye and to make the product or service seem more attractive to potential clients.
They're nice to look at, sure. I just disagree with the need for them in our industry. I mean, have you seen some of those character models?
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
Losing Interest (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485660&forum=84&sp=120)
If your interest in DA lies only in what the toolset can provide (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying if it is) then you're bound to be disappointed. Remember that unlike NWN (which you did not care for anyhow) our goal here is not to provide the end user with a toolset. If one comes with the game, and there are various forms that such a toolset could take (as opposed to the type of toolset that was NWN), that is strictly ancillary.
What's going on with the combat system? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=488812&forum=84&sp=45)
<hr />Well, geeze, then what the heck is Bioware being so darned cagey about? I can just picture all the other game designers slapping their foreheads and saying, "No AI? Pause-action? Why didn't WE think of that?"
"...Oh, wait, I just remembered: we did think of it - about 15 years ago."
New graphics, interfaces and storylines are always nice, but players expect their CPUs to handle a lot more of this stuff for them these days. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but not necessarily the best basis for computer game design.<hr />
Says you.
Frankly, some of the things that were mentioned aren't even going to be in the DA combat system. It's still evolving. Whatever it is you're (over)reacting to, take it with a grain of salt.
That said, it's fine if you say what you'd like to see in an RPG combat system. Implying that we're basically a bunch of idiots if we don't realize that combat can only be done in the exact manner you specify isn't about to make us listen to you for very long, however. Just saying.
And one other thing: just because something was thought of first 15 years ago doesn't make it bad gameplay. Sometimes things stick around for a reason.
More:
We haven't said very much about our combat system because we're not ready to talk about it. Yet here you are challenging us over things that DA may not even have, and then essentially daring us to prove you wrong -- and if we don't, then we're being cagey.
I don't think that helps the dialogue much, either.
It's an interesting discussion that going on here, I'm simply suggesting that it's a little early to start getting angry at us over anything just yet.
Being Evil (or Whatever) (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=489522&forum=84&sp=15)
If the good/evil dichotomy is an important aspect of the game... as it is in many games (Star Wars being a classic example). Dragon Age is now about good and evil, and they don't really exist as absolutes, nor do we track how good or evil your character is being outside of the expected consequences of your actions.
That is not to say that there is not the chance to be heroic or to be immoral, but you are going to find a lot more grey area and every decision doesn't rest on having a classical good and evil path through it. Needing to do that is a bit of a restraint in and of itself and a distraction from the kind of mature storytelling we'd like to pursue with DA.
More:
The goal is for us to tell a good, mature story.
I'm not sure what "moral openness" refers to, but not focusing on providing good and evil paths means we can simply concentrate on providing choices. Being good or evil is not even the point.
More:
How are all choices morally good? When did I say that?
And I don't really know what you mean by a "diverse storyline". There are plenty of options to be both moral and immoral, as well as choices that change the story. How is that not a diverse storyline?
After the End or Mommy, it's over! (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490187&forum=84)
I've chimed in on this topic several times in the past (including on the KotOR board). I think the reasoning here is mostly #1 as you put it -- a thinly-veiled desire to simply keep on playing.
It's understandable. You've invested a lot into the character and their story, why wouldn't you want to just continue on?
At some point, however, work on the game needs to end. We can't keep writing more dialogue for everyone to recognize who you are -- whether it be the saviour of the galaxy or whatever -- and would you really be okay with everyone just ignoring the events of the story? Or everyone just saying "hello, saviour!" and nothing else?
If the rest of the game was like that -- you wandered around and ultimately the story didn't end with anything changing regarding your place in the world -- then perhaps it could be done. But we've never done that. Our games are story-driven, and while someone might be happy enough to run around in the world and finish side-quests regardless of the fact that nobody recognizes the story has ended and keep going along those lines until they get bored enough to press "the end"... but I'm not convinced that would actually be an improvement. Desiring a better ending or some kind of denouement after the climax is one thing, continuing to play in the world even after the story is over so you can "dally around" is quite something else.
More:
That's what I mean by a denouement, as opposed to an epilogue (which we have had, like in ToB and HotU). A denouement in literature is the period of the book right after the climax, where everything gets wrapped up prior to the ending. Traditionally we've gone right from the climax to the ending, which is a bit jarring in my opinion. DA will have a playable section which will wrap up events as opposed to a simple cutscene.
More:
Improving the game is one thing -- talking from the viewpoint of a modder who has all the time in the world to focus on a very narrow issue as well as perfect hindsight doesn't have a great deal in common with the experience of actually making the game, however.
