chevalier
Fri, 20th Oct '06, 2:30am
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">Chris Priestly, Community Coordinator</font>
A few questions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499583&forum=84&sp=0)
<hr />1) Is Dragon age really being actively developed? Is there a real team of 10-20 people working on it, or just a handful of people looking at it when they have time to spare?<hr />
Yes it is, but not by 10-20.
More like 60-80 (I think).
<hr />2) 64-bits? Any information on this?<hr />
None yet. Stay tuned.
<hr />3) "Moddability"? Are there plans for anything similar in Dragon Age?<hr />
Again, not something we're talking about yet. Stay tuned for that too.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
A few questions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499583&forum=84&sp=0)
I had no idea that you would have so many different people on one project. I guess I had always imagined fewer people filling more roles. Many of those people are... maybe "transitory" is a good word... though, no?
All people at Bioware are essentially transitory, as we have several projects on the go and people move between projects as they are needed. But I would say that the vast majority of the people who are on DA now will be on it until the end as we slowly move into "top dog" on the project totem.
What do we know about DA (lsit of facts & quotes) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=500796&forum=84)
Yeah, there's been more than once where I've been heard to say in my office: "You did what? But on the forums I just said... doh!" Sometimes things change that are out of our control. Even our idea of what the project is can evolve over the course of development, with things we envisioned earlier on turning out not to be possible or practical or simply getting narrowed down as implementation time drew near.
I'd like to think that we could just go to the fans and go "hey guys, things have changed and it turns out that we've decided to go with...", but, well...
But you guys are reasonable, right?
The body language and facial expressions of characters in DA (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=501543&forum=84)
I'm not sure that we'll even have VO for the player character, so following ME's approach isn't very likely. You really have to consider just how cinematic you need to be -- more cinematic is not necessarily always going to be the goal, after all, for every project. That said, animations that convey more emotional nuance is a good thing.
Just how "grey" are we from "B & W?" (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499389&forum=84)
I don't think so. I don't believe that any game's audience is any more or less "intellectual" or "mature" than any other's. There are plenty of FPS players who honed their abilities to play competitively, or even for a living! There are RTS players who know more strategy and tactics than I could ever conceive of. Heck, there are RPG players of all stripes who would likely disagree with your statement.
For the most part, we build games and stories that we'd like to play ourselves, that we find interesting, engaging, and exciting. We try to keep story elements fresh, or at least different, and deep and meaningful to the rest of the game. Other developers will understandably do things differently. Even the "most popular" RPGs in the last couple of years--NWN, Morrowind/Oblivion, and Fable--all did things differently, and each one commands legions of fans adn detractors alike!
So I don't think it's any one thing that makes players flock to BioWare games. It's a combination of the way we develop, the kinds of stories we tell, and, basically, how much fun our games are to play.
Thanks for the kind words!
More:
Errr... yes, but the answer is not necessarily to make the good and evil choices more obvious.
I have nothing against a choice leading in an unexpected direction, so long as it's a logical one and the player is not constantly being "gotcha'd" by circumstance.
As I've said previously, the good/evil dichotomy isn't really what Dragon Age is about... so you're not going to find a clear "good path" and "evil path" in every dialogue and plot. You will find moral choices that apply to the situation, and sometimes they will be very clear-cut and other times it will be difficult to decide what is the right thing to do.
So if you're playing the noble hero, sometimes a very moral option will present itself and will be a no-brainer. Other times you will have to struggle to find an option that you can live with. The difference is very much as subtle as not being "there should be choices that match the type of character I want to play" but rather being "I should be able to at least try to follow my character's path even if I am not always successful."
More:
If I were to use a situation like that, I'd at least make it something interesting... the choice should, at the very least, say something about the character.
Let's say the 43 year-old is a criminal and a terrible human being, without any family to speak of. The 8 year-old is a child with a large and loving family but is in less immediate need of the liver than the 43 year-old. To some people, this would be a clear-cut choice, but not to others. Either way, whatever you decide says something about you -- there is a perceived "right path" even if it only lies in one's perspective.
We are not trying to simulate real life, after all, and if every choice is morally grey and just as bad as the others it's not going to be very interesting. The player should have the chance to strive if not to succeed.
In the original orc/ogre example, why not let the player who wants to try eliminate both groups? It's the harder path, and sometimes the good path should be harder -- really, isn't immorality a matter of doing what is convenient and more rewarding? There are, in fact, several plots we've written in DA where it was pointed out during reviews that there was a "good" path possible in an otherwise very complex situation, even though it would be quite difficult and not very rewarding materially -- and in each case we decided to go ahead and implement it. And for those players who were trying to be the hero, finding that path and succeeding (or failing) was more important to them than the bigger material rewards which might have been available otherwise. That makes, I think, for a more interesting story.
More:
The "game plot" meaning what? The critical path? It really depends on which plot we're talking about. Some are self-contained, some are very big and affect the critical path in big ways. I'm not claiming anything about having many paths -- the number of choices available in a plot are whatever is appropriate. Sometimes a lot, often very few.
Story Telling panel featuring BioWare and Peter Jackson (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499096&forum=84&sp=15)
That's pretty much it. You have to ignore what you're seeing as far as levels and models and such, as well as the overall gameplay. What it's for is to give us an idea how the dialogue and story flows -- because just reading it all in the editor doesn't tell you have it plays. And that allows us to get feedback from each other before everything is nailed down.
The storyboarding in NWN has, in fact, allowed DA's story to be much more critically examined than any other game I've worked on so far -- to its benefit. There isn't a single time we've revised a plot or a chapter without it turning out better. With previous games, plots were often only playable once they were near their final state -- and revisions at that point become painful as well as costly, and sometimes simply couldn't be done for the sake of expedience even if we really wanted to.
The downside is perhaps that it's really hard to ignore the graphics and gameplay. Sometimes you don't like something and you have to sit and ponder whether it was because the story wasn't right or because the prototyping was what made it not right. But otherwise I'd say it's totally an advantage.
More:
And... how does that differ from what we did before? Every line I've ever written could have worked better with a good voice actor. That has nothing at all to do with what the prototyping is good for.
With a prototype you are getting at least a feel for the pacing and layout of the dialogue and story. You're well aware with a prototype like that that you simply have to ignore what you're looking at. So "bad acting" is a bit irrelevant because the point is that we're getting a way to test how the story feels far earlier than we've ever been able to before.
More:
Both. More people would get to play the plot sooner, before it started getting final art and implementation. You would thus get to see what didn't work very quickly and as a group we would all make suggestions on ways to improve (including, in numerous cases, entire re-writes). Some of those re-writes were painful, but afterwards even I would grudgingly admit that they were always better afterwards for it.
More:
LARP some conversations? I don't even know what you mean by that, but I'm having some very strange images in my head as a result of it.
Short of reading out the dialogue aloud as we play, there's really no point. We "play" the game just the same as anyone playing the final product would, minus all the pretty graphics and animations and such to see how the story feels. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Multiplayer? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=502801&forum=84)
We don't really know yet, to be honest. DA isn't NWN2, after all, and right now we're still in the process of hashing out what it should be (yes, as we're making it, but that's not as unusual as you might think -- 80% of game development is that gray area where plans meet implmentation). Once everything is more finalized, we'll let everyone know, have no fear of that.
More:
It's not a retrenchment, no, but lots of things have changed from our earliest vision of what the project was going to be about and some things aren't 100% settled yet. So I wouldn't take anything as gospel unless it's on the current DA info page.
Forced Henchmen? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=500008&forum=84)
<hr />From what limited information we have it would seem that there are characters that you have to take into your general group, like the Ebon Hawk group in KOTOR, but that you get to select which characters you take with you at any time, again like KOTOR. If you want to play the game solo it should be possible to simply never take anyone with you, even though there will be a few characters hanging around your "Ebon Hawk" (whatever it is in DA, probably a castle or a camp) that you can't get rid of.<hr />
That's pretty much the case, yes.
<hr />Also, will DA have instances where you have to control NPC's by themselves while the PC is incapacited/somewhere else?<hr />
Yes, but the instances are few and pretty brief.
More:
Most of the potential NPC's are optional. The couple that aren't are with you from the beginning because that's how the plot unfolds. Either way, you never have to take anyone in your party. If that's not good enough, c'est la vie.
