Optional

[alanschu]

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

This is an idealized logical deduction that doesn't occur in reality. The costs associated with options is often non-trivial.

 

It's important to note that even if a task is easy and won't take much time to do, doesn't mean you should do it. In game development, there's is never a shortage of ideas. Stuff is always cut. Given that games are made with a finite amount of resources, this means that one task that only takes a day to complete means some other task is not going to be done instead.

[Hormalakh]

You really don't live up to your user handle very well, "Sharp One." If you are able to read, I would recommend you to re-read update #9 and tone down the arrogance. Here are a few tidbits in case it's too long of an update for you.

 

snip

 

With bated breath, I await your next refreshing and undoubtedly illuminating response to my post.

 

It's important to note that many of the options that they talk about in the post you linked refer to options/variability within the game. The ability to customize your character and choose different paths through the game are what they are talking about.

 

Optional/variable content is typically considered interesting, but depending on the scope of "optional" the concerns people list in this thread are valid. Even with content, excessive optional content can make the game more breadth based instead of depth based. This isn't necessarily bad (Bethesda's games do this), but it will disappoint those that would like a stronger main story of the game.

 

In this sense, with finite resources options are often mutually exclusive. You cannot give the option of the longest, deepest story possible while also providing the option of not requiring the player to play the crit path and instead playing optional side content. One comes at the expense of the other.

I haven't really been following this thread but in regards to my post, I was referring to the point that options would not be limited only to character customizations and game narration/story but would also include mechanics. I thought that the previous poster was speakign about gameplay mechanics and the lack of options that would be provided. The post states that gameplay mechanics can also be changed (other than difficulty and iromman mode).

 

Being able to modify gameplay mechanics options doesn't always have to take away from the story. Yes, cost and time influences aside, if adding a quick and painless change to a game mechanic isn't too tough, I figured they would do it. But hey you're the game dev, you know better than I how "easy" these things are.

[alanschu]

I haven't really been following this thread but in regards to my post, I was referring to the point that options would not be limited only to character customizations and game narration/story but would also include mechanics. I thought that the previous poster was speakign about gameplay mechanics and the lack of options that would be provided. The post states that gameplay mechanics can also be changed (other than difficulty and iromman mode).

 

They do mention the game mechanics as well, this is true. They were kind of running the gamut. On the plus side, it's infinitely easier to add mechanical options with a mind to do so early in development rather than half way.

 

Being able to modify gameplay mechanics options doesn't always have to take away from the story. Yes, cost and time influences aside, if adding a quick and painless change to a game mechanic isn't too tough, I figured they would do it. But hey you're the game dev, you know better than I how "easy" these things are.

 

It's more an aspect of "opportunity cost."

[Dream]

That's a bit of a funny way to bolster your point, since I'm the one arguing for fewer metagame options here. In other words, either you're not understanding a word of what I'm saying, or you're intentionally distorting it. Either way, this conversation is starting to feel like a waste of time. :out:

 

I was merely using you as an example of a person who would skip a story driven given over gameplay mechanics (since the guy I quoted posited such people didn't exist); whether you're pro or against metagame options was irrelevant to the point, but my bad if it came across as me distorting your views.

 

 

Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.

 

This is an idealized logical deduction that doesn't occur in reality. The costs associated with options is often non-trivial.

 

It's important to note that even if a task is easy and won't take much time to do, doesn't mean you should do it. In game development, there's is never a shortage of ideas. Stuff is always cut. Given that games are made with a finite amount of resources, this means that one task that only takes a day to complete means some other task is not going to be done instead.

 

Exactly, so adding an option that takes little effort but will vastly improve the enjoyment for some sect of players (who while they may not buy/skip the game because of this option will most certainly be influenced in buying any xpacs or sequels) seems like a no brainer.

[PrimeJunta]

I was merely using you as an example of a person who would skip a story driven given over gameplay mechanics (since the guy I quoted posited such people didn't exist); whether you're pro or against metagame options was irrelevant to the point, but my bad if it came across as me distorting your views.

