chevalier
Tue, 29th Aug '06, 6:36pm
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>
Where is the hype? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492693&forum=84&sp=15)
I get to be pleased watching places I created coming to life as the artists breathe life into them. Sometimes I complain very loudly and the artists stare at me blankly and think I'm insane, but usually I'm just awed.
And, yes, lots of progress. We're at that point where all those disparate parts of the game that everyone's been working on seperately are starting to come together. Like, until recently there were people working on the chassis and people working on an engine and people working on the tires -- and then recently we put it together and it rolled twenty feet and blew up. But still -- a car! Yaaay!
Will DA music composed by Inon Zur? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491367&forum=84&sp=30)
There was a group playing at an Irish pub just the other night that played authentic medieval music (as in tunes from that period played on instruments you could have easily found then). It was mostly Celtic in feel with a lot of pipes and drums, but I thought it would make a really unique score for a game. Really seperate it.
Just a thought. Not everything has to be over-the-top Conan-esque orchestral music, that's all I'm saying.
2D and 3D (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=491367&forum=84&sp=60)
<hr />And if we are going to have a choice to use either 2D and/or 3D character portraits...?<hr />
No, I truly doubt that.
How in-depth will the NPCs be? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493468&forum=84)
Yes, there will be party banter (as in dialogue between NPC party members). There will also be quite a lot of dialogue between the player and party members, and not just potential romances -- most of the dialogue is player-driven, although sometimes the NPC (when they have something important on their mind) will either bring something up when they are clicked on or (generally only in camp) will initiate dialogue with the player.
More:
<hr />Will the dialogue also be context-aware, varying depending on the location you're in or the quest you're following?<hr />
A lot of the dialogue is not -- it can happen anywhere, regardless of what's going on (and most of that is player-initiated, which means Aerie isn't going to go on about how much she likes Cheetos unless you've decided that now is a good time to chit-chat).
The rest of it is either location-sensitive (ie. the NPC has something to say related to where you are) or quest-sensitive (ie. the NPC has something to say about the quest you're on or just completed, usually the latter).
More:
<hr />BioWare - How about a sliding bar in the user configuration about how often you want to hear NPC dialog. This way those of us that like to hear it often can choose that and those that don't only hear what needs to be heard to progress the game.<hr />
Those that don't like NPC dialogue have a whole variety of RPG's out there without any party members to speak of.
Or, better yet, they could simply elect not to click on the NPC's in Dragon Age to initiate a conversation. That would remove 90% of the dialogue right there.
More:
Yes, I can imagine how terrible that jolt to your suspension of disbelief must have been. Next time we'll go ahead with the original plan and just have a giant exclamation point appear over the character's head instead.
The trick is to let the player know in some way that there is new dialogue to be had... as the only other way to do it is to have the NPC initiate all dialogues (not a great idea as it's incredibly difficult to find appropriate times when the player won't be annoyed at the interruption -- as by all evidence players are incredibly easy to annoy) or to leave the player guessing and potentially constantly clicking on the NPC to check, just in case. I don't think we'll ever use the "so-and-so wants to talk" again -- it was just a stop-gap since prior to that the player simply had no idea when a party member would have new dialogue which was worse.
The NPC "Magic Bottle" effect (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=492730&forum=84)
I think having a map that you can essentially jump around instantly to potential party members that stay in one place conveniently for you is no different, really, than having your party members collected in a logical location and allowing you to jump to it instead. The only difference is that you find one game mechanic more aesthetically acceptable, I suppose.
At any rate, I will say that unlike as in KotOR, most of the DA party members are optional to recruit. And for those that aren't, I suppose you'll just have to put up with the dreaded anguish of being forced to ignore them in whatever form the bottle ends up being. Terrible of us, I know.
More:
Not so. Just because they're traveling with you doesn't mean you have to take them into the party when you need to go out and do stuff. So if non-optional party member is a thief and you find you prefer the optional thief, then you take the optional thief and leave the other guy aboard the Ebon Hawk (or whatever). Don't worry, he's got stuff to do, too.
More:
The reason they're traveling with you is important to the story. Indeed, all the party members you could potentially meet you run into during the story, in the midst of doing their own thing. And if you don't ask them to join you, they continue on and do their own thing (and are gone). They don't hang out in their favorite tavern... but that's only because that's how the story goes.
More:
Because in DA they're in the midst of doing something and not just hanging out. If you had agreed to take them along, it didn't mean you even need to actually put them in your party -- so if you didn't, it's probably because you don't like them. So why have them hang around just in case? I know you're thinking of everything in terms of BG2, but the reasoning in DA fits what's going on in it.
More:
I don't know what will be in the documentation... I suspect that you would find some metagame information on the NPC's there, but I have no idea at this point. Most of the potential party members you run into you will interact with for some period before you have to decide whether or not to take them along. It's never a case of "Hello, my name is XXXX. Do you want to take me along? Yes/No" and then they're gone for good.
More:
They're spread out, yes, which means that the order you meet them in may be completely different from one game to the next.
Don't forget that you'll be in charge of their development, as well. So you could recruit Nalia the Thief, let's say, and opt to turn her into a Magic User if you really needed one... or just leave her as a Thief. If I wanted to use a BG2 example, that is.
More:
I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that you could go through the game and only ever recruit the few characters that are non-optional (which would not be enough to even fill your party) and that's it? Yes, you could certainly do that.
