Dragoonlordz

While I have said pretty much everything I wished to say in this thread I do think I should explain the DA2 reference a bit. The reason I referenced DA2 is because it matches some of the things you have described in here as your reasoning for using and method for solution. You said you don't think is fair to expect developers to do all the sort of things I mentioned, maybe because it takes fair amount of time or resources I assume was your logic. Might be your taking the stance you rather they do one thing well than everything average, while my stance is I rather they do everything well and none average. Bioware probably had the same idiology as the former vs latter, they felt either did not have the time and resources or left it too late in the development to put enough effort into it so they reduced the quanity and variety of maps and locations. They then imposed their solution which was similar to yours on a basic level. Meaning they thought as long as the player enters that cave from different locations (under kirkwall, from sundermount or wounded coast), exits into different locations, appears in a different part inside (where start at back or front of place), making sure some areas inside are blocked, unlocked and can go in different directions left or right path, plop different monsters in it then it would give the player less of a sense of dejavu and linearity. All it in reality did was annoy people. It is simply not enough which is why Obsidian need to focus reducing linearity across multiple areas of the game in equal measure. There is no such thing as a non-linear game. Every game requires set amount of starting or endings variations, every game has routes through the game and plot points that must be hit in order to progress, a set amount of locations and set amount of ways through them, every one with quests must have a start and end to the quests. The only thing they can do is reduce the perception of it some of which do well and others not so well. The ones that do it well apply many solutions to reduce it bit by bit across many aspects of the game, the ones that focus on one element above all others tends to be worse because the rest of the entire game does not make up for it with lack of quality in those other areas. Every choice in a game is illusionary, they are all predetermined and defined within a framework. The trick is to reduce that perception of illusion and limitation. Having multiple routes is good, having multiple methods for reaching a destination is good but they are but a single part out of many parts to a solution. My only problem to your thread is your trying to simplify something that should not be or could not be simplified into one sentence, two sentences or one idiology, there are too many variables and elements for such simplification to actually be adequate. It is that same simplification/idiology that Bioware attempted with level design in DA2 (imho). You may have gone into greater detail, applied it to a couple more elements in the game but the idiology is not actually that much different. I hope Obsidian tries to not simplify into one method or idiology, one feature or function, I hope they handle it using multiple methods for many areas and aspects in the game in different ways fitting to the issue with each and each managed in greater detail than expressed here. All those things I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I hope Obsidian tries to accommodate, accomplish and implement in various ways but keep equal effort put in between them. If they managed to tackle and implement everything I said in my first post in which each one plays a part in reducing linearity and improving player freedom then their game might be the best game I think have ever played. But they have to put equal effort into each to go from good game to great or amazing game. I have always thought if a game lacks quality in one area it must without fail make up for it in another, the lack of quality in any area is detrimental to the overall experience and while that however cannot be avoided it can be improved by having (multiple) other areas attempt to make up for it. In the end though it is only when all areas are of equal good quality do games go from good to amazing (imho). No game I have played has managed to do everything well but I can live in hope someday one might. I guess that makes me a optimist. I'll be just over here chasing rainbows.

If have blurb as it were then Witcher did it ideally, you only learn things about something after you have fought it. Such as recorded in your journel when killed something you get a peice of information about its weaknesses and tactics not before. The more you kill the more information you gather. I also agree with Dream in the sense of no-one I know who plays the hardest modes on games wants it made eaiser prior to fighting something it defeats the point and makes it easier which is not why they wanted hardest mode in first place.

