Dragon Age: Inquisition

[licketysplit]

The armor design is weird. Again. What's with the chicken helmets and no elbow protection? Still, the game looks better than DA2.

[ManifestedISO]

A must-have, no doubt. I'm convinced graphical fidelity will be nearly identical on a 7850 PC and PS4, at launch of DA:I ... so I'm opting for the wireless controller version on the bigger screen. 

 

Speaking of fidelity, I may have a crush on the interviewer in this E3 back-and-forth with Bioware's Jessica Merizan.  Not many specifics about Inquisition, unless you follow her advice and go read the third book in the Dragon Age saga, which I have not. 

[Tale]

I think that Avellone's quote is golden advice when designing a RPG. Letting the player decide what the story of their character is should be the direction taken, not showing them a kewl EPIC story that they have no control over.

I agree. When designing an RPG, the important thing to me seems to be asking "what would the player want to do here?" And I can't stress how important a question that is. Because when the player is forced to make a choice they have no interest in making, then they have no investment in the outcomes of that choice.

 

To put this in a context with what Gaider said. You can't make the player care about events that happened because of a choice you denied that player. The player immediately sees all of those events as being things the writer forced on him. Not events he forced on himself, not events the world forced on him, the player will see that choice denied as the writer's hand.

 

I can't care about the mage rebellion when the entire thing traces back to Meredith asking me to do chores I never wanted. And then when I have to kill people I like.

I can't care about the fate of a galaxy when it's all the result of space magic I don't understand, trust, or accept.

And I'm not letting that stupid Devaronion on my ship.

 

I don't think I'm an unreasonable player. I don't ask for the choice to wear a banana hat and squawk at the king. I just ask that when I'm confronted by characters I want dead, characters the game has encouraged me to want dead, that I get to refuse their requests.

 

This is my fear of Dragon Age: Inquisition. That, in the service of whatever ending or piece of drama they desire, every investment I make in the game world to that point gets tossed out on a "but though must."

[Gorth]

I have never forgiven Bioware for forcing me to become a Jedi in Kotor. I never wanted to be a Jedi

 

But yeah, I hear you Tale. I can't imagine many people caring about the peasant girl that was forced upon you in NWN2, nor could I care less about Mages and Templars in the DA universe. I might side with one or the other on a strictly mercenary basis, not out of any sense of "obligation" to either one.

 

Going fame and fortune hunting with Varric was just infinitely more fun than the dour and dreary whinging of those two factions.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How do you define "what the story of the character is" because for each of your examples I see "You're allowed to make the decisions that the game allows you to make."

You design the characters personality, decide what their intent is when you make choices, and end the story when you want. The story of the game is more than just the dialogue choices the PC makes, it also includes travelling, combat, haggling, etc.

 

The problem I have with Gaider's view on narrative is that I don't believe "a reason to care"(which I took as motive) should be supplied by the writer or even assumed at all by the writer. I believe that in a good RPG, who the character is(motivations, emotions, temperament) should come from the player. From his comments in the video that those quotes come from, he doesn't seem to believe that allowing the player to decide who the PC "is" and what they intend with their actions is a valid way to play games.

 

I much prefer Avellone's view, which I take as creating a foundation(mechanics, dialog choices, etc.) and letting the player go from there.

 

 

TL;DR: The narrative should come from the player deciding who the PC is and implementing that character in the game, not the designer allowing certain narratives.

 

I agree. When designing an RPG, the important thing to me seems to be asking "what would the player want to do here?" And I can't stress how important a question that is. Because when the player is forced to make a choice they have no interest in making, then they have no investment in the outcomes of that choice.

 

To put this in a context with what Gaider said. You can't make the player care about events that happened because of a choice you denied that player. The player immediately sees all of those events as being things the writer forced on him. Not events he forced on himself, not events the world forced on him, the player will see that choice denied as the writer's hand.

 

I can't care about the mage rebellion when the entire thing traces back to Meredith asking me to do chores I never wanted. And then when I have to kill people I like.

