Dragon Age: Inquisition

[alanschu]

 

 

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.

 

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make."

 

 

Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that.

[Azure79]

You'll start dropping subtle hints if you think it's bad or good right Alan?

 

I remain pretty optimistic. I think Bioware is putting more time into this one and I am usually entertained by their games. I'm curious about the whole Maker, Old Gods, Flemeth, Morrigan, Fade backstory that's going on. 

[licketysplit]

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

 

Why the hell would you replay this game? I'd rather crush my knee caps with a ball-peen hammer.

[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.

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make."

 

 

Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that.

 

And I'll raise DA:O has having a good counterexample. From a metagamey player perspective, it's reasonable to want to free and take Sten with you - after all, here's this strong, characterised, unique and generally obvious NPC bait. But from a rational character perspective, here's this dangerous, unstable psycho who seems just as likely to cut you down than to help your quest in any meaningful way. I loved the option to leave him there to rot, and indeed I took that option on both of my serious attempts to get through the game (which I ultimately failed at). If one option had to be hard-coded, then I'd plump for the later every time. Same applies for Zevran, though only one of my saves got as far as encountering him - did the obvious, sensible thing and cut his throat without a word.

 

Going back further, I'd also glad they never forced you to take Yoshimo in BG2. Sure, in the end the closure was kind of hacky if you didn't, but far superior to the alternative.

 

 

Anyway, I've probably steered the discussion too specifically to the topic of NPCs, where I was aiming for a more generalised example. Like the ability of not having to have anything to do with Mr House after fulfilling your contract with him (I turned him down flat when he offered more work after the chip delivery). And while Mass Effect is full of inexplicable decisions, a good number of them can be rationalised in-character as following direct orders from a superior officer. I'm fine with those too. But for a bad example, see the Companions initiation ritual in Skyrim, where there's no rational circuit breaker if you don't want to do an obviously dumb thing. Or the entire Thieves' Guild questline, which I might nominate as the worst RPG quest series I've ever encountered. It's a shame because it's contrasted in the same game by the alternative treatment of the Dark Brotherhood questline, which was great.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Humanoid

[alanschu]

And I'll raise DA:O has having a good counterexample.

I recognize that DAO had examples like Sten (and Leliana, Zevran, and Morrigan).  My statement wasn't that games must have forced companions or anything like that, and even said that our games "frequently suffer from that."

Edited June 28, 2013 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

Companion NPCs would generally be a special case though- as a designer you would not want them to be 'missed' by players. DAO has Leliana and Zevran as rogues/ thieves and it's possible to kill both of them leaving you potentially without a thief archetype. Realistically you want to avoid that happening very often, if for no other reason than you'll end up with lots of complaints about the lack of rogues/ alternative companions.

 

I'm not particularly advocating authorial imperative though, just saying that it is necessary- something like the Cerberus joining in ME2 is baffling from an 'objective' story perspective given the events in ME1 (and ME3 too really, which was entirely predictable). But while you might be able to rejig ME2 to remove Cerberus entirely and have someone else rebuild The Shep/ not kill her at all, provide the ship etc it would not be trivial and you could not realistically provide both as alternative choices; in effect it would have to be a different story without 'positive' interaction with Cerberus. Once the story has been decided upon outright refusal of Cerberus becomes an impossibility and players just have to Deal With It, or not, as preference dictates.

[ManifestedISO]

 

Still require Origin? if so than thanks but no

Very likely.

 

 

EA has heard our cries and is doing something about it.

 

Making EA games better is the core that Origin needs to embrace and expand on, Wilson believes. "What you're going to see from us is to have a real focus on that, and a focus on getting that right and getting that better, and getting it done for PC. Then figuring out in the context of other platforms, what does that mean?" Wilson asked. "You don't want a service that competes with other platforms like Microsoft or Sony or iOS. You don't want a competitive service to them, what you want is a complementary service that enhances your game experience irrespective of where you made the transaction. That's the shift you're going to see from us."

[licketysplit]

 

 

Still require Origin? if so than thanks but no

Very likely.

 

 

EA has heard our cries and is doing something about it.

 

Making EA games better is the core that Origin needs to embrace and expand on, Wilson believes. "What you're going to see from us is to have a real focus on that, and a focus on getting that right and getting that better, and getting it done for PC. Then figuring out in the context of other platforms, what does that mean?" Wilson asked. "You don't want a service that competes with other platforms like Microsoft or Sony or iOS. You don't want a competitive service to them, what you want is a complementary service that enhances your game experience irrespective of where you made the transaction. That's the shift you're going to see from us."

