Dragon Age: Inquisition

[ShadySands]

 

So maybe they should save all this hype for next year? I actually don't understand why they are busting out all these interviews this month, what's the strategy here?

 

Was wondering about this myself with the game being a year off

 

All I really want is confirmation on the camera options even though I'm pretty certain the answer is not going to be what I want to hear. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I would guess that they are trying to build some hype and hope that more people that are currently uninterested will get on the fence, if you will. Personally, I'm with Shady on camera options, but I would also like to see an in depth presentation of the combat and character(stats, talents, skills) system. I will admit that the interviews with people making the game are more charming than a cinematic that doesn't tell much about how the game will play, if only because they remind me of the PE updates.

[Gromnir]

A new article today - Creating Dragon Age Party Members - which I found perplexing in parts.

 

Here is an excerpt:

 

“As they progress, the descriptions get more elaborate, giving the artists more to consider with the design. For instance, a coat can say something about a character’s history, and as most know, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories. “We always love hiding stuff on a character, like really big important things that are huge aspects of [them],” Rhodes says. “We love hiding them somewhere, having some trinkets so when the revelation hits, you’re like, ‘That’s what this has been this whole time!’…”

Okay, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories?

 

Rhodes is a character artist and he’s suggesting that the companion designs have ‘hidden trinkets’ that lead to revelations. But I can’t think of a single Dragon Age companion where that’s true. I mean, not even minor things and he’s suggest that they’ve hidden ‘really big important things.’

 

This entire section appears to have come from an alternate universe.

 

Another excerpt:

 

“[We] decide, ‘What does this character think of all the others? What do they banter about? And do they even like each other?’” Kristjanson says. “And that illustrates the main themes of the game even more. Sometimes in surprising ways because, maybe [you would think] that two characters would obviously hate each other, but maybe they don’t. Maybe those two liking each other says something even bigger about the games or themes in play." Laidlaw adds, "Or them growing to like one another. That’s essentially Isabelle and Aveline.”

 

Yes, Isabela and Aveline grow to like one another, and it’s one of my favorite relationship developments… but how does that say something bigger about the game or the themes in play?

 

The best companion relationship that illustrates the themes on the game would be between Fenris and Anders. They meet, they hate one another, they constantly bicker, and as the years go by… nothing changes. In Act 3, you get the same bitter sniping you got in Act 1.

I don’t know.

 

At best, they’re talking about things they’re attempting to do and for some reason the article treats it as something they’ve already done.

games is visual media, so am understanding that appearance is important, but we always is perplexed when we hears game developers describe process o' breathing life into characters. chrisA did a piece on character creation that were revealing and disheartening, but also reasonable given the media in which he works. chrisA basically said that the most important part o' making game characters were coming up with a hook-- that one attribute or quality that would make'em memorable.  for years we complained that many obsidian/chrisA characters were developed little beyond some wacky concept. a winged paladin that literally sees world in black & white? a womanizing hagspwan with mommy issues?  a blind sith who talks like a horrible anime stereotype? bah. 

 

...

 

the thing is, as much as we thinks one-trick-pony characters is cheap, we recognize that the most successful and beloved characters is popular not 'cause o' great writing, but 'cause o' the "hook." was hk-47 a well-developed character in kotor 1? nope. nice voice acting coupled with "meatbag" shtick made hk-47 popular. fo1 dogmeat was a freaking DOG. minsc was a cartoonish parody o' Lenny from Steinbeck's novel. some o' the most well-received game characters is nothing but hook coupled with nice presentation. 

 

am wanting to be dismissive when we read articles that seem to reduce character development to what we might expect from an advertising pitch for a 30 sec tv commercial, but we can't. is becoming increasing obvious that game characters gots more similarity to geico gecko or terry tate: office linebacker than characters from literature or dramatic works. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nepenthe]

A new article today - Creating Dragon Age Party Members - which I found perplexing in parts.

 

Here is an excerpt:

 

“As they progress, the descriptions get more elaborate, giving the artists more to consider with the design. For instance, a coat can say something about a character’s history, and as most know, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories. “We always love hiding stuff on a character, like really big important things that are huge aspects of [them],” Rhodes says. “We love hiding them somewhere, having some trinkets so when the revelation hits, you’re like, ‘That’s what this has been this whole time!’…”

Okay, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories?

 

Rhodes is a character artist and he’s suggesting that the companion designs have ‘hidden trinkets’ that lead to revelations. But I can’t think of a single Dragon Age companion where that’s true. I mean, not even minor things and he’s suggest that they’ve hidden ‘really big important things.’

