Nathaniel Chapman

Clearly this game is in the hands of a madman! Barrels better... no way. Crates are just so... warehouse level. But barrels? Barrels could be filled with mead, ale or some other festive fantasy beverage. Or gold coins and a breastplate. Don't ask me why.

Over the top medieval matrix limb action. Will this matrix limb action involve crates? It's pretty important, I know you devs are busy but try to answer ASAP. Barrels are better, they avoid breaking my immersion.

I don't know why you make the assumption that an OEI DS3 wouldn't be story driven.

Over the top medieval matrix limb action.

even without the rest o' the "cheers" stuff, the above statement makes soooooo obvious that mc is english.... not that there is anything wrong with being a pasty-faced englishman (unless you are a bp exec.) ... am knowing that mc is both serious AND tongue-in-cheek with his request, but if there is one thing that sends a chill down our spine when reading game development message boards, it is the oft repeated notion that there is "proper" values or mechanics. am not wanting a developer to have some hard and fast notion o' proper. is certain elements o' the rpg and crpg community that embrace gaming dogma with a disturbing 'mount of zealotry. make the game fun, and let "proper" burn in the deepest and most godforsaken corner o' hell. so says Gromnir. HA! Good Fun! Obviously all entertainment media have an inherently subjective quality, and I don't necessarily think that there can be an absolute definition of the "proper" or correct course in any creative endeavor. However, I do think that well thought-out mechanics have (at the very least) an advantage over haphazard mechanics. Not that bad mechanics in games are always the result of insufficient consideration in their design - obviously compromise always occurs due to schedule, implementation difficulties, or other unforseen (or poorly planned for) circumstances. But, I think that the ability to maintain a clear and consistent set of principles that inform the large and small mechanical decisions you make in light of those difficulties really is what makes a good designer. The reason I bring this up is that "fun" is completely enigmatic and difficult to pin down. No game designer can really tell you what makes a game fun - they can explain what makes it interesting, how the gameplay presents interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc. I do think that trying to nail down what makes mechanics work in those ways tends towards a certain style of design, which is maybe why things start appearing dogmatic. am all in favor of having coherent and well-designed mechanics, but the notion o' there being "proper" mechanics offends our delicate sensibilities. as far as we is concerned, there is not some kinda universal Proper Mechanics that is appropriate for all games... or even all crpgs. for example, some folks who use the "proper" descriptor while posting at rpgcodex has argued, quite forcefully, that crpg combat shoulds necessarily be turn-based. perhaps nathaniel would care to comment? I personally disagree with an assertion that CRPGs should always have turn-based combat, because I haven't seen (and I think it would be quite difficult to make) a logically coherent argument that supports that assertion. However, when you look at what (good) game developers talk about when discussing design you generally find convergence on some core ideas that are, essentially, what could be considered "proper" design. Things like, "The player should never lose in a way that feels arbitrary or unexpected". This assertion is based on foundations of game design that are themselves fairly well agreed upon ("games are series of interesting choices", "players should understand the ramifications of their choices", etc.) Of course, there are places where it's acceptable to violate these rules, which is why I think "proper" is a better term than "correct". I'd liken this to classic Hollywood filmmaking or "proper" english grammar and diction. It's okay to violate "proper" design, but you should have coherent, clear-eyed reasoning as to why you are violating it. After you design your game, whether or not you follow "proper" design (but especially if you don't), you need to verify your reasoning with playtesting. This kind of audience feedback is especially important in games because they are about player participation at such a fundamental level.