 

 

 

Oh how they love the word service. You aren't buying a product anymore, you're buying a 'service'.

[alanschu]

I suppose JR's departure may open the doors for Steam reconciliation (Though I wouldn't get my hopes up).

Edited June 28, 2013 by alanschu

[Gorth]

Having both Steam, Origin and GOG accounts, I'm not really too picky, as it wouldn't add an extra "burden" (or whatever you would call it) on me.

 

I am curious about how much of the story is going to be about characters (protagonist, companions, npcs etc.) and how much is going to be EPIC struggle between two factions I learned to dislike in equal measure in the first two games. Crossing fingers and hoping for the former

[alanschu]

Huh, well that I actually kinda do know the answer to! >.>

[ManifestedISO]

It should be obvious already. Multiple quotes have said it will be about characters and great exploration therewith. Inquisition is gonna be a humdinger. 

[licketysplit]

It should be obvious already. Multiple quotes have said it will be about characters and great exploration therewith. Inquisition is gonna be a humdinger. 

 

I would love if it humdinged in the exploration department. At least a little bit.

[Gorth]

 

It should be obvious already. Multiple quotes have said it will be about characters and great exploration therewith. Inquisition is gonna be a humdinger.

 

I would love if it humdinged in the exploration department. At least a little bit.

 

Blame life, work, etc. I'm somewhat out of the loop (and grateful for a place to have consolidated information in). I haven't been able to follow it, so I'm playing a game of catch up

 

If they actually go and put some effort into making exploration fun, I'll be a very happy gamer. The original Tombraider was the last game I remember where exploration was fun (and the objective of the game really). Of course, Tombraider went and did away with all that in subsequent installments and the game took a nosedive, but that doesn't take anything away from the original.

 

Exploration done well would rock indeed

 

Edit to add: Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it was Fallout or TR that was the last "exploration" game.

[Agiel]

 

 

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.

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make."

 

 

Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that.

 

And I'll raise DA:O has having a good counterexample. From a metagamey player perspective, it's reasonable to want to free and take Sten with you - after all, here's this strong, characterised, unique and generally obvious NPC bait. But from a rational character perspective, here's this dangerous, unstable psycho who seems just as likely to cut you down than to help your quest in any meaningful way. I loved the option to leave him there to rot, and indeed I took that option on both of my serious attempts to get through the game (which I ultimately failed at). If one option had to be hard-coded, then I'd plump for the later every time. Same applies for Zevran, though only one of my saves got as far as encountering him - did the obvious, sensible thing and cut his throat without a word.

 

Going back further, I'd also glad they never forced you to take Yoshimo in BG2. Sure, in the end the closure was kind of hacky if you didn't, but far superior to the alternative.

 

 

Anyway, I've probably steered the discussion too specifically to the topic of NPCs, where I was aiming for a more generalised example. Like the ability of not having to have anything to do with Mr House after fulfilling your contract with him (I turned him down flat when he offered more work after the chip delivery). And while Mass Effect is full of inexplicable decisions, a good number of them can be rationalised in-character as following direct orders from a superior officer. I'm fine with those too. But for a bad example, see the Companions initiation ritual in Skyrim, where there's no rational circuit breaker if you don't want to do an obviously dumb thing. Or the entire Thieves' Guild questline, which I might nominate as the worst RPG quest series I've ever encountered. It's a shame because it's contrasted in the same game by the alternative treatment of the Dark Brotherhood questline, which was great.

 

 

On the other hand in Dragon Age: Origins, from what I remember, the Templars in the village tell you he awaited arrest and obediently accepted his sentence, and your character can express his or her horror to Sten when he earnestly tells you the reason he was imprisoned (to which he agrees). From a narrative perspective, these conditions seem to imply in your character's mind that there's at least a little more to Sten's story than what appears at a glance. 

 

In spite of what you believe to be the more reasonable decision being to leave him to rot, I who was trying to get as much out of the game couldn't *not* have him in my party, and I'm glad I didn't; he turned out to be my favourite character in the entire franchise.

[Gorth]

In spite of what you believe to be the more reasonable decision being to leave him to rot, I who was trying to get as much out of the game couldn't *not* have him in my party, and I'm glad I didn't; he turned out to be my favourite character in the entire franchise.

Having Sten and Zevran in your party was fun. IIRC also the only combo that would give you insight into the renegade Qunari, because Zevran would bring up the subject in Stens company.

[anubite]

 

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.