Really we've got so much to balance prior to release that if the worst thing someone can say is something as minor as that -- well, I have hard time stirring myself up over it.
<a href="http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491046&forum=84" target="_blank">Another name?
</a>
Orik is very correct on all counts. And on top of that, I'll quote you Gaider's Law of Naming Stuff, to wit:
"Anything that is named which beforehand did not have a name will be equally loathed by just about everyone."
The Law also goes on to state:
"These very same people will one day come to associate the name with that thing and be unable to imagine it being called anything else."
There are also two ways to name something: one is to get the opinions of a bunch of people who will never agree on anything purely aesthetic, eliminate all the names which someone despises with every fibre of their being and end up with a middle-of-the-road name which nobody hates but nobody really likes, either.
Or you could just get one person to name the damn thing. Either way, the end result is the same (see Gaider's Law of Naming Stuff).
There may be a magical way of naming something that everyone will like, involving terrific synergies of words which by their very nature evoke majesty -- I just don't know what it is. And nobody else does, either. So for now Gaider's Law holds.
The nuclear family (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490006&forum=84)
I think his point is that having five or six children wouldn't make it more fun, necessarily. Sure we could have everyone in the game mention how many children they've had, and talk about the infant mortality rate, but why? If it comes up as part of the story, then great, but doing it solely as a nod to some perceived need for realism (a sticky notion at best in fantasy) isn't a good enough reason on its own.
More:
Even inside of fantasy (maybe especially inside of fantasy) you're going to want elements which the player is familiar with, things that they can recognize and identify with next to the alien elements. Otherwise you risk being alien to the point of putting off your audience.
Not that I wouldn't be fine with having an extended family as a part of the story, like a couple of people have already mentioned in the thread. Certainly if its used with a purpose it could be quite interesting. But doing something different just for the sake of being different is not a worthwhile goal.
Rewarding Kindness (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490335&forum=84)
There's no special reward for being nice, just as there's no special reward (or penalty, for that matter) for being a bastard... outside of whatever logical consequences might follow.
Giving a coin to a beggar nets you just what it would in real life: a smile and a thank-you. Plus maybe a happy party member or two. Or an angry party member, snatching that precious, precious silver back from the stupid beggar and giving you a dirty look.
More:
I would say there are occasionally purely immoral solutions to quests, but that's only where it's appropriate. Just as purely moral solutions also occur only when appropriate. Most often there are simply solutions, and the morality involved is pretty subjective.
As the earlier poster said, it doesn't make sense to split everything up into evil and good in DA as it did for D&D or KotOR, even if that makes it easier for you to think about. Doing so means that mentally you are assuming there are two paths for everything, the "good path" and the "evil path"... which simply isn't so. That's not part of the theme at all.
Dragon Age Setting (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490265&forum=84)
We don't have a world as detailed as something like Faerun... but that's not a surprise, seeing as Faerun has been slowly detailed over many years of supplements. TheDAS is fully realized with various levels of detail ranging up to excruciating detail in the area of the world where this first game takes place -- and that's work that we will dole out at some point, I imagine. Obviously we're going to want to get some of y'all to buy into the setting prior to release.
A novel would be neat. Would you buy such a beast? Do people buy game-related novels?
More:
While you're right that us writers would find writing short stories more feasible, I can tell you with certainty that anthologies are as a rule far less popular than full novels.
More:
"It" being an official publication? The thing about fan-fiction is that it is, by its nature, unofficial. And very likely better off that way.
I know how big you are on the whole fan involvement thing, Melirinda, but there's unlikely to be much fan-fiction until there's some actual fans. And that first requires the release of the game or, at least, a novel.
More:
<hr />I would think the main point of 'fun' for you guys would be finding the right author to work with.<hr />
Maybe. We actually have some published novelists working for us here, too, mind you.
More:
Well, I don't know how fair a statement that is. We spend most of our time writing professionally, we just don't write novels. Does that mean that we couldn't write a decent novel, given the chance? No more than for you or anyone else.
More:
You may have a point there. Someone who doesn't believe in the setting will never make the reader believe in it. Not that a commissioned writer couldn't get to the point where they do believe in it, however... I think at that point it would take some kind of collaborative effort, though. I remember when the BG novel got showed to us, the hack who wrote it hadn't seen more than an outline of the story never mind had any love for or investment in the characters and setting.
