Dragon Age Origins

[Purkake]

When you have permadeath, you don't get people learning to be better gamers, you get people learning to quicksave before every battle and quickloading every time a party member goes down. If you include items or places that resurrect people, then it's functionally no different than people getting up after a fight, it's just more tedious if you have to drag their corpse around until you get to the nearest temple/merchant.

 

Wouldn't you have to do better after quickloading the save to pass this time instead of being forced to load again?

 

Also, who's the one mandatory character and why is one mandatory when no one else is? Seems kind of arbitrary.

[Sammy Chung]

Also, who's the one mandatory character and why is one mandatory when no one else is? Seems kind of arbitrary.

 

They haven't said who the mandatory party member is, but I suspect it's Alistair. As for why, they've stated it's plot related.

[alanschu]

Wouldn't you have to do better after quickloading the save to pass this time instead of being forced to load again?

 

Or simply be luckier. Have a big spell not get resisted, etc. Especially if we're talking a single character vs an entire party wipe. A character can go down because of poor luck.

 

I had a formulaic approach to the BG2 mage fights, and sometimes it would work, other times it wouldn't.

 

 

Also, who's the one mandatory character and why is one mandatory when no one else is? Seems kind of arbitrary.

 

Who do you think it might be?

[Purkake]

Also, who's the one mandatory character and why is one mandatory when no one else is? Seems kind of arbitrary.

 

Who do you think it might be?

 

The extent of my knowledge of party members is pretty much limited to knowing that there will be a pretty boy, an ugly female wizard, a dog, an old priest lady, a golem and a crazy chick. I really wouldn't know, but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary though.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

What does it mean by "arbitrary?"

 

Given you admittedly know next to nothing about the party members, you're hardly qualified to state why something is arbitrary regarding party members.

 

 

However, if you want to get technical and go specifically by the definition, everything in every video game is arbitrary.

[Purkake]

I mean the fact that you can kill every party member but one. Why is he/she/it special? This smells like another case of Bioware's "we want you to experience our awesome story, we can't let you mess it up".

[213374U]

If you put permadeath in such a setting, you are going to turn off 99% of your player base.

Fallout?

 

Also, read the rest of what MC has been posting for the last two pages... customizable difficulty.

 

 

Or simply be luckier. Have a big spell not get resisted, etc. Especially if we're talking a single character vs an entire party wipe. A character can go down because of poor luck.

 

I had a formulaic approach to the BG2 mage fights, and sometimes it would work, other times it wouldn't.

So you, um, keep charging the adamantine golem until it rolls enough 1s in a row that your monk can beat it into submission?

 

The DnD magic system means that unless you're a sorcerer, you need to have foreknowledge of the encounter for your mage to stand a chance. That's not a problem with BG2 (which it is, due to the blatantly cheat-scripted AI spellcasting), as much as it's a problem of the ruleset. Luck plays a central role, but since DA doesn't use the DnD ruleset, I don't see how that applies to this.

 

The BG system is hardly perfect. It was quite unforgiving (insta-chunking) but mostly it was random. The weight of chance was overbearing, especially at lower levels. Can't we find a middle ground between that and what is essentially a retinue of immortal meatshields?

[Oner]

The DnD magic system means that unless you're a sorcerer, you need to have foreknowledge of the encounter for your mage to stand a chance. That's not a problem with BG2 (which it is, due to the blatantly cheat-scripted AI spellcasting), as much as it's a problem of the ruleset. Luck plays a central role, but since DA doesn't use the DnD ruleset, I don't see how that applies to this.

Luck is still a factor and not just for mages, look at the 20 min walkthrough a few pages back, the tower guard at the end missed 4-5 times in a row, almost dying.

[Tigranes]

In the BG series, your character's death meant permadeath because you were a Bhaalspawn, and your Bhaal essences would take flight from the mortal shell on the point of death, much like Sarevok's did in the end of BG1. It made perfect sense story-wise, and added an additional element of challenge, so I was fine with it.

 

I just want to point out that there is one mandatory party member in DA. Everyone else from Morrigan to Sten to Dog is completely optional. You can even leave the mandatory party member at your base camp if you want to try and solo the game.

 

Excellent, so it's not a Shandra situation (oh God).

 

Anyway, I have no problem if DA introduces a clear and significant penalty for having party members knocked unconscious during a battle. You do lose that sense of having the thief early in the dungeon and trying to clear the rest of it without him, but there are good enough counter-arguments about loading-fetish or pointless trips back to the temple.

[Sammy Chung]

Fallout?

 

Also, read the rest of what MC has been posting for the last two pages... customizable difficulty.

 

Fallout was never a party focused game. You could lose all joinable NPC's in combat and still complete the game. If you tried to do that for DA, you would have to significantly rebalance the game so that you solo it or be prepared to lose most of your fanbase.

 

As for customisable difficulty with permadeath, Bioware probably looked at their userbase and decided there were not enough customers who wanted such a feature to justify spending the time and effort needed to make it viable.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sammy Chung

[213374U]

The fanbase probably this, Bioware likely that. Only... it's just you I hear. All you have to support your claims about the "user base" is your own opinion.