even without the rest o' the "cheers" stuff, the above statement makes soooooo obvious that mc is english.... not that there is anything wrong with being a pasty-faced englishman (unless you are a bp exec.) ... am knowing that mc is both serious AND tongue-in-cheek with his request, but if there is one thing that sends a chill down our spine when reading game development message boards, it is the oft repeated notion that there is "proper" values or mechanics. am not wanting a developer to have some hard and fast notion o' proper. is certain elements o' the rpg and crpg community that embrace gaming dogma with a disturbing 'mount of zealotry. make the game fun, and let "proper" burn in the deepest and most godforsaken corner o' hell. so says Gromnir. HA! Good Fun! Obviously all entertainment media have an inherently subjective quality, and I don't necessarily think that there can be an absolute definition of the "proper" or correct course in any creative endeavor. However, I do think that well thought-out mechanics have (at the very least) an advantage over haphazard mechanics. Not that bad mechanics in games are always the result of insufficient consideration in their design - obviously compromise always occurs due to schedule, implementation difficulties, or other unforseen (or poorly planned for) circumstances. But, I think that the ability to maintain a clear and consistent set of principles that inform the large and small mechanical decisions you make in light of those difficulties really is what makes a good designer. The reason I bring this up is that "fun" is completely enigmatic and difficult to pin down. No game designer can really tell you what makes a game fun - they can explain what makes it interesting, how the gameplay presents interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc. I do think that trying to nail down what makes mechanics work in those ways tends towards a certain style of design, which is maybe why things start appearing dogmatic.

Considering that some consider Alpha Protocol's PC version a disaster port, I'd say this is sadly a very likely possibility. EDIT : Seems that my impressions that Dungeon Siege III is a project to stay afloat have at least some ground in reality. Nope! Actually I don't want to do this just to be contrary, but here's where I get to say that GPG and Square have been great to work with and that the DS license has provided more opportunities than restrictions. I don't think I'd call this a "project to stay afloat" at all. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of an IP that's more pleasant to work with.

They do. The DS development is a mixpot though. DS1: GPG/MS DS1XP: Mad Doc/MS DS2: GPG/MS DS2XP: GPG/2K DS PSP game: GPG/2K DS3: Obsidian/Square Enix Change devs and producers much? Aaaactually the PSP game was developed by SuperVillian.

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT. We missed you. So, can you say to us how much Obsidz have been working on it without violating any NDAs? We've been working on it quite a bit!

The iPhone didn't start as a gaming platform, but it's become one pretty handily. The PC didn't start as a gaming platform either. The Mac as a gaming platform will be successful alongside the Mac as a general computing platform. The exception that you might cite for this is gaming consoles, but in those cases the first parties put a lot of money into developing killer games for their platforms to build the market and support the platform. Apple hasn't done this for gaming with the Mac (and they didn't *really* do it on the iPhone until the last couple OS releases with some new gaming focused features and the new Game Center in OS4). The iPhone became a successful gaming platform because it was a really good phone and people bought it for that.

haha creepy creeps

I just picked one of the new 15" MBPs up. They're sweet B). But they wouldn't really be any easier to develop for than any other generation of intel Mac. .NET doesn't matter much for game code. It would just be a tools issue. It's never been a question of difficulty, it's just a question of cost vs. reward. The market of additional people who would buy your game if you made it on Mac hasn't generally been large enough to justify the expense - but that changes as the market changes.

I agree that the "RPG" rewards (NPCs, story, etc.) can have a lot of value. But I'd also argue that great stealth games do that too! If you played Thief, one of the coolest parts of it was the little character interactions you'd hear between guards if you snuck up on them. If you didn't stealth properly, you missed out on all that stuff. Also, what I think is really important is that there is a somewhat comparable amount of depth that you give the player between various gameplay options if you ask them to mix and match. What I'm saying, more than anything, is that if you are going to give someone the option to stealth in the game, you should spend a little more time polishing your stealth gameplay than most RPGs do. That may mean sacrifices to other systems, or it may just mean a change in focus. But it's something that I think is really valuable. Let me put it like this: when I find an RPG where playing a thief is close to as satisfying as it was in Thief, I'll be ecstatic. Imagine how much more valuable your stealth abilities will feel in that case!