 

Extending from Zoraptor's point, I'd say that "reasonable character choices" are most likely the ones that a dev will "think the players will want to make."

 

 

Forced companions is always a point of contention, and BioWare's games (as well as Obsidian's) are certainly games that frequently suffer from that.

 

I'm trying to think of Obsidian/BW games with forced companions. If a companion is forced on you, it's usually only for a short segment (you first meet them). There are probably some characters that are forced, but you can ditch most of the characters in DA:O, DA2, KOTOR, KOTOR2, JE, BG2, BG... I don't usually ditch characters since it pretty much defeats the purpose of playing an RPG, but I'm trying to think of a character I couln't get rid of totally and I can't. Obsidian and BioWare are actually pretty good about letting us dump ****ty characters. You can kill Zevran, exile Anders (though he comes back in the final act of DA2, unfortunately), and dispose of most characters... or just turn them away when you first meet them. Morrigan might be "forced" on the player? I don't know, I guess she HAS to survive to the end of DA:O?

 

I think it's pretty criminal how DA:O, DA2, ME1, ME2, ME3 (and I should add, though it's not on topic: The Walking Dead) all offered illisory choices for the most part - if you get a significant choice that impacts the game's story, it's towards the end of the game, mentioned only in the epilogue, retconnedin the sequels, or some combination thereof.

 

It's good to offer players choice, but not when it amounts to nothing. I would argue that BioWare should enedeavor to offer as much impactful choice as possible. This can be done by PLANNING the game out. I mean, TW2 gets a lot of praise for letting players decide where they go for the second act of the game. It's a binary choice (the worst kind) and it's still kind of deterministic, but even a choice like that, because it has immediate weight and impact as well as long-term consequence... I know a lot of people praised CDProject for what TW2 did there.

 

But, I have been thinking about BG/BG2. You don't get a CHYOA with either of those games - you can effect certain sequences of events, but you don't usually get to decide much that effects the flow of the story. I think players expect the wrong things from BioWare. We want our choices to matter, so people instantly get up and say, "When you side with the Mages in DA2, why is it Orsino is still a final boss at the end? Isn't that hamfisted?" Or "I sided with the Templars all game! The mages should hate me! The entire last act of the game should be totally different!"

 

I think the major problem is that BioWare games aren't programmed to be reactive. I mean, if I play Dwarf Fortress, everything is simulated. Water physics, dwarf desires, the desires of surrounding nations, dwarf boredom or humor... every update adds more simulation. The game is interacting with all these complex systems at once, so the game responds to my decisions. None of that goes on in a traditional cRPG, or at least, ones designed by BioWare/Obsidian. That's because the games are cinematic in nature, with most of the game's functionality hardcoded.

 

So what is it that people really want? I think it has to do with level design. BioWare's level design has been pretty abysmal consistently, after BG2. Tiny levels, too much railroading, not enough secrets to discover, the choices you take in navigating a dungeon have no impact. They sort of do in BG2.

 

Thought experiment: You design a game that is 0-dimensional. That is to say, you write a real time battle system, like the one DA2 has. Spells, attacks, models, art, et cetera - it's all there. Except, it's 0-dimensional. These entities aren't on a map. There's no dungeon to navigate. Your game is just a battle system, one battle after the other, in a sequence.

 

Oddly enough, that sounds like how DA2 plays, doesn't it? There's no real navigating in DA2, you just walk forward and fight another wave of enemies.

 

Only, it's not exactly true. DA2 is two-dimensional - you can move back and forth and left and right. You might be tempted to say it's 3-dimensional, but jumping serves no purpose. Levels are not designed to take advantage of the z-axis, so there are only two real degrees of freedom. But for the sake of this thought experiment, forget DA2 for a moment - imagine a one-dimensional level. You are a fighter on a line. Your enemies are on the line. The battle system still exists, only now, your character can move relative to this one-dimension, left or right. He can move back to avoid enemy attacks and move forward to close in and attack. Adding a dimension has put SOME amount of context to the innate battle system - you can move. Meaning, you can physically avoid attacks. In terms of navigating a dungeon - there's no choice. You can only move forward, because moving backward doesn't open up anything you haven't explored already.

 

In a nutshell, Dragon Age 2 is a one-dimensional game. Although a few levels (like the Beach/Strand) have a few winding paths you can take, but these choices are few and far between and they really have no long-term impact, you still have to explore the entire region to complete all the quests. There's no difference between having DA2 on a virtual line and wasting dev time and putting your party on a 3-dimensional dungeon map. This, I think, is what's fundamentally wrong with DA2 - a lack of chocie in gameplay, not necessarily in narrative.