 

But I wouldn't! Going over what I said, I can understand why you got that impression. In actual fact I can't recall a single instance of really bad gameplay mechanics stopping me from playing a game that had exceptional story and structure (PS:T is a case in point -- I wouldn't have been able to play it at all without a strategy guide, but it's nevertheless one of my all-time favorite games).

 

This doesn't mean I don't care about gameplay. Of course I do. I would have enjoyed PS:T more if it had a workable rogue option with content you'd encounter only playing as a rogue; at the very least, I would've replayed it. What strikes me as weird about your position is that you appear to be making a virtue of the weaknesses of these games -- BG2 and PS:T are shining examples of really crappy game design in some areas, and these appear to be precisely the areas that you want to see replicated in P:E.

 

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you like you're clearly misunderstanding me.

 

So that's why I'd prefer they just did it one way and did it right, and focused on putting lots of in-game options instead.

 

Put another way, I think it's rather unlikely that someone would not play a game just because he's not able to switch off friendly fire, or whatever. Strikes me as unlikely. I certainly wouldn't. I honestly don't care if friendly fire is in or not, nor any individual gameplay feature. I do care that whatever is in there hangs together well, is coherent, understandable, internally consistent and consistent with the lore of the gameworld, and not a total PITA to manage. Other than that, I'm cool with or without friendly fire, TB or RTwP, frequent dying, not dying at all, or anything in between.

 

Edit: If they approach this by making a nice, balanced system and then allowing some back-door to switch things on or off or, for example, mod it, by all means. Just as long as they make it clear how they intend it to be played, and leave potentially unbalancing options with a big disclaimer "proceed at your own risk."

Edited November 30, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

1) "Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

In the pitch video, the name ToEE is dropped, and it was an option in the poll on the website. Also Icewind Dale with its combat heavy gameplay is a good example of an IE game where balance matters.

 

2) It's not about copying the flaws of those games; it's about realizing that perfect balance is not really that important to the core audience so making sure that every option you add is balanced is a waste of resources. Design the game to be played one way and then add a bunch of options for the people that want no FF, permadeath, limited saves, etc. If those options make the game really hard/easy then whatever; it's the player's choice to play that way, let them.

 

You pretend to know what the core audience wants, but you can't back that up. I personally doubt most people who'll buy this game would say "I don't care about balance at all! All I want is OPSHUNS!"

 

Ensuring game balance is a waste of ressources you say? What kind of trolling is that?

[Dream]

If they approach this by making a nice, balanced system and then allowing some back-door to switch things on or off or, for example, mod it, by all means. Just as long as they make it clear how they intend it to be played, and leave potentially unbalancing options with a big disclaimer "proceed at your own risk."

 

That's pretty much what I've been going for; I hardly expect them (or even want them) to balance every single metagame option they add, and big disclaimers saying it'd throw game balance out of whack would be good.

 

As for gameplay stopping people from playing; I know wouldn't play the game if it had checkpoints (even if that was how it was "intended"). I can deal with that in Halo or Bayonetta, but not in RPGs.

 

You pretend to know what the core audience wants, but you can't back that up. I personally doubt most people who'll buy this game would say "I don't care about balance at all! All I want is OPSHUNS!"

 

Ensuring game balance is a waste of ressources you say? What kind of trolling is that?

 

It's not about throwing balance out the window; it's about making it balanced in one mode (the "intended" one) and then allowing people to play it in several others (permadeath, no ff, etc.), but not worrying about balancing those extra modes. I posit it's better to have other modes and have them be unbalanced than to not have them at all; the game proper will be balanced regardless.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Dream

[alanschu]

Exactly, so adding an option that takes little effort but will vastly improve the enjoyment for some sect of players (who while they may not buy/skip the game because of this option will most certainly be influenced in buying any xpacs or sequels) seems like a no brainer.

 

It's still idealized talk. What are these options that take little effort but "vastly improve the enjoyment for some sect of players?"

 

That you can logically deduce that an option would be desirable and therefore cause people to purchase a game doesn't make it so. Especially given that games are the sum of their parts.

 

 

For example:

it's about making it balanced in one mode (the "intended" one) and then allowing people to play it in several others (permadeath, no ff, etc.), but not worrying about balancing those extra modes. I posit it's better to have other modes and have them be unbalanced than to not have them at all; the game proper will be balanced regardless.