More:
Okay, once again, then.
It's like LdyShayna just mentioned. There is a "base camp" similar to the Ebon Hawk where NPC's who have joined you stay when they're not in your immediate party. Your immediate party consists of those NPC's (if any) that you wish to take with you to do your actual adventuring. So there is a difference between people joining you and being part of your party.
The few NPC's that join you are there from the beginning because that is how the plot unfolds. They do not have to be part of your party at any point. And no, you do not have the option to kill them or tell them to go away even if the dreaded thought that this might be a repeat of the Imoen situation pops up in your head, and that will make sense when you play through the game. All the rest of the NPC's are optional to have join you at all, and if the thought of there being a couple of NPC's who you cannot shake and who you might have to deal with at certain points in the story even if they are not adventuring with you the majority of the time is too much for you -- well, that's the "c'est la vie" part, and it's not going to change.
And that's really as specific as I can explain it. If it's still confusing, I cannot enlighten you further, I'm sorry.
More:
The situations where this occurs are pretty brief, but logical in why they needed to happen that way. In the end, it's just something that some people are going to like and some not -- can't be helped.
<hr />Also, are we at least able to kill the optional henchmen?<hr />
Before you agree to take them along, perhaps, but not afterwards.
More:
Once again: on the few occasions when you need to control someone else, you are generally given a choice of whom to control (unless you've been very stingy in allowing others to travel with you) and it's kept brief. I know it's irresistable for you guys to imagine the worst possible scenarios in this case -- What if I am forced to play an utterly despised character for hours and hours! What about my freedom?! -- but try to keep in mind that it is at least possible that it might also be fun or that there just might be characters you like ( ) and that our intention isn't to force you to roleplay a character that isn't your own but rather, like a puzzle, to occasionally do things in an unexpected way to overcome a problem.
Are there not cool things you could imagine doing with that? Imagine playing a ranger and it turns out your animal companion is the only one who can fit through a certain hole and enter another room -- so very briefly you play as the animal and solve a puzzle in the next room that would be so much easier if you had hands. Or you could simply not send the animal in and skip the room. No?
I suppose if you bitterly hated even the brief rescue-the-player scene in KotOR then this type of feature simply isn't for you even if there are choices involved -- in which case, that's simply too bad. It certainly won't be the only feature that we've decided on that some people will like and others won't.
More:
If you make the story not be about the player at all, you run the risk of it not being very engaging. It might be, but if you rely on the antagonist that's only one hook and a risky one at that.
Take a look at the NWN OC. No effort made to consider who the player is at all, and it's effectively about everyone else. Better? Granted, there were other problems with the implementation, but essentially that's the risk you run when you try to divorce the protaganist from the story.
The only way you can make a story not about the player is simply not to have much of a story. Sandbox games like Oblivion do a great job of leaving the player to engage himself in whatever he chooses to -- at the cost of narrative. Even then, it won't work unless the player is hooked somehow into the setting or the gameplay.
I'm not sure if it can be done both ways. Perhaps it can; if so, I don't think we've hit on the magic formula just yet.
More:
Okay, calm down please.
Grain of Sand: If you are surprised at receiving a bit of hostility, you really shouldn't be. Instead of offering a reasoned argument you did just essentially step into the thread and say that Bioware's designers were lazy because you don't agree with some of our more recent decisions. Yet you expect more thought and respect in any responses to that sort of statement? And then claim that anyone who takes issue with what you said is a mindless defender of Bioware?
That said, if you've actually an argument to make -- and you seem to -- then by all means. The discussion here was on the party system specifically, however, and any larger issues you have with KotOR (and KotOR II, it seems, even though we didn't make that game) are probably best not mixed up into it.
I do see what you mean about being forced to take party members with you in KotOR, even if you didn't have to necessarily take them into your active party. I do not, however, see how that is "lazy design" as it was hardly easier to create nor easier to write. What we were aiming for there was a cast of characters that you collected -- much like the movie -- and from amongst whom you chose your party. Just because Fallout and BG/BGII were more free-form in intent and which had optional party members it does not follow that the design was inherently better for that reason alone.
DA will have a couple of NPC's who travel with you whether you like it or not, for story reasons, though they don't go into your party unless you wish them to. The other potential NPC's are all completely optional. And that's because this is the type of story we choose to tell. If you don't like that idea, you're free to make your case against it -- but realize at the same time that while DA is neither BG/BG2 (as you've discovered) it's also not KotOR/KotOR2 nor NWN and making assumptions one way or the other isn't likely to be very productive.
And, of course, at the end of the day perhaps DA simply isn't for you. If that's the case, that would be too bad, but that's always a possibility. We do, after all, make several different types of RPG's here and try to learn from each project and try to attempt new things -- some which will work better than others. To do otherwise, after all, would be truly lazy.
More:
Right. The nature of the story is such that the companions who must come with you do so. But you don't have to like it, necessarily -- it's not mandated that they are your bestest childhood friend or anything.
But I can't go into exactly what the story is, so while I know everyone immediately conjures up worst case scenarios in their head, you'll just have to trust me that the following is not the kind of thing we're aiming for:
Binky: "Hello, fellow adventurer!"
PC: "Who are you?"
Binky: "I am Binky the Great! And I am better than you in every conceivable way. Let us travel together!"
PC: "I'd rather not."
Binky: "Ha ha ha! You jest very well, friend! Come, let me tell you of my many exploits as we go to destroy the Caves of Evil!"
PC: "I don't want to destroy the Caves of Evil."
Binky: "Ha ha ha! You jest very well, friend! Of course I know you don't mean that. Have I ever told you about the time that I..."
*player bangs head repeatedly against keyboard*
The Nerf Stick (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499998&forum=84)
I have no doubt there will be some changes to fix bugs or change things so they're closer to our vision post-release... but the whole nerfing thing you're talking about stems mostly from MMORPG's where players have this fanatic notion that every race/class combo must be absolutely equal in power and the thought that some other race/class combo might have it better than them sends shivers of fear down their spines. Such as they are.
So overall I don't think you should have too much to fear.
More:
Be that as it may, single-player is not single-character -- as a party-based game the weaknesses of one class should be shored up by the strengths of another. It's not designed for one character alone to be viable, although not unlike BG2 we'll accomodate that for those who want to try.
As for general frustration when encountering a difficult opponent, as mentioned elsewhere you do have the ability to adjust difficulty unlike in a MMORPG. Even so, we'll obviously have to work on overall game balance -- but that's possibly a seperate issue and not necessarily one of class balance.
More:
It still sounds to me as if you're approaching the idea from a single character perspective. This isn't NWN. We're not talking about you going to join PW's. PvP is not an issue. Even in multiplayer, we're not even necessarily talking about you playing a single character joining other player characters in a party.
And if you suck at playing a Blood Knight, I'm not sure why that would be our problem.
No doubt there will be stuff that will need to be fixed, some classes that don't work as we think they should or whatever. But the constant "nerfing" you see going on in MMORPG games is due to a certain setup that has nothing in common with DA.
More:
If you're not talking about the constant nerfing and re-tweaking that goes on in MMORPG's, and it's just overall balance that is your concern, I'm not sure there are any assurances we can make for you. The plans we have made are the only ones we can make at this point, and that's to test things as much as we can. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you're expecting or what you imagine we could do about it, short of "doing more".
One or Two Characters? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503415&forum=84)
There's no reason why you couldn't have two protaganists, if that's what you wanted to do. That said, we don't want to do that.
The look of DA (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=501113&forum=84)
Watching the artists slowly find their style is an interesting process to watch. Every artist is a little bit different, of course, and after going through a lot of iterations where they "try on" different looks for the game the Art Director (Dean Anderson) decides what it's going to finally be -- and, yes, there is a lot of documentation where different examples are provided and they go into things like the primary colour schemes to use, the architecture of different cultures, what sorts of lighting should be used, what moods to evoke, etc.
At first when you see the models it all looks very utilitarian. Wonderful models, sure, but you don't really see the style until it all starts being put together in the engine. And that's when someone like me, a writer, starts seeing how someone else interprets all the stuff you've come up with -- I know the first time I saw the rendering of a dwarven hall, for instance, it was pretty breathtaking.