I can't care about the fate of a galaxy when it's all the result of space magic I don't understand, trust, or accept.

And I'm not letting that stupid Devaronion on my ship.

 

I don't think I'm an unreasonable player. I don't ask for the choice to wear a banana hat and squawk at the king. I just ask that when I'm confronted by characters I want dead, characters the game has encouraged me to want dead, that I get to refuse their requests.

 

This is my fear of Dragon Age: Inquisition. That, in the service of whatever ending or piece of drama they desire, every investment I make in the game world to that point gets tossed out on a "but though must."

I agree entirely. The only way to ensure the player has a reason to care is to let the player create the PC themselves(with no contradictions to whatever design they may have come up with by the writers) and decide what that characters story is. You may nope be able to tell an EPIC saga or a deeply personal story, but that task is better suited towards film or literature than RPGs.

 

I have never forgiven Bioware for forcing me to become a Jedi in Kotor. I never wanted to be a Jedi

I think that this is the main problem of KOTOR. You aren't offered a choice on the critical matter on whether your character decides to train as a Jedi or not. It gets forced on you. RPGs shouldn't be like that.

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[Zoraptor]

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 can basically ignore the story in, say, Fallout- don't bother with the water chip or defeating the super muties- but there's nothing there to replace it with. With the peripheral stuff you have a choice of generally binary decisions like whether to help MacGuyver or help the fat desk guy, you're never going to be able to, say, set yourself up as town store owner and gangsta even if you think the overseer is a complete goober, hate everyone in the vault and just want to settle down with Tandi.

 

End of the day I'd far prefer writers to be writing stuff that they like and they find engaging, and which hopefully overlaps with my tastes as well. Because they cannot ever tailor stuff for everyone and shouldn't try, and getting people to try and write stuff that they don't like just because that's what they think the players will want is the kind of thing that leads to over reliance on focus groups. Then again I have a pretty distinct dislike for Bethesda style games and always find them shallow and unbelievable rather than full of endless possibilities as others do.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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 can basically ignore the story in, say, Fallout- don't bother with the water chip or defeating the super muties- but there's nothing there to replace it with. With the peripheral stuff you have a choice of generally binary decisions like whether to help MacGuyver or help the fat desk guy, you're never going to be able to, say, set yourself up as town store owner and gangsta even if you think the overseer is a complete goober, hate everyone in the vault and just want to settle down with Tandi.

 

End of the day I'd far prefer writers to be writing stuff that they like and they find engaging, and which hopefully overlaps with my tastes as well. Because they cannot ever tailor stuff for everyone and shouldn't try, and getting people to try and write stuff that they don't like just because that's what they think the players will want is the kind of thing that leads to over reliance on focus groups. Then again I have a pretty distinct dislike for Bethesda style games and always find them shallow and unbelievable rather than full of endless possibilities as others do.

I think Baldur's Gate managed to let the player tell their own story while still providing a decent story. The PC wasn't forced to care about Gorion's death, take a step into Friendly Arm Inn, etc. Perhaps a stronger story could have been told, if the protagonist was a pre-generated character rather than the player's creation, with every choice automatically made for them, but I doubt that BG would have been as enjoyable if they did go for less player control in favor of a better story.

 

Also, I don't see how you can have an RPG without at least a little bit of headcanon, because everything the PC is exists only in your head. Perhaps that is why I have a different few of what make a RPG work than others.

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[alanschu]

The problem I have with Gaider's view on narrative is that I don't believe "a reason to care"(which I took as motive) should be supplied by the writer or even assumed at all by the writer. I believe that in a good RPG, who the character is(motivations, emotions, temperament) should come from the player. From his comments in the video that those quotes come from, he doesn't seem to believe that allowing the player to decide who the PC "is" and what they intend with their actions is a valid way to play games.

 

I much prefer Avellone's view, which I take as creating a foundation(mechanics, dialog choices, etc.) and letting the player go from there.

 

So how do you reconcile wanting to do something, but the game developer not accounting for it?