Yes I do want some mandatory and some optional places to visit, I want in fact everything I mentioned. I am honest in that what I want is for them to attempt to do as many of the things I mentioned as possible within timeframe and resources they have. I do not expect all, but the more of them they manage to do the less linear the game and more enjoyable it will be for a vast amount of players. The resource management, time allocation and what they can and cannot do, what they want to do or do not want to do I leave to Obsidian. I merely state what will make the experience more enjoyable for myself. I do not want one location you can enter or exit a hundred or thousand different ways when that time and effort could go into making a dozen or more places with many things can do in each and of which have all those things you called fluff. I do not mind that you want what is described in this thread as far as methodology regarding one out of many ways to reduce linearity, I merely want a lot more methods used and implemented on top and hope they can deliver as many as possible. I would prefer they did not waste infinite amounts of time making vast amounts of ways to enter or leave places and instead take some of that time to implement the other methods of reducing linear gameplay I described here. These sort of things I described are reason why I play RPG's, they are sort of things I backed this project for because Obsidian has used many of ones I described in their previous games which they implied this new one is influenced by.

It still does not eliminate linearity...*sigh* You are still going from A to B, outside to inside, your still entering the same place and regardless of whether you enter from point A1 or A2 your still ending up in B. If a quest is go to cave (x) and you pick up the quest in village (y) your still going from (y) to (x) no matter whether you crawl on your belly or sprout wings and fly. Your idea does NOT defeat linearity. It is one method of many methods that reduce not defeat it. The more methods I described used the less linear the gameplay and the greater the enjoyment. All my methods described in my first post that you call "fluff" and not what you are looking for in an RPG are each a reduction in linearity, each provide more and more enjoyment for (most) gamers. All of those things are what I want in an RPG regardless of whether you consider them fluff or not, they all reduce linearity and they all in combination make the game an RPG I want to buy (though I already bought my copy when backed the project) even if not what you want in an RPG. An FPS has what you want more than an RPG as far as genre goes, you want to smash a window to get in fine they have that, want to kick open a door they have that too, jump down from vent in ceillng they do that, enter building (a) or building (b) they do that. As a genre FPS has more what your looking for than an RPG. All RPGs strive to have as many of the elements I described as possible for good reason, it is what most people want in an RPG. What you want is not bad, I explained earlier it is one of many things that can reduce linearity but it is not "the" solution, it is merely one partial solution out of many solutions that should be used in combination. Your idea does not defeat anything, it merely reduces the effect, as do all those other solutions and parts. If what you describe is the only thing that matters to you then the FPS genre has those in pretty much every single FPS game. If what I described initially is what you feel is fluff then I wonder why you even bother playing RPG's or backed this one... This one will try to do many of the things I described because to most RPG fans they are certainly not fluff and are why they play the genre. I think I am just going to agree to disagree at this stage.

Seems to me to be someone trying their luck attempting to sue many developers as can hoping one will win. The fact asked and ticked box for requiring a jury smells of desperation. I hope all he filed it against will take him to the cleaners. Take his home, his car and his business. Leave him a cardboard box and a bicycle.

You missed my point. Your one sentence solution is merely part of a solution. You did not solve linearity in one sentence you merely reduced it slightly as with each element I mentioned they all merely reduce it not remove it. Without combination of all those other things I mentioned earlier then linearity persists, it is not defeated and it is not resolved. Not even in map design you proposed does it eliminate linearity, it just reduces it as your still entering the same place, the place still has same design and your merely skipping or locking out/opening up parts to the player dependant on route. Unless they make a sandbox game your still picking route (a) or route (b). It does not matter if take left path or right path, enter from front or back, jump off ledge or walk around if when get there you are in the same place and same things occur. You might enjoy entering the same place from multiple angles and directions but most people would not enjoy it at all if nothing is different or changes when doing so. Unless choices and methods effect story, character or outcome then you wasted your time taking any alternative route. Your method without those outcomes would merely annoy people just like DA2 maps did. It is very much required to have multiple elements I mentioned in order to reduce the "percieved" linearity on top of the mere reduction of linearity your idea has which is not defeating linearity at all just reducing. Each and every single door or path you take would have to lead to a completley different new locations that is seporate and non repeating of any other doors, choices, paths or routes could of taken for the linearity of the levels to be gone.

I covered different routes leading to different outcomes in my first reply in this thread, it is just one of many elements that helps reduce linearity. However my point is that it alone cannot defeat linearity, that it takes many/multiple elements to do so in combination. Reliance on one element out of the many I mentioned is inadequate. I am not saying what he wants is bad, I am saying it is not enough.