And, no, quite frankly it looks nothing at all anymore like the tech demo that was shown at E3 way back. Not remotely. Which is why those screenshots were taken down.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=75)
I actually think it will be more interesting for us once we can actually talk about our plans in more detail. Still, we interact now because it's nice to not develop things in a vacuum and to know that someone is interested in what you're working on.
Of course, as soon as we start talking about exactly what we're doing, there will be all sorts of people upset. Especially here, because for every feature we confirm that's one person who suddenly isn't going to get the exact game they hoped and dreamed for. And that's not even including the hurt feelings over imagined broken promises, the misunderstandings, the instant leaps of logic as people take any given announcement and read ten other things into it, and so forth. That's pretty much par for the course, both before release (anyone remember the pre-release NWN forums?) as well as after.
If I start reading the forums and there's a lot of acrimony over the Issue of the Day -- Oh the drama! -- I eventually get tired of reading it and I roll my eyes and go back to work... I'm only human. But overall the only thing that will keep us from the forums in the long term is when we really get busy leading up to the release.
After release is a bit different. You'll find less of us posting mostly because some have moved on to a new project. It's hard to stay in the head space of an old project, after all. People may whine about what they think we did wrong, and that's nothing new, but to be honest it's often better feedback to get input on something someone has actually played as opposed to what they think it's going to be all about.
More:
What would that tell us, exactly? Do you think the registered users even on this website are anywhere near an accurate sampling of the player base for our average game? Or are you suggesting we design a game solely for those who are willing to come to a website and vote, regardless of their knowledge of said features or their impact on the overall design?
It's an intriguing thought, in an abstract kind of way, but what kind of design do you picture such a series of polls producing? The problem with design by committee, as I see it (and as I've experienced it) is that while nobody's completely unhappy with the resulting compromise, nobody's very enthralled with it either as it always ends up being the least offensive option rather than the best choice. That and the percentage of people who happened to be on the minority of the vote aren't suddenly made more pleased by the result simply due to the nature of the process -- human nature, I suppose.
Or do you foresee something different resulting?
More:
I wasn't intending to be mean, and if it came across that way, I apologize.
My intent was not to point out that those who come to these forums are somehow lacking, but rather that people are people. We might be able to find out what features the majority prefer, but without knowing why they prefer it we don't learn much. You may, after all, get multiple people picking something for entirely different reasons and based on conflicting assumptions... and while you may end up with a feature set that, statistically, appeals to the broadest audience the reality is probably that nobody will be the happier for it. That may sound funny, but I think we're just funny that way.
More:
Oh, don't worry... this issue exists on the micro level as well as the macro. Even here in this group dynamic, we developers often have very different ideas on which features should be what. It often becomes a push-pull sort of process between having a vision-keeper who decides that 'this is how it shall be and no other' and an irrational desire to come to some kind of group consensus even when we know that is an ineffective way of arriving at a goal.
Everyone has an emotional investment in how this turns out, so it's hard to take your finger out of the pie. You think fans on the forums can be subject to irrational, overly-passionate outbursts at times? You should check out a design meeting.
More:
D<hr />on't you think that the obvious tendency to appeal to the broadest audience (and therefore boost the sales)including 10-13 years old is the main reason why a lot of hardcore players moan and stop bying RPG?<hr />
Perhaps in part. I think that's a bit of a simplification, of course, and inherent in that reasoning is the idea that only 10-13 year-olds (ie. not as mature, not as intelligent) would be interested in a more (arguably) accessible game -- which I don't really agree with.
<hr />Does it matter to BioWare?<hr />
Does what matter to Bioware? Whether a lot of hardcore player moan and stop buying RPG's? I don't know... is there something that says we can only make games that interest the hardcore? I think what matters to Bioware is that we make good games that we enjoy making and that they find their audience.
<hr />How do you feel about it?<hr />
I can be pretty hardcore, myself, but I enjoy a lot of different games, though my favorites are those that focus on dialogue and story -- and not a great many do. If you're looking for my opinion on hardcore fans, you'd have to be more specific. There are lots of them out there, of many different flavors, and I laugh at anyone who claims to speak on behalf of them all -- heck, I know some who believe that there hasn't been a "true" RPG since Fallout.
<hr />What is the targeted audience for DA?<hr />
We've stated that DA is intended to be a more mature title, and thus targeted at a more mature audience. Does that mean by extension that it must also be "hardcore"? I don't think so, though I'd say DA is closer in style to the BG series than any game we've made since. Make of that what you will.
Death (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=494278&forum=84&sp=30)
Character X, no matter who he is or how critical he is to the party, dying in an encounter with a group of random orcs is not compelling narrative. And we are talking about a death mechanic for regular combat.
More:
Sure, the death mechanic matters. But are you saying that all characters who are able to join the party should be either completely tangential to the plot or minor enough that the plot need not alter without them present just so that you get the option to not reload should they die? If you are, then I take issue with that.
The core issue seems to be the perception that there must be a struggle to succeed on the part of the party. I contend with the idea that party members must always face permanent death in order to provide that sense of struggle or to provide the illusion of difficulty. Being defeated in combat should not be irrelevant, but neither does an all-or-nothing death mechanic in combat provide any strength to the narrative.
Sorry, but I refuse to subscribe to the idea that a mechanic must be punishing in order to be compelling.
More:
I agree with what you're saying, Asger. One should be careful, however, not to jump to the conclusion that permanent death will somehow make combat glaringly unrealistic.
Think about it. Take your average fantasy or adventure story where there's combat -- do the heroes die on a regular basis? No, of course not. If they die, it's at an appropriately climactic or dramatic moment. Having the power to resurrect the dead allows you to have a game mechanic that allows your heroes to die on a regular basis, sure, but I think that this is at the sacrifice of making death a mundane occurance. This is not a good thing.
Your heroes do get wounded, however. There should be setbacks -- in fact, the Setback is one of the classic elements of the Heroe's Journey. And if anything was wrong with the KotOR system, in my opinion, it was the lack of this. Suffering wounds, after all, gives the illusion of danger and struggle -- the suspension of disbelief -- even if in the back of our minds we know that there's zero chance of the heroes actually perishing outside of the climax.
Not that I can say exactly what we'll end up doing. Details change weekly for one reason or another, but I believe this is where we're coming from on this particular system.
More:
See, here's where you make the leap that I don't agree with.
The consequence for failure does not have to be death. As I said, it can be injury or other impediments. You say that there are many groups that have died -- and, yes, that's true. Even in KotOR if the entire group was defeated you died. Ultimately the story is about the group that succeeded, and having had various party members die randomly along the way would not have made that group's story more fascinating.
And then you further leap to the idea that not having party members subject to random death means that the game must therefore be easy and thus boring. How does that follow? You seem to have a very fixed idea in your head of what you want and anything that deviates from that is imagined in the worst possible light. If you simply can't conceive how a game without the death/resurrection model could still be challenging and compelling then there's really not much to discuss, is there?
More:
I saw it. It's interesting... though I'm not sure that many players could handle losing control of their characters and being forced to retreat. Not only that, retreat isn't always going to be an option... and what does the winning opposition do in the mean-time? Stand there and wait for you to re-engage? (Other than laughing at you, that is... which at the very least would do the trick in enraging the player, and then some. And would be damn funny, too.)
Look at KotOR. Carth retreats from the Dark Side PC when clearly overwhelmed, a completely logical thing for him to do especially when he knows what you and Bastila are capable of... yet what was the reaction? Can you imagine your average player's reaction the first time a party member cuts and runs in the middle of combat?
Things I like to see in DA (and other CRPGs as well) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503044&forum=84)
<hr />I feel that it is kind of lame that someone who was droped to 0 hit points bounces back up like nothing happened.<hr />
That's not the plan for DA, actually.
More:
I hope you mean "no permanent death", right? Because party members who are disabled during combat aren't killed, but neither do they spring back up completely unharmed afterwards.
What's taking so long? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503770&forum=84)
Yeah, look at Daikatana! That was... oh, wait...
I think what Chris was trying to say is that we announced Dragon Age really early. Earlier than we normally do, for a bunch of reasons. And now it's just got to take its time as we work on it -- and that's not an excessive amount of time at all, actually, for a game with a new engine.