More:
No, I just meant that had you the same level of control in BG2 we wouldn't have had to dual-class Nalia into a mage. If you needed a mage, you could have made her one according to D&D rules.
The characters you recruit in DA have set starting stats, but you are in control of them from that point forward (or, at least, this is the current plan -- watch me be wrong). You can't turn a thief into a mage in DA, for instance, but you could adjust that thief into something that was more what you needed, role-wise.
More:
Well, since I said earlier that most of them were optional that does mean that, yes, some of them are not. Not enough to fill up your party, in fact. Indeed, you don't have to take anyone in your party if you don't want to -- though the game's not going to be made any easier for you, either.
More:
<hr />David, do you foresee the NPCs leveling up (to match the PC) as soon as they join the party? If so, does the player have control over how this level up occurs immediately?<hr />
It's possible. That system hasn't really been nailed down yet.
<hr />How flexible is the ability to change joinable characters? You indicate that a thief couldn't become a mage, but could he become, say, a dex based fighter type?<hr />
He could certainly become more fighter-ish, if that's what you needed. Or you could instead give him more thief-related skills. He could move along whatever advancement paths he would be eligible for in the DA system.
More:
Okay, you're obviously not getting what I meant at all. Picture it a bit like KotOR (which it won't be like, but that's close enough to suit my purpose):
You have the Ebon Hawk (the "magic bottle"). Anyone who's traveling with you can be found there. When you need to put together a party, you pick amongst the people who are there (or no-one at all) before leaving the ship to do your thing. The ship isn't always accessible, but when it is you can change the make-up of your current party.
Let's say in this version of KotOR, Bastila and Carth are the only non-optional party members. They are intrinsically tied to the story, so they are on the Ebon Hawk whether you like it or not. This does not mean you have to take them into the party at any point, though their intrisic-ness does mean they will occasionally pipe up about important story-related things. Everyone else on the Ebon Hawk is there because you've recruited them, though frankly you don't need to take any of them in your party unless you want to, either. There is no need to "dismiss" anyone.
Hopefully that explains it, as I won't go into more detail than that.
More:
I don't think this has been settled yet. Mind you, if they don't keep pace with your character somehow, once they fell more than a level or two behind your main character it's unlikely that you would ever use them at that point, isn't it?
More:
How this will work has not quite been settled, actually. It's very possible that, even though they aren't dead, going down in combat could result in permanent injury/debilitation which will require healing to remove. Whatever it ends up being, the idea is that falling during combat is something to be avoided and not simply shrugged off.
More:
My assumption is that most people would be okay with the sort of "magic bottle" that represents the kind of hand-wave a DM would do to gloss over any tedious travel issues in tabletop.
Travel that involves exploring, after all, is quite fun and should be played out. But when the players say, "okay we'll head back to the city" or "we'll head out of the dungeon" generally the DM will just wave his hand and say "okay, you're there" if no events are to happen along the way.
Glossing over time and space is something that tabletop does unquestionably more easily than in CRPG, so I think jumping back to an already-visited location or jumping out of the dungeon you've just finished are not that bad... and "magic bottle" which are logical, like ships or castles or campsites, are much better than literal magic portals or pocket planes (which was really only acceptable in ToB, I thought, because after BG2 it seemed like the player should get some use out of having a piece of the Abyss to call his own) and compressing time to travel to these places should only be possible outside of combat and when not in hostile space (like in the middle of a dungeon) unlike NWN's portal stone-thingie.
More:
If you can simply swap out party members, that's referred to as "party in a pocket"-style party management. Which is not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about having a definite place (ie. the "magic bottle", like the Ebon Hawk in KotOR) that you need to go to in order to swap out party members.
More:
The major quests in DA do, in fact, have a failed state -- both if you flub it up or if you simply take too long to complete it (ie. you start the quest and then decide to wander off elsewhere for a month or two). Failing them has consequences down the road, and failing too many can lead to losing the game.
Or this is the plan, as it stands. I think it's important that you're able to potentially lose, even if you can reload. Without the possibility of losing, after all, what's the value in winning?
More:
<hr />This is the best news that I've read on the entire index of BioWare forums in, hmmm, ages, I'd say. It must be liberating to write according to your desires rather than deal with the limitations of working under the aegis of a licensed realm. DA just might be the replacement for cRPG D&D, given the direction the latter is headed at the moment.<hr />
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be eventually deemed unworkable during testing. So it's not gospel at this point. But that's the intention at least as far as the critical path quests go.
More:
I'm talking more about the "timed" element of the critical path quests. There is still very much the element of how you complete (or fail) the quest and the consequences thereof.
It's very easy to suggest that the hardcore path is the only sensible one and pull out the mocking joke (hyuck hyuck chortle) but if the timed element is found to be confusing or unnecessarily punishing then we did it wrong, period.
More:
I'd just like to point out that while those notions of consequences are great, BG2 was so packed full of quests and content that we were literally forced to simply stop adding complexity or we never would have finished. Had we started adding these things in (and Yoshimo's resurrection *was* something that was bandied about) we literally would have had to make the game shorter. Consequences that are larger in scope are a good and fine thing to have, but they don't appear out of nowhere -- they have consequences of their own.
More:
Really? I consider the Underdark to be my favorite part of the game, and the Sahuagin City had the Spectator Beholder. Cut those just to add a couple of optional plot branches? Not just no -- HELL no.