It does not matter how you enter if the only difference is method whether door, vent or teleported into it. Also in DA2 you entered the same place from multiple directions and enterance points where it pretended because entered from cave on beach vs cave on sundermount that somehow just because entered same cave from somewhere else that it was an adequate illusion of different place. The thing that matters is that must use multiple elements and methods to provide that variation and difference in what happens and appears like inside, impact of multiple factors and results not just how you got inside or where entered from. You crawl through vent into place and guard stands in front and says why are you here to which given three set choices to respond or you open door and walk into place and a guard stands in front and asks why are you here of which given same three set choices to respond...both are the same result and same location. Your principle is because entered in two different ways that it is enough to get around linearity, while mechanically you can argue that did two different things, the player and gamers are not okay with such mediocre methods to make up for lack or difference/divergence. People are not fooled by this, they actually generally dislike it as the illusion is inadequate with DA2 example I gave you had same locations and routes through them were unlocked or locked which gave you different doors to go through, different places could enter from ended up same place. Which is why i said you cannot simply rely on such as you suggested. You must use many difference solutions and principles to multiple results and effects of player actions, gameplay mechanics, locations, choice and story differences to pull such illusion off successfully which mentioned in my first post.

Bioware tried that method with DA2 and it backfired in a big way. Same places but could enter from different directions. Just because could enter from different directions did not make it change the fact you were visiting the same location over and over, people were not fooled by this attempt at difference. The system has to do much more than which way you enter places in order for such blatent misdirection which uses such poor way to pretend is any variation in playthroughs or places visit to work. Entering same place from a different door simply does not work for players. They are not fooled by something so inadequate all it does is annoy them that so little effort went into providing them with differences and variation in the game. Which is why I did not restrict my first post on linearity to one sentence, because no one sentence is adequate for me to make the illusions of freedom and choice work. The only way to in reality beat linearity is to apply multiple solutions to many elements within the game. The more solutions to the more elements the more successful that illusion becomes. Players/gamers more often than not are the most fickle of audiences but they are not the most nieve or stupid.

To defeat linearity... Plot branching and dialogue/actions plus choice/consequence which result in different outcomes and effect both short term and long term. Multiple endings based on choices made and multiple ways to begin the adventure. Player freedom, exploration and places not all linked to main plot progression, more optional less mandatory. Bigger locations and maps, many routes to destinations and differences based on which route take. Customisation skills/spells/character/items and equipment, many methods to complete tasks/quests and goals. Tactical/strategic evolving combat. Reactive companions with personal histories/goals and effect in party both combat and evolving relationships/friendships. Not exactly one sentence though.

You really need to free yourself from the damage the Bioware style story telling with romance and emotional baggage has dealt you. There are more ways to add narrative than that and it is not what anyone who asks for story in the dungeon is asking for. Go back to a previous post of mine and you'll see what I would idealy like. Right now you are just arguing from a very narrow view point that is not making your point. If for example level 2 of the dungeon has a group of treasure hunting bandits occupying the south part and a humanoid tribe the north part, with the two sides at war, then that scenario could add a lot of interesting things gameplay wise. you could have the choice of allying with either or fight both. You could try luring one side into an area where they will be attacked by the other side, while you sneak away with invisibility. Having a story would allow them to try to do interesting things for gameplay in every level of the dungeon. you just need to understand that "story" does not mean that some npc suddnely wants you to be their shrink and then have sex with you. I prefer that the dungeon has a story of its own not relating to the main plot at all. The place should be able to stand up on it's own two feet figuratively speaking. Having everything revolving around the main story seems cheap to me in the sense your forcing people to go somewhere that only relates to the main plot/story because it is not interesting enough to be there without it. It is kind of point was making earlier about keep main plot away from it, make it an interesting and atmostpheric place worthy of visiting and exploring on it's own, optional and enjoyable. But thats just what I think would be best, seems not everyone agree's but such is life. When everything is part of the main plot then exploration goes out the window, my preference of exploration in which the player controlled as opposed to developer forced which I went into more detail on the exploration thread here and here.