And remember that while we might announce earlier we certainly cannot start the whole PR process early and try to maintain excitement and awareness in something for a really long time.
Believe me, when you start hearing about Dragon Age again, these questions will no longer be asked.
Dragon Age World Name Suggestions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=500860&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />BioWare should name all places within the game after towns in Saskatchewan.<hr />
Suddenly I have a very great urge to have a chapter called "the Siege of Moose Jaw".
More seriously, it's funny that you should mention this -- I have, on occasion, when stuck for a settlement name grabbed an atlas and picked the name of a teeny tiny village in the middle of France. Or Alberta. It's all good.
More:
Keep in mind that creating "modules" of any kind is not particularly what DA is about, and the degree that the development tools will be made available and what they will be capable of doing for you is not even set in stone at this point. So asking if you can create modules for another ruleset is jumping ahead of a more fundamental question -- as I've said elsewhere, DA is not NWN2 minus the D&D.
More:
Oh, I have no doubt that even if we made a game without any kind of development tools released at all that it would be modded well and often by the community, if the game itself was loved enough.
I'm sure that there's some kind of happy medium to be had.
More:
Not to quick-cast Dispel Hope or anything, but you guys do know that the world most likely already has a name, yes?
Static Background (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503752&forum=84)
Correct. You determine what your own personality and motivations are, but your history is set... except that you will have a number of options based on your race and/or class as to what that history is. It determines where you begin, what your situation is when you begin and a whole beginning chapter that is unique to that background. It's also something that will be recognized throughout the game, sometimes in very big ways.
Sound like a big thing? It is. The amount of work required to do all these beginning chapters was huge, but one we decided would be worth it, as in the end we get the benefit of the player being rooted in the world and able to learn about this new setting what someone of their race/class would know... and then being eased into the overall plot that way.
I imagine there's some people that prefer the idea of appearing literally out of the mists, with their background irrelevant and really known only to themselves (a la Icewind Dale or NWN), but the origin stories offer the benefits of a known background that we can tie into as well as offering choices (instead of the single, set background such as BG) ...and that's about as good as it gets, in my opinion.
More:
In this context, I'm not sure what you mean by "every detail". You might have set family members or companions, and a current situation in life -- but we won't determine for you what kind of person you are or how you feel about the people in your life or what you want to do with your life.
So you might be that dwarven prince with a royal mother and sister and perhaps even a cousin who tags along with you -- but how you feel about your mother and sister is up to you, and your cousin could be a bodyguard you barely tolerate or a cherished friend. The plot would pick up wherever it is natural for your dwarven prince to be in the midst of your life amongst all the other dwarves and those around you would pick up on your cues ("I never liked you much, cousin." would be one way to establish that you are not on good terms with him, perhaps, and he might nod and say, "Yes, I know, but you know what your mother would say if I ever let you out of my sight.")
You would then proceed on a plot specific to a dwarven prince for a while, which would teach you about dwarven culture and get you into the action, and by the end of the first chapter you would neatly be inserted into the plot at large -- though even then your origin wouldn't suddenly be ignored. Your royal heritage would come up from time to time, and no doubt when the plot involved dwarven lands your origin would suddenly become very relevant indeed as instead of a visiting stranger you are returning home.
If that kind of background is supplying too many details, I hope you can live with it -- because it's an introduction to the world and your place in it on a level waaay beyond the vignettes of Temple of Elemental Evil (not that you needed more there -- what's really to know about being a dwarf in D&D?) and I don't think many people will quite understand the amount of work that has gone into this until they play it.
For the person who asked, the background options are either race- or class-based, and in most cases you are still left with at least a couple of choices of background once you've picked your race and class. The size of the backgrounds means there can't be a whole lot of them, so we've tried to cover the archetypes and keep them pretty general in flavour. One thing to remember here is you're not playing any character you can think of, but rather a character set in the Dragon Age world -- a world that you're a part of, and not a stranger to (because unless you're either a complete stranger or an amnesiac, or the setting so generic it needs no explanation, there needs to be some kind of introduction to it).
Hope that all makes sense. I've explained it before, but it's been a while.
More:
Except that in Arcanum you started at the same point in the game regardless of whatever background you chose -- no matter what, you were at the zeppelin crash site. Your background might have affected some dialogue choices afterwards, but that was about it (unless I'm forgetting something).
To make a comparison, pretend that in Arcanum when you picked your background you spent a chapter playing your character for several hours prior to getting on that zeppelin -- and that after the crash and you were into the meat of the adventure you could potentially return to that place and your experience there in the main adventure would probably be quite different than had you picked any other background, in addition to those extra dialogue options elsewhere.
That's what I'm talking about.
More:
Each background does, indeed, have a different initial story with different maps and quests and so forth. It's a completely unique beginning chapter. They do all come together into the same plot later on, however, so it's not as if the whole game will be brand new every time you play it (depending on when you restart, I suppose).
Hmmm, is there going to be rudimentary Tech or Gunpowder (for dwarves)? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=504012&forum=84)
No dwarves don't have any gunpowder. Mind you, they aren't big on the axes, either (chopping is not an activity they have a great need for). There *is* gunpowder in the world, and by that I mean primitive cannons, but it's not the province of the dwarves.
There are some other skills that the dwarves specialize in where they have what might be considered "rudimentary tech"... but it doesn't approach anything like in Warhammer or in the steampunk genre.
Diversity of the DA world (and the PC's party) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503276&forum=84)
<hr />Will there be any unique, non-traditional races in the game?<hr />
Yes, though some of them may not be playable at first.
<hr />Is the DA world generally human-dominated or is it relatively diverse?<hr />
Primarily human-dominated, though that domination is and has been occasionally contested.
<hr />Are most of the recruitable NPCs humans, or are they varied?<hr />
(Counting...) Half of them are human, I think.
More:
Err... well, the "unique, non-traditional" races are completely Bio-original. As one would expect. The other ones are traditional (not just to D&D, but to the genre), though they are our take on them.
More:
It would be pointless for us to call them elves and dwarves if they were completely unrecognizeable. The one good part of using some of the fantasy staples is that they communicate things to the player without us having to tell them anything explicit. That way we can spend time on explaining other facets of the world which do deviate more from the standard and not overwhelm the player with all the strangeness. We want our world to be recognizeable enough that the player feels quickly at home, but fresh enough that it doesn't feel generic.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
The Nerf Stick (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499998&forum=840)
As long as competitive PvP isn't involved on a title then balance doesn't have to involve the nerf bat. Unless it's something so major it's almost some sort of design oversight - "If you hit the Foozle with the Killer Spell o' Doom, all the enemies in the world are destroyed. Neat." Class buffs are more likely so that some roles come more fully into their own. But that's way in the future and not really my call, so who knows.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=75)
Sadly, there isn't much time when a designer can talk on the forums about what they're doing before they move onto the next project. If you're working primarily on areas about the only time you can really talk about your work is post-ship. It's still nice to say what you can and talk with other people that are excited about something you're excited about, too.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=90)
To add further complication to things a feature could poll really well, but in light of other considerations (story, other features, other tech) it could flop. No feature exists in a vaccuum and often you're trying to get the most synnergy between the features your game has to offer. Also, features which have an opt-out mechanism (like party control) are still desirable even if they don't poll insanely well. Even if an optional feature has 40% disapproval, those that disapporve can ignore the feature and yet it could revolutionize the game for the other 60%.
From my perspective, I've gotten more out of individual well-reasoned arguments than polls because of issues like this.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
What's taking so long? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=503770&forum=84&sp=15)
See, that's what I don't get. If you go to McDonald's a few times, and then decide to hit the Burger King a few times, does that mean you're moving away from McDonald's or somehow don't like McDonald's anymore? Well, sure, but a simpler explanation is that you just picked Burger King as a better choice at that time. Heck, you might even like some KFC or Wendy's now and again.
It's the same thing with game development. Just because we happen to be doing non-PC games once in a while is no reason to assume that we've abandoned Pc games entirely. These are multi-year development cycles, of course it's going to seem like a long time between games! If you only eat fast food once a month, it's going to seem just as long if you choose Burger King over McDonald's two or three times in a row.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Chris Priestly, Community Coordinator</font>
A few questions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499583&forum=84&sp=0)
<hr />1) Is Dragon age really being actively developed? Is there a real team of 10-20 people working on it, or just a handful of people looking at it when they have time to spare?<hr />
Yes it is, but not by 10-20.