Quests and the possibilities for loss (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493612&forum=84)
Indeed. If we put you onto a quest that you had to do in a reasonable amount of time, it wouldn't then be a good idea to have you start it and then suddenly throw another major quest at you requiring you to go elsewhere. That would be punishing the player for things they couldn't reasonably know about.
We're not talking about a BG2 situation where you'll be entering a given area and suddenly have five people lined up waiting to deliver messages to you about quests that need your attention elsewhere. We're just saying that leaving a major plot in the middle and wandering off elsewhere to do something else is eventually going to have consequences.
More:
We're not talking about timed quests, so the idea isn't to make people get the quest done in a certain amount of time. It's simply a sanity check so that, once you've initiated a plot, you don't expect that you can walk away for an extended period and leave that event unresolved and come back to pick up where you left off. It's encouragement for a player to stay focused on a major plot only.
I'm actually regretting that I even mentioned this topic, especially since I will now have to repeat anything I say in both threads it's being discussed in.
A DM Client+Toolset? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=494141&forum=84)
<hr />Are there any plans for DA to have a toolset and DM Client?<hr />
It's definitely possible, but we'll have to see exactly what form they take.
Linear? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492362&forum=84&sp=15)
I would say that Bioware games are, for the most part, pretty linear... and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering that linearity makes for a more coherent story.
Some people take linearity to mean "no choices", though some won't say something in non-linear unless it has completely divergent paths available in the story (in which case there are very few non-linear RPG's indeed).
I would say that some more recent outings have had less exploration in them and less areas off the beaten path. These are things we will actually have more of in DA: larger areas and more explorable areas and quests off the critical path.
More:
Isn't it around this point where someone rolls out a copy of Fallout and points at it repeatedly?
Seriously, though, I don't disagree entirely... I think, however, that there is a spectrum between "adventure game" and the "genuine CRPG" you mention that still has some room in there for decision-making and roleplaying. Planescape: Torment, after all, is one example often used of a roleplaying game with a fine sense of narrative -- and ultimately it, too, is linear as you hit the same major chokepoints and end up at the same spot at the end. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for significant decisions along the way and an ultimate choice of outcome.
Same with BG2, further down the spectrum. You hit the same chokepoints and you hit the same decision at the end, and there are less significant decisions along the way -- but is it not a genuine CRPG by that point? If, by your definition, it is not then I might suggest that "genuine CRPG" is a pretty small category perhaps in need of a new name (either that or everything else does... certainly there are games out there co-opting the RPG genre in only the loosest definition by anyone's standards).
More:
We use flowcharts to manage individual plots, but not to write stories. A story that was put together using a flowchart would probably feel that way, too.
More:
If your viewpoint is that exploration = non-linearity and that is the only yardstick to measure the game by, then sure. I am sure a great many people would disagree.
There are players who value exploration over everything else, true, but there are also players who value progression, those who value story & interaction and those who value conflict. A good game is going to have a balance of all four, ideally, and that's what we'll be aiming at with DA.
Whether or not a game is linear is only part of the consideration, and I think what I've said before is we lean towards linearity more than not in order to maintain a more coherent narrative. And we will continue to do so.
More:
Sorry, but I think you're getting a little confused regarding the actual meaning of linearity, whether it's being forced down a single path physically (as in a lack of exploration) or narratively (as in a single storyline without brances).
The only way that decisions factor into a game's linearity is if they result in significant branches that don't tie back into a chokepoint later on, and if that's what you're referring to as "making choices that matter" you are indeed correct... but it still isn't the only yardstick that a game should be judged by -- or, I should amend, it make be how you judge a game, but expect other people to play the game for different reasons even if it is just to kill all the monsters... even if that makes them simply lazy, in your eyes.
Linear or non-linear is simply not the most important factor from a design perspective, that's all I was trying to say.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84)
I'm honestly curious if Mr. Gaider's longtime reference to the wonderful dialogue has changed how you approach building these character relationships.
Odd that you would ask that. The answer actually is yes... very much so. As a matter of fact, I would say that Firefly has had a direct influence on how I write dialogue in Dragon Age.
Weird? Not really. Joss Whedon's dialogue isn't all about making characters that are funny, though they definitely can be. Serenity isn't a comedy, after all... indeed it could be very dark, and the funny bits just made it that much more endearing in comparison. Joss Whedon's dialogue is about making characters that are witty and likeable and human.
I think I needed a bit of that in my writing. I have no trouble writing comedy. I have a bit more trouble writing human. Carth was at his best when he was self-mocking and playful, and what's sad is that the male player never got to see any of that. Any why not? We laugh with our friends all the time. Heck, we laugh with the people we're in love with even more. I always find it strange that love scenes in TV and movies never have any laughing. Isn't that normal? Suddenly I'm hoping it is.
I wouldn't want to make everything irreverent, but everything need not be so ultra-serious at the same time, either. Especially when it comes to love. I so totally want to write an "I love you" scene that isn't completely awkward, and goes something like this:
NPC: "So... you know."
PC: "I know what?"
NPC: "Are you going to make me say it?"
PC: "Yes. I really am."
NPC: "Fine. I hate you."
PC: "I know. I hate you, too."
(cut to the kiss)
I could probably stand to learn something about economy of language from Joss Whedon, too. Or so says our editor. Short, snappy dialogue is the way to go. Me, I lean towards verbosity. I am Exposition Man. It's a bad habit to try and break. Like chewing your nails.