 

For instance, how do you reconcile Kreia in KOTOR 2, yet still adhere to your definition?  The game prevents you from giving your character the motivation of "I want her off my ship" or rather, performing that motivation.

 

Is it just a case where, in the case of Obsidian's games, they happen to have allowed you to play your characters in the way that you want?  (This is still effective.  The original Deus Ex had good enough writing that, by the time the player had to choose between UNATCO and the NSF, most wanted to say "Eff UNATCO."  So that the choice was merely an illusion is inconsequential to most people... they still feel like the game is granting them a choice.)

 

 

 

The story of the game is more than just the dialogue choices the PC makes, it also includes travelling, combat, haggling, etc.

 

I agree that the story is more than just dialogue choices. Still, by your description, it'd sound like you'd consider an Elder Scrolls game to be superior to Planescape: Torment, since Torment has a pretty defined narrative, whereas Bethesda's games do not. (It's fine if you prefer them, I'm just trying to understand your perspective, because I consider Torment's strength to be it's fantastic writing, because through the fantastic writing I am able to empathize with the characters, even if my TNO does not).

 

 

At least with Planescape: Torment you have amnesia (or rather, a whole new persona), but in other games like KOTOR 2, you have a defined history that you cannot ignore.  Your character MUST have followed Revan to Malachor.  You can spin reasons within the context of the game as a form of justification, but that's just rationalizing the decision.  It's allowing you to place your influence on the character, but in the end there's nothing the player can do about the fact that you traveled to Malachor V.

Edited June 27, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

 

You can basically ignore the story in, say, Fallout- don't bother with the water chip or defeating the super muties- but there's nothing there to replace it with. With the peripheral stuff you have a choice of generally binary decisions like whether to help MacGuyver or help the fat desk guy, you're never going to be able to, say, set yourself up as town store owner and gangsta even if you think the overseer is a complete goober, hate everyone in the vault and just want to settle down with Tandi.

 

Precisely, and Fallout is a game that awards the player a huge degree of freedom.

 

No choice that I make in Planescape: Torment is a choice that the game designers didn't allow me to make.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So how do you reconcile wanting to do something, but the game developer not accounting for it?

I either pick a line based on what the PC would mean by it(rather than what the developer meant by it) or headcanon that the PC did what they wanted and delete the save.

 

For instance, how do you reconcile Kreia in KOTOR 2, yet still adhere to your definition?  The game prevents you from giving your character the motivation of "I want her off my ship" or rather, performing that motivation.

 

I would stick her in the cargo hold and ignore her or headcanon that she left and delete the save.(I found KOTOR 2 very flawed in some regards, more detailed response below)

 

I agree that the story is more than just dialogue choices. Still, by your description, it'd sound like you'd consider an Elder Scrolls game to be superior to Planescape: Torment, since Torment has a pretty defined narrative, whereas Bethesda's games do not. (It's fine if you prefer them, I'm just trying to understand your perspective, because I consider Torment's strength to be it's fantastic writing, because through the fantastic writing I am able to empathize with the characters, even if my TNO does not).

In the respect that nothing is done to define the PC or remove control from the player, I think that TES games are excellent. However between the bad combat mechanics and little reactivity to your choices, TES falls flat. I also think that Torment had fantastically written characters, but I think it succeeds by accounting for a wide range of PCs and motivations.

 

 

At least with Planescape: Torment you have amnesia (or rather, a whole new persona), but in other games like KOTOR 2, you have a defined history that you cannot ignore.  Your character MUST have followed Revan to Malachor.  You can spin reasons within the context of the game as a form of justification, but that's just rationalizing the decision.  It's allowing you to place your influence on the character, but in the end there's nothing the player can do about the fact that you traveled to Malachor V.

I think KOTOR2 is heavily flawed as a RPG, despite telling a fantastic story. I think Obsidian severely damaged the ability to roleplay the Exile as they saw fit by fleshing out the backstory as much as they did(KOTOR and PST got away with it because the PC was not aware of their past.) They also made you take along the vast majority of companions without any choice in the matter.