More like 60-80 (I think).
<hr />2) 64-bits? Any information on this?<hr />
None yet. Stay tuned.
<hr />3) "Moddability"? Are there plans for anything similar in Dragon Age?<hr />
Again, not something we're talking about yet. Stay tuned for that too.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">David Gaider, Lead Writer</font>
A few questions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499583&forum=84&sp=0)
I had no idea that you would have so many different people on one project. I guess I had always imagined fewer people filling more roles. Many of those people are... maybe "transitory" is a good word... though, no?
All people at Bioware are essentially transitory, as we have several projects on the go and people move between projects as they are needed. But I would say that the vast majority of the people who are on DA now will be on it until the end as we slowly move into "top dog" on the project totem.
What do we know about DA (lsit of facts & quotes) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=500796&forum=84)
Yeah, there's been more than once where I've been heard to say in my office: "You did what? But on the forums I just said... doh!" Sometimes things change that are out of our control. Even our idea of what the project is can evolve over the course of development, with things we envisioned earlier on turning out not to be possible or practical or simply getting narrowed down as implementation time drew near.
I'd like to think that we could just go to the fans and go "hey guys, things have changed and it turns out that we've decided to go with...", but, well...
But you guys are reasonable, right?
The body language and facial expressions of characters in DA (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=501543&forum=84)
I'm not sure that we'll even have VO for the player character, so following ME's approach isn't very likely. You really have to consider just how cinematic you need to be -- more cinematic is not necessarily always going to be the goal, after all, for every project. That said, animations that convey more emotional nuance is a good thing.
Just how "grey" are we from "B & W?" (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499389&forum=84)
I don't think so. I don't believe that any game's audience is any more or less "intellectual" or "mature" than any other's. There are plenty of FPS players who honed their abilities to play competitively, or even for a living! There are RTS players who know more strategy and tactics than I could ever conceive of. Heck, there are RPG players of all stripes who would likely disagree with your statement.
For the most part, we build games and stories that we'd like to play ourselves, that we find interesting, engaging, and exciting. We try to keep story elements fresh, or at least different, and deep and meaningful to the rest of the game. Other developers will understandably do things differently. Even the "most popular" RPGs in the last couple of years--NWN, Morrowind/Oblivion, and Fable--all did things differently, and each one commands legions of fans adn detractors alike!
So I don't think it's any one thing that makes players flock to BioWare games. It's a combination of the way we develop, the kinds of stories we tell, and, basically, how much fun our games are to play.
Thanks for the kind words!
More:
Errr... yes, but the answer is not necessarily to make the good and evil choices more obvious.
I have nothing against a choice leading in an unexpected direction, so long as it's a logical one and the player is not constantly being "gotcha'd" by circumstance.
As I've said previously, the good/evil dichotomy isn't really what Dragon Age is about... so you're not going to find a clear "good path" and "evil path" in every dialogue and plot. You will find moral choices that apply to the situation, and sometimes they will be very clear-cut and other times it will be difficult to decide what is the right thing to do.
So if you're playing the noble hero, sometimes a very moral option will present itself and will be a no-brainer. Other times you will have to struggle to find an option that you can live with. The difference is very much as subtle as not being "there should be choices that match the type of character I want to play" but rather being "I should be able to at least try to follow my character's path even if I am not always successful."
More:
If I were to use a situation like that, I'd at least make it something interesting... the choice should, at the very least, say something about the character.
Let's say the 43 year-old is a criminal and a terrible human being, without any family to speak of. The 8 year-old is a child with a large and loving family but is in less immediate need of the liver than the 43 year-old. To some people, this would be a clear-cut choice, but not to others. Either way, whatever you decide says something about you -- there is a perceived "right path" even if it only lies in one's perspective.
We are not trying to simulate real life, after all, and if every choice is morally grey and just as bad as the others it's not going to be very interesting. The player should have the chance to strive if not to succeed.
In the original orc/ogre example, why not let the player who wants to try eliminate both groups? It's the harder path, and sometimes the good path should be harder -- really, isn't immorality a matter of doing what is convenient and more rewarding? There are, in fact, several plots we've written in DA where it was pointed out during reviews that there was a "good" path possible in an otherwise very complex situation, even though it would be quite difficult and not very rewarding materially -- and in each case we decided to go ahead and implement it. And for those players who were trying to be the hero, finding that path and succeeding (or failing) was more important to them than the bigger material rewards which might have been available otherwise. That makes, I think, for a more interesting story.
More:
The "game plot" meaning what? The critical path? It really depends on which plot we're talking about. Some are self-contained, some are very big and affect the critical path in big ways. I'm not claiming anything about having many paths -- the number of choices available in a plot are whatever is appropriate. Sometimes a lot, often very few.
Story Telling panel featuring BioWare and Peter Jackson (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=499096&forum=84&sp=15)
That's pretty much it. You have to ignore what you're seeing as far as levels and models and such, as well as the overall gameplay. What it's for is to give us an idea how the dialogue and story flows -- because just reading it all in the editor doesn't tell you have it plays. And that allows us to get feedback from each other before everything is nailed down.
The storyboarding in NWN has, in fact, allowed DA's story to be much more critically examined than any other game I've worked on so far -- to its benefit. There isn't a single time we've revised a plot or a chapter without it turning out better. With previous games, plots were often only playable once they were near their final state -- and revisions at that point become painful as well as costly, and sometimes simply couldn't be done for the sake of expedience even if we really wanted to.
The downside is perhaps that it's really hard to ignore the graphics and gameplay. Sometimes you don't like something and you have to sit and ponder whether it was because the story wasn't right or because the prototyping was what made it not right. But otherwise I'd say it's totally an advantage.
More:
And... how does that differ from what we did before? Every line I've ever written could have worked better with a good voice actor. That has nothing at all to do with what the prototyping is good for.
With a prototype you are getting at least a feel for the pacing and layout of the dialogue and story. You're well aware with a prototype like that that you simply have to ignore what you're looking at. So "bad acting" is a bit irrelevant because the point is that we're getting a way to test how the story feels far earlier than we've ever been able to before.
More:
Both. More people would get to play the plot sooner, before it started getting final art and implementation. You would thus get to see what didn't work very quickly and as a group we would all make suggestions on ways to improve (including, in numerous cases, entire re-writes). Some of those re-writes were painful, but afterwards even I would grudgingly admit that they were always better afterwards for it.
More:
LARP some conversations? I don't even know what you mean by that, but I'm having some very strange images in my head as a result of it.
Short of reading out the dialogue aloud as we play, there's really no point. We "play" the game just the same as anyone playing the final product would, minus all the pretty graphics and animations and such to see how the story feels. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Multiplayer? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=502801&forum=84)
We don't really know yet, to be honest. DA isn't NWN2, after all, and right now we're still in the process of hashing out what it should be (yes, as we're making it, but that's not as unusual as you might think -- 80% of game development is that gray area where plans meet implmentation). Once everything is more finalized, we'll let everyone know, have no fear of that.
More:
It's not a retrenchment, no, but lots of things have changed from our earliest vision of what the project was going to be about and some things aren't 100% settled yet. So I wouldn't take anything as gospel unless it's on the current DA info page.
Forced Henchmen? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=500008&forum=84)
<hr />From what limited information we have it would seem that there are characters that you have to take into your general group, like the Ebon Hawk group in KOTOR, but that you get to select which characters you take with you at any time, again like KOTOR. If you want to play the game solo it should be possible to simply never take anyone with you, even though there will be a few characters hanging around your "Ebon Hawk" (whatever it is in DA, probably a castle or a camp) that you can't get rid of.<hr />
That's pretty much the case, yes.
<hr />Also, will DA have instances where you have to control NPC's by themselves while the PC is incapacited/somewhere else?<hr />
Yes, but the instances are few and pretty brief.
More:
Most of the potential NPC's are optional. The couple that aren't are with you from the beginning because that's how the plot unfolds. Either way, you never have to take anyone in your party. If that's not good enough, c'est la vie.
More:
Okay, once again, then.