Naturally Firefly isn't my only influence. As the other poster noted, we're influenced by the things around us that we love. I'd be lying if I said that the George R.R. Martin books weren't a big influence on me. Or the Lord of the Rings movies. Or the new Battlestar Galactica series. Or Deadwood (I long to write a game entirely in iambic pentameter with liberal use of the word "mother***er" every second sentence. I bet you think I'm kidding.) But, weirdly enough, I would say that Firefly is what has made me think the most about how I write my character dialogue.
Which feels a bit conceited for me to talk about, as I'm not really anyone special. I'm a writer on the same journey as anyone else, I suppose, just trying to improve my craft.
(And, incidentally, a couple of months ago we finally finished a Firefly tabletop campaign that I ran for a group of 9 friends. For me, it was like the run of the series that I always wanted. It was glorious. Just thought I'd share that.)
More:
Eh? My comments about her weren't negative. I happen to have a very great need to be edited, and I hate doing it myself. The only thing I do reasonably well (as opposed to some of us) is spell.
More:
A "little meaningless flick"? It lacked context, but otherwise than that I'm not sure what chaotic streak you're talking about. My point was that romance need not always be overwrought.
More:
If the dialogue gets shortened to that extent, than the editing is being done wrong. Usually our editor doesn't do it wrong. Most times, when she's shortened a line I've looked at it and (though my first thought is "It's an outrage!") realized that it still said exactly what I wanted but without all the verbal diarrhea.
Writers, after all, are like people who enjoy hearing themselves speak. They could talk a lot less, be more enjoyable to listen to, and still get their message across -- epic entertainment value intact.
Money (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=490460&forum=84&sp=45)
I think what's being referred to in some of these posts (if not named) is the need to have appropriate "money sinks", especially later in the game.
After all, one of the most common rewards you get from doing quests is money, right? And like XP, these sorts of rewards should build up to getting something in return. Otherwise the player is building up wealth with nothing to spend it on.
Normally the biggest money sink is new equipment, though it's hard to justify in any kind of realistic economy that there would be merchants everywhere with world-shaking equipment sitting enticingly in their window display (though this is largely a matter of presentation, I suspect -- ramshackle shops with +5 fire swords are not okay, a single wizard tower in the big city that offers powerful items to select but wealthy clients is much better).
If you guys have some ideas for money sinks that don't involve major plot ramifications (like a stronghold to run), by all means let us know.
<a href="http://][/URL" target="_blank">
[b]
<a href="http://][/URL" target="_blank">
[URL=]</a>
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
[url="http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492693&forum=84&sp=15"]Where is the hype? (]</a>[/b)
As much as I like gabbing about what I'm working on (and believe me, I do) I'd rather start the PR and hype later on than earlier. If you have to talk about a project way before a release date there are plenty of things that'll change - some you'd really have no way of predicting. If the hype comes later it means you may gnaw your arm off in anticipation of talking about the cool stuff, but at least you're talking about things that are working in the game.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Linear? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492362&forum=84&sp=30)
Darklands was a great game (you don't see many fantasy games based on Germanic folklore), but the "non-linearity" had a price. The story wasn't really a narrative, and waasn't nearly as engaging or character-centric as BioWare games. There was simply a great evil that was creeping up in the area and you had to uncover rumours about where the big bad was awakening next.
After ridding the land of the big bad, you started all over again. Traveling the land again, uncovering rumours about where the big bad will be awakening next... again. And after ridding the land of the big bad (again), you started all over again.
Not only do I consider that an argument against "non-linearity" as most gamers define it, I also find it an argument against allowing the player to continue the game after the main story has ended.
I did like the game a great deal, however, and my brother and I played the heck out of it, uncovering many gameplay bugs in the process. Despite the simplicity of the gameplay, I guess the developers didn't expect people to be playing quite that long.
More:
What about A, then x, y, z, and br3, then B, then C. Is that linear?
Or you do A, then B and C, or C and B, depending on which path you choose. Is that linear?
What if you could bypass B entirely and go right on to C?
Or A1, A2, or A3, then B, then C?
Or what if after A you could do whatever you wanted, but you have to hit B eventually in order to get to C?
There are many ways to construct a game and tell a stroy therein. Whether one is "linear" or not depends, I guess, on your point of view.
More:
I liked Darklands more because it was a darker RPG than I was used to. It wasn't all epic sword and sorcery, it was gritty and close and filled with a sense of creeping doom. Even within the cities, you'd encounter things that kept the mood tense and menacing, like bandits in the alleys and creatures from the shadows. It was all very much fun.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Jennifer Hepler, Writer</font>
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=15)
That's a pretty harsh judgement you're making on our editor without knowing anything about her. Wanting to cut down exposition doesn't mean making writing "non-epic;" it means making it express all the information you need in the smoothest, most character-appropriate way possible. A good editor is a good writer's best friend...and often the only one a writer can turn to for an honest opinion after he or she has read her own work so many times, she can't possibly tell what's good anymore.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
PvP ?? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493777&forum=84&sp=15)
It's not a PvP game, that concept really just don't exist in what we're doing with DA.
The faint possibility exists that there may be some functionality included in the scripting language to enable that sort of thing... but I'm not promising anything... as the YCSI refrain gets rather stale if repeated too often...