To some extent. Obviously RPGs (and some RPG-like action games!) tend to lay out pretty broad core gameplay options and we let players mix and match from within those options. But we're (and by we I mean the designers) still defining the core gameplay as the various combinations of the options we offer. And, on that point, I think that one way that RPGs actually risk being less satisfying as games than other genres is when we give the player many core gameplay options but do not make the truly "core options" equally deep and satisfying. The best example I can give is stealth gameplay. RPGs honestly have very little actual stealth gameplay - it's mostly just "hit the stealth button/click the stealth option and hope you don't roll low". Some RPGs have done a little better, but if you look at the depth and complexity of their combat systems and compare them to the depth and complexity of the stealth systems (especially compared against actual stealth focused games like Thief) the stealth gameplay does seem pretty anemic in comparison to the combat.

First, I want to clarify, I do not and have not worked on F:NV, so I'm just using it as an example. My argument would be, generally, yes. But that doesn't mean that easy modes are worse - I think the question you then have to ask is "How much game is right for you"? For example, some people play casually against their friends (who also play casually) and for them RTSes are prettier, more visually impressive games of army men. Others play them as [complex strategic affairs where you feint a given unit to encourage them building a counter but in fact you focus on the counter to their counter. Either way, both people are having fun, even though the first player isn't playing as deep or complex a game. And, I'm definitely arguing for more player skill scaling (and less character skill scaling) at higher difficulties. I like to think of it this way: you've got the game that the player is playing (and this is where their skill as a player comes in), and the narrative in which they are roleplaying(this is where character skill and character development come in), and those are both working in tandem to make the RPG experience. Difficulty options should, in my opinion, affect the game moreso than the narrative. There are some cases where I think that the game reinforces the narrative and thus harder difficulties can help reinforce the narrative too. And there I think is where F:NV's hardcore mode is strongest - in making scavenging and dehydration bigger parts of the gameplay, they use the gameplay mechanics to better reinforce the narrative. It's just that, for more casual players, that may be too much game for them, and so we let them opt out even though they're really not experiencing the story world as they "should".

Well, but again, I think there are more interesting ways to scale difficulty even in those CRPGs. For instance, disabling friendly AoE damage in NWN2 was more interesting than just increasing damage. Maybe disabling wounded limbs for the player on super easy mode in Fallout, or making the requirements for repairing wounded limbs more severe. Well, I think honestly that "Hardcore" mode is a good example of the kind of difficulty setting that I personally find interesting. The game is absolutely going to be more complex in hardcore mode and is going to provide more challenges to the player. That's kind of what I expect from a "harder" game - more depth, not something like "all damaged is doubled" which often just results in more frustration for the player. Because really, you should win and lose not because of damage number but because of tactical decisionmaking. If all you're doing is changing the damage numbers, in theory you're just encouraging the player to not get hit, which actually can reduce tactical depth (aggressive gameplay is less useful). It's a tough balance, but I think the goal of difficulty options should be to make the game more complex/deep and to push the player to play better, not necessarily just play more conservatively.

Another real world RPG? ahahahaha. This was the source of many jokes on NWN2 since we actually had a Polish language SKU.

Sorry, we all ready the paid the assassin and can't reach him :/ Don't worry, it was me. Jokes (or serious business?) aside any hint on how close you're to an announcement? Other generic question that expects generic answers : do you already have something strong to show off? I don't want to touch prognostications on dates or anything. Sorry. I will say that I feel we do already have something strong to show and we're really proud of the polish level we're going for on this.

Re: your first question, not really. To the second question, We're really proud of what we've been working on and we're really excited to show it off. We hope you guys will like it as much as we do. But we can't and won't say anything about what it is until it's announced.