I know that it wouldn't be very hard to work on a passion project set in TheDAS, myself. There's a lot of me in there. Some of the other Bioware writers may feel the same way, I don't know. The Ascension mod was such a project for me, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.
More:
I suspect most ancillary projects of this nature are considered to be mostly advertising for the main IP and not really expected to make money in and of themselves -- though if they did, I suppose that would be a pleasant surprise.
But it certainly wouldn't be required in order to play the game, and I'd think a novel is something that would be strictly in addition to the game and not used as a preview for it. There will be plenty of other tools that would be better for bite-sized chunks that excited players can digest to get a taste of what's to come (short stories might be a good idea for some of that, I suspect -- putting them online might not be a bad suggestion, either).
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
I have only two things to say about the end of E3, that affliction on developer productivity that brought the industry to a grinding halt every single year:
Thank God.
Spreading out the news to various events will be much more palatable than one giant spectacle where everyone attempts to out-scream each other in a vain effort to garner some attention. I mean, the little guy had no chance amidst all of that, either.
And frankly? If there's one thing the industry could stand a little less of it's booth-babes. Call me a heathen, but aside from the loss of a few opportunities for industry folks to network there's really not much in the way of downsides to this news.
Money (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490460&forum=84)
The economy is based on metal coins... though not on the gold/silver/copper standard. Coins are minted and have different names/denominations depending on who's doing the minting.
More:
Well, I suppose you got me there. In game terms you have the g/s/c breakdown -- with silver being the "standard" -- but the makeup of the coins are different and they'll be called different things in-game depending on where you go.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
What's going on with the combat system? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=488812&forum=84&sp=0)
And are you under the impression that we do not, in fact, have a combat system that works?
I'm not sure about you, but before I had a fully implemented combat system, I think I might like at least some vague ideas about appearance systems, possibly some equipping rules, some combat rules, a working server/client architecture, working AI, a scripting language, a graphics pipeline, an animation system, collision... etc.
My point is that, yes... in happy bunny land, combat would be done and we'd never have to look at it again. Unfortunately, in reality nothing can be done in isolation.
That said, combat is coming along nicely... it's still being iterated on and we're quite happy with the results we've been seeing so far. We have a pretty good idea about the end result we're shooting for.
The reason I'm not talking about specifics in the rules and whatnot, is because things are always changing (not necessarily on a large scale)... sometimes because of the interface, other times because of unforseen interactions with different systems imposing limitations, or opening up new things that we think would be interesting. Additionally, we're not in a "here's all the information on Dragon Age we have" marketing mode.
If you want answers regarding combat... ask questions, discuss things that you think would be interesting. We generally try to answer what we can to the best of our ability. But if you're expecting me to simply ramble on about various things we're thinking about... not too likely. Past experience and all that...
For example, you say 'more visceral'... that doesn't mean anything unless you explain what you mean or give it some better context. I could tell you that there's a gore/carnage system planned for Dragon Age... but that probably wouldn't tell you anything. The most likely result would be that people read that and take it out of context...
More:
<hr />Well, I, for one, don't want some kind of twitch system where you have to hit an arrow key, the ALT key, and the END key to finesse a fleche or some such. I'm not a 20 year old godlike being with ten years of combat training, and I'm sure not a hypercaffienated teenager. Have a system where you sort out tactics, do your buffs, adjust your equipment just so, point your cursor, and let the computer do the fighting.<hr />
And that is not what we're aiming for. The system and interface should be fairly easy to pick up (when first presented with it), but should have a lot of depth that unfolds as you learn new things. Paraphrasing what we have in one of our combat design docs.
More:
People need a sense of progression in a fight...
Am I winning? Am I losing? How do I tell? Traditionally, by looking at the amount of damage they're doing, how much the enemy is doing and figuring out that if things hold the same for the rest of the fight, yes... they're on track to kill the goblin (or whatever). Additionally, there is generally enough time to react and change your strategies so that you still have a chance to affect the outcome of the fight.
Looking at some kind of alternate system, where hits are few but significant (more realistic)... it becomes very difficult to determine who's "winning" a given fight. If you were concentrating on only one character you *might* be able to figure it out... but with x other party members, that's not incredibly likely.
Beyond that, modelling various other things that can affect a combat... we *are* interested in that. Cover, flanking, terrain, other types of situational modifiers. Of course, these things may or may not be in... but there's ongoing investigation.
While I think that a "realistic" simulation of an actual fight would be interesting, I don't think it's a good fit for the type of game we're making. ie: Party based.