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
Where is the hype? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492693&forum=84&sp=15)
I get to be pleased watching places I created coming to life as the artists breathe life into them. Sometimes I complain very loudly and the artists stare at me blankly and think I'm insane, but usually I'm just awed.
And, yes, lots of progress. We're at that point where all those disparate parts of the game that everyone's been working on seperately are starting to come together. Like, until recently there were people working on the chassis and people working on an engine and people working on the tires -- and then recently we put it together and it rolled twenty feet and blew up. But still -- a car! Yaaay!
Will DA music composed by Inon Zur? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=491367&forum=84&sp=30)
There was a group playing at an Irish pub just the other night that played authentic medieval music (as in tunes from that period played on instruments you could have easily found then). It was mostly Celtic in feel with a lot of pipes and drums, but I thought it would make a really unique score for a game. Really seperate it.
Just a thought. Not everything has to be over-the-top Conan-esque orchestral music, that's all I'm saying.
2D and 3D (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=491367&forum=84&sp=60)
<hr />And if we are going to have a choice to use either 2D and/or 3D character portraits...?<hr />
No, I truly doubt that.
How in-depth will the NPCs be? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493468&forum=84)
Yes, there will be party banter (as in dialogue between NPC party members). There will also be quite a lot of dialogue between the player and party members, and not just potential romances -- most of the dialogue is player-driven, although sometimes the NPC (when they have something important on their mind) will either bring something up when they are clicked on or (generally only in camp) will initiate dialogue with the player.
More:
<hr />Will the dialogue also be context-aware, varying depending on the location you're in or the quest you're following?<hr />
A lot of the dialogue is not -- it can happen anywhere, regardless of what's going on (and most of that is player-initiated, which means Aerie isn't going to go on about how much she likes Cheetos unless you've decided that now is a good time to chit-chat).
The rest of it is either location-sensitive (ie. the NPC has something to say related to where you are) or quest-sensitive (ie. the NPC has something to say about the quest you're on or just completed, usually the latter).
More:
<hr />BioWare - How about a sliding bar in the user configuration about how often you want to hear NPC dialog. This way those of us that like to hear it often can choose that and those that don't only hear what needs to be heard to progress the game.<hr />
Those that don't like NPC dialogue have a whole variety of RPG's out there without any party members to speak of.
Or, better yet, they could simply elect not to click on the NPC's in Dragon Age to initiate a conversation. That would remove 90% of the dialogue right there.
More:
Yes, I can imagine how terrible that jolt to your suspension of disbelief must have been. Next time we'll go ahead with the original plan and just have a giant exclamation point appear over the character's head instead.
The trick is to let the player know in some way that there is new dialogue to be had... as the only other way to do it is to have the NPC initiate all dialogues (not a great idea as it's incredibly difficult to find appropriate times when the player won't be annoyed at the interruption -- as by all evidence players are incredibly easy to annoy) or to leave the player guessing and potentially constantly clicking on the NPC to check, just in case. I don't think we'll ever use the "so-and-so wants to talk" again -- it was just a stop-gap since prior to that the player simply had no idea when a party member would have new dialogue which was worse.
The NPC "Magic Bottle" effect (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=492730&forum=84)
I think having a map that you can essentially jump around instantly to potential party members that stay in one place conveniently for you is no different, really, than having your party members collected in a logical location and allowing you to jump to it instead. The only difference is that you find one game mechanic more aesthetically acceptable, I suppose.
At any rate, I will say that unlike as in KotOR, most of the DA party members are optional to recruit. And for those that aren't, I suppose you'll just have to put up with the dreaded anguish of being forced to ignore them in whatever form the bottle ends up being. Terrible of us, I know.
More:
Not so. Just because they're traveling with you doesn't mean you have to take them into the party when you need to go out and do stuff. So if non-optional party member is a thief and you find you prefer the optional thief, then you take the optional thief and leave the other guy aboard the Ebon Hawk (or whatever). Don't worry, he's got stuff to do, too.
More:
The reason they're traveling with you is important to the story. Indeed, all the party members you could potentially meet you run into during the story, in the midst of doing their own thing. And if you don't ask them to join you, they continue on and do their own thing (and are gone). They don't hang out in their favorite tavern... but that's only because that's how the story goes.
More:
Because in DA they're in the midst of doing something and not just hanging out. If you had agreed to take them along, it didn't mean you even need to actually put them in your party -- so if you didn't, it's probably because you don't like them. So why have them hang around just in case? I know you're thinking of everything in terms of BG2, but the reasoning in DA fits what's going on in it.
More:
I don't know what will be in the documentation... I suspect that you would find some metagame information on the NPC's there, but I have no idea at this point. Most of the potential party members you run into you will interact with for some period before you have to decide whether or not to take them along. It's never a case of "Hello, my name is XXXX. Do you want to take me along? Yes/No" and then they're gone for good.
More:
They're spread out, yes, which means that the order you meet them in may be completely different from one game to the next.
Don't forget that you'll be in charge of their development, as well. So you could recruit Nalia the Thief, let's say, and opt to turn her into a Magic User if you really needed one... or just leave her as a Thief. If I wanted to use a BG2 example, that is.
More:
I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that you could go through the game and only ever recruit the few characters that are non-optional (which would not be enough to even fill your party) and that's it? Yes, you could certainly do that.