It is no stronger or weaker an argument than the one you put forth. It was never mean't to be a 'win or lose' or 'I am right you are wrong' type statement, was how I see it and feel about it personally (different people different preferences). To you it would increase your enjoyment to have it mandatory in part, to me it make would not make it better to have it mandatory; not everything in the game must be part of the main plot. Which goes back to many things including player freedom. I also realise for others it might be detrimental to their enjoyment. In the end what your actually arguing for or against is mere individual preference. There is no right or wrong, black or white to this. Stick to saying what you like and want to see, what you do not like and do not want to see and stop trying to convince anyone with different opinion that they are wrong. Well... Sherlock. I don't recall saying it was anything else, in fact I made it abundantly clear was merely my personal preference twice.

Making it optional meaning not tied into the main plot I mentioned earlier was for a very logical and reasonable reason. That not everyone enjoys dungeon crawling, optional means those who do not can simply avoid it if so desired. Making it mandatory would force those who do not enjoy such to have to go there and be annoyed at doing something they do not like. I happen to love dungeon crawling, but I do know not every is. I see no harm in making this an optional interesting place to visit. Secondly reason I said the only thing it is required to be is atmospheric and have and interesting history is because that is the only carrot and stick that is at most basic level needed. Anything more than that is sugar coating, instead of carrot and stick it would be two carrots on a stick which I have no problem with having as mentioned some good or interesting loot as a secondary reason to go there but it cannot be the only reason or the most important one. The last part I mentioned about timers is a big deal to me personally as said I am a completionist, a kind of gamer who has to visit every area, look in every corner, read every ingame lore, find all the items possible or do every quest etc so if put timers on the dungeon then do not put them in on the way down please as that does not make it better, more interesting or enjoyable to my personal preferences and play style. But having one on the way out like place collapsing because removed something or woke some beast up that chasing you then that is fine by me, would be enjoyable as did not interfere with my initial exploration and desire to look everywhere on the way down and find everything could. I have to be able to explore the entire place and get to bottom and not be stopped by some silly time ran out situation as that annoys me. This is just my preference though. I like jojo's idea of adaptive or reactive to player class. Certain things can be done in different ways inside however.

4-6 is the right amount, however there I hope will be points in the game where you are restricted for plot or location purpose to varying party sizes. There could be times where go above that party of six like if was a castle you own and it's under seige then such time you could have more since that castle is your homebase and where any companion you may have picked up even if not in your direct party could be staying, they would logically all be at that location and can help in organisation of the defence. Or if your captured or party is spread out due to an ambush or sorts then could have less than 4-6. But when out and about and not at a homebase then to me you do not or should not have contact with those still at the base and cannot switch between them at any random time. To change companions between those home left with and those left behind at home, you should have to return to your base of operations aka castle first else it's merely building in a mechanic for the sake of ease and defies logical real world common sense or immersion. Your not exactly going to be in such a world, carrying them all around in pokeballs.

I prefer no main plot timers at all. The sort that result in "must complete the game in x amount of ingame days or real world days" as least not on the main story. Timers seem to be the new 'fad' with games these days but that doesn't make it a good one. Some side quests I do not mind having a timer but not many should use such and must both make sense to that quest and not merely exist to make it harder.

it should remain optional, not be required to have any impact on main plot or story. The only thing it needs is it be atmospheric, interesting and have it's own history or story of the place or what was there. Bascially must be an interesting place. It does not need to have some mega-reward in it like gear etc. You wouldn't be going on holiday to say pyramids or century old castle because contains "phat loot", you go because it is atmospheric and has interesting history. Thats not to say can't have some legendary or even just an interesting item of some sort but that item needs to keep the balance of the game intact and for me shouldn't be the only reason to go there. Timers however would need to be careful about, maybe a timer to escape but not one to get to bottom. Forced timers for sake of urgency can be done very badly if added only for the sake of difficulty. As a completionist I have to explore every single corner of a place out of curiosity and desire to explore so do not add a timer for travelling down into the place, only add one to escape would be my solution if did add timers to it.