Close in combat only? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=489908&forum=84&sp=15)
Something I've always been interested in is a nicer form of ranged combat. You should be able to shoot more than a screen (which has traditionally been about 30-35 meters). Ranged combat can be pretty frustrating when you're only able to get an arrow or two off before having to pull out the melee weapon. At that point, it's basically a secondary weapon you use to soften up your target before getting to the meat of the matter (melee).
A lot of how ranged combat works in the end is probably going to depend on the interface. If for example you needed to have a character in the party scout out the enemy while your archer got to some higher ground... does that make sense from an interface point of view?
There are some balance issues as well... but at this point we're not really going to concern ourselves too much with that as that can always be tweaked...
Anyways, these are just some idle thoughts. We haven't made any firm decisions on what it will end up being one way or the other... (so don't read too much into this).
Terrain (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=490877&forum=84&sp=0)
Yep, if we do the uber range on ranged weapons we'll probably be looking at some pretty hideous accuracy penalties for hitting a target a long distance aways.
Which might be a better option than simply limiting the ranges of the actual weapons themselves. In the past, we've usually been limited by the screen distance... so actual range has never really been an issue. As a result there wasn't much of a point in picking one weapon over another besides damage... which was unfortunate.
More:
Implying no more than I mentioned in the previous topic about ranged weapons... that we're looking into removing those limitations.
Screen limit ranged weapons fire, though not ideal, will always probably be a fall back position.
More:
That in particular is something I'm all for. I'm not certain that that level of "realism" is necessarily going to make the cut, though. Personally, I think it's one of those 'annoyances' that adds to the fun factor... we'll have to see how it plays out.
I've never really like the unerring accuracy of hits *and* misses that pass through the horde of twenty monsters to hit the broad side of the barn on the other side of the melee.
More:
Ugh... possibly. However, requiring camera mode changes is a bad thing... especially if you're looking at modifying the interface at all. Keep in mind, the visible range in NWN at max is just under 30 meters.
I would think that if we were going to do this feature we'd want to handle it a bit more elegantly. Either via a panning camera or possibly a higher zoom ability... something along those lines.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Chris Priestly, Quality Assurance</font>
Close in combat only? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=489908&forum=84)
Do bows & arrows or magic spells like fireball or magic missle count as close in combat now?
I agree that we have traditionally predominantly featured close in combat, with martial arts or longswords or whatever, but I do think things like slings, crossbows and magic spells probably should fall outside the realm of "close in combat".
More:
I think part of the issue is that you are using the Army definition of range and close quarters in a Fantasy game setting. In games, like DnD for example, you have to take into consideration things like movvement speed and encumberance. An elf armed with a dagger wearing standard clothing moves "one screen" faster than a dwarf wearing full platemail armed with a huge axe. And they both move slower than a ranger riding a horse.
Now, if you are talking about a game where you can sit at point X, send off an ICBM type spell (or whatever) to take out the mage on the mountain top 60 miles away at point Y, I do agree with you. We have not made any games like that. But, in my opinion, that isn't really what players of Fantasy games are looking for. Thats more an RTS type "Command and Conquer" type thing.
More:
As a one off, plot type thing, sure. I think that could be really cool. You venture into the mad wizard's den and using his scrying pool and "really huge wand mounted on tracks with a rangefinder attatchment" destroy his summer home on the sunny side of the country.
But I don't see it as being a really practical weapon to be used a lot in combat. If you're suprised one night at camp by a party of wandering goblins, your ability to fire off a railgun has only limited value compared to the guy who can pick up a sword and start defending the group. Even creating something like a Long Range Bombadier class would only have limited appeal due to it's basic infrequent use in the game world.
More:
Speak not to a Drama/Shakespeare major about Henry V and the battle of Agincourt.
You know why the English longbow worked so well at Agincourt against the Fench (ok, one of the reasons) sheer numbers. An army of archers destroyed the French mounted fighters and foot soldiers as they turned the sky black with arrows. However, I truely doubt 1 archer would have made a lot of difference. You know how one soldier defeats one bowman at range? He waits for the arrow to arc and then runs out of the way. Repeat till you get within charging room and hope for a stout shield.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea and I'm not saying it is or isn't going to be a part of DA. But I am saying that long range bowmen (with the exception of plot stories like mentioned before) are not good CRPG materials and belong more to RTS games.