More:
No, I just meant that had you the same level of control in BG2 we wouldn't have had to dual-class Nalia into a mage. If you needed a mage, you could have made her one according to D&D rules.
The characters you recruit in DA have set starting stats, but you are in control of them from that point forward (or, at least, this is the current plan -- watch me be wrong). You can't turn a thief into a mage in DA, for instance, but you could adjust that thief into something that was more what you needed, role-wise.
More:
Well, since I said earlier that most of them were optional that does mean that, yes, some of them are not. Not enough to fill up your party, in fact. Indeed, you don't have to take anyone in your party if you don't want to -- though the game's not going to be made any easier for you, either.
More:
<hr />David, do you foresee the NPCs leveling up (to match the PC) as soon as they join the party? If so, does the player have control over how this level up occurs immediately?<hr />
It's possible. That system hasn't really been nailed down yet.
<hr />How flexible is the ability to change joinable characters? You indicate that a thief couldn't become a mage, but could he become, say, a dex based fighter type?<hr />
He could certainly become more fighter-ish, if that's what you needed. Or you could instead give him more thief-related skills. He could move along whatever advancement paths he would be eligible for in the DA system.
More:
Okay, you're obviously not getting what I meant at all. Picture it a bit like KotOR (which it won't be like, but that's close enough to suit my purpose):
You have the Ebon Hawk (the "magic bottle"). Anyone who's traveling with you can be found there. When you need to put together a party, you pick amongst the people who are there (or no-one at all) before leaving the ship to do your thing. The ship isn't always accessible, but when it is you can change the make-up of your current party.
Let's say in this version of KotOR, Bastila and Carth are the only non-optional party members. They are intrinsically tied to the story, so they are on the Ebon Hawk whether you like it or not. This does not mean you have to take them into the party at any point, though their intrisic-ness does mean they will occasionally pipe up about important story-related things. Everyone else on the Ebon Hawk is there because you've recruited them, though frankly you don't need to take any of them in your party unless you want to, either. There is no need to "dismiss" anyone.
Hopefully that explains it, as I won't go into more detail than that.
More:
I don't think this has been settled yet. Mind you, if they don't keep pace with your character somehow, once they fell more than a level or two behind your main character it's unlikely that you would ever use them at that point, isn't it?
More:
How this will work has not quite been settled, actually. It's very possible that, even though they aren't dead, going down in combat could result in permanent injury/debilitation which will require healing to remove. Whatever it ends up being, the idea is that falling during combat is something to be avoided and not simply shrugged off.
More:
My assumption is that most people would be okay with the sort of "magic bottle" that represents the kind of hand-wave a DM would do to gloss over any tedious travel issues in tabletop.
Travel that involves exploring, after all, is quite fun and should be played out. But when the players say, "okay we'll head back to the city" or "we'll head out of the dungeon" generally the DM will just wave his hand and say "okay, you're there" if no events are to happen along the way.
Glossing over time and space is something that tabletop does unquestionably more easily than in CRPG, so I think jumping back to an already-visited location or jumping out of the dungeon you've just finished are not that bad... and "magic bottle" which are logical, like ships or castles or campsites, are much better than literal magic portals or pocket planes (which was really only acceptable in ToB, I thought, because after BG2 it seemed like the player should get some use out of having a piece of the Abyss to call his own) and compressing time to travel to these places should only be possible outside of combat and when not in hostile space (like in the middle of a dungeon) unlike NWN's portal stone-thingie.
More:
If you can simply swap out party members, that's referred to as "party in a pocket"-style party management. Which is not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about having a definite place (ie. the "magic bottle", like the Ebon Hawk in KotOR) that you need to go to in order to swap out party members.
More:
The major quests in DA do, in fact, have a failed state -- both if you flub it up or if you simply take too long to complete it (ie. you start the quest and then decide to wander off elsewhere for a month or two). Failing them has consequences down the road, and failing too many can lead to losing the game.
Or this is the plan, as it stands. I think it's important that you're able to potentially lose, even if you can reload. Without the possibility of losing, after all, what's the value in winning?
More:
<hr />This is the best news that I've read on the entire index of BioWare forums in, hmmm, ages, I'd say. It must be liberating to write according to your desires rather than deal with the limitations of working under the aegis of a licensed realm. DA just might be the replacement for cRPG D&D, given the direction the latter is headed at the moment.<hr />
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be eventually deemed unworkable during testing. So it's not gospel at this point. But that's the intention at least as far as the critical path quests go.
More:
I'm talking more about the "timed" element of the critical path quests. There is still very much the element of how you complete (or fail) the quest and the consequences thereof.
It's very easy to suggest that the hardcore path is the only sensible one and pull out the mocking joke (hyuck hyuck chortle) but if the timed element is found to be confusing or unnecessarily punishing then we did it wrong, period.
More:
I'd just like to point out that while those notions of consequences are great, BG2 was so packed full of quests and content that we were literally forced to simply stop adding complexity or we never would have finished. Had we started adding these things in (and Yoshimo's resurrection *was* something that was bandied about) we literally would have had to make the game shorter. Consequences that are larger in scope are a good and fine thing to have, but they don't appear out of nowhere -- they have consequences of their own.
More:
Really? I consider the Underdark to be my favorite part of the game, and the Sahuagin City had the Spectator Beholder. Cut those just to add a couple of optional plot branches? Not just no -- HELL no.
