Dragon Age: Inquisition

[alanschu]

 

 

IMO, no. In games where you don't know exactly what the PC will say(because the dialogue option you select isn't what the PC actually says) I don't think it works at all. Any games that do let the player know exactly what the PC will say it does work.

 

I was more referring to the "Well, I would prefer to do something else, so I'll just shut the game down and delete the save."

 

I consider that unsatisfactory, although you seem to indicate that it allows a game like Planescape: Torment to then fit under your criteria.  Why can't this work for every game?

[Chilloutman]

Still require Origin? if so than thanks but no

[Malekith]

 

I don't think you can design a game with a (strong) story any other way though. A storyline is a set of progressive steps leading to a conclusion, and it is impractical to program every possible permutation, or even a reasonable number of permutations without ending up with some sort of procedurally generated system which will, pretty much by definition, end up as a generic approach.

I don't think that's ever been Avellone's point though. He's been going for a good couple of years about how he thinks that a narrative designer should know when to step back and just let the players build their own stories with the game systems. I'd also note that as much as he insists on that, Obsidian still tries to also supply strong stories with choices and consequences in addition to that, and have often been more successful at that than actually providing a playground of game systems/rules.

 

Or, basically, it's not the first time a panelist's point comes off as stronger and more absolutist when giving a panel than when actually working. If I had to guess, we will never see an FTL from Obsidian, but new titles will probably be closer to New Vegas in story/gameplay balance than Torment. *

 

* I went a bit off the tangent and that's not necessarily what you were talking about, so sorry about that.

 

The funny thing is that Arcanum is the game that is closer to what Avellone speaks. Let's see how he does.

[Maria Caliban]

Still require Origin? if so than thanks but no

Very likely.

[Nonek]

I like a good open world game, such as Ultima 7 but I do believe that ones actions have to be acknowledged in game for them to matter, like for instance the amount of cranium rats you've killed marking you out as a murderer when confronting Many as One or the Wererat assassin sent to kill the rat collector when his bounties begin to take effect on their plans in Torment. These little moments of reactivity are great fun to me, and make me feel that i'm not spectating but actually participating. Too little of these and I feel like there's no real point or reaction to anything I do.

 

It's also important that i'm given logical choices that I would choose, some games one can play through the entirety of and never see a choice one would take, instead being nudged on by the plot insisting "BUT THOU MUST!" The Witcher 2 dealt with this refreshingly, in that it let me die when I made the wrong decisions in a dangerous situation. Clear choice and consequence. Personally i've never played an Obsidian game where I thought all of the choices were hilariously stupid, and I was being forced down a path I didn't want to go, they seem to cater for the most common logical responses.

 

There's a vast difference between a range of logical choices and consequences being implemented, and every choice you make leading to the same senseless point, because the developers want to make a cinematic experience rather than an interactive one. Just because the player is restricted to the developers gameworld doesn't mean that he must be told the narrative rather than participate, and make a difference, in it. If the developers want a cinematic experience over an interactive one, simply make a film rather than a game.

 

That for me is the difference between Mr Avellones and Mr Gaiders quotes, and certainly seems to be the difference in their games. In ME2 I was forced to join Cerberus for no good reason, flying in the face of the fact that i'd been happily slaughtering the incompetent terrorists throughout the first game, and still had not forgiven them for Admiral Kahoku's murder. In DA2 I had no real control over the player whatsoever, I could not speak to family or friends, I did not know what i'd be saying whether of upper, middle or lower right morality and I had no logical choices throughout the game. The game forced me to play as an idle, murderous, thieving, incompetent who had no initiative or incentive, and certainly had no effect on the plot, many may hail this as a good thing but personally that's not for me.

 

That said I did enjoy playing both games, I obviously had to get rid of the utterly annoying caricatures that passed for companions in DA2 first, but after that apart from the ridiculous combat the game was tolerable.

 

Edit: I've got to admit that I quit laughing and pressed the awesome button (uninstall) just before the end when the McGuffin slave Meredith shot up into space. Did she ever come back down, or did she reach escape velocity?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Nonek

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

I obviously had to get rid of the utterly annoying caricatures that passed for companions in DA2 first, but after that apart from the ridiculous combat the game was tolerable.

 

Talk about being damned with faint praise. It's like saying "that meal was OK. The meat was tough and the vegetables inedible but there was a nice sauce."

[Nonek]

Well I endured it for sixty hours or so, something must have been enjoyable to me though i've yet to figure out what, so I didn't wish to absolutely dismiss it.

 

It might have been the boots and gauntlets, they were very well animated.

[Amentep]

 

As for the three quotes: I've enjoyed all games from all three of those gentlemen. I don't see one approach as being better than the other. In fact, I think a diversity of approaches when it comes to RPGs is a good thing.

 

Agreed.

 

 

If there was one way approach to make good games, everyone would be using it and every game would be a good game (or, alternatively, every game would be the same game, depending on how you look at it).

 

EDIT: I'll say I liked DA:O and DA2, so I'm looking forward to DA:I

Edited June 27, 2013 by Amentep

[Tale]

I don't think you can design a game with a (strong) story any other way though. A storyline is a set of progressive steps leading to a conclusion, and it is impractical to program every possible permutation, or even a reasonable number of permutations without ending up with some sort of procedurally generated system which will, pretty much by definition, end up as a generic approach.