 

If the game is balanced for "hard" difficulty with no FF, but includes a FF mode that hasn't been considered in the slightest, doesn't mean that someone that prefers Friendly Fire is going to be satisfied. If it ends up being too easy to hurt your teammates and unintuitive, people will feel burned by it. They won't be satisfied, even if in the absence of Friendly Fire option they may claim "all we need is a friendly fire option."

 

Gamers (people) are not rational.

Edited November 30, 2012 by alanschu

[Dream]

Exactly, so adding an option that takes little effort but will vastly improve the enjoyment for some sect of players (who while they may not buy/skip the game because of this option will most certainly be influenced in buying any xpacs or sequels) seems like a no brainer.

 

It's still idealized talk. What are these options that take little effort but "vastly improve the enjoyment for some sect of players?"

 

That you can logically deduce that an option would be desirable and therefore cause people to purchase a game doesn't make it so. Especially given that games are the sum of their parts.

 

Off the top of my head; Dragon Age: Origins' camera. For the console you had a more action-y camera but on the PC you could zoom all the way out for a BG style perspective. Being able to see so much of the battlefield definitely made the game easier (which might be why I found DA:O such an easy game compared to other recent Bioware RPGs), but I still prefered having that camera, and if that camera wasn't present I would have been far less likely to preorder DA:A and DA2. To go along with that, DA2 did not have this feature and it (among other issues) definitely hampered my enjoyment of the game.

[alanschu]

The assumption that that requires little effort is incorrect though.

 

It's not the same as simply "make the camera go up." We could have done that, but it causes issues with art (in particular).

 

Dragon Age 2 was a game made on an aggressive schedule (and for all the faults that went with that, IMO it's on BioWare, not so much EA, to own up to it). One of the advantages of the more fixed camera is that art (level design mostly) doesn't need to take it into account when building levels. Level design, especially with the Eclipse engine, is one of the slower iterative processes. Hence why dungeon/cave spaces were created as one larger map, with different sections of it used in a not so great attempt to stretch resources (and the harsh critiques towards BioWare are entirely justified for this as far as I'm concerned).

 

The higher vantage point and camera flexibility means you'll need to worry more about what art looks like from wider angles. Take a look at this picture (best I can find, sorry), and there's stuff that can only be visible with the tactical camera.

 

I'm not convinced many would have been content looking down into a blank void instead, and it certainly couldn't just be left blank as you'll get all sorts of graphics artifacting and it ends up coming across as a broken window. So you have the tactical camera, but it's not the same as the camera in Dragon Age Origins. So as lacking in variation as the levels in Dragon Age 2 already are, would the tactical camera actually vastly improve the enjoyment of the players that wanted it, even if the current level assets weren't designed with it in mind (this is akin to the curtain being pulled back and seeing the "edge" of the map all the time. Or the alternative of less levels and/or of smaller size?

 

It's fine to think this is a stupid decision on our part, and you can hate the development schedule and blame us for making a game in too short of a time, or that DA2 was built on 3 platforms simultaneously instead of on PC first with console ports. It's not entirely accurate to think it's as simple as flipping a switch to allow the camera to move and assume that it'll resemble what was given in Origins.

[Dream]

If it's so much easier to design levels with only a fixed camera in mind than why did Origins feel like such a larger game with more varied levels (there were few, if any, complaints of repetetive design in regards the Origins, certainly less than for DA2). Saying that the tactical camera was cut to facilitate a bigger game is a bit disengenuous when what DA2 really suffered from was Bioware feeling they needed to reinvent a winning formula. Had DA2 been an actual sequel to Origins and not a brand new game with a few similar elements then it wouldn't have suffered from the issues that plagued it. People expect sequels to be larger than the originals despite shorter release schedules because they know the groundwork has already been laid out (BG2 came out just two years after BG1 but it felt like a larger game in pretty much every sense of the word).