Quests and the possibilities for loss (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493612&forum=84)
Indeed. If we put you onto a quest that you had to do in a reasonable amount of time, it wouldn't then be a good idea to have you start it and then suddenly throw another major quest at you requiring you to go elsewhere. That would be punishing the player for things they couldn't reasonably know about.
We're not talking about a BG2 situation where you'll be entering a given area and suddenly have five people lined up waiting to deliver messages to you about quests that need your attention elsewhere. We're just saying that leaving a major plot in the middle and wandering off elsewhere to do something else is eventually going to have consequences.
More:
We're not talking about timed quests, so the idea isn't to make people get the quest done in a certain amount of time. It's simply a sanity check so that, once you've initiated a plot, you don't expect that you can walk away for an extended period and leave that event unresolved and come back to pick up where you left off. It's encouragement for a player to stay focused on a major plot only.
I'm actually regretting that I even mentioned this topic, especially since I will now have to repeat anything I say in both threads it's being discussed in.
A DM Client+Toolset? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=494141&forum=84)
<hr />Are there any plans for DA to have a toolset and DM Client?<hr />
It's definitely possible, but we'll have to see exactly what form they take.
Linear? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492362&forum=84&sp=15)
I would say that Bioware games are, for the most part, pretty linear... and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering that linearity makes for a more coherent story.
Some people take linearity to mean "no choices", though some won't say something in non-linear unless it has completely divergent paths available in the story (in which case there are very few non-linear RPG's indeed).
I would say that some more recent outings have had less exploration in them and less areas off the beaten path. These are things we will actually have more of in DA: larger areas and more explorable areas and quests off the critical path.
More:
Isn't it around this point where someone rolls out a copy of Fallout and points at it repeatedly?
Seriously, though, I don't disagree entirely... I think, however, that there is a spectrum between "adventure game" and the "genuine CRPG" you mention that still has some room in there for decision-making and roleplaying. Planescape: Torment, after all, is one example often used of a roleplaying game with a fine sense of narrative -- and ultimately it, too, is linear as you hit the same major chokepoints and end up at the same spot at the end. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for significant decisions along the way and an ultimate choice of outcome.
Same with BG2, further down the spectrum. You hit the same chokepoints and you hit the same decision at the end, and there are less significant decisions along the way -- but is it not a genuine CRPG by that point? If, by your definition, it is not then I might suggest that "genuine CRPG" is a pretty small category perhaps in need of a new name (either that or everything else does... certainly there are games out there co-opting the RPG genre in only the loosest definition by anyone's standards).
More:
We use flowcharts to manage individual plots, but not to write stories. A story that was put together using a flowchart would probably feel that way, too.
More:
If your viewpoint is that exploration = non-linearity and that is the only yardstick to measure the game by, then sure. I am sure a great many people would disagree.
There are players who value exploration over everything else, true, but there are also players who value progression, those who value story & interaction and those who value conflict. A good game is going to have a balance of all four, ideally, and that's what we'll be aiming at with DA.
Whether or not a game is linear is only part of the consideration, and I think what I've said before is we lean towards linearity more than not in order to maintain a more coherent narrative. And we will continue to do so.
More:
Sorry, but I think you're getting a little confused regarding the actual meaning of linearity, whether it's being forced down a single path physically (as in a lack of exploration) or narratively (as in a single storyline without brances).
The only way that decisions factor into a game's linearity is if they result in significant branches that don't tie back into a chokepoint later on, and if that's what you're referring to as "making choices that matter" you are indeed correct... but it still isn't the only yardstick that a game should be judged by -- or, I should amend, it make be how you judge a game, but expect other people to play the game for different reasons even if it is just to kill all the monsters... even if that makes them simply lazy, in your eyes.
Linear or non-linear is simply not the most important factor from a design perspective, that's all I was trying to say.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84)
I'm honestly curious if Mr. Gaider's longtime reference to the wonderful dialogue has changed how you approach building these character relationships.
Odd that you would ask that. The answer actually is yes... very much so. As a matter of fact, I would say that Firefly has had a direct influence on how I write dialogue in Dragon Age.
Weird? Not really. Joss Whedon's dialogue isn't all about making characters that are funny, though they definitely can be. Serenity isn't a comedy, after all... indeed it could be very dark, and the funny bits just made it that much more endearing in comparison. Joss Whedon's dialogue is about making characters that are witty and likeable and human.
I think I needed a bit of that in my writing. I have no trouble writing comedy. I have a bit more trouble writing human. Carth was at his best when he was self-mocking and playful, and what's sad is that the male player never got to see any of that. Any why not? We laugh with our friends all the time. Heck, we laugh with the people we're in love with even more. I always find it strange that love scenes in TV and movies never have any laughing. Isn't that normal? Suddenly I'm hoping it is.
I wouldn't want to make everything irreverent, but everything need not be so ultra-serious at the same time, either. Especially when it comes to love. I so totally want to write an "I love you" scene that isn't completely awkward, and goes something like this:
NPC: "So... you know."
PC: "I know what?"
NPC: "Are you going to make me say it?"
PC: "Yes. I really am."
NPC: "Fine. I hate you."
PC: "I know. I hate you, too."
(cut to the kiss)
I could probably stand to learn something about economy of language from Joss Whedon, too. Or so says our editor. Short, snappy dialogue is the way to go. Me, I lean towards verbosity. I am Exposition Man. It's a bad habit to try and break. Like chewing your nails.