 

This entire section appears to have come from an alternate universe.

 

Another excerpt:

 

“[We] decide, ‘What does this character think of all the others? What do they banter about? And do they even like each other?’” Kristjanson says. “And that illustrates the main themes of the game even more. Sometimes in surprising ways because, maybe [you would think] that two characters would obviously hate each other, but maybe they don’t. Maybe those two liking each other says something even bigger about the games or themes in play." Laidlaw adds, "Or them growing to like one another. That’s essentially Isabelle and Aveline.”

 

Yes, Isabela and Aveline grow to like one another, and it’s one of my favorite relationship developments… but how does that say something bigger about the game or the themes in play?

 

The best companion relationship that illustrates the themes on the game would be between Fenris and Anders. They meet, they hate one another, they constantly bicker, and as the years go by… nothing changes. In Act 3, you get the same bitter sniping you got in Act 1.

I don’t know.

 

At best, they’re talking about things they’re attempting to do and for some reason the article treats it as something they’ve already done.

 

My theory of Hawke as an NPC gets it's first support in this article through having a bunch of pics of Hawke in an article on NPCs.

[NOK222]

That brings up something I've been thinking. How will they handle Hawke's appearance?

 

Just have the champion armor + Mask? or make a character creator to remake Hawke?

[Tale]

I'm 98% certain he won't appear at all, but might be referenced. There's no real reason to have him appear and Bioware seems to know it'd just result in a lot of upset.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hawke will show up armored, then get crushed by falling rocks.

[Tale]

Two things I consider acceptable:

1) He shows up as a drunken hobo.

2) He shows up as a crazed abomination. Everyone else in Kirkwall was.

[HoonDing]

I thought Hawke became a dragon?

[Nepenthe]

I'm 98% certain he won't appear at all, but might be referenced. There's no real reason to have him appear and Bioware seems to know it'd just result in a lot of upset.

 

Eh, why? Or do you mean that anything that Bioware does results in a lot of upset? I thought it would be cool in a ballsy way that I haven't seen in ages, if ever, in game design.

[anubite]

 

A new article today - Creating Dragon Age Party Members - which I found perplexing in parts.

 

Here is an excerpt:

 

“As they progress, the descriptions get more elaborate, giving the artists more to consider with the design. For instance, a coat can say something about a character’s history, and as most know, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories. “We always love hiding stuff on a character, like really big important things that are huge aspects of [them],” Rhodes says. “We love hiding them somewhere, having some trinkets so when the revelation hits, you’re like, ‘That’s what this has been this whole time!’…”

Okay, BioWare is infamous for hiding trinkets to tell stories?

 

Rhodes is a character artist and he’s suggesting that the companion designs have ‘hidden trinkets’ that lead to revelations. But I can’t think of a single Dragon Age companion where that’s true. I mean, not even minor things and he’s suggest that they’ve hidden ‘really big important things.’

 

This entire section appears to have come from an alternate universe.

 

Another excerpt:

 

“[We] decide, ‘What does this character think of all the others? What do they banter about? And do they even like each other?’” Kristjanson says. “And that illustrates the main themes of the game even more. Sometimes in surprising ways because, maybe [you would think] that two characters would obviously hate each other, but maybe they don’t. Maybe those two liking each other says something even bigger about the games or themes in play." Laidlaw adds, "Or them growing to like one another. That’s essentially Isabelle and Aveline.”

 

Yes, Isabela and Aveline grow to like one another, and it’s one of my favorite relationship developments… but how does that say something bigger about the game or the themes in play?

 

The best companion relationship that illustrates the themes on the game would be between Fenris and Anders. They meet, they hate one another, they constantly bicker, and as the years go by… nothing changes. In Act 3, you get the same bitter sniping you got in Act 1.

I don’t know.

 

At best, they’re talking about things they’re attempting to do and for some reason the article treats it as something they’ve already done.

games is visual media, so am understanding that appearance is important, but we always is perplexed when we hears game developers describe process o' breathing life into characters. chrisA did a piece on character creation that were revealing and disheartening, but also reasonable given the media in which he works. chrisA basically said that the most important part o' making game characters were coming up with a hook-- that one attribute or quality that would make'em memorable.  for years we complained that many obsidian/chrisA characters were developed little beyond some wacky concept. a winged paladin that literally sees world in black & white? a womanizing hagspwan with mommy issues?  a blind sith who talks like a horrible anime stereotype? bah. 

 

...