Interact with the environment? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=485816&forum=84&sp=90)
Well, I suppose that would depend on what you think of as immersive. Certainly if I am trying to create a baker I can see that. But if I'm trying to make a fighter, I don't see it adding much. Yes, little things like being able to bake a loaf, or paint a picture or catch a fish or whatever adds a tiny degree to the character, but unless at some point in the game it has some relevance I consider it more of a time waste than immersion. "Wow you're a Deathmage of Uber Evil AND you can do laundry? Cool!"
For example, you are playing your character who can make a loaf of bread. I am playing a basic fighter. I say to you "What did you do last night" and you say "I spent about 3 hours collecting ingredients and baking some bread for my character. What did you do?" and I say "I went on a mini-dungeon crawl, killed a big beastie and looted this cool sword." Now the most important thing is that we both had fun with our characters. If you genuinely liked spending 3 hours on Sim-Bread, thats all that matters. But to me, as far as fantasy rpgs go, I prefer to do the sort of thing I created my character to do rather than distractions that are non related to plots or story.
Soon I know, but will there be more than 1 title? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490500&forum=84)
I think that any time a game company creates a new Intellectual Property (IP) it has hopes that it will do very well. I'm sure Scott G, Ray & Greg and the rest of the company would love to see Dragon Age be a very popular title that allows for us to make numerous sequels and ancillary products (Like books, toys, movies, etc).
But we are smart enough to realize that the only way to become so popular that people want sequels and stuff is to make Dragon Age a huge awesome game. We have to get it right for when it is released so that all of you out there want more of it. We can't just make it "ok" and assume you'll want more later. We have to create the demand from you by creating a truely epic game.
That's what the team is concentrating on now. I'm sure Scott G and his team have some idea os "if this does well, we can take these elements (like the setting, the back story, the money, language, etc) and make more games", that's just good planning. But basically I think the team is concentrating on making Dragon Age an event title that you'll all want more of later.
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
For BioWare, imo, it essentially changes nothing. BioWare is now established enough that when we announce a game or as we become closer to completion on announced titles, we can attract the attention of gamers or attention from the press without too much difficulty.
I do think this will harm smaller gaming companies, especially non-North American ones, who used E3 to become known (such as this past year I saw some very good things from Fun Com).
But it is still early. E3 isn't completely dead yet and you never know what may rise up to replace it.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Another name? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491046&forum=84)
And it doesn't follow the Noun of Place formula, either. I've always found that one amusing: Hordes of the Underdark, Shadows of Undrentide, Shadows of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, Tales of the Sword Coast, Pirates of the Sword Coast, Legend of Kyrandia, Might and Magic III: Isles of Terra. Okay, those last few aren't ours, but still...
One of the (very many) early suggestions for Hordes of the Underdark was NWN: Black, which I thought had a really nice ring to it but it apparently didn't really work from a marketing perspective. I'm a fan of simple names. Long, unwieldy names might be good for branding, but they're a mouthful to say, like Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.
The nuclear family (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490006&forum=84)
The nuclear family model is the most familiar to gamers, much like modern English is used as the default language in games released in North America. This is also why you'll find that creatures have only two genders, monsters have no real activity cycles, and merchants have oodles of weapons, armour, and potions in stock even if they're in a one-horse town.
It's all about what's familiar to the audience. After all, it would hardly be a fun game if all the people you met in a fantasy game had 5 or six children, in addition to the 3 or 4 who've died in their first year of life. Or seeing everyone dirty and prone to disease, or already suffering from some disfiguring problem. Or having a protagonist who's got all the disadvantages of his low birth and dies in the first combat because he's weak and has no training.
Realism does not always equal fun. In fact, the more "realistic" you make a game, the less fun it usually is. A game where you have to manually eat and excrete, sleep and maintain weapons and armour, while "realistic", isn't going to be that much fun.
So now that E3's basically finished (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=490899&forum=84)
You remember "Star Search" back in the day, hosted by Ed McMahon? I do, and one of the types of "stars" competing for the next round was the spokemodel, the pretty girls who work the booths or show off the displays or provide an easy way to catch the eye of a passerby who might be interested in the product or service if only they could be convinced to come over and see what you're selling.
Booth babes are the same thing, only without the euphemistic "spokemodel" name. They are in the same category as the girls who show off the new models of cars at car shows, beer tub girls at bars and clubs, Vanna White, and the girls on The Price is Right. They are there to draw the eye and to make the product or service seem more attractive to potential clients.
They're nice to look at, sure. I just disagree with the need for them in our industry. I mean, have you seen some of those character models?