MassMffect Q & A @ Gamespy

[Morgoth]

So?

No particular reason needed. Just wanted to point that out. Of course I could also be wrong and it's just an usual fungus that grows on those dirty lizardfolks.

[Joseph Bulock]

is tough to draw conclusions 'bout entire dialogue system based 'pon a single screenie. that being said, one wonders why gamespy or bio or whomever chose that particular screenie to shows to potential future purchasers.

 

*shrug*

 

me confuses Gromnir. based on feedback from bio and from articles we gots so little interest in me that we might even concludes that we gots more interest in obsidian's aliens project. however, every person we knows who has actually seen and or played some portion o' me seems to rave 'bout it. not makes sense.

 

oh well.

 

oh, and we thinks that josh would be disappointed with bullock’s pragmatic alternatives to current evil options.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Last time I checked the company handbook, I'm still allowed to have differing opinions from Josh. That being said, Josh has probably though his through for a couple extra years. And seriously, there is only one "L" in my name.

[Cantousent]

Sawyer is too much of a freedom freak. Of all his views, his fixation on choice appeals to me least. By saying that, I mean I don't like his stance at all.

[Spider]

Freedom without any effect is pointless.

 

I don't think JE has ever argued for freedom without effect. Given that he's said on numerous occasions that one of the things he considers most important in an RPG is for it to have meaningful choices and a game world that reacts to those choices, ie consequence.

 

(sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth JE, at least that's what I've gotten out of what you've been saying)

[Cantousent]

Even freedom which results in broad consequences is not the most important aspect of a CRPG.

[Llyranor]

No, that's precisely what JE has been advocating for. He criticizes Oblivion for not having meaningful consequences.

 

I don't need every designer to be a MCA clone, and JE has his priorities right.

[Spider]

Even freedom which results in broad consequences is not the most important aspect of a CRPG.

 

To me the most important aspect is to have choices with meaningful consequences. This does not mandate freedom, however. At least not in the sense that I should be able to go anywhere at anytime and kill anyone I want. But I want to be the one in control of my character and I want the choices I do get to make to be meaningful.

[Llyranor]

I also don't really care too much for freeroaming freedom per say, but that doesn't that I don't want meaningful consequences within the aspects of the world/story in which I *am* involved.

[Cantousent]

Even freedom which results in broad consequences is not the most important aspect of a CRPG.

 

To me the most important aspect is to have choices with meaningful consequences. This does not mandate freedom, however. At least not in the sense that I should be able to go anywhere at anytime and kill anyone I want. But I want to be the one in control of my character and I want the choices I do get to make to be meaningful.

 

You have detailed a system in which freedom is not the most important aspect. Notice, however, that I did not say that freedom in a game is bad. I said that it is not the most important aspect. I reiterate, it is not the most important aspect. As I understand Sawyer's position, freedom is a sort of designer trump card. Actually, I always thought it was balance, but I seem to remember him saying at some point that freedom was the most important aspect.

 

What I'm saying, to be clear, is that freedom is not the most important aspect. With or without attendant consequences, freedom is not the most important aspect. With or without a moral code, freedom is not the most important aspect.

 

I can hear shirts rending and teeth gnashing already.

 

Hey, you want to have a chance to be meanspirited to me, ask me what is the most important aspect. That ought to put me on the defensive. If you're expecting the MCA story trumps all approach, you will be surprised.

 

EDIT: in which

Edited March 30, 2007 by Cantousent

[Llyranor]

As I understand Sawyer's position, freedom is a sort of designer trump card.

Actually, I think he gives that to framerate.

[Cantousent]

As I understand Sawyer's position, freedom is a sort of designer trump card.

Actually, I think he gives that to framerate.

 

hahahaha

[Spider]

You have detailed a system in which freedom is not the most important aspect.

 

I am well aware of this and it was quite intentional. Freedom isn't what is most important to me, at least not where games are concerned. I actually took care to make sure that came across properly.

 

As I understand Sawyer's position, freedom is a sort of designer trump card. Actually, I always thought it was balance, but I seem to remember him saying at some point that freedom was the most important aspect.

 

And here is what our memories differ. Because I am under the impression that choice and consequence is what he has argued the most for (aside from balance and frame rate of course). Again, I'm not terribly comfortable putting words in JEs mouth, he is quite capable of clarifying himself if he wants to. The reason I am doing this is because from what I've seen, the game he wants to make (which is not the games he gets to make) seem to be very close to the games I want to play.

 

Hey, you want to have a chance to be meanspirited to me, ask me what is the most important aspect. That ought to put me on the defensive. If you're expecting the MCA story trumps all approach, you will be surprised.

 

You're just baiting here.

 

But I'll bite. What then, dear Cantousent, is the most important aspect of a CRPG?

Edited March 30, 2007 by Spider

[Cantousent]

graphics! hahahaha

 

No, I guess I'd probably say gameplay. Really, it's such a mix to me. One game might overshadow others because of gameplay while another because of the story. I actually rather liked what I played of Oblivion, so even freedom to do what I want is important.

 

Anyhow, I agree that Sawyer seems to think that freedom with meaningful consequences is the most important aspect of the game. That was my point of disagreement. If he believe that freedom without attendant circumstances was most important, then I'd really think he was nuts. I've always rather liked Sawyer. I'm not attacking the guy. I just don't put freedom as high on the chain as he does. ...Or maybe I do and don't know it. I sometimes think we, as gamers, aren't always the best judge of what makes a great game. We see the end product and then assume that one aspect or another is what made it great. I dunno.

 

...And I was baiting you, Spider, but all in good fun. :Eldar's wolfish grin icon:

[Llyranor]

Heh? JE probably values gameplay design more than the average CRPG designer.