 

Dragon Age 3 is a 3D game, so it should take advantage of AT LEAST two dimensions with its level design. You can do this by giving dungeons multiple solutions that don't involve killing every single monster group on the field. You can do thsi by giving dungeons multiple entrances and exits. You can do this by introducing a reason to SNEAK in a BioWare game (for the record, every time they offer us the ability to enter 'stealth mode' in an Obsidian/BioWare game, I never waste points in it, because the game is never designed for it), to pick locks and open doors, etc. Unless BioWare intends to start developing ARPGs, that is.

 

DA2 didn't work because as its core, its combat was atrocious. If you give context to your combat system by having good level design, then you can fix this. But if you have one-dimensional level design (actually, now that I think of it, considering how little good moving your characters around in DA2 did... maybe DA2 does have a 0-dimensional gameplay), there isn't a whole lot to engage the player with. What I mean by this is ... well, take a character, give them a gun and Call of Duty's gunplay mechanics, but set them in a city block instead of a corridor, and suddenly, regenerating health isn't so bad, because the level design allows for less monotonous, more thought-provoking gameplay.

 

Ugh, tl;dr material, right? Even so, I had to write all this nonsense to get it out of my head.

 

Making DA3 open world doesn't solve the 0-dimensional problem, is my main point. Neither does turning DA3 into a literal CHYOA like TWD. I think players expect some sort of marriage here, between the two concepts, but for there even to be a relationship the two have to exist first in the game. Neither don't, except in some shallow capacity - at least in DA2.

Edited June 28, 2013 by anubite

[ManifestedISO]

Tombraider went and did away with all that in subsequent installments and the game took a nosedive, but that doesn't take anything away from the original.

 

 

Ha, I was there, too. Maybe not a nosedive, just no direction at all. Not better, not worse, only the same traversal/discovery pattern. I still enjoy Lara's adventures from then and now, however. You might be right that it was Fallout, anyway. I didn't mean to imply that Inquisition looks like a traversal-type exploration, nor that it's patently obvious. But when marketing tells me that, unlike DA:O and DA2, the Inquisitor player character will get to "explore much more," I believe it. Maybe I just want to, too much.  

[Maria Caliban]

 

 

Cheylus wrote...


Found on the Dragon Age France (official) page on Facebook.
And also tweeted here: https://twitter.com/dragonage/status/357546114775396353/photo/1


Legend says: "It wasn’t hidden, it was uncontrolled. Like the power you now command"

This is the castle we've already seen from another angle before among the first concept arts.
A tweet from Cameron Lee implied it's the castle the player will own.

 

[rjshae]

A stronghold on a remote mountain peak with no nearby farmland? Well I hope it either guards a valuable trade route or there are productive mines nearby. Otherwise you're not getting much income.

[GhostofAnakin]

A stronghold on a remote mountain peak with no nearby farmland? Well I hope it either guards a valuable trade route or there are productive mines nearby. Otherwise you're not getting much income.

 

A big part of the player experience this time around will be the option to grow a vegetable garden, found in the "Agriculture" skill tree after reaching a certain level.

[Tale]

I refuse to get excited by concept art. Even going back to Mass Effect 1, it seemed to be less about creating target styles for the level design and more about pure marketing.

 

The city of chains art for DA2 looks phenomenal. And there's nothing remotely like it in the game anywhere.

[alanschu]

Concept art doesn't do much for me either.

 

I actually got frustrated when Obsidian showed a lot of early prototyping for Project: Eternity, and naysayers came out wondering why their first stuff didn't look as awesome as Wasteland's stuff.  Which was high detail concept art.

[Tale]

Concept art doesn't do much for me either.

There is some that does do stuff for me. Character art in particular, because they actually use that to base the character model on. And concept art for dungeons.

 

But wide vistas like these go largely ignored.

[alanschu]

Eh, for me it's pretty universal.  It's about a general concept and I understand why it's created, for the 3D people to have references and whatnot.  But yeah, a lot of stuff gets a concept but never actually makes it into the game.

 

The shots of Kirkwall only ended up existing within cinematics, and while I could open up the level and see how accurately that concept art matches the level, it is true that we'll probably never actually see anything in game from that vantage point, barring a cutscene showing it.

 

 

I still remember the Mira outrage when her character model was shown and some felt it wasn't nearly as well done as her concept art, so it still flows that way as well.