 

Main Point: I think that a well-designed RPG should allow the player to create PCs with a multitude of personalities, motives, and goals by letting them decide their PC's story is. I think the way to do that is to create a story that the PC can play several different parts in and not TES, which seems to revolve around letting the player do what they want with little consequence. I don't think that anyone will ever be able to cover every motivation or goal(like seeking to become a god by pelting peasants with kittens or some other insanity), but I do think it is very possible to write a compelling story without forcing a motive or goal on the PC.

 

Perhaps my view is different from some because my background is PnP, where using headcanon is essential because the PC doesn't really exist anywhere but the player's head.

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[alanschu]

 

 

I either pick a line based on what the PC would mean by it(rather than what the developer meant by it) or headcanon that the PC did what they wanted and delete the save.

 

Can't this work equally for all games?  I know that this doesn't work for me.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps my view is different from some because my background is PnP, where using headcanon is essential because the PC doesn't really exist anywhere but the player's head.

 

I can understand that.  There's evidently some differences here in our expectations and interpretation.  I'm typically of the mind that the PnP experience is best left to PnP, because of the inherent restrictions that get placed.  For me, the closest analogy is that the game designer is effectively the DM for the game, but must come up with the entire campaign and all of its potential tangents before even presenting the campaign to the player.

 

Hence, I see a game like Torment as one where the game designer has afforded us a wide range of choice (and even consequences), but in the end we can only meaningfully choose the choices that the game designer provides for us.  Very, very rarely are we able to choose our own path, and while deleting the saved game might still be satisfying for you (You should check out a chap here that came from the BSN, Sylvius the Mad, as he seems to be an RPer much like yourself and you'd probably get along with him), it certainly wouldn't for me... though in exchange I'm much more okay with accepting that I likely don't have full control over my character in a video game; I only have access to that which the game allows me to do.

 

I feel this applies to most RPGs barring sandbox games, and as you say, even sandbox games struggle with the consequences.  It's a large part of the scale with CRPGs.  Branching factor becomes unwieldly, and the more choices you have the more difficult it is to have meaningful consequences represented.

 

 

Anyways, in this case I think the difference in how we see the games is pretty established at this point.  It's great that you can see PST as a game that is as open as you feel it is.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Main Point: I think that a well-designed RPG should allow the player to create PCs with a multitude of personalities, motives, and goals by letting them decide their PC's story is. I think the way to do that is to create a story that the PC can play several different parts in and not TES, which seems to revolve around letting the player do what they want with little consequence. I don't think that anyone will ever be able to cover every motivation or goal(like seeking to become a god by pelting peasants with kittens or some other insanity), but I do think it is very possible to write a compelling story without forcing a motive or goal on the PC.

 

Perhaps my view is different from some because my background is PnP, where using headcanon is essential because the PC doesn't really exist anywhere but the player's head.

 

 

You make some good points Kaine but I see you have left out Romance\Sex from what constitutes a good RPG. Don't you think its incongruous that when you mention realistic components of what you want in PCs like motives and goals but you leave out Romance\Sex it shows us something is lacking ? Its like you want your character to have depth but you don't want him to have an emotional connection to anyone in the party. This type of post adds to the call for Romance\Sex in RPG as a mechanism for immersion and realism IMO

[alanschu]

I don't think that Romance is essential to a good RPG.  In some cases I feel it can hurt.

 

My favourite RPG of all time does have a "romance" in it, but in both the females (Annah and Fall-From-Grace) they only begin to skirt the layers of genuine romance.  And FFG ultimately refuses the player (which I thought was amazingly well done).

Edited June 27, 2013 by alanschu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Can't this work equally for all games?  I know that this doesn't work for me.

 

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 can understand that.  There's evidently some differences here in our expectations and interpretation.  I'm typically of the mind that the PnP experience is best left to PnP, because of the inherent restrictions that get placed.  For me, the closest analogy is that the game designer is effectively the DM for the game, but must come up with the entire campaign and all of its potential tangents before even presenting the campaign to the player.