[Gromnir]

No, that's precisely what JE has been advocating for. He criticizes Oblivion for not having meaningful consequences.

 

I don't need every designer to be a MCA clone, and JE has his priorities right.

 

is room 'nuff for lots o' different pov. difference is that josh has, on more than one occasion, gone Critical Bill on fans that make demands or criticisms o' developers w/o a corresponding offering o' practical alternatives. Gromnir were simply amused that a fellow obsidian developer would makes observations 'bout a game that seemed to come up woefully short o' josh's minimum standards... though we assume that bullock/bulock won't be so amused next time josh goes Critical on some unsuspecting fan and Gromnir points him in jb's direction.

 

*shrug*

 

'course, as you and can't/eldar/or-whatever-he-is-calling-self-this-week seems to wanna takes a short trips off-topic, we will respond with extreme and uncharacteristic brevity. to a certain degree we agrees with can't. freedom is all well and good in a crpg, but that freedom is mostly an illusion, and it comes at a cost as well. not even josh would argue that every dialogue choice in game should have multiple meaningful results. the myth that is the endlessly bifurcating dialogue tree would become reality, which is in practice, impossible. josh has made obvious that he cares less 'bout story than he does 'bout freedom, but is simply impossible to write engaging dialogues and characters if you needs necessarily comes up with dialogue trees that can survive bifurcation past a very limited number o' significant branching.

 

is an illusion

[Spider]

Probably. I'm still hoping he gets to make a CRPG with Ninja Gaiden like player interface and planty of meaningful choices with real consequences to be made.

[Cantousent]

There is no ' in Cant, damn it.

 

The Mass Effect discussion only goes so far. It's not even finished yet. The larger discussion has centered on freedom for a long time. Sawyer's views on mature themes is far more interesting to me, but there were no bites.

[Maria Caliban]

 

Background on this: A gamespy article was released a couple of days ago with 'new screenshots.' However, the BioWare employee that took them didn't use areas that were optimized, so they looked much poorer than previous screenshots. Today, Chris Priestly released a new screen shot to the forum crowd from an optimized area.

 

I'm mostly indifferent to graphics, and prefer a stylized design approach like PoP: Sands of Time and Jade Empire. Still, the textures on the guy's back look nice, they've smoothed Shepard's face, and I also like the shadows.

[Maria Caliban]

As for ME's dialogue, when its forum first went up, I made a thread suggesting they have a dialogue system like Indigo Prophecy or Bard's Tale, with abstracted conversation choices and full VO for the PC.

 

Therefore, I don't think it sucks. I think it's a good decision and one that does help make the game feel more [buzzword]cinematic[/buzzword].

Edited March 31, 2007 by Maria Caliban

[Spider]

As for ME's dialogue, when its forum first went up, I made a thread suggesting they have a dialogue system like Indigo Prophecy or Bard's Tale, with abstracted conversation choices and full VO for the PC.

 

So you mean it's your fault?! For shame...

 

 

Jokes aside, I hope it turns out better than my instincts tell me. I'm not a huge fan of the concept as such, but will hold off judgment until I see it in effect. It worked fine in Fahrenheit though, but it's a different game and different genre altogether so I'm not sold.

[Pop]

I enjoyed Fahrenheit's dialogue system, and from some descriptions of ME's system it sounds like it could be a bit of an improvement, actually (being able to affect the tone of your reaction, etc.) I remain optimistic but I'm aware of how this could crash & burn.

[Schazzwozzer]

I admire what Bioware is doing with the dialogue, myself. I think, since at least Warren Spector's time at Origin (mid-90's, working on games like Ultima Underworld and System Shock), in some design circles there's been a certain discontent with how games treat dialogue systems. I think the main criticism is essentially that it's not real gameplay of any depth; it's more like a series of puzzles, often where you're trying to guess what the designer thinks would be the right answer in any given scenario. This is part of why I think we've seen dialogue in RPGs gradually become much more... "safe" (some would no doubt say "dumbed down") -- there are less blatantly wrong dialogue options in today's RPG.

 

So I think all of these systems we're seeing where developers are trying to give dialogue a more natural, less "boxed-in" feel and flow, Mass Effect included, are ultimately geared towards addressing the dialogue-as-gameplay dilemna.

 

Also, you see Bioware working very hard on creating believable actors as well, apparently paying particular attention to the more nuanced things such as body language and facial expression. I'm sure it seems like "teh shiny" to a lot of people, but I think it's really very important to the medium of, let's say, "interactive storytelling". So I would say that too, is very admirable.

[Pop]

Hmmm, good points, I guess, but I'm envisioning ME not having any blatantly "wrong" dialogue choices in it. I could be completely wrong, of course, but that doesn't seem like a Bioware thing.

[Maria Caliban]

There was an RPG where the princess would say she loved you, and ask if you loved her back. The dialogue pop up let you pick 'yes' or 'no,' but if you picked 'no' she would just repeat, "I love you! Do you love me?"

 

I don't remember its name, but I give it the grand prize for the worst illusion of choice in a dialogue stream.

[Cantousent]

There was an RPG where the princess would say she loved you, and ask if you loved her back. The dialogue pop up let you pick 'yes' or 'no,' but if you picked 'no' she would just repeat, "I love you! Do you love me?"

 

I don't remember its name, but I give it the grand prize for the worst illusion of choice in a dialogue stream.

 

This literally made me laugh aloud. See, I would rather not have any choice at all if this example is the alternative. However, I'm pretty easy to please when it comes to freedom. I want it, sure. What I don't want is for the design team to sacrifice other aspects for freedom that, in the end, is always illusory. I'll buy into the illusion of freedom as long as everything else is in place.