It's like LdyShayna just mentioned. There is a "base camp" similar to the Ebon Hawk where NPC's who have joined you stay when they're not in your immediate party. Your immediate party consists of those NPC's (if any) that you wish to take with you to do your actual adventuring. So there is a difference between people joining you and being part of your party.
The few NPC's that join you are there from the beginning because that is how the plot unfolds. They do not have to be part of your party at any point. And no, you do not have the option to kill them or tell them to go away even if the dreaded thought that this might be a repeat of the Imoen situation pops up in your head, and that will make sense when you play through the game. All the rest of the NPC's are optional to have join you at all, and if the thought of there being a couple of NPC's who you cannot shake and who you might have to deal with at certain points in the story even if they are not adventuring with you the majority of the time is too much for you -- well, that's the "c'est la vie" part, and it's not going to change.
And that's really as specific as I can explain it. If it's still confusing, I cannot enlighten you further, I'm sorry.
More:
The situations where this occurs are pretty brief, but logical in why they needed to happen that way. In the end, it's just something that some people are going to like and some not -- can't be helped.
<hr />Also, are we at least able to kill the optional henchmen?<hr />
Before you agree to take them along, perhaps, but not afterwards.
More:
Once again: on the few occasions when you need to control someone else, you are generally given a choice of whom to control (unless you've been very stingy in allowing others to travel with you) and it's kept brief. I know it's irresistable for you guys to imagine the worst possible scenarios in this case -- What if I am forced to play an utterly despised character for hours and hours! What about my freedom?! -- but try to keep in mind that it is at least possible that it might also be fun or that there just might be characters you like ( ) and that our intention isn't to force you to roleplay a character that isn't your own but rather, like a puzzle, to occasionally do things in an unexpected way to overcome a problem.
Are there not cool things you could imagine doing with that? Imagine playing a ranger and it turns out your animal companion is the only one who can fit through a certain hole and enter another room -- so very briefly you play as the animal and solve a puzzle in the next room that would be so much easier if you had hands. Or you could simply not send the animal in and skip the room. No?
I suppose if you bitterly hated even the brief rescue-the-player scene in KotOR then this type of feature simply isn't for you even if there are choices involved -- in which case, that's simply too bad. It certainly won't be the only feature that we've decided on that some people will like and others won't.
More:
If you make the story not be about the player at all, you run the risk of it not being very engaging. It might be, but if you rely on the antagonist that's only one hook and a risky one at that.
Take a look at the NWN OC. No effort made to consider who the player is at all, and it's effectively about everyone else. Better? Granted, there were other problems with the implementation, but essentially that's the risk you run when you try to divorce the protaganist from the story.
The only way you can make a story not about the player is simply not to have much of a story. Sandbox games like Oblivion do a great job of leaving the player to engage himself in whatever he chooses to -- at the cost of narrative. Even then, it won't work unless the player is hooked somehow into the setting or the gameplay.
I'm not sure if it can be done both ways. Perhaps it can; if so, I don't think we've hit on the magic formula just yet.
More:
Okay, calm down please.
Grain of Sand: If you are surprised at receiving a bit of hostility, you really shouldn't be. Instead of offering a reasoned argument you did just essentially step into the thread and say that Bioware's designers were lazy because you don't agree with some of our more recent decisions. Yet you expect more thought and respect in any responses to that sort of statement? And then claim that anyone who takes issue with what you said is a mindless defender of Bioware?
That said, if you've actually an argument to make -- and you seem to -- then by all means. The discussion here was on the party system specifically, however, and any larger issues you have with KotOR (and KotOR II, it seems, even though we didn't make that game) are probably best not mixed up into it.
I do see what you mean about being forced to take party members with you in KotOR, even if you didn't have to necessarily take them into your active party. I do not, however, see how that is "lazy design" as it was hardly easier to create nor easier to write. What we were aiming for there was a cast of characters that you collected -- much like the movie -- and from amongst whom you chose your party. Just because Fallout and BG/BGII were more free-form in intent and which had optional party members it does not follow that the design was inherently better for that reason alone.
DA will have a couple of NPC's who travel with you whether you like it or not, for story reasons, though they don't go into your party unless you wish them to. The other potential NPC's are all completely optional. And that's because this is the type of story we choose to tell. If you don't like that idea, you're free to make your case against it -- but realize at the same time that while DA is neither BG/BG2 (as you've discovered) it's also not KotOR/KotOR2 nor NWN and making assumptions one way or the other isn't likely to be very productive.
And, of course, at the end of the day perhaps DA simply isn't for you. If that's the case, that would be too bad, but that's always a possibility. We do, after all, make several different types of RPG's here and try to learn from each project and try to attempt new things -- some which will work better than others. To do otherwise, after all, would be truly lazy.
More:
Right. The nature of the story is such that the companions who must come with you do so. But you don't have to like it, necessarily -- it's not mandated that they are your bestest childhood friend or anything.
But I can't go into exactly what the story is, so while I know everyone immediately conjures up worst case scenarios in their head, you'll just have to trust me that the following is not the kind of thing we're aiming for:
Binky: "Hello, fellow adventurer!"
PC: "Who are you?"
Binky: "I am Binky the Great! And I am better than you in every conceivable way. Let us travel together!"
PC: "I'd rather not."
Binky: "Ha ha ha! You jest very well, friend! Come, let me tell you of my many exploits as we go to destroy the Caves of Evil!"
PC: "I don't want to destroy the Caves of Evil."
Binky: "Ha ha ha! You jest very well, friend! Of course I know you don't mean that. Have I ever told you about the time that I..."
*player bangs head repeatedly against keyboard*
The Nerf Stick (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499998&forum=84)
I have no doubt there will be some changes to fix bugs or change things so they're closer to our vision post-release... but the whole nerfing thing you're talking about stems mostly from MMORPG's where players have this fanatic notion that every race/class combo must be absolutely equal in power and the thought that some other race/class combo might have it better than them sends shivers of fear down their spines. Such as they are.
So overall I don't think you should have too much to fear.
More:
Be that as it may, single-player is not single-character -- as a party-based game the weaknesses of one class should be shored up by the strengths of another. It's not designed for one character alone to be viable, although not unlike BG2 we'll accomodate that for those who want to try.
As for general frustration when encountering a difficult opponent, as mentioned elsewhere you do have the ability to adjust difficulty unlike in a MMORPG. Even so, we'll obviously have to work on overall game balance -- but that's possibly a seperate issue and not necessarily one of class balance.
More:
It still sounds to me as if you're approaching the idea from a single character perspective. This isn't NWN. We're not talking about you going to join PW's. PvP is not an issue. Even in multiplayer, we're not even necessarily talking about you playing a single character joining other player characters in a party.
And if you suck at playing a Blood Knight, I'm not sure why that would be our problem.
No doubt there will be stuff that will need to be fixed, some classes that don't work as we think they should or whatever. But the constant "nerfing" you see going on in MMORPG games is due to a certain setup that has nothing in common with DA.
More:
If you're not talking about the constant nerfing and re-tweaking that goes on in MMORPG's, and it's just overall balance that is your concern, I'm not sure there are any assurances we can make for you. The plans we have made are the only ones we can make at this point, and that's to test things as much as we can. I'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you're expecting or what you imagine we could do about it, short of "doing more".
One or Two Characters? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503415&forum=84)
There's no reason why you couldn't have two protaganists, if that's what you wanted to do. That said, we don't want to do that.
The look of DA (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=501113&forum=84)
Watching the artists slowly find their style is an interesting process to watch. Every artist is a little bit different, of course, and after going through a lot of iterations where they "try on" different looks for the game the Art Director (Dean Anderson) decides what it's going to finally be -- and, yes, there is a lot of documentation where different examples are provided and they go into things like the primary colour schemes to use, the architecture of different cultures, what sorts of lighting should be used, what moods to evoke, etc.
At first when you see the models it all looks very utilitarian. Wonderful models, sure, but you don't really see the style until it all starts being put together in the engine. And that's when someone like me, a writer, starts seeing how someone else interprets all the stuff you've come up with -- I know the first time I saw the rendering of a dwarven hall, for instance, it was pretty breathtaking.