I do agree that a cRPG doesn't have as much wiggle room as PnP in regards to story or mechanics, because there is not a DM that can interpret a wide range of player actions. I do think that it is possible to provide a good story that works with a wide range of PCs though. I suppose that our differing viewpoints on how a RPG functions is what creates the different preferences.

 

 

You make some good points Kaine but I see you have left out Romance\Sex from what constitutes a good RPG. Don't you think its incongruous that when you mention realistic components of what you want in PCs like motives and goals but you leave out Romance\Sex it shows us something is lacking ? Its like you want your character to have depth but you don't want him to have an emotional connection to anyone in the party. This type of post adds to the call for Romance\Sex in RPG as a mechanism for immersion and realism IMO

I don't think that romance is required in a RPG(or even needed to have a great RPG), but I think that if the player wants a PC who tries to have sex with everything they see, the player should be able to do that.

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[Cultist]

a next-generation action RPG

At last they get out of their closet.

hurr durr in this upcoming video game from BioWare, makers of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Origins

Wait! But what about great, deep, complex and critically acclaimed Dragon Age 2?

 

Dragons now darken the sky

 

as you lead the Inquisition and hunt down the agents of chaos

 

It's like after huge success of DA2, BioWare decided, that they must try to appeal to EVERYONE.

[BruceVC]

I don't think that Romance is essential to a good RPG.  In some cases I feel it can hurt.

 

My favourite RPG of all time does have a "romance" in it, but in both the females (Annah and Fall-From-Grace) they only begin to skirt the layers of genuine romance.  And FFG ultimately refuses the player (which I thought was amazingly well done).

 

Okay, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. That's the one gripe I had with Torment. You have this protagonist  who traverses the worlds and planes and  fights beings of godlike power.  He realizes he is immortal and has people in his party who he is attracted to and has an emotional connection with  and are prepared to die for him yet he doesn't really seem to explore the Romance aspect satisfactorily? It was unrealistic considering everything else he has to go through and rationalize about himself

 

 

I don't think that romance is required in a RPG(or even needed to have a great RPG), but I think that if the player wants a PC who tries to have sex with everything they see, the player should be able to do that.

 

 

Okay just to be clear I am not saying you must have Romance but it adds to the realism

Edited June 27, 2013 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Okay just to be clear I am not saying you must have Romance but it adds to the realism

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.

Edited June 27, 2013 by KaineParker

[Nepenthe]

The good folk at /v/ have noticed that Morrigan's dress is exactly what Leliana described in Origins she should be wearing. Something about a low neckline, with purple colors. 

 

Also, is that just a High Dragon, or something more sinister?

 

High Dragon, Flemeth, Old God (if Flemeth isn't one) or Archdemon. Am I forgetting something?

[Monte Carlo]

 

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.

[exodiark]

Graphics definitely looks good, frostbite is an awesome engine.

The plot sure sounds like DA1/ME3:
> A Huge Crisis (Reaper invasion, Blight, Mage Templar War)
> A hero is you! (Commandur, Grey Warden and INSERT_TITLE_HERE)
> Travel to to many foreign places to gain support for your cause! (Elves, dwarves, qunaris vs Salarian, Asari, Turian, and Krogan)
> Usually there's dilemma to solve before gaining the support you need (elves vs werewolfs, krogan vs salarian)
> Become a therapist to help your troubled friends!
> Find ancient magical McGuffin to help you fight against the horde 
> And the secks, definitely the progressive secks.
> Vanquish big bad evil.
> DLC bait.

... I'll wait for the reviews first.

Edited June 27, 2013 by exodiark

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

The plot sure sounds like DA1/ME3 every other Bioware game

 

Thought I'd fix that for you.

[Drowsy Emperor]

They really must bundle this game with vaseline. It'll hurt less that way.

[WorstUsernameEver]

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.

[Drowsy Emperor]

In all honesty the game will stay off my radar unless there's a unanimous verdict that the game is even more like BGII than the first DA.

 

I estimate the chances of that happening at 0.03%.

 

I don't want to play a fantasy Mass Effect. And I'll judge the Witcher 3 by the same criteria.