 

This is beside the point though since you wanted an example of an optional feature that made the game more fun for certain players, and I gave it to you. Perhaps you're right and a tactical camera isn't a simple switch, but there are certainly options that are. Hardcore mode in Diablo involved disabling respawns and adding some shiny graphics to represent dead characters. Additionally, Blizzard themselves said that they did not balance the game with hardcore in mind (this is evident by several enemy straight up one shotting people with attacks that you'd have to know about beforehand to counter). Were certain players frustrated when they died to something cheap on hardcore? Sure, but it was their choice to play that mode. Finally, I know several people personally who bought the game specifically because of hardcore despite knowing it wouldn't be balanced (in fact they prefered it that way since it made it more of a challange).

 

There are plenty of optional feature in games (visible/invisible crosshair, subtitles, save tokens vs save anywhere, etc.), and while many of them may not be deal breakers they can certainly serve to color peoples' opinions of the game with regards to buying sequels/xpacs/dlc. On top of that adding options is a good way of generating good will and publicity by saying **** like "we care about the players."

Edited December 1, 2012 by Dream

[Umberlin]

If it's so much easier to design levels with only a fixed camera in mind than why did Origins feel like such a larger game with more varied levels (there were few, if any, complaints of repetetive design in regards the Origins, certainly less than for DA2).

 

Honestly, I felt DA:O's environments were pretty claustrophobic. The world felt closed off, and contained into little set pieces, made to 'look' big, but never actually being big. It's one of the things I dislike most about modern day games, they all try to do that, these big supposedly eye opening backgrounds . . . that you can't ever actually go to or interact with in any way. Just these closed off little areas, with backgrounds to make them look bigger than they actually are.

 

DA:O, DA2, ME2, ME3 and countless other modern games are examples of this, and it's not impressive, it feels like you're going down a hallway, even when it's not an actual hallway, I still get that closed in - 'most of this may as well be wallpaper' - feeling. For all its flaws, the TES series has actually delivered on wolrd, open worlds, rather than claustrophic nonsense like DA:O. DA:O is a terrible example, in my mind, of a game that feels large, because it doesn't feel large to me, it feels boxed in.

[Dream]

Honestly, I felt DA:O's environments were pretty claustrophobic. The world felt closed off, and contained into little set pieces, made to 'look' big, but never actually being big. It's one of the things I dislike most about modern day games, they all try to do that, these big supposedly eye opening backgrounds . . . that you can't ever actually go to or interact with in any way. Just these closed off little areas, with backgrounds to make them look bigger than they actually are.

 

DA:O, DA2, ME2, ME3 and countless other modern games are examples of this, and it's not impressive, it feels like you're going down a hallway, even when it's not an actual hallway, I still get that closed in - 'most of this may as well be wallpaper' - feeling. For all its flaws, the TES series has actually delivered on wolrd, open worlds, rather than claustrophic nonsense like DA:O. DA:O is a terrible example, in my mind, of a game that feels large, because it doesn't feel large to me, it feels boxed in.

 

Oh no doubt, running through Cloakwood vs running through whatever that forest was called in Origins it's like night and day with how open the game feels. However, Origins still seems more open when compared to DA2 (at least to me).

Edited December 1, 2012 by Dream

[Umberlin]

When it comes to DA2, that wouldn't really be hard. I do understand what you're getting at though.

[jezz555]

If it's so much easier to design levels with only a fixed camera in mind than why did Origins feel like such a larger game with more varied levels (there were few, if any, complaints of repetetive design in regards the Origins, certainly less than for DA2).

 

Honestly, I felt DA:O's environments were pretty claustrophobic. The world felt closed off, and contained into little set pieces, made to 'look' big, but never actually being big. It's one of the things I dislike most about modern day games, they all try to do that, these big supposedly eye opening backgrounds . . . that you can't ever actually go to or interact with in any way. Just these closed off little areas, with backgrounds to make them look bigger than they actually are.

 

DA:O, DA2, ME2, ME3 and countless other modern games are examples of this, and it's not impressive, it feels like you're going down a hallway, even when it's not an actual hallway, I still get that closed in - 'most of this may as well be wallpaper' - feeling. For all its flaws, the TES series has actually delivered on wolrd, open worlds, rather than claustrophic nonsense like DA:O. DA:O is a terrible example, in my mind, of a game that feels large, because it doesn't feel large to me, it feels boxed in.