And, no, quite frankly it looks nothing at all anymore like the tech demo that was shown at E3 way back. Not remotely. Which is why those screenshots were taken down.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=75)
I actually think it will be more interesting for us once we can actually talk about our plans in more detail. Still, we interact now because it's nice to not develop things in a vacuum and to know that someone is interested in what you're working on.
Of course, as soon as we start talking about exactly what we're doing, there will be all sorts of people upset. Especially here, because for every feature we confirm that's one person who suddenly isn't going to get the exact game they hoped and dreamed for. And that's not even including the hurt feelings over imagined broken promises, the misunderstandings, the instant leaps of logic as people take any given announcement and read ten other things into it, and so forth. That's pretty much par for the course, both before release (anyone remember the pre-release NWN forums?) as well as after.
If I start reading the forums and there's a lot of acrimony over the Issue of the Day -- Oh the drama! -- I eventually get tired of reading it and I roll my eyes and go back to work... I'm only human. But overall the only thing that will keep us from the forums in the long term is when we really get busy leading up to the release.
After release is a bit different. You'll find less of us posting mostly because some have moved on to a new project. It's hard to stay in the head space of an old project, after all. People may whine about what they think we did wrong, and that's nothing new, but to be honest it's often better feedback to get input on something someone has actually played as opposed to what they think it's going to be all about.
More:
What would that tell us, exactly? Do you think the registered users even on this website are anywhere near an accurate sampling of the player base for our average game? Or are you suggesting we design a game solely for those who are willing to come to a website and vote, regardless of their knowledge of said features or their impact on the overall design?
It's an intriguing thought, in an abstract kind of way, but what kind of design do you picture such a series of polls producing? The problem with design by committee, as I see it (and as I've experienced it) is that while nobody's completely unhappy with the resulting compromise, nobody's very enthralled with it either as it always ends up being the least offensive option rather than the best choice. That and the percentage of people who happened to be on the minority of the vote aren't suddenly made more pleased by the result simply due to the nature of the process -- human nature, I suppose.
Or do you foresee something different resulting?
More:
I wasn't intending to be mean, and if it came across that way, I apologize.
My intent was not to point out that those who come to these forums are somehow lacking, but rather that people are people. We might be able to find out what features the majority prefer, but without knowing why they prefer it we don't learn much. You may, after all, get multiple people picking something for entirely different reasons and based on conflicting assumptions... and while you may end up with a feature set that, statistically, appeals to the broadest audience the reality is probably that nobody will be the happier for it. That may sound funny, but I think we're just funny that way.
More:
Oh, don't worry... this issue exists on the micro level as well as the macro. Even here in this group dynamic, we developers often have very different ideas on which features should be what. It often becomes a push-pull sort of process between having a vision-keeper who decides that 'this is how it shall be and no other' and an irrational desire to come to some kind of group consensus even when we know that is an ineffective way of arriving at a goal.
Everyone has an emotional investment in how this turns out, so it's hard to take your finger out of the pie. You think fans on the forums can be subject to irrational, overly-passionate outbursts at times? You should check out a design meeting.
More:
D<hr />on't you think that the obvious tendency to appeal to the broadest audience (and therefore boost the sales)including 10-13 years old is the main reason why a lot of hardcore players moan and stop bying RPG?<hr />
Perhaps in part. I think that's a bit of a simplification, of course, and inherent in that reasoning is the idea that only 10-13 year-olds (ie. not as mature, not as intelligent) would be interested in a more (arguably) accessible game -- which I don't really agree with.
<hr />Does it matter to BioWare?<hr />
Does what matter to Bioware? Whether a lot of hardcore player moan and stop buying RPG's? I don't know... is there something that says we can only make games that interest the hardcore? I think what matters to Bioware is that we make good games that we enjoy making and that they find their audience.
<hr />How do you feel about it?<hr />
I can be pretty hardcore, myself, but I enjoy a lot of different games, though my favorites are those that focus on dialogue and story -- and not a great many do. If you're looking for my opinion on hardcore fans, you'd have to be more specific. There are lots of them out there, of many different flavors, and I laugh at anyone who claims to speak on behalf of them all -- heck, I know some who believe that there hasn't been a "true" RPG since Fallout.
<hr />What is the targeted audience for DA?<hr />
We've stated that DA is intended to be a more mature title, and thus targeted at a more mature audience. Does that mean by extension that it must also be "hardcore"? I don't think so, though I'd say DA is closer in style to the BG series than any game we've made since. Make of that what you will.
Death (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=494278&forum=84&sp=30)
Character X, no matter who he is or how critical he is to the party, dying in an encounter with a group of random orcs is not compelling narrative. And we are talking about a death mechanic for regular combat.
More:
Sure, the death mechanic matters. But are you saying that all characters who are able to join the party should be either completely tangential to the plot or minor enough that the plot need not alter without them present just so that you get the option to not reload should they die? If you are, then I take issue with that.
The core issue seems to be the perception that there must be a struggle to succeed on the part of the party. I contend with the idea that party members must always face permanent death in order to provide that sense of struggle or to provide the illusion of difficulty. Being defeated in combat should not be irrelevant, but neither does an all-or-nothing death mechanic in combat provide any strength to the narrative.
Sorry, but I refuse to subscribe to the idea that a mechanic must be punishing in order to be compelling.
More:
I agree with what you're saying, Asger. One should be careful, however, not to jump to the conclusion that permanent death will somehow make combat glaringly unrealistic.
Think about it. Take your average fantasy or adventure story where there's combat -- do the heroes die on a regular basis? No, of course not. If they die, it's at an appropriately climactic or dramatic moment. Having the power to resurrect the dead allows you to have a game mechanic that allows your heroes to die on a regular basis, sure, but I think that this is at the sacrifice of making death a mundane occurance. This is not a good thing.
Your heroes do get wounded, however. There should be setbacks -- in fact, the Setback is one of the classic elements of the Heroe's Journey. And if anything was wrong with the KotOR system, in my opinion, it was the lack of this. Suffering wounds, after all, gives the illusion of danger and struggle -- the suspension of disbelief -- even if in the back of our minds we know that there's zero chance of the heroes actually perishing outside of the climax.
Not that I can say exactly what we'll end up doing. Details change weekly for one reason or another, but I believe this is where we're coming from on this particular system.
More:
See, here's where you make the leap that I don't agree with.
The consequence for failure does not have to be death. As I said, it can be injury or other impediments. You say that there are many groups that have died -- and, yes, that's true. Even in KotOR if the entire group was defeated you died. Ultimately the story is about the group that succeeded, and having had various party members die randomly along the way would not have made that group's story more fascinating.
And then you further leap to the idea that not having party members subject to random death means that the game must therefore be easy and thus boring. How does that follow? You seem to have a very fixed idea in your head of what you want and anything that deviates from that is imagined in the worst possible light. If you simply can't conceive how a game without the death/resurrection model could still be challenging and compelling then there's really not much to discuss, is there?
More:
I saw it. It's interesting... though I'm not sure that many players could handle losing control of their characters and being forced to retreat. Not only that, retreat isn't always going to be an option... and what does the winning opposition do in the mean-time? Stand there and wait for you to re-engage? (Other than laughing at you, that is... which at the very least would do the trick in enraging the player, and then some. And would be damn funny, too.)
Look at KotOR. Carth retreats from the Dark Side PC when clearly overwhelmed, a completely logical thing for him to do especially when he knows what you and Bastila are capable of... yet what was the reaction? Can you imagine your average player's reaction the first time a party member cuts and runs in the middle of combat?
Things I like to see in DA (and other CRPGs as well) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503044&forum=84)
<hr />I feel that it is kind of lame that someone who was droped to 0 hit points bounces back up like nothing happened.<hr />
That's not the plan for DA, actually.
More:
I hope you mean "no permanent death", right? Because party members who are disabled during combat aren't killed, but neither do they spring back up completely unharmed afterwards.
What's taking so long? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503770&forum=84)
Yeah, look at Daikatana! That was... oh, wait...
I think what Chris was trying to say is that we announced Dragon Age really early. Earlier than we normally do, for a bunch of reasons. And now it's just got to take its time as we work on it -- and that's not an excessive amount of time at all, actually, for a game with a new engine.
And remember that while we might announce earlier we certainly cannot start the whole PR process early and try to maintain excitement and awareness in something for a really long time.