 

Bioware was doing fine before they started watering down their gameplay. BG2 was as party-focused as it gets, and you can solo just fine. All it takes is *gasp* careful planning.

 

Ah, **** it. I'm really sick of these same old discussions. And people would rather read that Twilight tripe than Brave New World, so you're probably right, too.

 

I'll be in the HoI3 thread.

[skuld1]

If you put permadeath in such a setting, you are going to turn off 99% of your player base.

Fallout?

 

 

 

According to your own definition Fallout is a failure as it does not 'let the player make that call' re: how to handle party deaths.

Edited October 12, 2009 by skuld1

[Purkake]

I think that for me the difference is having a quickload-type mechanic that makes you redo stuff(like in Prince of Persia) and a Bioshock type mechanic where you can happily keep dying and playing on like nothing happened.

 

Having a party kind of muddies the waters, but I don't see why having to quickload is so much worse than having the characters magically get up after a battle.

[alanschu]

I mean the fact that you can kill every party member but one. Why is he/she/it special?

 

As far as I know you can't kill every party member but one. You just don't need to let everyone that comes along into your party.

 

 

This smells like another case of Bioware's "we want you to experience our awesome story, we can't let you mess it up".

 

Sure, this is common in every game, including BioWare's older games.

 

 

So you, um, keep charging the adamantine golem until it rolls enough 1s in a row that your monk can beat it into submission?

 

The thing about your example is that it still applies to a game like Dragon Age. Because that tactic is going to result in a wipe for the entire party in Dragon Age, just like it is in D&D.

 

 

However, when you have a really good, fun, very close battle where at the very end your guy gets critically hit for just enough to kill him by the last enemy remaining, you aren't forced to reload the game (as you would be in Baldur's Gate).

[Monte Carlo]

^ You just don't get it, Al, do you?

 

One mandatory NPC (in a party, it will be remembered, of only four) is a mandatory NPC too many. Hell, I played BG2 first time around with *gasp* no Imoen. It was a great game, I actually survived missing all the extra dialogue and plot stuff. It wasn't as if I didn't know she wasn't important as the plot forced me to rescue her (I love how they handled that, remember the dialogue that went 'I've rescued you but there's no room in my party right now,' and you abandon her to Spellhold).

 

If a game needs a 'plot critical' NPC who's with you for the entire bloody game, then the plot needs editing, probably with an axe. A join-a-long NPC for an adventure or two for plot critical reasons... sure. One that radically alters my party composition and who I might utterly hate and have to suffer for 80 hours? Bad call.

 

Cheers

MC

[Monte Carlo]

^ Oh, and my guess for annoying mandatory NPC is either Alistair or the Imoen-Exposition chick. Why? 'Cuz they both appear in most gameplay vids I've seen and because I already can't bear either of them (such is my luck).

[Maria Caliban]

As for Maria, it was inevitable that one day we would have something in common. It's worrying. What next?

 

We have our initials in common.

 

My laughter was due to you pre-ordering DA while I have not.

[Niten_Ryu]

And herein lies the rub.

 

You see, some of the developers would rather be novelists. They don't want you to miss any of the amazing plot, characters and dialogue they've created, even if you don't really want it. A game isn't a novel, you should be able to miss stuff, die, wander around, die again, dip in and out of plot A, Quest B and Story Arc C.

 

I think this is really important to understand about current Bioware. I'd say in there writers have power to override just about every other design choice. No matter if it's game mechanics like allowing jumping (might lead players to skip certain encounters, event or NPCs) or reducing death to minor inconviniance. I see all NPCs who can't be killed the same way as I see unskippable cutscenes. Sure most of players will not kill NPCs or skip the cutscene but IMO it's important to have that option. Player should be allowed to choose if they want to ignore something that developer spend months to create it. "Yes, you wrote moderately interesting character / cutscene but I don't really care about it - Skip please".

 

I'll quote Ken Levine from 2008 GDC "I'm not really a fan of game story." But he thinks that's normal. "The first big secret is, the bad news is for storytellers is that nobody cares about your stupid story... no matter how detailed or lovingly you craft it."

 

Ok, saying nobody is bit harsh as Bioware's boards are full of players who care just about everything Bioware do or say but for majority of players statement is probably true. At this point I don't care about any Dragon Age characters, the world, the plot, the events or the monsters. I care about game mechanics like combat system, spells, how movement is handled, camera, difficulty, x:y:z axis, NPC AI, party AI, graphics ect ect. Bioware might win me over with story if they allow me to experience it from my perspective, rather then just following what writers want you to do (unless of course you happen to choose the same things as writers did).

[Slowtrain]

I'll quote Ken Levine from 2008 GDC "I'm not really a fan of game story." But he thinks that's normal. "The first big secret is, the bad news is for storytellers is that nobody cares about your stupid story... no matter how detailed or lovingly you craft it."