In advance, I want to mention that I am using GTA as a theoretical example in this case. I actually don't remember what it did for difficulty levels - it was just a clear example to explain the terms I'm using. Something that I've done a lot of thinking about is difficulty modes. Not just because it's something you have to consider on every project, but also because it ties directly into the core meat of system design - what causes your game to be challenging? What level of challenge is fun, and when does it become frustrating? I find that it's actually a really interesting exercise to look at a game and see how you could make difficulty modes (if it doesn't have them) or make the difficulties more interesting. This is partly because you need to answer two very important questions - what is your core gameplay, and what are the core challenges? To define those terms as I'm using them: Core Gameplay - This is the dominant overall experience of the player throughout the game. Core Gameplay can be comprised of multiple parts (for instance, in GTAIV driving and shooting are both part of core gameplay), but it must always be interactive. So, cutscenes are not core gameplay. Additionally, in most cases core gameplay elements are connected and influence each other. For instance, take driving and shooting in GTAIV. If you drive expertly, you can sometimes soften up a target before you kill him by flipping his car or running him over. Or, if you have awesome guns, you can usually blow up his car before he gets a chance to drive off. Of course, this is a great example of what is NOT core gameplay, too. GTA has a lot of missions where you're forced to just shoot or just drive, and these missions don't generally succeed in my opinion because they actually break core gameplay. GTA's core gameplay relies on choice and interaction between shooting and driving as gameplay elements. Taking either aspect out of the mix fundamentally alters what makes the game work and lessens the play experience (in general). Core Challenges - These are the individual mechanics - be they mechanical, tactical, strategic, etc. that comprise your core gameplay. These are the things that you have to do in the game, and the sum of your successes and failures at these individual challenges determines your success or failure at the core gameplay as a whole. For instance, in GTAIV some of the core challenges are Aiming, Ammo management, Proper weapon selection, Cornering, learning the handling characteristics of each car, etc. Anyways, in my opinion games tend to offer the most interesting difficulty options when they rely on tweaking or even adding new core challenges without invalidating the core gameplay. A great example of this is Thief. Thief's difficulty options added new challenges to their already existing stealth gameplay. They didn't choose to increase enemy health (at least, as far as I remember) because that runs at cross purposes to their core stealth gameplay. Instead, they force you to not kill anyone. This makes the game's environment navigation and perception/awareness challenges much more complex, but doesn't really alter the core balance of the weapons and tools. The reason why more blunt instruments, like just increasing health and damage, tend to fail IMO is that they don't actually make the game more challenging, they just mess up the pacing. I played an ARPG recently that scaled damage and enemy HP and rather than really being more challenging at higher difficulty levels, it just turned into a massive slog. That's something you really want to avoid at all costs... pacing is key to the game being fun, and hard doesn't mean frustrating or boring, it should mean challenging. So for instance, if I were designing difficulties for GTA I would probably make the guns more differentiated and single purpose in harder difficulties (IE less general purpose, innacurate guns become more inaccurate, short range guns become more short range, etc.). I might make ammo more scarce, though that can risk hurting your pacing. I might even change the handling profiles of some of the cars to make them more swervy, and a little easier to lose control of. What I wouldn't do is reduce your car's HP or increase enemy HP. I feel like those changes would just make the game more frustrating/dull, not harder.

What it means is that the tired argument that the Mac isn't financially viable as a game platform is baloney and can be put out to pasture permanently. I know Obsidian probably still can't be bothered but meh. We've actually looked into options for Mac versions before. Even if it hasn't been a viable platform in the past, it sure could get that way.

Thanks! Actually probably my favorite part of working on NWN2 and the expansions (either as a designer or a producer) was interacting with the community. Despite the brutal honesty of a lot of the community members, it was a real treat to get to work closely with people who care enough about your game to spend time making stuff for it.

One thing that I do really like about voiced PCs is that I think they make conversations flow a little more naturally, especially if you time out the conversation properly. This is something I noticed playing ME2 - because I could pick my option before the next line was up, the conversation just tended to have a nice flow where it felt like two people talking. While I think that there's some benefit to having the character as a blank slate, I think that because you're essentially picking lines from a predefined pool in a dialog tree system, it doesn't harm things too much to have Player VO. Obviously there's more practical concerns like VO cost, and whether or not that restricts the number of lines you can do, but in a perfect world I like player VO in the right kind of game.

hahahahahah

Good question. Why wouldn't we?