Naturally Firefly isn't my only influence. As the other poster noted, we're influenced by the things around us that we love. I'd be lying if I said that the George R.R. Martin books weren't a big influence on me. Or the Lord of the Rings movies. Or the new Battlestar Galactica series. Or Deadwood (I long to write a game entirely in iambic pentameter with liberal use of the word "mother***er" every second sentence. I bet you think I'm kidding.) But, weirdly enough, I would say that Firefly is what has made me think the most about how I write my character dialogue.
Which feels a bit conceited for me to talk about, as I'm not really anyone special. I'm a writer on the same journey as anyone else, I suppose, just trying to improve my craft.
(And, incidentally, a couple of months ago we finally finished a Firefly tabletop campaign that I ran for a group of 9 friends. For me, it was like the run of the series that I always wanted. It was glorious. Just thought I'd share that.)
More:
Eh? My comments about her weren't negative. I happen to have a very great need to be edited, and I hate doing it myself. The only thing I do reasonably well (as opposed to some of us) is spell.
More:
A "little meaningless flick"? It lacked context, but otherwise than that I'm not sure what chaotic streak you're talking about. My point was that romance need not always be overwrought.
More:
If the dialogue gets shortened to that extent, than the editing is being done wrong. Usually our editor doesn't do it wrong. Most times, when she's shortened a line I've looked at it and (though my first thought is "It's an outrage!") realized that it still said exactly what I wanted but without all the verbal diarrhea.
Writers, after all, are like people who enjoy hearing themselves speak. They could talk a lot less, be more enjoyable to listen to, and still get their message across -- epic entertainment value intact.
Money (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=490460&forum=84&sp=45)
I think what's being referred to in some of these posts (if not named) is the need to have appropriate "money sinks", especially later in the game.
After all, one of the most common rewards you get from doing quests is money, right? And like XP, these sorts of rewards should build up to getting something in return. Otherwise the player is building up wealth with nothing to spend it on.
Normally the biggest money sink is new equipment, though it's hard to justify in any kind of realistic economy that there would be merchants everywhere with world-shaking equipment sitting enticingly in their window display (though this is largely a matter of presentation, I suspect -- ramshackle shops with +5 fire swords are not okay, a single wizard tower in the big city that offers powerful items to select but wealthy clients is much better).
If you guys have some ideas for money sinks that don't involve major plot ramifications (like a stronghold to run), by all means let us know.
<a href="http://][/URL" target="_blank">
[b]
<a href="http://][/URL" target="_blank">
[URL=]</a>
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
[url="http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492693&forum=84&sp=15"]Where is the hype? (]</a>[/b)
As much as I like gabbing about what I'm working on (and believe me, I do) I'd rather start the PR and hype later on than earlier. If you have to talk about a project way before a release date there are plenty of things that'll change - some you'd really have no way of predicting. If the hype comes later it means you may gnaw your arm off in anticipation of talking about the cool stuff, but at least you're talking about things that are working in the game.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
Linear? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=492362&forum=84&sp=30)
Darklands was a great game (you don't see many fantasy games based on Germanic folklore), but the "non-linearity" had a price. The story wasn't really a narrative, and waasn't nearly as engaging or character-centric as BioWare games. There was simply a great evil that was creeping up in the area and you had to uncover rumours about where the big bad was awakening next.
After ridding the land of the big bad, you started all over again. Traveling the land again, uncovering rumours about where the big bad will be awakening next... again. And after ridding the land of the big bad (again), you started all over again.
Not only do I consider that an argument against "non-linearity" as most gamers define it, I also find it an argument against allowing the player to continue the game after the main story has ended.
I did like the game a great deal, however, and my brother and I played the heck out of it, uncovering many gameplay bugs in the process. Despite the simplicity of the gameplay, I guess the developers didn't expect people to be playing quite that long.
More:
What about A, then x, y, z, and br3, then B, then C. Is that linear?
Or you do A, then B and C, or C and B, depending on which path you choose. Is that linear?
What if you could bypass B entirely and go right on to C?
Or A1, A2, or A3, then B, then C?
Or what if after A you could do whatever you wanted, but you have to hit B eventually in order to get to C?
There are many ways to construct a game and tell a stroy therein. Whether one is "linear" or not depends, I guess, on your point of view.
More:
I liked Darklands more because it was a darker RPG than I was used to. It wasn't all epic sword and sorcery, it was gritty and close and filled with a sense of creeping doom. Even within the cities, you'd encounter things that kept the mood tense and menacing, like bandits in the alleys and creatures from the shadows. It was all very much fun.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Jennifer Hepler, Writer</font>
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=15)
That's a pretty harsh judgement you're making on our editor without knowing anything about her. Wanting to cut down exposition doesn't mean making writing "non-epic;" it means making it express all the information you need in the smoothest, most character-appropriate way possible. A good editor is a good writer's best friend...and often the only one a writer can turn to for an honest opinion after he or she has read her own work so many times, she can't possibly tell what's good anymore.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Brenon Holmes, Programmer</font>
PvP ?? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493777&forum=84&sp=15)
It's not a PvP game, that concept really just don't exist in what we're doing with DA.
The faint possibility exists that there may be some functionality included in the scripting language to enable that sort of thing... but I'm not promising anything... as the YCSI refrain gets rather stale if repeated too often...