 

 

In light of Bioshock, I'm not sure if that statement makes sense or not.

[Maria Caliban]

BioWare uses cutscenes to hide loading screens and position NPCs. They

[Niten_Ryu]

I'll quote Ken Levine from 2008 GDC "I'm not really a fan of game story." But he thinks that's normal. "The first big secret is, the bad news is for storytellers is that nobody cares about your stupid story... no matter how detailed or lovingly you craft it."

 

 

In light of Bioshock, I'm not sure if that statement makes sense or not.

 

It actually makes perfect sense. System Shock 2 was hard lesson for Ken Levine. So much details went into it but majority of players wanted something complitely different. He and his crew did very detailed study what majority of players did want and then build Bioshock around that.

 

Another quote from Ken Levine "We did some focus testing on BioShock -- and their answer as a focus group of 40 people was... 'Uh... Madden? Halo 3?'. The truth is that people have no idea of franchises. It's so hard to understand the experience of actual guys. You have to make the game for people who don't care."

 

Bioware do - Story first, world second and game mechancis last.

2k games and Blizzard do - Game mechanics first, world second and story last.

[Slowtrain]

I'll quote Ken Levine from 2008 GDC "I'm not really a fan of game story." But he thinks that's normal. "The first big secret is, the bad news is for storytellers is that nobody cares about your stupid story... no matter how detailed or lovingly you craft it."

 

 

In light of Bioshock, I'm not sure if that statement makes sense or not.

 

It actually makes perfect sense. System Shock 2 was hard lesson for Ken Levine. So much details went into it but majority of players wanted something complitely different. He and his crew did very detailed study what majority of players did want and then build Bioshock around that.

 

Another quote from Ken Levine "We did some focus testing on BioShock -- and their answer as a focus group of 40 people was... 'Uh... Madden? Halo 3?'. The truth is that people have no idea of franchises. It's so hard to understand the experience of actual guys. You have to make the game for people who don't care."

 

Bioware do - Story first, world second and game mechancis last.

2k games and Blizzard do - Game mechanics first, world second and story last.

 

The reason I'm not sure it makes sense is that game mechanics of Bioshock blew chunks, and the story was the thing most people praised.

[Maria Caliban]

Player should be allowed to choose if they want to ignore something that developer spend months to create it. "Yes, you wrote moderately interesting character / cutscene but I don't really care about it - Skip please"

 

There should also be a skip combat button for those who aren't interested in that.

 

Another quote from Ken Levine "We did some focus testing on BioShock -- and their answer as a focus group of 40 people was... 'Uh... Madden? Halo 3?'. The truth is that people have no idea of franchises. It's so hard to understand the experience of actual guys. You have to make the game for people who don't care."

 

Bioware do - Story first, world second and game mechancis last.

2k games and Blizzard do - Game mechanics first, world second and story last.

 

I have never played a BioWare game and found myself wishing it was more like Diablo or World of Warcraft. Gamers are not a homogonous group. BioWare seems to be doing fairly well catering to people who are more interested in story and characters than endlessly grinding, though they

[theslug]

I have never played a BioWare game and found myself wishing it was more like Diablo or World of Warcraft. Gamers are not a homogonous group. BioWare seems to be doing fairly well catering to people who are more interested in story and characters than endlessly grinding, though they

[Aristes]

Even MMOs put a huge amount of effort into story. I simply don't believe that folks like MoCa don't care about the story. After all, RTS with pause is just as valid as RPG RTwP, right? If all you're looking to find in a game is tactics, there are simply better titles out there in the first place. ...And RTSes also develop a story. Sure, you can ignore it, but it certainly seems that the 'average consumer' wants a story in place. Otherwise, they could simply provide gameplay information and let the player decide what to do. Explain that a knight moves in this way and a rook moves in that way and you've satisfied someone who cares for nothing more than gameplay. Games today aren't like that, which tells me that either the designers are hopelessly out of touch with the consumers, which I don't believe is a universal truth, or the folks playing the game enjoy these backstories. RPGs are different in that the biggest pull of an RPG is character impact on the story. If there is no story, there is no RPG. Sure, you might hate required NPCs. In principle, I hate them also. In practice, I tend to be forgiving of forced NPCs.

 

The idea that WoW has very little story or that Blizzard largely ignored the story is laughable. I'm not a big fan of the World of Warcraft backstory. In some cases, I think the design team should be slapped in the face for stupid crap they've done in terms of both gameplay and story, but that doesn't change that they've built an extensive backstory. The biggest difference between a Bioware RPG and Diablo/WoW is that Bioware includes dialogue decisions in order to help move the story and permit relationships whereas the story in Blizzard games tends to be a one way street. Even so, Blizzard is addressing the question of player impact by introducing such things as phased content and the like.

 

Whatever any designer/developer/publisher says, follow the money and everyone fashions stories for their games. It's inescapable. So, secondary or not, story plays a major part in just about every computer game I've played. Yeah, not Chess and maybe some others, but for the vast majority it's there.