 

I thought ME3 felt pretty big. It wasn't really open world but I think the set-pieces had a pretty amazing sense of scale.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

If it's so much easier to design levels with only a fixed camera in mind than why did Origins feel like such a larger game with more varied levels (there were few, if any, complaints of repetetive design in regards the Origins, certainly less than for DA2).

 

 

Honestly, I felt DA:O's environments were pretty claustrophobic. The world felt closed off, and contained into little set pieces, made to 'look' big, but never actually being big. It's one of the things I dislike most about modern day games, they all try to do that, these big supposedly eye opening backgrounds . . . that you can't ever actually go to or interact with in any way. Just these closed off little areas, with backgrounds to make them look bigger than they actually are.

 

DA:O, DA2, ME2, ME3 and countless other modern games are examples of this, and it's not impressive, it feels like you're going down a hallway, even when it's not an actual hallway, I still get that closed in - 'most of this may as well be wallpaper' - feeling. For all its flaws, the TES series has actually delivered on wolrd, open worlds, rather than claustrophic nonsense like DA:O. DA:O is a terrible example, in my mind, of a game that feels large, because it doesn't feel large to me, it feels boxed in.

 

That's down to consoles and their memory limitations, console manufacturers are willing to sacrifice memory, they're really behind the curve compared to PC. Any large area is really sparse, flat, with repeating textures. Valve presented a talk on this, they said for Half-Life 2 they had to double the loading screens on consoles. In open world games, they have to use texture pop-in and limited view distance to compensate.

 

On that note, Neverwinter Nights 2 is a PC only game that's as bad as Origins in this respect. NWN2 minimum requirements for memory is the amount that the Xbox 360 has released a year earlier, the amount of RAM I had in my PC 7 years earlier. According to the Steam hardware survey, over 70% have 3GB or over, including over 60% (possibly over 70% because of a survey error) having an extra 1GB or over in GPU memory. Large areas should not be a problem.

 

If it's so much easier to design levels with only a fixed camera in mind than why did Origins feel like such a larger game with more varied levels (there were few, if any, complaints of repetetive design in regards the Origins, certainly less than for DA2).

 

Common sense should tell you that if you're only designing for one angle there's a lot of work you don't have to do, if you're designing a box with a texture on each side there's two sides you don't have to do with a fixed perspective. The reason for DA2, apart from conscious design decisions that were stupid, is widely known, it was rushed, they had to cut corners.

[Umberlin]

That's down to consoles and their memory limitations, console manufacturers are willing to sacrifice memory, they're really behind the curve compared to PC. Any large area is really sparse, flat, with repeating textures. Valve presented a talk on this, they said for Half-Life 2 they had to double the loading screens on consoles. In open world games, they have to use texture pop-in and limited view distance to compensate.

 

The reasons for it aside, it still is what it is. I'm not going to forgive it because the companies in question made the choice to develop for said systems. The thing is, they could have sacrificed some of that supposed, 'pretty' to make those games more open. I know I'm in a smaller group when I say this, but games got to the point where they were good enough looking for me a long, long time ago. I can't understand or relate to the people that go back to an older game, and can't play it because of supposedly lesser graphics. I'd be in heaven if more developers would learn to do more with the graphics of yesterday, on the systems of today, instead of spending every amount of effort on making that one pixel look better than real life, and surrounding it with a dozen bloody loading screens.

 

I thought ME3 felt pretty big. It wasn't really open world but I think the set-pieces had a pretty amazing sense of scale.

 

I can't agree, in fact it felt even more closed in than entries like ME1.

 

When it comes to those 'backgrounds' meant to give a game more scale, I don't agree, because they're backgrounds and you're still boxed in, it's just like cutscenes to me, I don't want to sit there and 'watch' the cool stuff, I want to go 'do' the cool stuff.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Umberlin

[Dragoonlordz]

Too many cooks spoil the broth, too many options dilute the experience. Options are fine but do not go overboard with the sheer amount of fanservice that dilutes the story or gameplay too much. I trust in Obsidian to make the right call between that balancing act.