 

the thing is, as much as we thinks one-trick-pony characters is cheap, we recognize that the most successful and beloved characters is popular not 'cause o' great writing, but 'cause o' the "hook." was hk-47 a well-developed character in kotor 1? nope. nice voice acting coupled with "meatbag" shtick made hk-47 popular. fo1 dogmeat was a freaking DOG. minsc was a cartoonish parody o' Lenny from Steinbeck's novel. some o' the most well-received game characters is nothing but hook coupled with nice presentation. 

 

am wanting to be dismissive when we read articles that seem to reduce character development to what we might expect from an advertising pitch for a 30 sec tv commercial, but we can't. is becoming increasing obvious that game characters gots more similarity to geico gecko or terry tate: office linebacker than characters from literature or dramatic works. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You're only partly right. Many people like Kreia. She's a blind ol' woman who wears brown. Hardly a character defined by visual icons or snazzy one-liners. Many people also like Sten. I think he's a lightweight character, but you have to admit he's visually indistinct and dull, so there's that.

 

There are more ways than one to go about character design for a game. Obsidian's and Bioware's methods don't differ much, from what I understand. Where they divide is in the context of the game and themes explored within each game, also a greater willingness to create more layers for each character? Then again, FO:NV's companions aren't notable to me.

 

We consider Charles Dickens' works to be classics? But he wrote a lot of caricature-based characters. I don't think there's a harm in it at all, to do what Bioware does. There's an appeal to both kinds of characters, it really depends on what you're trying to storytell.

Edited August 24, 2013 by anubite

[Gromnir]

am not recalling where we said, "absolutely all chrisA characters are 1-dimensional caricatures." ravel, and her various incarnations in obsidian games, has been compelling... which is probable why chrisA puts her in every game. (sidenote: ravel part in motb were disappointing, so not all ravel has been good)  regardless, the fact that chrisA can do ravel/kreia, but still contends that the hook is most important, is all the more saddening... even if such an approach is reasonable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 24, 2013 by Gromnir

[anubite]

I guess I don't understand. Even in writing, you want your characters to be visually disinct. If they aren't distinct, rather difficult for readers to keep them all sorted. if a character is intentionally indistinct, that's also a kind of distinction. Hence, a "hook" is necessary and important. We all have first impressions of people.

 

"The next step" is going down a layer, moving past the hook and seeing another aspect of that character. Good characterization is layer-based, but in a game, you might not have the opportunity to do that, because games aren't about stories, stories are justifications for why things happen within a game, not the other way around.

[Gromnir]

 stories are justifications for why things happen within a game, not the other way around.

 

if that is all the value you attach to story (hope that isnt the case) then there is only a little bit wrong with your pov. donkey kong had characters too. the relative importance o' gameplay in donkey kong were such that the story justifications were understandably negligible. is a continuum, no?  take a similar minimalist "justification" approach to story elements would renders a game like planescape unplayable. 

 

*shrug*

 

story elements is indeed having value as a justification, but am not thinking you were trying to make an absurdest argument. perhaps you wish to clarify... or not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Tale]

 

I'm 98% certain he won't appear at all, but might be referenced. There's no real reason to have him appear and Bioware seems to know it'd just result in a lot of upset.

 

Eh, why? Or do you mean that anything that Bioware does results in a lot of upset? I thought it would be cool in a ballsy way that I haven't seen in ages, if ever, in game design.

 

I mean that lots of people would be upset to see Hawke being an uncontrolled NPC, as it would very likely defy the character the Dragon Age 2 players made him to be. And there's nothing really for Bioware to gain from that.

[GhostofAnakin]

 

 

I'm 98% certain he won't appear at all, but might be referenced. There's no real reason to have him appear and Bioware seems to know it'd just result in a lot of upset.

 

Eh, why? Or do you mean that anything that Bioware does results in a lot of upset? I thought it would be cool in a ballsy way that I haven't seen in ages, if ever, in game design.

 

I mean that lots of people would be upset to see Hawke being an uncontrolled NPC, as it would very likely defy the character the Dragon Age 2 players made him to be. And there's nothing really for Bioware to gain from that.

 

 

Unless they make Hawke a chick who you can bang.  Then it would be like seeing a sex scene from both a first and third person perspective between DA2 and DAI.  Isn't that right up BioWare's marketing alley?

[anubite]

If I must clarify, PST has masterful writing, and for that, the game can be praised as having a good story. But can it be praised as a good game? Hardly. The perfect ideal version of PST would integrate its story into its gameplay - beyond the choice-based narrative stuff, I mean. The story doesn't justify why there is round-based combat, nor does it give meaning to the mechanics of the game. Ideally, story and gameplay need to synthesize.

 

Imagine a game with no story.

 

This is actually impossible to do.

