Nathaniel Chapman Interview is here

[C2B]

http://blog.obsidian.net/2011/08/24/interv...bsidian-part-1/

[WorstUsernameEver]

Whoo, three questions in which I manage to not sound like a total prick!

[Sannom]

Small critique to Nathaniel, I think he tends to ramble a little. So just to be sure, the core reason why they didn't make DS3 a party-based game is because they didn't think that a console could handle the kind of party-based gameplay they would have liked to use, correct?

[Hell Kitty]

It's not that a console can't handle party-based gameplay, it's that party-based gameplay in real time with a controller is tedious. Make that baby turn-based though and you're good to go.

[C2B]

Small critique to Nathaniel, I think he tends to ramble a little. So just to be sure, the core reason why they didn't make DS3 a party-based game is because they didn't think that a console could handle the kind of party-based gameplay they would have liked to use, correct?

 

Also since the majority of the game consists of action based combat it should be statisfying and fun. Since Obsidians and partybased gameplay is rather horrible (no offense) on that point Obsidian took that route to provide satisfying core mechanics.

 

Even on PC, satisfying party based real time combat mechanics you would actually enjoy as a majority of a game are more of an exception than a rule.

Edited August 25, 2011 by C2B

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Small critique to Nathaniel, I think he tends to ramble a little. So just to be sure, the core reason why they didn't make DS3 a party-based game is because they didn't think that a console could handle the kind of party-based gameplay they would have liked to use, correct?

 

Not exactly. The core reason was that if we were going to do party-based gameplay, we wanted really good, tactically deep party-based gameplay - the kind you saw in IWD and BG/BG2. But, 1) that kind of gameplay is pretty tedious on a console controller, and 2) Dungeon Siege isn't really an IP that lends itself to that kind of tactical gameplay. So we decided to focus on single-character action.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think that it is impossible to make great real-time tactical party-based gameplay on a console. I just think that it needs to be the core focus of the game. Two reasons we didn't do that were that the DS series isn't now and never has been a tactically focused game (like, say, Jagged Alliance or FFT). Plus DS3 is the first game where we were really focused on developing great core action combat mechanics from scratch. So, we chose to spend our time trying to make great action combat and minimal companion gameplay vs. what we thought would have been unsatisfactory action and unsatisfactory party-based gameplay had we used our resources differently.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

It's not that a console can't handle party-based gameplay, it's that party-based gameplay in real time with a controller is tedious. Make that baby turn-based though and you're good to go.

 

Final Fantasy Tactics is a great example of that!

[Labadal]

It's not that a console can't handle party-based gameplay, it's that party-based gameplay in real time with a controller is tedious. Make that baby turn-based though and you're good to go.

 

Final Fantasy Tactics is a great example of that!

 

[dreams]You are working on FFT2, aren't you?[/dreams]

[Wombat]

Rambling is O.K. in my account since it shows the stream of his thought. The given info is not far from what I gathered but it was nice to hear directly from the lead designer. Just shame that the game-play is not my cup of tea.

 

It's not that a console can't handle party-based gameplay, it's that party-based gameplay in real time with a controller is tedious. Make that baby turn-based though and you're good to go.

 

Final Fantasy Tactics is a great example of that!

BTW, have you played Tactics Ogre?

[C2B]

Second Part

 

http://blog.obsidian.net/2011/08/26/interv...bsidian-part-2/

[Walsingham]

Just my tuppence:

 

The interface and AI is just part of the story. Good tactical behaviour requires interesting tactical challenges. Monkeying around with ranges, weapon options etc etc.

[Nonek]

Cheers for the answers Nathan, however I was more wondering about the systems themselves as in the players skill and responsiveness as opposed to in game charcter statistical skills and which you prefer to design for and play. Personally if implemented well as in dungeon siege 3 I can adapt fairly easily whereas in the witcher I found combat somewhat over twitchy and at points unresponsive despite generally liking it.

 

Poorly written question I suppose, mea culpa.

[GhostofAnakin]

Nathaniel's answer to my question brings me hope that if there is a DS4, one of the key areas I thought was lacking will be fixed/improved upon.

 

So now, Mr. Chapman, it's time to butter up to Square Enix to make sure you get that chance.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Action combat was an SE requirement, not up to Obsidian, no?

[WorstUsernameEver]

Action combat was an SE requirement, not up to Obsidian, no?