Believe me, when you start hearing about Dragon Age again, these questions will no longer be asked.
Dragon Age World Name Suggestions (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=500860&forum=84&sp=15)
<hr />BioWare should name all places within the game after towns in Saskatchewan.<hr />
Suddenly I have a very great urge to have a chapter called "the Siege of Moose Jaw".
More seriously, it's funny that you should mention this -- I have, on occasion, when stuck for a settlement name grabbed an atlas and picked the name of a teeny tiny village in the middle of France. Or Alberta. It's all good.
More:
Keep in mind that creating "modules" of any kind is not particularly what DA is about, and the degree that the development tools will be made available and what they will be capable of doing for you is not even set in stone at this point. So asking if you can create modules for another ruleset is jumping ahead of a more fundamental question -- as I've said elsewhere, DA is not NWN2 minus the D&D.
More:
Oh, I have no doubt that even if we made a game without any kind of development tools released at all that it would be modded well and often by the community, if the game itself was loved enough.
I'm sure that there's some kind of happy medium to be had.
More:
Not to quick-cast Dispel Hope or anything, but you guys do know that the world most likely already has a name, yes?
Static Background (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503752&forum=84)
Correct. You determine what your own personality and motivations are, but your history is set... except that you will have a number of options based on your race and/or class as to what that history is. It determines where you begin, what your situation is when you begin and a whole beginning chapter that is unique to that background. It's also something that will be recognized throughout the game, sometimes in very big ways.
Sound like a big thing? It is. The amount of work required to do all these beginning chapters was huge, but one we decided would be worth it, as in the end we get the benefit of the player being rooted in the world and able to learn about this new setting what someone of their race/class would know... and then being eased into the overall plot that way.
I imagine there's some people that prefer the idea of appearing literally out of the mists, with their background irrelevant and really known only to themselves (a la Icewind Dale or NWN), but the origin stories offer the benefits of a known background that we can tie into as well as offering choices (instead of the single, set background such as BG) ...and that's about as good as it gets, in my opinion.
More:
In this context, I'm not sure what you mean by "every detail". You might have set family members or companions, and a current situation in life -- but we won't determine for you what kind of person you are or how you feel about the people in your life or what you want to do with your life.
So you might be that dwarven prince with a royal mother and sister and perhaps even a cousin who tags along with you -- but how you feel about your mother and sister is up to you, and your cousin could be a bodyguard you barely tolerate or a cherished friend. The plot would pick up wherever it is natural for your dwarven prince to be in the midst of your life amongst all the other dwarves and those around you would pick up on your cues ("I never liked you much, cousin." would be one way to establish that you are not on good terms with him, perhaps, and he might nod and say, "Yes, I know, but you know what your mother would say if I ever let you out of my sight.")
You would then proceed on a plot specific to a dwarven prince for a while, which would teach you about dwarven culture and get you into the action, and by the end of the first chapter you would neatly be inserted into the plot at large -- though even then your origin wouldn't suddenly be ignored. Your royal heritage would come up from time to time, and no doubt when the plot involved dwarven lands your origin would suddenly become very relevant indeed as instead of a visiting stranger you are returning home.
If that kind of background is supplying too many details, I hope you can live with it -- because it's an introduction to the world and your place in it on a level waaay beyond the vignettes of Temple of Elemental Evil (not that you needed more there -- what's really to know about being a dwarf in D&D?) and I don't think many people will quite understand the amount of work that has gone into this until they play it.
For the person who asked, the background options are either race- or class-based, and in most cases you are still left with at least a couple of choices of background once you've picked your race and class. The size of the backgrounds means there can't be a whole lot of them, so we've tried to cover the archetypes and keep them pretty general in flavour. One thing to remember here is you're not playing any character you can think of, but rather a character set in the Dragon Age world -- a world that you're a part of, and not a stranger to (because unless you're either a complete stranger or an amnesiac, or the setting so generic it needs no explanation, there needs to be some kind of introduction to it).
Hope that all makes sense. I've explained it before, but it's been a while.
More:
Except that in Arcanum you started at the same point in the game regardless of whatever background you chose -- no matter what, you were at the zeppelin crash site. Your background might have affected some dialogue choices afterwards, but that was about it (unless I'm forgetting something).
To make a comparison, pretend that in Arcanum when you picked your background you spent a chapter playing your character for several hours prior to getting on that zeppelin -- and that after the crash and you were into the meat of the adventure you could potentially return to that place and your experience there in the main adventure would probably be quite different than had you picked any other background, in addition to those extra dialogue options elsewhere.
That's what I'm talking about.
More:
Each background does, indeed, have a different initial story with different maps and quests and so forth. It's a completely unique beginning chapter. They do all come together into the same plot later on, however, so it's not as if the whole game will be brand new every time you play it (depending on when you restart, I suppose).
Hmmm, is there going to be rudimentary Tech or Gunpowder (for dwarves)? (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=504012&forum=84)
No dwarves don't have any gunpowder. Mind you, they aren't big on the axes, either (chopping is not an activity they have a great need for). There *is* gunpowder in the world, and by that I mean primitive cannons, but it's not the province of the dwarves.
There are some other skills that the dwarves specialize in where they have what might be considered "rudimentary tech"... but it doesn't approach anything like in Warhammer or in the steampunk genre.
Diversity of the DA world (and the PC's party) (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=503276&forum=84)
<hr />Will there be any unique, non-traditional races in the game?<hr />
Yes, though some of them may not be playable at first.
<hr />Is the DA world generally human-dominated or is it relatively diverse?<hr />
Primarily human-dominated, though that domination is and has been occasionally contested.
<hr />Are most of the recruitable NPCs humans, or are they varied?<hr />
(Counting...) Half of them are human, I think.
More:
Err... well, the "unique, non-traditional" races are completely Bio-original. As one would expect. The other ones are traditional (not just to D&D, but to the genre), though they are our take on them.
More:
It would be pointless for us to call them elves and dwarves if they were completely unrecognizeable. The one good part of using some of the fantasy staples is that they communicate things to the player without us having to tell them anything explicit. That way we can spend time on explaining other facets of the world which do deviate more from the standard and not overwhelm the player with all the strangeness. We want our world to be recognizeable enough that the player feels quickly at home, but fresh enough that it doesn't feel generic.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Ferret A. Baudoin, Senior Designer</font>
The Nerf Stick (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=499998&forum=840)
As long as competitive PvP isn't involved on a title then balance doesn't have to involve the nerf bat. Unless it's something so major it's almost some sort of design oversight - "If you hit the Foozle with the Killer Spell o' Doom, all the enemies in the world are destroyed. Neat." Class buffs are more likely so that some roles come more fully into their own. But that's way in the future and not really my call, so who knows.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=75)
Sadly, there isn't much time when a designer can talk on the forums about what they're doing before they move onto the next project. If you're working primarily on areas about the only time you can really talk about your work is post-ship. It's still nice to say what you can and talk with other people that are excited about something you're excited about, too.
Serenity of the DA 'Verse (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=493862&forum=84&sp=90)
To add further complication to things a feature could poll really well, but in light of other considerations (story, other features, other tech) it could flop. No feature exists in a vaccuum and often you're trying to get the most synnergy between the features your game has to offer. Also, features which have an opt-out mechanism (like party control) are still desirable even if they don't poll insanely well. Even if an optional feature has 40% disapproval, those that disapporve can ignore the feature and yet it could revolutionize the game for the other 60%.
From my perspective, I've gotten more out of individual well-reasoned arguments than polls because of issues like this.
<font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial" color="#cc6600">Stanley Woo, QA Ninja</font>
What's taking so long? (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=503770&forum=84&sp=15)
See, that's what I don't get. If you go to McDonald's a few times, and then decide to hit the Burger King a few times, does that mean you're moving away from McDonald's or somehow don't like McDonald's anymore? Well, sure, but a simpler explanation is that you just picked Burger King as a better choice at that time. Heck, you might even like some KFC or Wendy's now and again.
It's the same thing with game development. Just because we happen to be doing non-PC games once in a while is no reason to assume that we've abandoned Pc games entirely. These are multi-year development cycles, of course it's going to seem like a long time between games! If you only eat fast food once a month, it's going to seem just as long if you choose Burger King over McDonald's two or three times in a row.