 

By the very nature of putting polygons on the screen that you control, you have created a story. A story that will be interpreted by each player differently. The mere act of putting things on a screen is suggestive. Making it a game - making it something someone can manipulate - elevates the game into something which invites imagination. Dwarf Fortress is a collection of ascii characters, but as you play the game, you learn to take those abstract symbols and give them your own internal meaning.

 

By formally concocting a story... you're trying to give meaning to elements of a game that have no inherent meaning. Why are we fighting goblins? Wait, why are they called goblins? Who called them that? Why is that on the screen? Did someone outright call them goblins at some point? What's with all this omniscient knowledge?

 

If you're "fighting" "green men with sticks" in the game world, there already exists a story. A formal story with a narrative and dialogue attempts to formalize the justification for the mechanic of fighting green men with sticks. That's its entire purpose, it can't do anything more than that.

 

But a game which is purely mechanical, one which has no formal story, perhaps something like Journey, tells its own story through the visuals and your actions upon the game world. If a game's mechanics have no inherent meaning - say a typical D&D system, where there is no metaphysical meaning in an arbitrary calculation or dice roll - a story might be necessary to make the experience of the game enjoyable?

 

My point is, formalized story is hardcoded. There's little imagination going on inside the head of the player when you play Baldur's Gate. A story is delivered and you execute it step by step. When you hardcode a story, there is a point at which you cannot go deeper. Characters are static at a certain point in the game's code. Depending upon resources, this is either a point at which we feel like it's deep enough, or not.

 

Am I making any sense?

Edited August 24, 2013 by anubite

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That is incredibly disturbing GoA. I'm sure Bio will do it.

[Gromnir]

"Imagine a game with no story.

 

"This is actually impossible to do."

 

ok, we were wrong. you do wanna make absurdest argument. we once joked about the epic struggle depicted in pong, but that were all it were: a joke.

 

"Characters are static at a certain point in the game's code."

 

so what?  from the writer's pov, static is much easier to add depth to.  the point you miss about the planescape reference is that it had admirable story elements. it had depth. is nothing about the medium that prevents better storytelling elements from reaching at least ps:t levels... obviously.  ps:t were well loved by many (enough to make the new planescape kickstarter project better funded than pe btw) and derided by many more. the thing is, good story elements did not necessarily make planescape a bad game. coulda' made combat better. coulda' fixed memory leak and other bugs. coulda' added elves and dwarves and longswords to makes fanbase happy without affecting story or bothering anybody save for chrisA.

 

am not even gonna touch the "perfect ideal" bit.

 

... 

 

'course now this thread becomes, "Why Ps:T failed" or didn't  fail. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 24, 2013 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

 "ps:t were well loved by many (enough to make the new planescape kickstarter project better funded than pe btw)"
 

But, not enough to match the success of BG1 despite it being hyped  by the same 'creators' (lol, BIS, lol).

 

A handful of internet geeks does not mean it is loved by 'many'. How many is your 'many'.  And, i say that as someone who likes PST. PST  likely got better funded because it had the advantage of having hype off the success of WL2 and PE2 plus it combines the fanboys of Obsidian and the fanboys of Fargo. Plus, it is not really PS. It's a fake PS.

[Sarex]

Planscape Torment was not a commercial success. It had abysmally low sales numbers.

[Volourn]

Uh no. It was no BG but it wasn't 'abysmally low' either.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Volourn

[Malekith]

Planscape Torment was not a commercial success. It had abysmally low sales numbers.

Back in the day. By now? PS:T is the second best selling game on GoG, behind BG2. These games continue to sell strong 15 years after they were made.

Sure, for a publiser nowdays that isn't something they want. All they care are the first week sales. But for a smaller studio lke inXile and Obsidian, making a game that is criticaly praised and have a long lifespan can sustain the studio.

[Cultist]

Unless they make Hawke a chick who you can bang.  Then it would be like seeing a sex scene from both a first and third person perspective between DA2 and DAI.  Isn't that right up BioWare's marketing alley?

 

BioWare have fitting fanbase for it:

[Sarex]

Uh no. It was no BG but it wasn't 'abysmally low' either.

 

Yes it was.

 

Back in the day. By now? PS:T is the second best selling game on GoG, behind BG2. These games continue to sell strong 15 years after they were made.

Sure, for a publiser nowdays that isn't something they want. All they care are the first week sales. But for a smaller studio lke inXile and Obsidian, making a game that is criticaly praised and have a long lifespan can sustain the studio.

 

Stretched over how long of a period? How much does it cost now? Those numbers are still low. You are overestimating how much the studios get from these sales.