So basically you want similar to Knights of the Old Republic only deeper meaning including movement changes as queued actions? Personally I think queues are fine but does have issues such as the unpridictability of enemy actions and tactics, my ideal is similar to DAO format/system battle conditions alongside pause-play change or issue different commands. I don't dislike Kotor style queuing but it did lead to some bad situations if take eye off the ball even for second for all party members then having to erase an entire queue of actions because the enemy does something else.

That was a great update. Enjoyable and informative to read. Well done.

The biggest problem for threads like these is that the people generally are single minded in trying to impose real world social or political dynamics and physics into a fictional one. The laws of real world physics and such need not apply, real world cultures and idiologies can be altered and new ones imposed. In the point I mentioned earlier I was trying to get across is that in this fictional world, it is within the ability of its creators meaning Obsidian to create any culture or enviromental factor that can allow those of dominant women and dominant men to both exist both whether in different regions or use of different races with different gender roles. The physcial attributes can be switched and used in a way to allow certain regions and/or races to have bigger stronger women than men and vice versa. There will probably be cultures and regions within that world that have dominant males and others with dominant females. Some races will have larger males or some might have larger females. People need to stop trying to force it to be one or the other, in that fictional world you can have both present and logical to the world setting.

If want to know my point of view on a specific aspect then ask, I will be quite happy to put across my position. It has to be specific though as I already addressed the thread general premise in my first post. You recent discussions lingered on two things, first being physical attributes and second being about real life religious beliefs, real world culture and locations. The first part I am willing to discuss, the second will not yield any beneficial discussion and consider nothing more than inflammatory and irrelevant to this game. Those secondary things are fine for discussion on appropriate forums but I do not consider this to be one. Islam is not in the game, the middle eastern nations are not present in the game and neither are their cultures. What influence any of those have in the game is unknown and as such waste of my time discussing something that may not even exist or be present in it. Gender will exist in the game as a certainty, that makes that aspect okay to discuss as far as I am concerned and as such my first post in this thread spoke about that as a general principle. Now if want to discuss the concept of physical attributes on gender then first you should read the other threads I linked which had that discussion already. Come to a conclusion and ask a question. If want a more general response then I will put it simply as this... Weight and physical attributes might have no impact on gender if some of the cultures within the game decide to depict such, whether promoting physcially larger active females and inactive smaller males. Likewise if some of the cultures in the game might promote physically larger males and smaller females in that society or even genetically different then it will 100% depend on what attributes the developer decides for specific cultures in that game. There is no law in fantasy to say all men and required to be large and well built or all women smaller framed and less capable of physical activity and vice versa. It all depends on the developers desire regarding individual cultures, races, enviromental influences and genetic evolution from living in that fictional world or regions within.

Do not worry what has been said in this thread will not force or enforce any change in direction for the development of the game. This one just like the other three I linked earlier were locked for a good reason and this one will be so probably sooner or later too. The team creating the game are very skilled and talented, very well educated and intelligent. They will handle any such situations in the game the way best suited to the world and cultures within it and appropriately for the characters and storylines, not on whether or not forumite a or b believes their political or social views are the more correct one to have. I am only taking part in this thread for entertainment at this point in time because I know what is coming down the line with regards to this thread. I will however put my points across and discuss the topic in a reasonable and logical fashion until that occurs but I am under no illusion about the reality of the lack of impact this threads content will have on the design of the game because I know that Chris and the others are educated and intelligent, mature and wise enough to design such without the input of this constant bickering contained here. We get it, your too good for this thread. I think most of us are here for entertainment as well, did you join this forum with the intent that you would be discovering a cure for cancer or something? Because I don't think that's what computer game forums are for... Does pointing out the realities of this discussion offend you in some way? As I have said before I have been part of this topic discussion multiple times in other threads, seen the outcome of each and every possible route of discussion which branched into every argument to be had (more impressive and extensive in debate than this one). I gave you links earlier to those discussion so you could educate and evaluate what was discussed in those very same topics as this, whether any point in those would be of interest or influence your opinion for this one. Including the one you are currently having with the other person about physical attributes of genders which was also discussed in the other threads in great detail already by many people. As a discussion alone this one is fine provided does not get derailed into bickering about real world issues, political agendas and such (of which has already happened). But the fact is this discussion is really only going to be between forumites about their opposing views on such political and social topics and that is fine if does not get too heated or off topic. It is not one that will change the developers route or direction as shown by the many other same topics about the same thing of which some I linked. They are educated and intelligent enough to make the right choice themselves without being told what political or social view point is correct for their games cultures or characters. Why every person on the internet must believe they are the first to come up with a topic or discussion, the first to argue about something in a certain way or manner, that they think, say or do is more important or different from the last person who thought, said or did the exact same thing as them elsewhere or before is amusing to me...