 

I don't think so? If anything, the way Nathaniel puts it, it was Obsidian's decision. Of course, it's unlikely we'll ever know, but to be honest, I'm not sure where that idea comes from in the first place.

[Sannom]

Action combat was an SE requirement, not up to Obsidian, no?

If something was up to Square Enix, it's probably the multi-platforms development and nothing more specific. The rest was the team at Obsidian's idea.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I remember SE saying that they wanted an action RPG on consoles to start with, but I can't find the exact quote. Here's some info on that though: http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/1017...-siege-iii.html

[C2B]

Action combat was an SE requirement, not up to Obsidian, no?

If something was up to Square Enix, it's probably the multi-platforms development and nothing more specific. The rest was the team at Obsidian's idea.

 

Not exactly. Read the first interview again. Scope and Focus was very much determined by Square Enix.

 

On that note it seems to me Square Enix wanted to create a base for future DS titles with DSIII rather than go full out with the content.

(like getting the engine and tools done, implementing reliable networking, developing a new RPG system, etc.) were non-negotiable features ? we had to do all of those

 

At least thats what I'm getting out of this quote.

[C2B]

I remember SE saying that they wanted an action RPG on consoles to start with, but I can't find the exact quote. Here's some info on that though: http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/1017...-siege-iii.html

 

 

Why does that matter who wanted to do it action based in the first place? DS isn't exactly the most tactical franchise and both Obsidian and Square were in agreement to do it action based. Its not like this is another Alpha Protocol situation.

Edited August 27, 2011 by C2B

[WorstUsernameEver]

Uhm, this was last Friday:

Stay tuned for part three coming next week as Nathaniel continues to talk about Dungeon Siege III and about Obsidian in general.

 

Did anything happen?

[Labadal]

Probably working 80 hour weeks.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I'll bug the powers to be

 

I think both us and Square agreed on going for more action-ey mechanics. I don't really think there was pressure or disagreement from either side. Again, as C2B mentioned, this was DS, not Jagged Alliance or UFO. We weren't really starting with a base game where tactical combat was a key focus. We knew we wanted to push the gameplay more, and pushing it in the action seemed to make the most sense for many reasons already discussed.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

http://blog.obsidian.net/2011/09/08/interv...bsidian-part-3/

 

Part 3's up now

[Walsingham]

http://blog.obsidian.net/2011/09/08/interv...bsidian-part-3/

 

Part 3's up now

 

Pretty interesting. I like your point at the end about game mechanics.

 

Have you ever, you know, got drunk and burst into a university cognitive psych department demanding to know how people approach puzzles in real life?

[Nathaniel Chapman]

http://blog.obsidian.net/2011/09/08/interv...bsidian-part-3/

 

Part 3's up now

 

Pretty interesting. I like your point at the end about game mechanics.

 

Have you ever, you know, got drunk and burst into a university cognitive psych department demanding to know how people approach puzzles in real life?

 

Not as such, but I do think that to some extent you can intuit how people will approach puzzles based on how they approach learning generally. And, in many ways, good content design is about teaching the player how the mechanics of the game work. Obviously the other part is designing deep and engaging mechanics, but without sufficiently training the player it's unlikely that they will be able to properly apply the mechanics of the game.

 

And, in this case, I don't mean training through text tutorials, those are really the worst (but easiest) way to explain things. Usually the best way to train players is to introduce new mechanics in safe, simple ways, and then slowly begin to combine them, to force players to understand the implications of how the mechanics interact.

 

It's actually one reason why I personally am a big fan of "difficult" games - it's not that I'm sadistic towards the player or masochistic when I play difficult games. Instead, what I really are games that provide clear feedback as to whether or not I am successfully mastering their mechanics. Often that means providing serious consequences for failing to properly apply the mechanics. In many cases, standard difficulty levels in games don't require you to fully engage with the mechanics in order to win, and that's a lot less interesting to me, personally. It's also part of why I enjoy PvP games quite a bit - there's very clear feedback as to whether or not you are getting better at the game (you either win more, or don't).

 

Obviously I appreciate that not everyone wants to try to completely figure out every game they play, which is why lower difficulty levels are a good thing to include, too. And why it's a good idea to match people in PvP games with players of roughly equal or only slightly different skill levels - but I do like it when games give you the *option* of playing against much, much better players, because sometimes that's when you learn the most.