You don't have to do every possible permutation. Just the choices that appeal to the widest range of players.

 

New Vegas did it well. Yes Man is the perfect example. It's basically the "I hate every other option, so I'm taking over" one.

 

You don't have to do every possible choice. Just do the choices the player is likely to want. Nobody's going to be dead set on a single option and only that option, but the options present should appeal to a range. Instead of all being the same and only appealing to the writer. The choices that the player are going to want are the ones that benefit him or her the most and fulfill the goals that were established in initial premise. Get revenge, kill the bad guy, save the girl, become king.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

IMO, no. In games where you don't know exactly what the PC will say(because the dialogue option you select isn't what the PC actually says) I don't think it works at all. Any games that do let the player know exactly what the PC will say it does work.

 

I was more referring to the "Well, I would prefer to do something else, so I'll just shut the game down and delete the save."

 

I consider that unsatisfactory, although you seem to indicate that it allows a game like Planescape: Torment to then fit under your criteria.  Why can't this work for every game?

It can work for every game as long as when you delete said save, the game doesn't contradict anything.

 

I don't think it is optimal at all, but if I come to an impasse where I am forced to do something that would break the PC it is an out.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Origin is another thing going against the game, but I intend to try out Battlefield 4 - and if I do I'll have that pos on my hard drive anyway.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

It depends, if you have to beat everyone you come into contact with off with a stick to prevent them from having sex with you, I'd hardly call that realistic.

 

 

It's realistic if you're me.

I highly doubt that Mr. Gaider. Unless of course by "everyone" you mean your collection of sock puppets.

[Malcador]

I'm sure Bioware fans would throw themselves at Gaider. Get the sense some of them might have explosive vests on at the time, but still, they'd do it.

[anubite]

Guys, you're getting off topic. The last thread was closed not too long ago for this reason. So, stay on topic please.

 

I honestly don't see the point in discussing DA3 at this point. We have no new information on it and we won't for quite a while.

 

BioWare had its swan song a while back, it's time to just let them fade into obscurity. Let them be. They don't listen to feedback (or when they do, they take that feedback and twist into such a warped, skewed perspective that they can justify doing just the opposite of what gamers want) and they clearly are going to use the same tactics as always. They're still with EA. If the game is anything less than a disaster, I'll eat my own foot.

Edited June 27, 2013 by anubite

[HoonDing]

It will be a fun game.

[licketysplit]

It will be a fun game.

Well I'm convinced.

[Meshugger]

Close the thread. Burn the white smoke, we have a consensus!

[anubite]

Yep. I am also convinced. I will have lots of fun playing Dragon Age 3 when it comes out! You can look forward to a Breathless Experience that keeps you gripped for over twenty hours. Complete with thrilling Open World Exploration, Deep, Satisfying Combat, and Awesome Real Characters. Look forward to Autumn 2014!

[WorstUsernameEver]

Close the thread. Burn the white smoke, we have a consensus!

Maria Caliban is indeed the first woman pope.

[Labadal]

I actually hope it turns out good. I liked DA:O even if there were flaws. I think DA2 had its moments despite being a disappointment. For DA3, I won't hope for a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, I just want a competently made rpg.

[NOK222]

Replaying through DA2...I realize it's just so...dull

[HoonDing]

It's common knowledge that after your seventh time, you will start liking it.

[Orogun01]

It takes a while for the denial to set in.

[Zoraptor]

You don't have to do every possible choice. Just do the choices the player is likely to want. Nobody's going to be dead set on a single option and only that option, but the options present should appeal to a range. Instead of all being the same and only appealing to the writer. The choices that the player are going to want are the ones that benefit him or her the most and fulfill the goals that were established in initial premise. Get revenge, kill the bad guy, save the girl, become king.

 

 

You don't have to do every permutations, no, which is fortunate since that would be impossible. But as noted, you do do the choices that you think that players will want to make, and even then only to the limits defined by budget and what can realistically be achieved within the confines of the story you want to tell. Ultimately you have to assume that the player actually wants to play your game and if your game has a strong storyline then that assumption includes that they want to follow the story rather than create their own. They may be able to customise your story in some allowed ways, but it remains your story at heart, not theirs, as everything story wise has to be- ultimately- the author's creation.

 

It's like one of those old Choose Your Own Adventure books. There can be a lot of freedom in how you go about things, but you're still always turning to page 352 written by [author], rather than page 352 written by [player].

[Humanoid]

I'd revise it to choices that one would assume a reasonable character to want. The player might want to do something crazy and off the wall (and there are games such as SR3 that can accommodate that), and if the game can cater for that, great - but it's a bonus. But omitting an obvious and in-character option is infuriating.

 

A recent example of such from a recent Bioware game makes me think this situation hasn't improved with their latest work. You're betrayed by a party member, they outright try to eliminate you, but you foil that plan. But instead of having the blindingly obvious thing of killing him for the transaction, the game forces you to take him back into your party. The worst you can do is to, um, pick the mean, bottom-right dialogue options when talking to him.

 

The point is this - sure, it'd be fantastic to have the option to murder all your party members, but aside from roleplaying a psychopath, that'd be a desire borne purely out of the player messing around. I don't expect the option to be there in the game, and won't quibble one bit about the omission. But when we're talking about the character's perspective, the omission of arguably the most rational and sensible option is nearly impossible to forgive.