[jezz555]

I thought ME3 felt pretty big. It wasn't really open world but I think the set-pieces had a pretty amazing sense of scale.

 

I can't agree, in fact it felt even more closed in than entries like ME1.

 

When it comes to those 'backgrounds' meant to give a game more scale, I don't agree, because they're backgrounds and you're still boxed in, it's just like cutscenes to me, I don't want to sit there and 'watch' the cool stuff, I want to go 'do' the cool stuff.

 

Fair enough I suppose but the series was never an "open word" type game, you can't really fault them for not being something they were never trying to be.

[AwesomeOcelot]

They don't have to be open world, no one is asking for being able to run for an hour in any direction. You could increase the size by 2, 4, or 8 times with these games without ever coming close to approaching open world. Everything has become very tight corridors, even when outside with these games.

[Umberlin]

Fair enough I suppose but the series was never an "open word" type game, you can't really fault them for not being something they were never trying to be.

 

When it comes to ME, I can fault them for taking steps backward after the first game, each further entry was even more linear and even more boxed in than the last. When it comes to DA:O, I can fault them for claiming it to be a successor to the BG series, which was absolutely insulting when you experience the result of said claims. I can fault them for DA2 not even managing to be as, heh, open as DA:O when, in itself, was quite claustrophobic.

 

It's different in something like BG, or Planescape, where you don't have a lot of that visual 'wallpaper' feel for the backgrounds. Looking straight down, isometric, you just see what's there. It's a lot different from some modern games that paint these vast, impressive, sometimes highly populated, backgrounds in the distance . . . that you can never get near. All that artistic effort spent on nothing, literally nothing, it's essentially, "See this really really cool thing over here? See it? It's cool right? It's awesome! What? You want to what? No you can't go over to it. That'd be silly."

 

I don't really need a large open world game, the closed in space, in itself, isn't my problem, I just need a game that spends its resources on things I can actually 'do', places I can actually go, and things I can actually interact with. Experiences like Planescape, the BG series and so on works for me, where something like ME3 or DA:O/DA2 completely fall on their face. They're obsessed with this eye candy that never really mattered. The graphical complexity means very little, especially in the long run. Again, I have to say it, I'd rather more be done with the graphics of yesterday, with the systems of today than using the systems of today to make that one meaningless pixel look better than ever (only to have it look out dated within a week).

[jezz555]

Fair enough I suppose but the series was never an "open word" type game, you can't really fault them for not being something they were never trying to be.

 

When it comes to ME, I can fault them for taking steps backward after the first game, each further entry was even more linear and even more boxed in than the last. When it comes to DA:O, I can fault them for claiming it to be a successor to the BG series, which was absolutely insulting when you experience the result of said claims. I can fault them for DA2 not even managing to be as, heh, open as DA:O when, in itself, was quite claustrophobic.

 

It's different in something like BG, or Planescape, where you don't have a lot of that visual 'wallpaper' feel for the backgrounds. Looking straight down, isometric, you just see what's there. It's a lot different from some modern games that paint these vast, impressive, sometimes highly populated, backgrounds in the distance . . . that you can never get near. All that artistic effort spent on nothing, literally nothing, it's essentially, "See this really really cool thing over here? See it? It's cool right? It's awesome! What? You want to what? No you can't go over to it. That'd be silly."

 

I don't really need a large open world game, the closed in space, in itself, isn't my problem, I just need a game that spends its resources on things I can actually 'do', places I can actually go, and things I can actually interact with. Experiences like Planescape, the BG series and so on works for me, where something like ME3 or DA:O/DA2 completely fall on their face. They're obsessed with this eye candy that never really mattered. The graphical complexity means very little, especially in the long run. Again, I have to say it, I'd rather more be done with the graphics of yesterday, with the systems of today than using the systems of today to make that one meaningless pixel look better than ever (only to have it look out dated within a week).

 

Eh, I see what you're saying, and yeah I agree less-eye candy more substance.

Edited December 3, 2012 by jezz555

[mcmanusaur]

As long as there is an option to skip scary boss fights, I'm good.