Do not worry what has been said in this thread will not force or enforce any change in direction for the development of the game. This one just like the other three I linked earlier were locked for a good reason and this one will be so probably sooner or later too. The team creating the game are very skilled and talented, very well educated and intelligent. They will handle any such situations in the game the way best suited to the world and cultures within it and appropriately for the characters and storylines, not on whether or not forumite a or b believes their political or social views are the more correct one to have. I am only taking part in this thread for entertainment at this point in time because I know what is coming down the line with regards to this thread. I will however put my points across and discuss the topic in a reasonable and logical fashion until that occurs but I am under no illusion about the reality of the lack of impact this threads content will have on the design of the game because I know that Chris and the others are educated and intelligent, mature and wise enough to design such without the input of this constant bickering contained here. This thread serves no other purpose than discussion between forumites and not forumites influencing the developers on this specific topic.

Then indeed you are being sexist. A man or woman should be treated equally for gender equality to work, you do not view or treat them as equals and express such in your own words. You want a woman making the decision is no better than someone demanding a man makes it. Either can make it but it becomes sexist when you believe one or the other cannot based on their gender. I'll be happy to take this discussion up with you again at a later date if you ever decide you feel like actually reading what I've written. You express in first post you do not trust them because you believed they were all male, I corrected that in informing you that was not the case. Your second response that you do not care much how many (if any) there was females on the team, that what matters to you is how experienced those 'females' are, what positions those women hold and whether their views are inline with your own on gender equality and sexism. There is conflict of expression within your statements. Why should it matter if that was the case whether was only males in the team in the first place when what you later claimed was whether or not their views matched your own. It is sexist because you implied they also had to be female. If they have to be female and match your beliefs on gender equality then that is sexist, if they can be female or male and match your beliefs on gender equality then that is mere preference. Your comment about what position they held relating to the 'females only' is sexist as implies no male in that position is adequate for you. It comes down to the fact your three mentioned prerequisites for trust...firstly they must be female secondly they have to be in certain position of authority and thirdly that their view matched yours on gender equality. Need I remind you that clearly you said do not trust them because thought were all male. Put it this way if I am misinterpreting your stance it is only because your misrepresenting your own views.

Then indeed you are being sexist. A man or woman should be treated equally for gender equality to work, you do not view or treat them as equals and express such in your own words. You want a woman making the decision is no better than someone demanding a man makes it. Either can make it but it becomes sexist when you believe one or the other cannot or should not based on their gender.

Possibly because on my part at least, there is such a lack of trust. I'm not happy to just automatically assume that the handling of gender issues is in safe hands when all those hands I'm aware of thus far are male. It can also be sexist to assume just because males might handle such a topic, that they cannot do it well. In fact though the reality is the team making this title is not comprised of all men in the first place. It is okay to want members of both sexes on the team for better perspective but it is not right to assume lack of one or the other would indicate a product would be flawed on gender issues. Like I said though, the point is moot as the team comprises of both genders.